points of order of â— necessity to salvation this doth not make them â—â— us to be of two Religions or wayes of Salvation as long as they do not introduce any dangerous â— destructive points under that pretence Obj. But the Church still held those things as â—â—cessary to Salvation which you deny Ans Wâ— deny that to be true Some of the points in differâ—â—â— are novelties of your own which the ancient Churâ—â— did never hold the rest are such as they never â— such a stress as mens salvation upon To conclude Let it be considered whether thâ— Argument may not damne your selves which I tâ— against you Thus. The true safe Religion hath 〈◊〉 a visible Church professing it from Christs time â— â—â—w But the Religion of the Romanists as comâ—â—ehending all points of their faith or made by them be necessary to salvation hath not had any visible â—â—urch professing it of many hundred years after â—â—rist Therefore it is not the true Religion nor a â—â—e way to salvation The Minor I shall undertake â—â—re seasonably to make good And our Divines â—â—e done it already No doubt but common reason and justice requirâ—â— that you that call to us so earnestly for a Cataâ—â—gue of the Professors of our Religion in all Ages â—â—uld be as much obliged your selves to give us a â—â—â—alogue of yours yea and to give it first because 〈◊〉 are the first in pleading the necessity of it Unâ—â—â—take this task therefore and perform it well and â—u shall carry the whole cause Give us a Cataâ—ue of any besides impeached Hereticks that did â—n your main points of Popery for many hundred â—â—rs after Christ and we will give you a full acâ—â—nt of such as contradicted those conceits and beâ—â—â—ed as we do and let both be compared together â— let the most satisfaction and the fullest evidence â—â—â—ry it You make a meer empty noise among the â—â—gar of Antiquity and Universality and call for â—roof of the perpetual or continued visibility of â— Church as if in this you had the advantage â— the ballance did turn on your side When as â—â—ough we know that there is no such necessity of â— proof in this as you pretend yet we know your â—dvantage here to be so great that if you will â— be perswaded to this way of tryal it will be to the â—â—â—er shame and confusion of your cause What 's the â—â—tter else that you still appeal to the latter or preâ—â—t Church and that is only to the Romane and that 's onely to your selves If we do but invite you to tryal by Scripture and the Fathers and Records the three first ages you presently scorn the moâ— and fall upon the Fathers with accusations as if thâ— had not understood or believed all that was necessaâ—â— to salvation or to the being of a Christian or Church for you say they did not meddle with thâ— controversies and so you call us down to the laâ— or present times as having equal authority with â— first To which we say 1. That the silence of â— first times concerning these matters if there wâ— no more as yet there is is sufficient to prove tâ— they were not then taken for any necessary points faith For Though our Records of the secâ— Age be very short yet both they and mâ— more those of the third and fourth Ages containe such purposely undertaken explicationâ— the Christian faith that we cannot imagine sucâ— multitude of necessary points would have been oâ—ted 2. And though the Pastors of the present â— have equal Authority in Ruling their Congregatioâ— with those of the second yet they cannot give â— sure an account what was the doctrine and pracâ— of the former Ages nor any way prove it to us â— by producing such records The Papists themselves are so far from denyâ— that the Ancient Fathers and Churches did hold â— Positive part of our Religion that they hold it theâ—selves For they themselves profess to believe â—â— book of holy Scripture that we do They say â— believe the Creed called the Apostles and the â—cene and Constantinopolitane Creed and that of â—â—thanasius and so do we still taking the holy Scâ—pture onely for our Rule so that their own tongâ— â—ust confess the Antiquity and Universality and â—ccession of our Religion For this is ours But all that they have to obâ—ject is this That we â—n name no Churches or Fathers that held our Negatives To which I say 1. The Negatives at least for the most part of them if not all are â—e meer consequences of the Affirmatives and Posiâ—ves and implyed or plainly included in them For â—xample when our Religion saith Thou shalt worâ—ip the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve â—is includeth the Negative Thou shalt â—ot worship or serve Saints Angels or â—ny other save only by a service and honour duely â—bservient to the service and worship of God and â—herefore that we give not Divine worship to the â—onsecrated host or the Virgin Mary or to any â—ther meer creature Our Religion teacheth us to â—o all things to edifying 1 Cor. 14.26 This includâ—th the negatives that we must not worship God in â—n unknown tongue or unedifying manner bleating â—nd bellowing out our prayers in hideous or ridicuâ—ous tones Our Religion maketh it the Ministerial Commission to teach the Nations and Baptize Mat. 28.19 20. This includeth the Negative that women or lay men should not so teach that is as Commissioned officers nor baptize This affirmative Peter was sent to Disâ—iple Nations includeth this Negative Peter was not sent to be the fixed Bishop of Rome and there â—o reside This affirmative The Apostles are the Foundation of the Church includeth this negative â— Peter alone is not the Foundation of the Church This Affirmative It is bread and wine which we take â—nd eat and drink in the Eucharist containeth or implyeth the Negative that It is not Christs flesh and blood which the bread and wine is transubstantiatâ—â— into I might thus instance in many more Our Nâ—gatives are contained or implyâ—â— in our Affirmatives which yoâ— hold or confess your selves 2. I answer further that we have express negatives also both in Scriptures and Fathers in the main points of difference between us and the Papists We have a plain Thou shalt not make to thy self any Graven Image c. Thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them c. We have a plaine Iâ— the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding that I might teach others also theâ— ten thousand words in a tongue unknown 1 Cor. 14.19 We have a plain See thou do it not for I am thy fellow servant Rev. 22.9 And so of the chief differences through the rest 3. If we had but this one point proved that the holy Scripture is a sufficient Rule of Faith it fully warranteth all our Negatives wherein we differ from the Papists For to Believe all that is in Scripture and
that it is the Church of Rome in particular that is the true Church and hath this power given from God 4. To this end they must know that all those perverted Texts or some of them that speak of Peters own person were also spoke of certain successors of his as well as of himself as that on them the Church shall be built and their faith shall not â—ail c. 5. They must know that the Pope is this successor of Peter 6. To this end they must not onely know that Peter was at Rome of which read well Vlricus Velenus in Goldastus and was Bishop there but they must know that he was the only Bishop there or at least the chief and that Paul was no Bishop there who is more likely to have been or else that he was the inferior and that the Pope is Peters successor and not Pauls or else succeedeth them both and hath his infallibility but from one unless the successors of the rest of the Apostles are infallible too 7. If Peter and Paul were Bishops at once of one Church in Rome then it must be known why they may not have two successors at once and if there be two which of them is to be believed when they disagree But if Peter and Paul were Bishops of two particular Churches in Rome the one of the Circumcision the other of the uncircumsion then it must be known by what right their successors made them one or whether it were not by a failing or cessation of the Church of the Circumcision when all Jews were banished from Rome and so the Church of the uncircumcision only continuing the Pope be not only Pauls successor 8. And it must be known whether Peter were not Bishop of other Churches as well as of Rome yea of Antioch before Rome and so whether the Bishop of Antioch be not his successor as well as the Pope of Rome yea and the chief successor if it follow the right of primogeniture either as to the Church oâ— the Bishop seeing Antioch was a Church before Rome and Peter was supposed to be Bishop there before he was of Rome And then if the Bishop of Rome and Antioch differ as they do how shall we know whom to believe and how shall we know that the Bishop of Antioch is not infallible as well as the Pope of Rome 9. It must be known what it is that makes a Pope what is necessary to his being Peters successor Iâ— it enough that he step up into the chair and call himself Pope Or that his party call him so Then if any Heathen or Arrian conqueror though a Lay maâ— did so he should be Pope And he that conquers Rome may make himself Saint Peters infallible successor at any time But if there must be an ordination and Election then it must be known whether every Ecclesiastical Ordination or Consecration and Election will serve or not If it will then when there have been three Popes chosen and consecrated at once they were all Saint Peters infallible successors though one condemned the other If not then it must be known who it is that hath the power of election which being the act that determineth of thâ— person is the maine that must resolve our doubts and also of consecration or ordination And hoâ— shall the people know this when the Clergy have been so disagreed among themselves 10. And here it must be known whether the Cardinals have the sole power to elect If they have then how came they by it And then whether werâ— all those that were elected by the people in the first ages and by the Emperors in after ages true Popeâ— or not If they were not then Saint Peter hath no successors because of the interruption of the succession so long and the Church had then no visible head If they were then the sufficient power is not onely in the Cardinals And if it be not onely in them then whether are any of those true Popes that have been chosen onely by them of late ages 11. And so it must be known how a possibility of uninterrupted succession can be proved when Popes have been chosen three several wayes sometime by the people or else there had not been so many slain at the election of Damasus nor had the ancient Canons made this necessary to all Bishops and sometime by the Presbyters of that Church and sometime by the Emperors and now by titular Presbyters who are Bishops of other Churches and are uncapable of being true Presbyters of the Church of Rome If all these several wayes of Election may make true Popes then it seems any way may serve and then the three Popes at once will be all true If not then there hath been an interruption of the succession and so according to their own Principles there can be now no true Pope 12. And here it must needs be known too whether there be any thing in the person that is a qualification so materially necessary that he can be no true Pope without it If not then a Pagan or a Mahometan may be Pope If there be then it must be known what that is which few private men at least do know 13. Particularly it must be known whether they that are known Hereticks yea judged so by Councils or by their own successors and those that were notorious Whoremongers Sodomites Murderers Poisoning their Predecessors to get the Popedome Simonists buying the Popedom with money c. were capable of being true Popes 14. If they are not capable then we must all know that all the Popes were none such when the Papists themselves confess they were such before we can know that they were the infallible successors of Saint Peter 15. But if such may be Popes then must we know why a Mahometane may not as well be a Pope or how an enemy of Christ and the Church should come to be a Son of Promise and the Vicar of Christ and the head of the Church and whether such were infallible in their judging falshood to be truth as they did 16. And we must know that the Pope onely is lawless and under no power of Canons or Decrees of former Popes and Councils Or else many such Canons will proclaim their calling null and so the succession still hath been interrupted And if the Authority of the former Church oblige the Pope to believe e. g. the truth of Scripture and Traditions then why must not the Authority of the former Church in its Canons be as obligatory to him in point of duty and penalty and so null his calling 17. Bellarmine saith that it is agreed among all Catholiks that the Pope as a private Doctor may erre through ignorance even in universal questions of faith Also that many Papists and Pope Adrian the sixth himself taught that the Pope as Pope may be a Heretick and reach Heresie so it be without a General Council And that most of the rest do only hold that whether the Pope be
its flourishing in the Apostles dayes Universality comparatively that is the greater part the Arrians had at least of the Bishops The doctrine of the Mâ—llenaries with many such like may plead more antiquity than Popery can And as for succession there is no doubt but a Bishop or Church in the line of succession may turn Heretical and have successors in their Heresie Have none of the Greek Churches nor Alexandria Antioch c. had a succession till it fell into the hands of a Heretick and it would have beeen no good plea for the first Heretical Bishop or Church to plead such succession If there be not a succession in Apostolical doctrine the succession of persons will be no proof of the truth or soundness of the Church 3. And for the Minor of your Argument I answer 1. The Ethiopian Alexandrian and other Churches can as truely boast of these qualifications as Rome 2. The Papists lay a higher claim to them then they can make good As 1. I have shewed already how far they are from unity who are not only of so many Religions or wayes of Discipline and of so great distance in many doctrinals as the controversies among themselves do manifest but also are so disagreed about the very center of their union their infallible soveraign Power whether it be in the Pope or a General Council or both Besides their unity is but of their own party the Romanists And so all other parties are at some unity among themselves or many at least If John of Constantinople had prevented the Pope and got the Title of universal Bishop or Pope as he did by composition of universal Patriarch and had pretended that this would have united the Churches I think it would not have justified his cause 2. How can the Papists for shame pretend to universality either as to the present or former ages Is it nothing that all the Ethiopian Greek and Reformed Churches are not of their party besides many a thousand more Or will they arrogantly condemne all the rest of the Christian world as heretical and then say that they are the whole Church Did they not learn this of the Donatists But what is become of their modesty who pretend to an universality for the time past when all the Christian world was against their present belief and there was not such a thing as a Papist known and revealed to us in the world of six hundred years after the birth of Christ 3. And for their succession we undertake to prove it interrupted long ago and that there were no true Bishops at Rome of a long time Though men have sat there that were chosen by Cardinals and call themselves Bishops or Popes yet if according to the Scripture and ancient Councils they were matter utterly uncapable of that form then its plain that they were but Statues and had but the name without the thing i. e. the office or authority and therefore are unworthy also of the name it self Let me name two or three of their own Writers that bear witness of this And first their great parasite Cardinal Baronius saith ad an 912. § 8. What then was the face of the holy Romane Church how exceeding filthy when the most potent and yet most sordid Whores did Rule at Rome by whose pleasure Sees were changed Bishops were given and which is a thing horrid to be heard and not to be spoken their sweet hearts or mates were thrust into Peters chair being false Popes who are not to be written in the Catalogue of the Romane Popes but onely for the marking out of such times And after he well addes to shew that the interruption was not like to be onely in the succession of true Bishops And what kind of Cardinal Priests and Deacons think you we must imagine that these monsters did choose when nothing is so rooted in nature as for every one to beget his like See more in Baron ibid. Platina speaking of the evil of those times de Benedict 4. saith that By ambition and bribery the holy chair of Peter was rather seized on then possessed Genebrard in Chronolog l. 4. secul 10. speaking of the great unhappiness of that age saith that In this one thing it was unhappy that for neer one hundred and fifty years about fifty Popes did wholly fall away from the vertue of their ancestors being Apotactici Apostaticive potius quam Apostolici Disorderly and Apostatical rather then Apostolical What shall we think of all those that murdered their predecessors to obtain the place were they capable of being true Bishops What shall we say of Pope Silvester the second who was a conjurer and agreed with the Devil to help him to be Pope and by the deceit of the Devil was again deprived of it by suddain death Doth the Devil make true Bishops of conjurers I know the deceiving Papists would make the simple people believe that all these things that we say of their Popes are lies of our own forging but men that have eyes in their heads may see who are the lyars Their own Writers do commonly affirm the same that we affirm A Cardinal of their own Benno in vita Hildebrandi affirmeth this of Pope Silvester and he lived in the times next him and therefore might know Platina another of their own affirms in vita Silvest that Gesbertus impelled by ambition and devillish desire of rule did first by bribery or Simony get the Archbishoprike of Rhemes then of Ravenna and at last of Rome the Devil giving him more of his help but on this condition that after his death he should be wholly his by whose deceits he had obtained such dignity The like hath Lyra in Gloss ad cap. 14. Maccab. l. 2. and a multitude of their Hystorians unanimously confirm it Yea Aeneas Sylvius who was a Pope himself de gest is Concil Basil l. 1. saith We are not ignorant that Pope Marcellinus did at Cesars command offer incense to Idols and that another which is a greater and more horrible thing did come to be Pope of Rome by the fraud of the Devil In a word if Murderers Adulterers Conjurers that come in by the Devil and Hereticks may be true Bishops of Rome and yet a man that believeth not the Popes Univerversal Vicarship can be no true Catholike Christian then it seems it is a greater sin not to Believe in the Pope then not to Believe in Christ or then it is to bargain with the Devil or be a Murderer or Adulterer Certainly these men were as uncapable of being true Bishops when these things were once publikely known of them at least as a Mahometane would be And therefore there hath been many an interruption in their succession And many a schism there hath been wherein two or three Popes have raigned at once and he that had the greatest strength hath carryed it when his Right was not the greatest QUERY Whether the Infallible Judgement of the Romane Pope or his Clergy must be the
and Evill Heb. 5.14 The Papists would not have the people to have a judgement of Discerning If they must not Discern they must be ignorant When God so much requireth and extolleth knowledge But I 'le leave this Question and pass to the next Qu. 2. Whether the Pope be Infallible in this Decisive judgement which he pretendeth to Which we deny But before I come to give the reasons of our denyal I shall further declare our judgement about the whole matter of the Churches Infallibility that the true state of the controversie may appear And 1. We easily grant that as there is an Objective certainty in all points of the Christian Faith and in the very truth so the Pope is infallible while he believeth and declareth nothing but the truth He and every man else that speaks according to Gods word is so far infallible because that word is infallible They need not thank us for this concession 2. We grant that neither the Church of Rome if a true Church nor any other particular true Church can erre in fundamentals or in points of absolute necessity to salvation in sensu composito that is while they remain a true Church they never deny the essentials of a true Church For if they once deny the essentials they do eo nomine cease to be a true Church 3. We grant that Christs universal Church shall never deny any one point of Faith essential to Christianity or absolutely necessary to Salvation For then Christ should have no true Church on earth when the whole should thus Apostatize or turn Hereticks and all the then present world should be damned 4. The Church as Reasonable sensible men are infallible in many matters of fact of which they may give us unerring reports as that This Bible was delivered as the word of God by their Ancestors as they might testifie it was delivered to them and that this Creed or sum of Faith also was thus delivered in the words now in use c. 5. There is an infallible certainty in the evidence which the former Church hath left and the present Church possessetâ— to prove that this same Scripture was written by the Apostles and Evangelists and was delivered to the first Churches and from them down to us and that multitudes of miracles were wrought for the confirmation of the Doctrine contained in them 6. An illiterate person may have an infallible certainty that all points necessary to salvation are expressed in certain translations of Scripture and that so far and much further they are truely translated and that such things there are in that Book as the Readers affirm there to be though himself cannot read them For all this is infallibly discovered by common consent and especially of adversaries When all men that are certainly able to judge and are honest and impartial affirm it without doubt and those that would gladly contradict it as being by their interests carryed thereto yet cannot do it or at least not with any considerable pretence This gives men as infallible a proof as the common testimony of men doth that there is such a City as Rome or Paris which we never saw 7. And we further grant all that Teaching and Witnessing power to the Church officers which was expressed under the last Question and all that dueness of Belief and obedience to them which was there asserted So much for our Concessions But we deny 1. That either the Pope of Rome or a General Council are naturally or supernaturally priviledged from all error in matters of Gods revealed will or that they are priviledged from the danger or possibility of teaching these their errors to others even to the Church 2. We deny that the Pope or the Romane Clergy are secured from the danger of Apostasie or Heresie They may fall so far as to deny the Fundamentals or Essentials of Christianity though the Universal Church shall never so fall away We shall first speak of the Popes Infallibility and afterward of a General Council that we may speak to the several parties among the divided Papists herein And against the Popes Infallibility we thus argue Argu. 1 They that lay claim to this Infallibility do give us no proof of their claim Therefore they cannot expect that we should believe them The proof lyeth on the pretenders who give us no proof If they can prove it it must be either by his natural perfection or some supernatural endowment by which the Pope must be more Infallible then other men The former they pretend not to and no wonder The later they do pretend to But if God supernaturally have ascertained all Popes of an Infallibility in matters of Faith then he hath done this either by his written Word or by unwritten Tradition or both by which it must to us be proved But he hath done it neither by his written Word nor by unwritten Tradition For Tradition they must shew it us either in certain monuments of the Church which are in stead of writing but that they cannot do or else in the mindes of all the members of the Church For that which concerneth all their Salvation must be delivered to all But this they cannot shew Nay we shew them the contrary that is the greatest part of the present Church on earth denying any such Tradition and the most approved Writers of the former Ages telling us the contrary and all taking the Pope as fallible so that they cannot give us one line of any one Father or Council for many hundred years after Christ that ever had such a conceit as theirs And if they will pretend to a private Tradition which none but themselves have received and are entrusted with and so make themselves the absolute Judges of their own cause and give us no proof but their own words we will believe them as fast as we can but we must desire them not to be too hasty with us And for the written Word they cannot thence prove a grant of their infallibility 1. Because they tell us that we cannot know the Scripture to be the Word of God but by their infallible judgement Therefore we must know their judgement to be infallible first and therefore it is first to be known some other way and not by Scripture Indeed here they have long tired themselves in their Circle which some of them would hide by vain words if they could but Holden and others of them are forced to confess it and that they have no way out but by retiring to the universal testimony or tradition as an infallible evidence in stead of the Authoritative judgement or infallibility or private Tradition of the Church of Rome They tell us that we cannot know the Scripture to be the Word of God but by the infallible judgement of their Church And that is in the Issue of the Pope And when we call for the proof of that infallibility they refer us to the Scripture So that this is plainly to say that neither Scripture nor
successors For they must succeed him in the cause if they will succeed him in the effects Argu. 17. If the Catholike Church be infallible then the Pope and the Church of Rome are not infallible But the Papists say the Catholike Church is infallible therefore according to their own doctrine it must follow that the Pope and Church of Rome are not infallible The argument being ad hominem and the Antecedent their own all the doubt is of the consequence which I prove thus either it is the real or representative body which they must call the Catholike Church But both these are against the Popes infallibility Therefore 1. For the real no man can possibly know all their minds nor ever expect that they should in this life be all of a minde therefore it is the Major part that we must have respect to as its usual in all such Bodies or Assemblies Now the greater part of the Catholike Church on earth is and hath been against the Popes infallibility That it is so now is well known seeing all the Greeks Abassin Armenian Reformed and other Churches are far more then the Papists 2. And that it hath been so formerly the Papists themselves confess I will note at this time but one of the most learned and sober of them Melch. Canus Loc. Theol. li. 6. cap. 7. fol. mihi 201. Pugnatum est siquidem vehementer non a Graecis solum sed ab aliis plerisque totius orbis apiscopis ut Romanâ— Ecclesiae privilegium labefactaretur Atque habebant pro se illi quidem Imperatorum arma Majorem Ecclesiarum numerum nunquam tamen efficere potuerunt ut unius Romani Pontificis potestatem abrogarent That is Not only the Greeks but almost all the rest of the Bishops of the whole world have vehemently fought to destroy the priviledge of the Church of Rome And indeed they had on their side both the Armes of Emperors and the Greater number of Churches and yet they could never prevail to abrogate the Power of one Pope of Rome Mark here that it is only success that he pleadeth but confesseth that most of the Bishops of the whole world and the greater number of Churches besides the Arms of Emperors were against the Romane priviledges as they call them the Popes power So that by this you may see the conscience and modesty of these men that not onely call themselves the whole Church as if all other besides them were some inconsiderable parcels but also would make the simple people believe that before Luthers time there were scarce any that denyed their pretended power we may see from themselves then where our Chruch was before Luther so far as Christians opposing the Romish usurpations are our Church even most of the Churches and Bishops of the whole world by the Papists own confession And therefore this may stop their mouthes that use to call out to us for a catalogue of their names would they have the names of Most of the Bishops and Churches in the whole world 2. And then for the Representative Church if there be such a thing it must be a General Council And I have shewed before that many such as themselves call General Councils have contradicted the Pope deposed and condemned him This Bellarmine Canus and the rest of them do confess and therefore I need not say more to prove it Argu. 18. That General Councils may erre is proved fully both by the errors that they have committed and by their contradicting one another It s too well known that the Arrians had as General Councils as most ever the Orthodoxe have had Bellarmine and Canus give more instances of erring Councils then can be answered by the contrary minded Pope Adrian and the second Council of Nice by him confirmed decree for adoration of Images And the Council of Frankford determined the contrary against the said Council of Nice though the Popes Legates contradicted them So did the Council of Paris anno 825. who examined judged and reprehended the Council of Nice and and Pope Adrians confirmation and defence of it and therefore Bellarmine saith They judged the judge of the whole world Their words are recited by Bellarmine Append. de Imag. c. 3. Baronius anno 825. n. 5. It s commonly known how Nazianzene complained that He never yet saw a Council have a good end but things were made worse by it and not better And Hierom in Epist ad Galat. saith That is the doctrine of the Holy Ghost which is delivered in the Canonical Scriptures against which if Councils determine any thing I account it wicked Instances of the errors of Councils we have too many The Council of Neocesarea confirmed by Leo the fourth and by the first of Nice as saith the Council of Florence sess 7. condemned second marriages contrary to Scripture 1 Cor. 7. Though Bellarmine vainely excuseth them by plaine forcing their words The fourth Council at Carthage forbad Bishops to read the Gentiles Books which yet the Apostle makes use of and the Church hath ever since allowed The Council of Toletane 1. Ordain that he whâ— instead of a wife hath a Concubine shall not be kept from the Communion which Bellarmine also falsly excuseth The sixth General Council at Constantinople hath many errors which Bellarmine confesseth and layeth the cause on this that they had not the Popes authority Whereas Pope Adrian approved them and the seventh Council judged them genuine Adrian saith Se sextam synodum cum omnibus canonibus recipere he receiveth the sixt Synod with all its Canons and confesseth it to be Divine The Council at Constance decreed that a General Council is above the Pope and the Council at the Laterane under Julius 2. and Leo 10. decree that the Pope is above a General Council Sess 11. The Council of Calcedone abrogated the Acts of the second Council of Ephesus and decreed the contrary The Council of Trent is notoriously erroneous and contradicteth the Council of Laodicea and Carthag 3. about the Canon of Scripture The number of their contradictions and errors is too great for me here to recite Many of our writers against the Papists give you large Catalogues and full proof of them See Doctor Sutline li. 2. de Concil cap. 1. What Gregor Nazianz. And â—ierome say of them I toucht before Hilary li. de Synodis exclaimeth against the errors and blasphemies of the Councils of Syrmium and Ancyra Augustine saith li. 3 cont Maximni c. 14. Nec ego Nicenum nec tu debes Ariminense taâ—quam praejudicaturus profere concilium nec ego hujus authoritate nec tu illius detinenis He saith also lib. 2. de Baptis Concilia plenaria priora a posterioribus emendari That is Former Councils that were full have been mended by later Bellarmines deceitful shifting answers to these testimonies are not worth the repeating Isidore saith Quotiescunque in gestis Conciliorum discors stâ—tentia invenitur illius
be credited as Christians before they believe that Christianity it self is of credit Q 3. Is there any man breathing that can bring sufficient Arguments to prove 1. That there is a Church of Christ 2. And that this Church is infallible 3. And that the Pope and Papists are this Church before their hearers have received or believed the word of God If they can why have they not faln closer to work in this necessary point when they know how much it would do to the determination of the whole If they pretend such Antecedent proof by miracles as the Apostles proved the Doctrine by I have shewed the vanity of this pretence against Knot before and we must still desire them if it be miracles that is their first witness to let us see or have certaine proofe of those Miracles We protest to all the world that we are heartily willing to see them and know of them if they be true but though we have lived in the midst of Papists all our lives yet could we never to this day see any such matter from them nor hear so much as of any probable proofs of any And would they have us in a matter of salvation to believe every prâ—ting boaster that will tell us of Miracles and shew us no such thing nor any proof of them Quest 4. Whether those that do not go this most absurd way of proving their Church infallible to an infidel that yet believeth not Gods word and so by means antecedent to the belief of Scripture must not unavoidably confess that Gods word must be first believed before the Popes or Churches infallibility or authority and consequently our faith dependeth not in them nor is resolved into them or else they are inextricably insnared in the Popish circle and contradictingly do make two primo credenda the Church or Pope the first to be believed and yet the word of God is first to be believed And do not Holden Vane Knot and others of them see this who therefore shun the circle and use not the old shifts of Becanus and others to blind the eyes of those that see them in it Whether I wrong them H. Holden himself an Englishman and Doctor of Paris shall be judge who thus commendeth his own new devised Foundation or resolution of the faith in his Divini fid analys li. 1. c. 9 pag. 180. Ex quibus patet haâ—â— Christianae fidei analysim haud inâ—idore in labyrinthum vulgarem circulare perfugium quo solent Theologi passim involvi qui fidei Resolutionem juxta communem parum attente examinatam opiniâ—â—â—â— conferuunt as effingunt Quarenti namque undâ— noverint scripturam esse revelatum Dei verbum Respondent ex universae consentientis Ecclesiae assertione Quibus si iterum fiet interrogatis unde sciverint unanimeus hanc Ecclesiae Catholicae assertionem esse ab errore liberam seu infallibilem Respondent ex revelatâ— Dei verbo Adeo ut non audentes fidem Divinam in certitudine evidentia naturali fundare in circulum hunc inevitabiliter illabuntur in orbem turpissime saltantes fidem quam ipsa prima ratio format efficit rationis experem reddunt voluntque homines rationales mentis ac judicii partioipes in fidei assensu certiores esse quam vel ratio postulat vel approbat Hasitant quippe Theologi quidam asseverare agnoscere quod omnia argumenta etiam firmissima omnesque rationes item evidentissimae quibus universam fidei Divinae Catholicae traditionem solidam erroris immunem infallibilem esse demonstramus adeo veritatem hanc evincant ut nulla prorsue subsit aberrationis facultas Ideoque â—pinantuâ— Christianorum aâ—imos adhuc ita vacillantes fluctuantes derelictos esse ut privatum aliquem singularem instinctum pernecessarium autument quo omni fidei Christianae assensui certitudo infallibilitas divina at ajunt attribuatur Nos antem levibuâ— hisce voluntariis opinationibus fidei divinae Religionis Christianae certitudinem soliditatem inniti aut fundari nequaquam judicamus That is in English From hence its evident that this resolution of the Christian faith doth not fall into the common Labyrinth and circular shift in which Divines are commonly wont to be involved who do frame and fashion the resolution of faith according to the common and unheedfully examined opinion For when they are asked how they know then Scripture to be the revealed word of God they answer By the assertion of the universal consenting Church And if they be again asked how they know that this unanimous assertion of the Catholike Church is free from error or infallible They answer By the revealed word of God so that not daring to found divine faith in natural certaintainty and evidence they unavidably slide into this circle most filthily dancing in a ring or round the faith which the first reason formeth and effecteth they make void of Reason and would have reasonable men who have understanding and judgment to be more certain in the assent of faith then reason doth either require or allow For some Divines c. Here you see a Learned Papist confessing that the Papists are commonly entangled in this circle and filthily dance in a round and would make our faith an unreasonable thing Let Knot note this that would make Chillingworth a Socinian and an Infidel for making faith a reasanable act And let the common sort of Papists note this that deny faith to have any evidence And let it be considered according to this mans judgement on what foundation the generality of Papists do build their faith and what a faith it is that hath such a foundation Yea and let it be considered whether the wiser sort of Papists begin not to change the very foundation of their Faith And how neer they begin to draw to the Reformed Churches in the Resolution of their Faith For this same Doctor doth well disprove the infallibility of the Pope pag. 179. Saying Owne quidem Episcopi Apostolorum successores sunt Apostolos vere adeâ— confirmatos in gratia fuisse ut infallibiles omnino seu in doctrina Christiana tradenda ab omni erroris periculo immunes fuerint agnoscit universa Ecclesia Nunquid ergo omnes Episcopi ab errore liberi Omnibus quidem Apostolis revelata fuisse secreta Caelestia iissque ut nec decipi nec hallucinari possent divina extraordinaria via donatum esse certissime tenemus Nunâ— quid ergo vel summo Pontifici vel caeteris Episcopis haec sunt divinitus concessa privilegia That is All Bishops are the Apostles successors And that the Apostles were so confirmed in grace that they were altogether infallible or free from all danger of error in delivering the Christian doctrine this the universal Church acknowledgeth But are all Bishops therefore free from error We certainly hold that to all the Apostles the heavenly secrets were revealed and that by a Divine and
whether then must poor Pagans have recourse to know that Scripture is the Word of God If Infallibility survive in other Pastors then it seemes it is not the Pope onely that is infallible but others as well as he And was not the Churches Faith resolved into the Infallibility of a Woman in Pope Joanes dayes I know the shifts of Bellarmine and Onuphrius to make the world believe that the Story of Pope Joane is but a Fable Florimondus Remondus is common on this subject But the case is out of question thus farre that we have neer fifty of their own Writers especially old Historians that give us the History of this Pope Joane as Platina in vit Joh. 8. Sabellicus Enead l. 1. Antoninus Archbishop of Florence part 2. li. 16. Chalcondyla li. 6. Marianus Scotus Martinus Polonus Fasciculus Temporum Nauclerus Volaterane Textor Caryon Sigebertus Gemblacensis Mat. Palmerius Massaeus c. And I marvaile why the Papists should be so industrious in refelling it as if their cause lay more on this then other things If a Conjurer a common Whoremonger a Murderer a Simonist a Heretick may be the infallible judge of the faith why may not a woman Hath Christ laid more on the Sex then on all these specially if she had but kept her self honest I should have thought Joane had been better then John the 22. or 23. and many another that yet was of the more worthy gender Quest 19. And further I would know If the City of Rome were consumed with fire or the Pope-dome removed from that Sea which Bellarmine confesseth it is not impossile to be done where then were the infallible head of the Church and what were become of the Romish faith If they say that this can never be and that Christs promise implyeth the preservation of the City of Rome I answer 1. It will be long before they will give us any proof of that 2. Their own writers confess the contrary 3. Let the end determine it But if they say that infallibility is not tyed to the place but to the Person who shall be Peters successor I answer we thought hitherto that to be Peters successor and to be the Bishop of Rome had been all one with them If another man that is no Bishop of Rome may be Peters successor then how shall we know who have succeeded him all this while Why not the Bishop of Alexandria Hierusalem Ephesus or other place as well as the Pope specially why not the Patriarch of Antioch who is said to be the eldest son of Saint Peter as inheriting his first chaire I doubt if Rome were extinct and the Bishop of Mentz or Cullen or Vienna or Rhemes or Paris or any other should pretend to be the infallible head of the Church not only the old Patriarchs but their neighbor Bishops would much contradict it and the world would be at a great loss to find the Popish faith or infallible head Quest 20. Lastly I will appeal to the conscience of any Papist that hath any conscience left and hath read the Fathers or History of the first Ages of the Church whether the rest of the Bishops and Curches in those times did believe the Scripture upon the credit of the infallibility of the Pope or the Romane Church Did the rest of the Apostles receive the Gospel on the credit of Peter or were they sent by him or did they receive their authority from him Do they find that ever the Apostles or any following Bishops of the Church did take such a course to bring men to the faith as first to teach them that the Romane Pope or Clergy were infallible and therefore to perswade them to believe the Scriptures or Christian faith because they say its true Is it possible that any learned Papists can seriously believe that this was the ancient way of believing Do they think in good sadness that the world was converted to Christianity by this means Sure it is scarce possible that they should be so far distracted by their prejudice and faction Do they read in Clemens Rom. or Alexandrin in Ignatius Justin Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Cyprian or any other of those times that the preachers that went abroad the world to perswade men to Christianity did ever use this Popish Medium or go this way to work Did they first preach the Pope and Romane Church before they preach't Christ or Scripture Did they first preach men into a belief of the Romane infallibility and then bring them to Christ or to believe the Scripture upon the credit of that O that these men would but shew us in what history we may find the reports of this way of preaching Or tell us what parts of the world were converted by this argument How many and large Orations Apologies and other discourses do we find in the Fathers writings for the Christian Faith to convince the unbelieving world in Clem Alexand. Tertullian Origen Athenagoras Tatianus Minutius Faelix Arnobius Lactantius Greg Nazianz. Nissen Athanasius Basil Eusebius Cyril Alexandr Augustine and many others And can any man of brains imagin that if the infallibility â—ea or but the authority of the Romane Pope or Church must needs be known before we can believe the Scripture or the Christian faith and that it must be received upon the credit of that Church that all these Fathers and others defenders and propagators of the Faith would have quite forgotten and left out this great and necessary point What! Would all the preachers and defenders of the faith overlook and omit the very foundation into which all mens faith must be resolved Undoubtedly if this had been then thought to be true which the Papists now teach we should have had the first part and a great if not the greatest part of all thoâ—e Apologies and discourses laid out in the proof of the Romane infallibility What man will go to evince a whole systeme of doctrines to be true and quite forget that medium by which onely it is first to be proved Would not this have found one place at least if not the chief among Eusebius his Preparations or Demonstrations Where was there ever in all Antiquity found such an Argument as this to convince an unbeliever Whatsoever the Pope and Church of Rome determineth is true But they do determine that Scripture is the word of God or that Christianity is the right Religion therefore this is true Nay further consider If this kind of arguing had been then used may not any man see that hath not renounced his wits that the Heathens would have sorely stuck at the Major proposition and that it would have met with so many objections and contradictions from them that surely we should have found some of them remembred to posterity Did Julian never stick at this very principle of the faith the Romane infallibility who stuck at so many things in the faith it self Or have Cyril Alexandr and others quite forgot to mention these among the rest
and therefore took him not to be infallible and he parallell's him with the Ancient Hereticks Marcion Apelles Valentinus Basilides as bringing in error under pretence of Tradition as they did And saith And for them that are at Rome they do not in all things observe those things which were delivered from the beginning and do in vain pretend the Authority of the Apostles as may be seen in that about Easter and about many other Divine mysteries there are some diversities with them and they do not equally observe all things as at Hierusalem they are observed As also in many other Provinces many things are varyed according to the diversity of places and names and yet no breach of the Churches unity and peace for this Which now Stephen hath dared to do breaking the peace with us which his ancestors kept in love and honor and moreover defaming Peter and Paul as if he had this Tradition from them And in this I have just indignation at the open and manifest foolishness of Stephen that he that thus boasteth of the place of his Bishopricke and contendeth that he holdeth the succession of Peter upon whom the foundations of the Church are laid doth bring in many other Rocks and maketh new buildings of many Churches while by his authority he defendeth that there is Baptisme And as to the confutation of Custome which they seem to oppose to truth who is so vain as to prefer custom before truth Or that seeing the light will not forsake the darkness Except that when Christ that is the truth was come the most ancient custom would have in any thing helpt the Jews that leaving the new way of truth they remained in Antiquity Which you Africans may say against Stephen that having knowledge of the truth you have forsaken the error of custome But we do both joyn custome to truth and to the custome of the Romanes we oppose custome but of the truth from the beginning holding that which from Christ and his Apostles was delivered to us Nor can we remember any beginning of this Yea thou art worse then all the hereticks See then how ignorantly thou darest to reprehend them who strive for the truth against a lye For who should more justly be angry with the other he that defendeth Gods enemies or he that consenteth But that it is manifest that the ignorant are haughty and angry while for want of judgement and speech they easily turn to indignation so that of no man more then of thee doth Gods Scripture say An haughty man breedeth strife and an angry man heapeth up sins Prov. 29.22 For what strifes and dissenssions hast thou made through the Churches of the whole world And how great a sin hast thou heaped on thy self when thou hast cut off thy self from so many flocks For thou hast cut off thy self deceive not thy self For he is truely the schismatick who maketh himself an apostate from the communion of Ecclesiastical unity For while thou thinkest to suspend all from thy communion thou dost onely suspend thy self from the communion of all Can there be one Body and one spirit with such a a man whose soul perhaps is not one so slippery and mutable and uncertain is it And yet is not Stephen ashamed to patronize such against the Church and for the defence of hereticks to divide the brother hood and also to call Cyprian a false Christ and false Apostle and a deceitful worker who being conscious that all these were in himself did by prevention object all that to another by a lye which himself deservedly ought to hear So far Firmilianus The question is not whether Stephen of Rome or the Eastern Bishops were in the right but whether these passages do not sufficiently declare that they had then no conceits of the Popes infallibility and that when he excommunicated other Churches they took it but as an excommunicating of himself and therefore plainly called him a Schismatick In the Council of Carthage 87. Bishops decreed expresly against the sentence of the Bishop of Rome And Cyprian in Council speaks thus Let every man speak his judgement judging no man nor removing any man from the right of communion that thinks otherwise For none of us takes himself to be a Bishop of Bishops or by a tyrannical fear doth compell his Colleagues to obey seeing every Bishop hath by licence free choice of his own liberty and power and can neither be judged of another nor can judge another But let us all expect the judgement of our Lord Jesus Christ who onely and solely hath power to set us over his Church in Government and to judge of our actions If this be not as plain as need be spoken against the Papal usurpation I know not what can be accounted plain Yea Cyprian and the Council say the like to the Pope himself These things dear brother we speak to thy conscience for the common honor and for simple love But we know that some men will not lay down that which they have once drunk in nor easily change their purpose but saving the bond of Peace and concord among Collegues will retain some things of their own which are once grown into use among them Wherein we do neither use violence nor give Laws to any seeing that every Ruler or Bishop hath the free arbitration of his own will in the administration of the Church as one that must give account of his doings to the Lord. If this be not plain still against Papal and all Archiepiscopal government of Bishops I know not how a man should speak plain The Council of Carthage saith Gratian Dist 99 saith Even the Pope of Rome must not be called the universal Bishop Gregory called the great Bishop of Rome but a few years before Boniface claimed the universal Episcopacy wrote thus against John of Constantinople who would have had some such title None of my predecessors would use this prophane word viz. Universal Bishop because if one will call himself universal Patriarch the name of Patriarch is stoln from others But far be it from a Christian soul that any should falsly ascribe to himself that whereby he diminisheth any thing from the honor of his Brethren To consent to that unjust speech is no other thing then to fall from the faith One thing we owe to the unity of the faith and another to suppress pride And I say boldly that he who calleth himself universal Pastor or desireth so to be called surpasseth the Antichrist in pride So Epist 188. l. 6. He saith I have said that he cannot have place with us if he corrected not the vanity of that supersticious and ambitious word which hath been invented by the first Apostate And to speak nothing of the injury done to your honor if a Bishop be called universal that universal once falling the universal Church must also fall Here it is especially to be noted that this very reason by which Gregory condemneth universal Episcopacy
their testimonies And for any Reader Papist or Protestant that would have more Testimonies to this end to see whether it be Romes authority or infallibility or rather the Scriptures that is the Testimony which must support our faith and is first to be known I desire them to read them already collected in Chamier in Doctor Sutlive in Sibrandus Lubbertus de princip Christ Dogmat in Chemuitius and Bellarmine himself who reciteth them out of Chemnitius and pretendeth and vainly pretendeth to answer them to whom Lubbertus and many more of ours have therein replyed But specially read that excellent Treatise of Philip Mornay Lord du Plessis of the Church Clemens Romanus in his Epistle to the Corinthians useth not once to them any argument from his authority and infallibility which sure he would have done for the healing of so great a schisme if it had been true Nay when he doth earnestly press them to submit to and obey their own Presbyters he never requireth any obedience to himself or to the Romane Church Nay so far is he from taking any notice of any universal Monarchy or infallibility in himself that he doth not so much as take notice of any Bishop distinct from a Presbyter in their own Church nor once call them to be determined by any single or supereminent Bishop at all but onely to obey their Bishops or Presbyters Ignatius writing to the Romanes calleth them onely the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quae praesidet in loco regionis Romanorum or as Bishop Vshers ancient Version hath it Quae praesidet in loco chori Romanorum which is not a presidency over the whole Church And towards the end he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Memores estote in precibus vestris Ecclesiae quae est in Syria quae prome jam Christo Pastore utitur as Hier. Vairlenius Sylvius interpreteth it in his Edit pag. 69. I know that the old vulgar Latin Edition which is in Joachimus Perionius his Edition pag 494. and in Bishop Vshers pag. 89. translateth it Mementote in orationibus vesiris illius qui pro me recturus est ecelesiam quae est in Syria as if it were his successor that he would have them pray for But as Vairlenius so Vedelius also better translateth it Ecclesiae quae est in Syria quae pro me jam Domino pastore utitur Edit Vedel pag. 250. And Bishop Vshers old Latine Translation is Ecclesiae quae pro me pastore Dei utitur And the next words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. solus â—am visitahit sit vestra in eo dilectio as the vulgar Latin Version or Solus ipsam curabit visitabitque As Vairlenius and Vedelius or rather as Bishop Vshers old Latin version Solus ipse Jesus Christus vice Episcopi sit From whence I gather that the Bishop of Rome was not the Bishop universal of that Syrian Church or else Ignatius 1. Would have sure commended it to his care 2. Or at least not have expresly said that Christ onely was their Bishop when he was gone Moreover is it a probable thing that Ignatius would have so frequently and importunately have pressed the Church that he wrote to in all his Epistles to be subject to and obey their Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and yet would never have given them one word of advice to be subject to and obey the Bishop of Rome if the peace and unity of the whole Church and the very faith and salvation of the particular members had so much depended on this as the Papists would perswade us Certainly a Negative Argument from the silence of the writers of those times is a sufficient confutation of the Romish usurpation Policarp in his Epistle to the Philippians perswadeth that Church to be subject to the Presbyters and Deacons as to God and Christ not mentioning any other superior Bishop much less an universal Bishop to whom also they must be subject And whereas Valens one of their Presbyters was faln with his wife into some sin which Policarpe professeth his sorrow for he doth not direct them to seek remedy at any higher power but perswadeth them to reduce him themselves as a straying member And having before mentioned divers heresies of those times be addeth as the Remedy not an advice of appeal to Rome or to seeke for their determination or to hold to their infallibility but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Wherefore leaving the vanity of many and false doctrines let us return to that Word which from the beginning was delivered to us It is to the first word and not to Rome that this blessed Disciple of John doth send the Philippians for stability against errors Irenaeus is said by Eusebius Eccles Hist li. 5. cap. 26. to have sharply reproved Victor for breaking the Churches peace by excommunicating the Asian Churches about Easter day and tells him that The like was never heard of and that his predecessors did otherwise therefore he took not Victor to be infallible And it is apparent that all the Asian Churches â—ho stood against Victor and were excommunicated by â—im did little dream that he was the universal Bishop or infallible Nay their Bishops sharply reprehend him and their words are yet extant saith Eusebius Moreover in the same Chapter of Eusebius it is expressed by Irenaeus to Victâ—â— that Policarp the Disciple of John differed from Anicetus and neither of them could be perswaded to alter his opinion Therefore Policarp never dream't either that the Romane Bishop was infallible or was his Governor whom he should obey And its worth the reading in the 24. and 25. Chapters of Eusebius how confidently Policrates opposeth Victor alledging a General custome from the Apostles and resolveth never to change his custome And the Bishops and Churches here in England did follow the same custome and differ from Rome And in the 28 Chapter Eusebius mentioneth an ancient writer that opposed the heresie of Artemon and whereas they alledged that all the Bishops of Rome till Zephyrinus were of their mind and preached it even Victor himself that is against the Godhead of Christ he answereth them thus This peradventure might seem to have some likelihood of truth if it were not oppugned first of all by the holy Scriptures next by the books of sundry men long before the time of Victor As Justin Miltiades Tatianus Clemens and Irenaeus So that this old writer supposed it no impossible thing for a Bishop of Rome to have taught heresie And in the very conclusion of the Chapter and Book Eusebius recites many more of the words of that old writer among the which there are these against the hereticks of those times for presuming to correct and so deprave the Scriptures which methinks should touch the Romanists to the quicke Belike they are altogether ignorant what presumption is practised in this wicked deed of theirs For either they perswade themselves that the holy Scriptures were not
how much the Pope of Rome hath at this day gotten beyond the sacred observations by use and custome of subjectional obedience And Barth Caranza having mentioned this Canon in his summ Council p. 48. had no other evasion but this that among all the Greek and Latin Copies which he searched Cardinal Marcellus a Legate at the Trent Council shewed him one Latine Copy that had Metropolitane instead of Romane But is this much to the purpose Or if it were is one Latin Copy in a Cardinals hand more credible then all the rest in the world that have câ—â—e to light In the 6. Council of Carthage Auâ—elius heard it and Augustine was there and there they again determined that the Bishop of Rome should not receive the Priests or excommunicate persons that appeased to him And they give this as the Reason Quia hoc nulla patrum c. That is Because this was never derogated from the Asricke Church by any definition of our Fathers and the Nicene Decree do commit both the inferior Clergy and and the Bishops themselves to their Metropolitans For they most prudently and justly provided that all businesses should be finished in the places where they were begun and the grace of the holy Ghost will not be wanting to each province Let this equity be constantly and prudently observed by Christs Priests especially seeing every man hath leave if he be offended with the judgement of the known to appeal to a Council to his Province or to a General Council Unless there be any man that can think that God can inspire a Justice of Tryal into any one person and deny it to innumerable that are congregated in Council And whereas the Bishop of Rome would have sent his Legates into those parts to take cognisance of their affairs they answered Vt aliqui tanquam atuae sanctitatis latere ad nos mittantur nulla invenimus Patrum Synodo constitutum That is That any should be sent against as Legates from your sanctity to us is a thing which we find not constituted by any Synod of the Fathers But here Gratian hath falsified the Canon by the addition of a Save to the See of Rome where the Milevitâ—n Canon is repeated In which manner they have used too much of the Churches records Can we think that Augustine and the rest of the Bishops in these Councils did not understand what they did and purposly restrain the Romane ambition The case also which is related in Augustine between the Catholikes and the Donatists shews how far they were in those dayes from dreaming of the Romane decisive judgement The great controversie was who had the true Church the Donatists or the Catholikes And the Donatists great Arguments were that Caecilian had been ordained by Traditors and therefore his party and those that communicated with them were not the Church nor to be communicated with Mark now how the Catholikes plead this cause 1. They procure it heard by the Emperors Cognitor Marcellinus and not by the Pope 2. They never once fetch their proof that the Catholike Church was theirs from their agreement with Rome or subjection to the Pope nor once in all their mention of the Catholike Church do give the Popish description of it or fetch it from the Romane Bishop as the head but over over again they prove that their Church is the Catholike Church because it is That which beginning at Jerusalem is tranfused over all the world and frequently they give this same description of it and hence prove it out of Scripture as is apparent in Austins writings at large They never say the Catholike Church is the Romane or that which submitteth to the Pope 3. Note which is the chief thing that here I do intend that it was publikely proved in the conference that first Melchiades Bishop of Rome with other Bishops were appointed to hear the business between Donatus a nigris Casis and Caecilianus and that they absolved Caecilianus and condemned Donatus And then that the Donatists rested not here but appealed to the Emperor and the Emperor caused a certain number of Bishops to meet at Arles to hear over all the cause again and these Bishops not agreeing though they were most of them against Donatus the Emperor Constantine was fain to determine the matter himself who absolved Faelix and Caecilianus and condemned the Donatists yet giving them liberum arbitrium as it was called then or Liberty of conscience as it is called now So that the Bishop of Rome acteth but as appointed with others and his judgement is not that highest from which there is no appeal for the Bishops at Arles must judge of all again and the Emperor after them Of all this see Augustine in Brevicul Collation cum Donat. throughout specially pag 288. Edit Paris lib. ad Donatist post Collation cap. 33. pag. 245. I shall onely adde to these Testimonies foregoing the witness of some of their own party I have before shewed that one part of their Church denyeth the Popes infallibility and the other a Councils and that they are not agreed about the ultimate resolution of their faith Their Cardinal Nic. Cusanus li. de Concord Cathol c. 13. 34. maintaineth that All Bishops are equal as to the jurisdiction though not as to the execution because the executive exercise is restrained by certain positive bounds and that for the better to bring men to God which when it ceaseth the positive rights cease And he saith that in time of necessity a simple Priest may absolve even one that is excommunicated by the Pope And concludeth that the Papacy is but of Positive right and that both it and all Majority among Bishops is constituted by subjectional consent that the power of binding and losing is immediately from Christ and therefore that Priests are equal and that the distinction of Diocess and that a Bishop should be over the Presbyters are of positive right And that Christ gave no more to Peter then to the rest of the Apostles nor said more to him then to them Yea and he addeth that if the Bishop of Trevers were by the congregate Church chosen to be their President and head he should properly be more the successor of Peter then the Bishop of Rome This is plain dealing for a Cardinal That the like passages are frequent in Gerson is so well known that I need not mention them And in Cardinal de Aliaco and many other Cardinals Bishops and Schoolmen of their own the like passages are well known and so oft cited already that I shall forbear to recite them I have oft times observed how they have alledged Durandus as pleading that the last resolution of our faith is into this primo creditum that the Church is guided by the holy Ghost and that therefore we believe the Scripture to be Gods word e. g. the Gospel of Matthew rather then that of Nicodemus because the Church approveth it who is guided by the
p. 16 Argument fourth p. 17. to 26. Obj. 1. True Religion is but one answered p. 26. Obj 2. The true Religion hath still had a visible Chuâ—ch professing it p. 32 Obj. 3. Your Religion hath no certain test to discover it p. 40 Obj. 4. You have separated from all the Churches in the world p. 41 Obj. 5. You are divided into Sects and have no unity among your selves p. 42 Obj. 6. You have no infallible certainty of your Religion p. 43 Obj. 7. You want many Articles of the faith p. 45 8â—ou â—ou condemn one another ibid. Obj. 9. Your titles shew you are Sectaries p. 46 Obj. 10. You found us in possession where was your Church before Luther 47. to 52 A Defence of Bishop Ushers Serm of the Churches unity against the confutation of Paulus Veridicus p. 52. to 77. Wherein the common Arguments of the Papists against us are refelled Disp 2. Q. Whether Popery be a safe way to salvation Neg. p. 78 The term Popery and the rest explained to p. 84 Twelve propositions for the full answering of the question p. 84 Argument 1. Popery is built upon and resolved into a a notorious falshood p. 91 Argument 2. They hold Christianity it self on a ground utterly uncertain if not certainly false p. 93 Argument 3. They are disagreed among themselves in the very fundamentals p. 104 Argument 4. Popery is a novel profession unknown to the Apostles and Primitive Church p. 106 Argument 5. They make a new Catholike Church p. 110 Argument 6. They are the greatest Schismaticks on earth p. 126 Argument 7. Popery is an uncertain changeable thing so that a man can never tell when he hath it all p. 128 Argument 8. They expresly contradict the word of God and set up man above it p. 142 Argument 9. They worship the creature with Divine worship p. 153 The monstrousness of Transubstantiation p. 154 Arg. 10. They turn Gods worship into scenical formalities and Ceremonies p. 161 Arg. 11. Popery is upheld by most wicked meanes and so by Satan p. 164 Arg. 12. They adde to all impenitency and uncureableness p. 171 Arg. 13. It plungeth men into certain perjury p. 172 Objections for Popery Obj. 1. It is delivered dowâ— from the Apostles p. 175. Obj. 2. They are â— true Church p. 177. Obj. 3. A Papist may be saved p. 179. Obj. 4. There is but one true Church and that 's theirs p. 180 Obj. 5. They have unity universality antiquity succession p. 181. Confuted Disp 3. Q. Whether the infallible judgeâ—ent of the Romane Pope and his Clergie must be the ground of our belief of the Christian doctrine or of our receiving the holy Scriptures as the word of God Neg. p. 186 The Resolution of the Protestants faith ibid The Popish confusion about the resolution of their faith p. 189 Three questions contained in this one 1. Whether the Pope and his Council be judge of controversies The truth opened in ten propositions p. 195 Arg. 1. p. 199. Arg. 2. p. 200. Arg. 3. p. 202. Arg 4 p. 20â— Obj. Shall every illiterate person be judge of the sence of Scripture p. 205 Q 2. Whether the Pope be infallibie in this decisive judgement which he pretendeth to p. 208. What infallibility we hold p. 209 An answer to that which Bellarmine saith for the Popes infallibility p. 213. to 221 An answer to Knots arguments against Chillingworth p. 221. to 240 Arg. 2. against their infallibility from common sense p. 240 Argument 3. from experience p. 248. arg 4. p 152. arg 5. p. 253. arg 6. p. 256. arg 7. p. 257. arg 8 p. 258. arg 9. p. 259. arg 10. p. 260. arg 11. p. 262. arg 12. p. 267. arg 13. p. 267. arg 14. p 268. arg 15. p. 207. arg 16. 17. p. 272. arg 18. p. 274. arg 19. p. 277. arg 20. p. 278. Q 3. Whether our faith must be resolved into the infallibility of the Romane authoritative judgment p 278 Two more Argu. against the Popes judgment p. 279 That we must not receive our Religion on the credit of his judgement manifested in twenty queres p. 281 How Dr. H. Holden shuns the circle p. 282 The ancient Fathers and Church fully against them p. 295. to 351 Their Obj. against us for our want of infallibility answered p. 351. to 356 More out of antiquity against them p. 357. to 364 Their own usuraption against Scripture p. 365 Vincentius Lirinensis against them p. 368. to 373 Dr. Fields Catalogue of Popish errors p. 375 Appendix Bishop Downames Catalogue of Popish errors p. 381. to the end Errata PAge 11. line 33. read go p. 12. l. 21. dele it p. 12. l. 25. r. from p. 20. l 8. r. necks p. 22. l. ult d. purposely p. 29 l. 3 r. good p. 3â— l. 22. r. satisfâ—ctory 38 l. 28. r. us p. 38. Mar. So Dr Whiâ—â— c. should be printed p. 39. l. 20. d. not p. 44. l. 13. r. the p. 41. l. 9. r. â—here p. 48. l 24. r decide's p. 50. l. 1 r. symptomes p. 52. l. 33 r. Aegyptian Châ—istians p 58. l. 6. r. Sacran l. 7. r. Eâ—tâ—ri l. 25. d. and the Maronites l 25 r. the p 59. l. 24. r. cause or as p. 60 l 11. r. The Lutheranâ— p â—â— l 26. r. will and p. 74. l. 1. r. of most of the p. 7â— l. 26. d. and by â—bsignation p 76. l 30. r hold p 86 l 1. r Councilâ— p. 86. l. 24. r dâ—ffident l. ult r. on p. 91. l. 29. r. seated p. 101. l. 30. r Iohn and p. 1â—7 l 17 r necessarily p. 1â—0 l. 8 r. nâ—wer l. 14. â— concâ—lâ—is l. 14. r. â—ractarentur p. 114. l. 28. d. to be new p. 115. l 29. r. Teminum p. 120. l. 17. r consequence p. 122 l. 1. r name p. 130. â— 29. r. there p. 131. l. 3 r. aâ— p 134. l. 24 d. not p 135 l 2. r. an uninterrupteâ— p â—38 l 14 r. school 140. l 13. r they l. 32. d. so p 146. l. ult 1 proâ—ul hinc p. 148. l 1 r. last p. 149. l 26. r 17 18 19. p 154. l. â— r. his p. 166 l. 22. r. they may p. 167 l. 11. r. Belsec p. 172 l 1. d. we p 7â— l. 26 r. is p. 17â— l. 25. r. safâ— way l. ult d it p 187 l. 27. add by p. 189 Mar add someâ—92 â—92 l. 4 add and p 202 l. 22. r. uâ— p 209. â— 7. d. the p. 226 l. 3. r. mentioned l. 2 r wasâ— â—6 r. unquestionably p. 233. l. 1 add not p 243 l. 7. r. â—lludiâ—g p. 247 l. 9. d. sell p 249. Mar. r. Krantzius p. 250 l 10. r the twâ—nty second l. 27. add not 251. l. 15. r. decrees p 255. Mar. r succeediâ—g p. 2â—8 l 33. r will p. 27â— l. 11. r. episcopis p 2â—1 l. 25. r. 〈◊〉 p. 283 l 11 r. â—xpâ—rtâ—m p. 2.4 l 2 r. the p. 28â— l ulâ— r. â—mpartito p. 286 l. 7. r. apâ—rtum
p. 29. l. 21 d. it p. 308 l. 18. r judicial p. 309 l. 28. r. confute p. 314. l. 28. r their 's p. 331. l 17. r. Montanus p 333. l. 8 r. Tatianuâ— p. 41. l â—2 r caeteri p 342. l. 1â— r. suburbi â—râ—â— l. 32. â— headed p. 34â— l â—6 r. to us p. 348 l. 2. r Râ—maâ—e l. 4. r. authors p. 355. l. â—0 r. word l. 23 r. proveâ—â— p. 356. l. 2. r. rather than p. 358. Marg. add de l. 28. r. literis p. 59. l. 31. r. secura p. 364 l. 11. d. i. e. p. 366. l. 8. r. Gloss p. 370. l. 8. r. fuâ—sse p. 371. l. 28. add in l 3. add other p. 377 l 5 r. knew l 28 r. these p. 380 l. 23. r. in p. 379 l. 12. r. â—ataloguâ— p. 217. l. â—2 after faith adde Or the object of faith even Christ himself which indeed is the true sence agreeable to 1 Cor. 10.4 And that Rock was Christ QUERY Whether the Reformed Catholike Christian Religion commonly called Protestant be a safe way to Salvation THE great business of the Divel the Enemy of Mankinde is to keep man from that Salvation which Christ hath so dearly purchased so graciously offered and hath appointed us such excellent helpes to attain To which end it is his first endeavor that men may not know or Believe that there is such a Felicity and what it is and how much to be desired and his next to keep them from knowing the way to it and the last is to keep them from walking in that way when they know it By the first means he keeps from Salvation all Atheists and Heathens that know not or believe not the life to come by the second all Infidels that Believe not Christ to be the way and all Hereticks that Believe not those Truths which are of absolute necessity in subordination to Christ and by the third all Hypocrites and unsanctified ungodly impenitent men in the visible Church that yet have a superficial Belief of these Truths Our Question in hand is for the escaping the second of these snares by discovering which is the safe way to Salvation The Policy of the Devil hath always endeavoured to hinder the world from knowing this way by these two means First if it be possible by keeping them in utter darkness that this way may not be revealed to them or being revealed may not be understood Secondly or if that will not do by making such a number of by-ways on every side that the true and onely way may hardly be discerned And this is his end in raising so many Heresies and this is the course he takes to mislead them that have escaped from the darkness of Infidelity He begun this trade betime even in the dayes of the Apostles They saw the multifarious off-spring of the Deceiver sprouting up apace in their own times yet did it never enter into their thoughts to tell the Church that by this all Heresies should be known That the Church of Rome should condemne them or to send it down to all posterity as the true touchstone to tell them which was the onely right way among all these Heresies to wit That which is believed by the Pâ—pe or Church of Rome This had been a ready and easie way for the Apostles to have prescribed and for us to have received if it had been true It might have saved them much labor in giving us that Body of sacred Doctrine which they have made indeed the Touchstone of the safe way and it might have spared us much more labor of searching and studying which is the way and we might all have sent to Rome and been resolved without any more ado Surely the Apostles were not so envious to our ease and safety as to have silenced this easie way if they had known it themselves But as every Heretick when he findeth out a New way doth condemne the Old as inconsistent with his New so do the Papists Since this new way hath been cryed up that No man can come to heaven but by Rome it is their business to deter people from any other way and to that end to tell them that there is no safe way but theirs As the Quakers tell us that there is no way to Heaven but theirs and some Anabaptists say there is no way to Heaven but by being Baptized again as they are so do the Papists tell us that there is no way to Heaven but by Believing in the Pope and Church of Rome and obeying him as the head of the Church I never saw the place but sure that Town hath some admirable excellency in it that the God of Heaven should so much set his heart upon it as to endow it with such a stupâ—ndious Prerogative that no man should be saved from everlasting Torment that doth not Believe in the Bishop of that City and obey him as the universal head It s a wonder to me that he that set not his heart so much on his Temple at Jerusalem or on that chosen people as not to forsake them for their sins and that hath the Heavens for his Throne and to whom the Sun it self is as Darkness should yet be so taken with a Town called Rome built and long inhabited by Idolaters defiled with the blood of thousands of Martyrs against which the fouls under the Altar cry out How long Lord Holy and true wilt thou not avenge our blood c. as to ordain that no man in the remotest parts of the world even the Antipodes that never heard of the name of Rome can be saved though he should never so much believe in Jesus Christ unless he Believe in the Bishop of this Town and obey him when yet with Andradius and other Papists it s a hard question whether a man may not be saved in those heathen Countries without believing in Christ himself Is it not a marvaile that we never read that Rome was once named by Christ himself and that it never was put into our Creed as one of the necessary Articles to salvation especially when we find there the Catholike Church and Communion of Saints which sure would have been some way intimated to be the Romane Church or that which is headed by their Bishop if it had been so indeed I find but three names strictly so called in the Creed and the Popes or Romane Churches is none of them One is Jesus Christ and the other is hers that bore him and the third is his that Judged him to death and this indeed was a Romane name and if the honor of it in the Creed will do them any service let them make their best of it But however this advantage the enemy of the Church hath got by it that the new Romane Title hath made the old Catholike Title seem questionable to many and now so great is the audacity of the usurping Pope that he not onely questioneth whether any Christians shall be saved that
parties or from any that are yet in that Church and yet take up any dividing titles or wayes therein though they withdraw not from it as they are such I am none of them and therefore disclaim when I express my Religion such private names I am no Lutheran Calvinist Arminian Papist Socinian c. but a Catholike But yet when I say I am a Reformed Catholike I purposly disclaim the Corruptions of Popery and in that word renounce their Errors as such as by the word Catholike I renounced their Schisme And so I may agree with Luther Calvin or any man in Reformation so far as they hold to the word of God so that if malicious adversaries will put the name of Sect upon the Catholike verity and call it by the name of Zuinglianisme Lutheranisme Calvinisâ—â— or the like pretending that it had its spring from these men they shall not by such unworthy means remove me from the Catholike Religion nor yet cause me to own their Corruptions because they have named the opposition of them as a Heresie Augustine would not turn Donatist because they named the Catholikes Caecilians nor would Prosper turn Pelagian because they called the Orthodoxe Predestinarians or Fatalists nor would Athanasius before them turn Arrian because they called the Orthodoxe Tritheists It is not other mens fastening upon us the name of a man or of a Sect that proves us Sectaries or that we had our Religion originally from that man Yet do we so much reverence their names that we rejoyce in their labors for the Church and bless God for them and endeavor to imitate them in their holy doctrine and lives though we make none but Christ the Lord of our Faith As for the terms of the predicate they need no great explication By salvation we mean principally Everlasting Glory in Heaven By the way to it we mean the means appointed by God for the attaining it The principal means indeed is Christ himself who is eminently called The way and no man cometh to the Father but by him But in subordination to Christ all other means are the way By a safe way we mean a way that in suo genere is sufficient to the attainment of the end so that all that sincerely are that way shall attain that end A certain means of happiness to all that faithfully use it For it must be known that no Religion or sound Doctrines will save a man that is not faithful in the reception and improvement of them A True Religion will not save him that is not True to his Religion And therefore it is no wonder if multitudes even of Protestants do perish though their Religion be the onely Religion in the world For they are not heartily of the Religion which they profess They have that doctrine which is the seal and fit enough of its own nature quantum in se to imprint the image of God upon their souls But if they keep this seal in their Chests and apply it not effectually to their hearts they may have unholy hearts and lives though they profess a holy faith and Religion and therefore may perish for all that profession yea and perish most deplorably because their profession doth aggravate their sin If a mans Religion or believed doctrines be bad in the maine the man himself must needs be bad too and therefore no man of such a Religion can be saved But if a mans Religion or professed doctrines be never so good it is possible he may be bad that doth profess them and then no Religion can save a wicked man So that of the true Religion some are saved but not all but of a bad Religion in the main no man can be good or be saved I come to the Arguments by which I prove the Affirmative that The Reformed Catholike Christian Religion commonly called Protestant is a safe way to salvation Arg. 1. That Religion which best agreeth with the word of God above all other Religions in the world is a safe yea the safest way to salvation But the Reformed Catholike Christian Religion commoâ—â—â— called Protestant doth best agree witâ— the word of God therefore it is the safest way to salvation One would think among Christians the Major should be unquestionable But here the corrupt Romanists have presumed to make a new word of God that so the determination of the case might be impossible unless we will go up to these Philistines to sharpen our weapons For they deny the holy Scripture to be the whole word of God or sufficient to be the Rule for deciding of controversies in matter of saith and tell us that unwritten Traditions are another part And those Traditions are such as are received by the whole Church as delivered down from the Apostles and that whole Church is onely the Romane party and thus do they by their own Authority undertake to damne all the rest of the Christian world and make themselves onely the Catholike Church and by this trick of wit they have got one half of Gods word into their closets and that it is his word which they say is his word And that you may know that they are no blabs or revealers of secrets they have for some hundred years kept this close as a secret to themselves yea from themselves as well as to us so that when the common Proverb takes that to be a secret which one or two knows but not when three know it yet these men have a word of God which all the Catholike Church is the keeper of and yet those that keep it know it not themselves much less can we that stand by come to the knowledge of it but we must all wait till the last Pope have breathed out his last determination before the Catholike Church that is said to keep it can come to know what is the whole word of God And so among them it is â—ome to this pass that to be judged by Gods word is to be judged by the Pope and his entrusted Subjects But if any man whatever bring us forth a Tradition and say that this is the word of God and came down from the Apostles we shall desire more then â—his word for the proof of it And when he brings us as good proof that his Tradition came from the Apostles as we shall bring him that the Scripture came from them then will we cheerfully receive his Traditions but not without sufficient proof upon the boastings of corrupted interessed men As for the Minor that our Religion is most agreeable to the Scriptures I shall now say but this to the proof of it First we take the Scriptures for the only Test or Rule of our faith and practice and we tye not our selves to any other by-rule which may force us to a misunderstanding of it It is onely the Scripture that we still profess doth contain our Religion And it is the chief part of the quarrel between us and Rome that they will not take this word
for the perfect or sufficient Rule of Judgement It is this word onely that we appeal to and desire to be judged by And the Papists wilful declining of this Tryal and Judgement doth give any impartial observer sufficient cause to suspect that they take the Scripture to be against their cause or else why should they not have as much confidence in it and commit their cause to it as well as we 2. To run over every point of difference between us and them and prove our part by Scripture would be a very easie work but it would make this Disputation swell too big And it is done so largely and often already by our Writers that it is less necessary If any of them complain for the omission â— this part let him but assure me that he will stand tâ— the Judgement of Scripture and I shall quickly aâ—â— willingly enter the lists with him and go over thâ—â— part of the task again In the mean time let it suâ—â—â— to tell young Students that Amesius his Bellarmiâ—â— Enervatus hath spoiled all their cause of this defence and manifested Scripture to be fully against them iâ— a little room which may spare them the reading oâ— many larger And for the meer English Reader Mr. Ri. Bernard in his book called Look beyond Luther in his help annexed to it hath given a brief and effectual discovery that Scripture is not on their side in an enumeration and proof of many of the pointâ— in difference between them and us which for brevity I refer them to In a word if the Scripture be true then that Religion which agreeth with them is a safe way to salvation But the Papists confess that the Scriptures are true Therefore c. The Major is plain in that Scripture affirmeth of it self that it is able to make us wise unto salvation and furnish us to every good work and is written that we might believe and believing might have life in Christs name c. Joh. 29.31 2 Tim. 3.16 17. Of which we have said somewhat in a sâ—ort Determination of that Question by it self Arg. 2. That Religion is a safe way to Salvation by which the Apostles and the Churches in their days were saved But by the Reformed Catholike Christian Religion now called Protestant were the Apostles and the Churches in their dayes saved therefore it is a safe way to salvation The Major with reasonable men needeth no proof There is not many Religions but only one that are a â—â—fe way to Salvation and that which the Apostles â—ent in and the Churches in their dayes is undoubâ—edly that one God hath not since taken down â—hat Religion and set up another and made â—hat way safe to us which was unsafe to them The Minor is thus proved The Apostles and Churches in their dayes were saved by that Religion which is contained or expressed in the holy Scriâ—tures But that is the same with this which is called â—he Protestant Religion For proof whereof I refer you and offer as abovesaid Yeeld once that Scripture shall be the Rule to judge by and the controversie will soon be ended betwixt us And I need not to say but these two things for proof of the point 1. That their own Writers confess that the Affirmative or Positive part of our Religion as it was here in England professed was not against the word of God contained in the holy Scriptures only they told us that the Negatives were of which we shall consider further anon 2. As it is the great care of the Papists to keep the Scriptures from the people accounting it the Original of Heresies to have them translated as Arboreus and many expresly say and burning men to ashes for reading the Scriptures when God will burn them in Hell if they obey them not which they are not like to do without knowing them so experience hath convinced them that where the reading of the Scriptures in a known tongue is but permitted there doth our Religion most encrease and Popery decay so that if this one means were but permitted in Spain and Italy as it is whether they will or no in other parts undoubtedly the Popes Kingdom would soon come down I say if they durst but permit men to read the Word of God in a known tongue They know this well enough or else they would never so torture poor Christians by the Inquisition for having a Bible in their houses They have sure some humanity in them as well as others and therefore could never go so exceeding far beyond the Turke in Cruelty to Christians themselves but that they know their whole cause and Kingdom is concerned in it and if once Scripture get in they are gone In a word multitudes of volumes have already proved that Scripture is against Popery Argu. 3. That Religion is a safe way to Salvation in which the Church in the three or four first Ages at least was saved But the Church in the three or four first Ages at least was saved in that Catholike Christian Religion which now is called the Reformed or Protestant Religion Therefore this is a safe way to salvation I mention not the former Ages as if all other following Ages had come to heaven by any other Religion then the former but 1. because in them alone there is a sufficient proof of the Major Proposition None could be saved in it especially not so many Ages of the purest times if it were not a safe way 2. Because some Popish Errors began among the worser sort of Ambitious Superstitious Prelates to creep in betimes and Popery it self appeared in the world soon after the six hundredth yeer and was openly established about the thousandth yeer And according to the degrees of corruption in the Church there was a greater difficulty of salvation because more impediments but still those that were saved were all saved in and by the same Religion of the former Ages and if they were saved in any Corruption yet not By it but from it or against it As for the proof of the Minor as it requireth a full volume of it self to produce the particular Testimonies of the Fathers for us so is it already done in many Volumes And because the continual clamor of the Papist is that Antiquity is on their side I shall anon disprove them in the fundamentaâ— difference between them and us in the following Disputation about their pretended Soveraignty and Infallibility and in other particulars desire them to give some reasonable answer to what is already alledged by Bishop Vsher Dr Field and many morâ— of our Writers before they expect we should regard their vain immodest pretences And still let is be remembred that for all the Positive part of our Religion they themselves cannot deny but that the Churches still held it Our Religion is the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures and doubtless that was entertained by all the Churches and in that Religion they were saved Argu. 4. That Religion is a safe
Christ Jesus and their Religion teacheth and engageth them so to walk therefore there is no condemnation to them that do so and they may with the same Apostle Rom. 8.33 34. Challenge all the Papists in the world It is God that justifieth who shall condemne us Paul telleth Timothy that the holy Scriptures are able to make him wise to salvation 2 Tim. 3.15 therefore they may make us also wise to salvation And he addeth that All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for Doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good works vers 16 17. It were endless to recite all that proveth the salvation of them that believe and obey the holy Scriptures But this all true Protestants do I shall therefore leave this taske and next hear what the Papists can say to the contrary and what they are able to produce to prove that we are not in a safe way to salvation Obj. 1. There is but one safe way to Heaven The Protestant Religion is not that one way Therefore not a safe way The Minor is proved thus That Religion which the Church hath owned from the Apostles dayes till now is that one way The Protestant Religion is not that which the Church hath so owned therefore it is not that one Religion The Minor is proved by parts 1. As to Doctrine 2. as to Discipline 3. as to worship 1. The Church ever since the Apostles dayes hath maintained the Doctrines of 1. Free-will to good or evil 2. of Predestination upon foreseen faith 3. of mans merits 4. of Justification by Inherent Grace 5. against the certain Perseverance of all the Justified and consequently against their certainty of salvation 6. Vowed Chastity and Monastical Life In Discipline the Church ever held 1. The Popes Supremacy and Universal Jurisdiction 2. The Government by Bishops over Presbyters 3. Ordination by them and not without them 4. Pennance and Confession of sin 3. In matter of Worship the Church hath still used 1. Chrysme to the Baptized 2. Imposition of hands in confirmation 3. The sacrifice of the Altar 4. The Cross 5. Holy dayes 6. Fasting dayes All which the Protestants have cast off Therefore they are not of the same Religion Answ 1. To the Major Proposition of the main Argument I answer The word safe referreth to some Danger that we are safe from The way may be called safe therefore either in respect of sin or damnation Also this way may be called one in respect of the Essentials of Religion or else in respect of some inferior truths and duties that are not of absolute necessity to salvation And so I say that there is but one Religion as to the Essential and absolutely necessary points in which a man can be safe from Damnation And there is but one Religion as comprehending all the Integral parts in which a man can be safe from sin But yet that Religion which in the Essentials and Absolutely necessary points is but one may yet consist with errors in lower and lesser things in the minds of those that hold it and yet be a safe way to salvation though not so safe as to freemen from all sin And consequently there may be differences among true Christians that shall be saved though there be nothing but perfect Harmony in the entire Doctrine of Christian Religion as delivered from Christ and his Spirit Because no man holds that Doctrine entirely and perfectly without any error or ignorance and therefore there will be much difference among those that shall be saved To the Major of the Pro-syllogisme I answer Implicitely and in Generals the Church hath owned the perfect truth in all ages because it hath Believed that all that God saith is true and that the Scripture is his word But explicitely and particularly the Church hath not held all the truth of Religion in any one age since the Apostles For every man on earth hath been Ignorant and the most knowing men erroneous in some things seeing we are all imperfect and here know but in part And so one particular Church might erre in one thing and another in another thing as the differences about Easter Rebaptizing the Millennium Infants Communicating c. shew they did And of the same Church one Member might erre in one thing and another in another thing it being as certain that no two men on the earth are in all things of the same minde as that none on earth are perfect in knowledge To the Minor I answer that the Religion called Protestant is the same in all points absolutely necessary to salvation which the Church hath still owned And in other inferior points the Churches having not been all or alwayes of one minde some ages were more pure and others more corrupt The Protestant Religion is neerer to that of the purer times then the Papists is It is the same in the Essentials it is the neerest it in the Integrals it is more remote from latter corruptions introduced in times more remote from the Apostolical purity To the particular instances of our differences from the former Churches I answer particularly 1. For Free will to God if you mean a natural freedome which is the wills self-determining Power so the Protestants maintain it as well as the Fathers If you mean a moral freedom from ill-inclining habits which is properly a right-disposition so the Fathers maintained it not Obj. Let Scultetus in Medulla Patruâ— and others of your own Writers be judge who still number this inter naevos Patrum Answ Scultetus and Calvin and others might mistake the Fathers sence and think that they spoke of moral Freedom when they spoke but of natural which is inseparable from the will And its like that they did so seeing the Fathers maintained Original sin which is that pravity of humane nature which is clean contrary to moral Free-will 2. And if the Fathers were for a Free-will in a moral-Ethical sence so is one part of the Protestants as much as they were And if they were in the right so are those Protestants If in the wrong then the other part of the Protestants are in this in the right 3. This is a point that men may differ in as much as the Fathers did from us and yet be in a safe way to salvation 4. The Dominicans and the Jesuites differ about it as much as we and the Fathers yea they cannot yet agree what natural free-will is 2. For Predestination upon foreseen faith 1. There is no Declaration of the Churches minde in those times about it but what is found in the wrigtings of particular Doctors 2. We confess that men are Elected to Glory and Justification from guilt upon foreseen faith But we say withall that they are Elected to that faith and that God did foresee it as a thing which he intended to give and not as a thing which corrupted unregenerate
nature would produce 3. And we say also that this is a point that men may differ in that yet are in a safe way to salvation 3. As to the point of mans merits we say that the Fathers differed from us but in word and not indeed It seemed good to them to call every moral aptitude or Ordination ad Praemium that is the Rewardableness of our actions by the name of merit and every Rewardable work meritorious We thinke it fittest to forbear this name This Verbal difference makes not two distinct Religions 4. As to the point of Justification we confess that the Fathers commonly called that Justification which we now call Sanctification And we our selves maintain that Sanctification doth consist in Inherent Graces This difference therefore being but verbal the Religion and the way to salvation is nevertheless the same 5. As for the points of Perseverance and certainty of Salvation and Virginity or vowed Chastity with the supposed merit thereof and of a Monastical or Eremetical life we think that most of the Churches since the first century have departed from the Apostles Doctrine in these points and therefore we appeal to the Scripture But yet we know that these are not points of absolute necessity to salvation so that whether those Churches or we were mistaken yet is our Religion the same and both they and we in a safe way to Heaven 2. For matters of Government and Discipline we say 1. That we undertake to manifest it as cleare as the light that the Popes Supreme Headship and universal jurisdiction is a novelty introduced above six hundred years after Christ 2. For Diocesane Episcopacy and their ordination some of the Reformed Churches do own it But it is not a matter so necessary to Salvation as that all men that will be saved must needs be of one minde in it 3. We confess and maintain the necessity of true Penitence and such confession of sin as is necessary to manifest Penitence to the Church after a notorious scandal and of confession to those that we have wronged and of private confession to our Pastors in case that we cannot have a through cure of our wounds or comfort to our consciences without it Lastly as for the Ceremonies mentioned which the former Churches used and as for the bare name of a Sacrifice and Altar while they agreed with us in sence we take them not to be matters of so great moment as must make them and us of two Religions as if both were not in a safe way to salvation The best men on earth may differ in as great a matter as one of these and if they in a mistaken zeal shall depart from the Apostles so that we cannot imitate both the Apostles and them we had rather of the two leave them then the Apostles yet holding with them still in the maine Obj. The Religion of Protestants differs from the Abassine and Greek Churches and all the world as well as the Romane and therefore cannot be a safe way Answ 1. If that be not a safe way which differs from the Greeks Abassines c. then the Papists way is much less safe then ours for they do not onely differ from them but un-Church them and condemne them to Hell and so do not we 2. We are of the same Religion with them onely we have by Gods great mercy cast out of that one way some stones of offence which they have not yet cast out Obj. 2. The true safe Religion hath had a visible Church professing it from Christs time till this day But the Protestant Religion hath not had a visible Church professing it to this day therefore it is not the true safe Religion Ans The Major I easily grant and disclaim the needless snift of them that would deny it But the Minor I deny If they call for the proof of that visible Church and aske where it was before Luther we say that it was wherever Christ had a Church From Christs time till many hundred years after even at Rome it self and many other places and from Christs time to this day it hath been in Ethiopia Greece Egypt Mesopotamia and many other Countries if not still among the Romanists themselves for full proof of which note that it is from the Essentials and points of great necessity that we denominate our Religion and every difference in â—esser things doth not make a distinct Religion else there were as many Religions in the world as men Note also that the main difference between us and the Papists is not that they deny the substance of our Religion directly but that they superadde a great many of new Articles to the old Creed and have made their Religion much larger then ours many of their new Articles consequently subverting the Fundamentals which they profess So that our Reâ—gion is and still hath been among the Papists and other Churches and if they â—dde morâ— to it that makes it not cease in it self to be what it was Our Religion is wholly contained in the Holy Scriptures â—nd that all the Churches have still allowed of The Papists themselves confess it all to be the Word of God which we appeal to as the onely Touch-stone â—nd rule of our faith Obj. So you would make our Religion and â—ours to be all one Ans As the word Religion sigâ—ifieth the Essentials of the Christian Faith or the â—oints of absolute necessity to Salvation so our â—eligion is with you and is owned or confessed by â—ou As it signifieth all those points that are conceitâ—d necessary to Salvation with the professors so your â—eligion is not all but part with us And as it comâ—rehendeth also all those Integral parts which a man â—ay confessedly be saved without so he do not wilâ—lly reject them so yours and ours do much differâ—nd that your Religion is not all with us is no loss to â— because the points of yours which we disown â—e both novel additions of your own brain and alâ—â— such as contradict the acknowledged verities Wherever then Christ had a Church that did believe all the Doctrine of the Scripture and specially thâ— Creed the Lords Prayer the Decalogue the Doctrine of the new Covenant Baptisme the Lord Supper and the Ministry there was our Religion before Luther If any added hay and stubble if theâ— work be burnt and they suffer loss yet our Religion among them is the same still Obj. But do not you make this Negative a part â— your Religion that nothing but Scripture is to â—â— believed fide divinâ and what Church was of thâ— Opinion Answ 1. We have oft at large shewed that mâ—â— of the ancient Doctors of the Church have asserâ—â— the Scriptures sufficiency at large and appealed â— them as the full Revelation of Gods will concerniâ—â— all things necessary to salvation and the sufficienâ— Rule to Judge of controversies 2. If they did 〈◊〉 of them think that the Church had a supperadâ—â— Revelation by Tradition in
we found you in Possession but of the name of A Church and not The Church a Part of the Church Catholike and not the whole a Corrupt part and not the Head 〈◊〉 the Purest part 4. We departed not from you as â— Church much less as the Catholike Church but â— corrupted Nor do we yet deny you to be a Church but to be a sound Church or the Catholike Church Concerning this and the former Queries especially when our Church was in all Ages before Lâ—ther we shall clear our selves by giving the true state of the case which will Justifie it self Christ came to be the Physician of diseased souls In his Gospel he proclaimeth his office and call them to himself for cure and prescribeth them the means But he takes the time of this life for the accomplishing it and cureth no man perfectly 〈◊〉 death His Church therefore is as an Hospital or â— City so infected that there is not one in it that is perfectly sound One of the deepest radical diseases is Pride which corrupted the blood even of the Apostles themselves So far that it broke out into such an Itch that they could not forbear contending who should be the greatest even in the presence of Christ himself He derides the controversie telling them with you it shall not be so but he that will be great shall be the servant of all This disease of Pride was still alive in part even wherever it was mortified so that such like desires of superiority were excited by it also in the Apostles successors the Pastors of the Church in following ages But it came but to a troublesome Itch till Constantines time For the nailes of Persecution did so claw it that the corrupt blood was let out and the Itch was frequently abated by the smart But when Constantine lifted up the Bishops with honors revenew and the adâ—unction of secular power to their wills or censures â—hen the itch turned to a plain Scab the corrupt â—lood continuing and the scarifying scratches of persecution ceasing But this overspread not the whole body the Catholike Church much less all aâ—ike but it seized mainly upon the Clergy who should have been examples of humility and self-denyal to the rest And principalâ—y on the Cleargy of the Romane Empire and some others that they â—nfected But on none so much as the Bishop of Rome and his Clergys For Rome being the Impeâ—ial seat and drawing to it the glory riches and observance of the world the Bishop of that place must needs be accordingly magnified and observed especially because that he being at the Emperors ear might have pleasured or displeasured almost any Prince or Prelate in the Empire At last by translation of much of the Glory to Constantinople the heat of the disease was conveyed thither too so that John of Constantinople and Gregory of Rome contended about the Universal Supremacy John laid the first â—laime to it because he was Bishop of the Imperial â—eat Gregory laies no claim to it himself but contradicteth Johns pronouncing it a note of Antichrist â—o claim the title of Universal Bishop little thinkâ—ng that his own successors would have claimed it so â—oon At last Phocas being helped by the Romane Bishop to possess the throne of his murdered Prince doth help the Pope to the Title of Universal Bishop â—nd the glory and strength of Constantinople abating Rome did the more easily hold what they had goâ— By this time the Seab was turned to a Leprosie which drew on many other concomitant diseases aâ— its symptuous The rest of the Church was some of it infected with some of the foresaid Scab some more 〈◊〉 some less and some of them still were onely troâ—bled with the old itch though none perfectly souâ— nor was that to be expected much of the Westeâ—â— parts comply with their Leprous Patriarch and â—â—mit to him while he calls himself Universal Bishoâ— and Head of the Catholike Church some conseâ—â— some say nothing though they dissent and indeâ—â— the power was got into his hand so that for fear â— persecution few durst contradict and specially wheâ— they saw no likelihood of doing good Yet some iâ— all Ages even under his nose did signifie their dislâ—â—â— and offer some help to the cure At last in Lutherâ— dayes whole Countries do withdraw from the Râ—mane Leprosie as thousands called Albigenses Wâ—â—denses c. had done before them and so free themselves from the infection and get off the very scab and make fair attempts for the Cure of the very itch Now what doth the Romane Clergy but cry out after us as Hereticks and Schismaticks and asâ—â— us where was our Church before Luther and who were of our Religion till then We answer them that if they have the Leprosie and the times before them had in most parts the scab and the former times the itch cannot we prove that we are Men as well as they unless we prove that we have the Leprosie Scab or Itch as they had Are these Essential or Integral parts of a man As humane nature is still with a Leper but Leprous and still with him that hath the Scab but scabbed so our Religion and Church was at Rome and still is but Leprous since the Usurpation before mentioned It was before that at Iâ—â—â—e but forely scabbed It was before that Rome troubled with the itch It is still in Greece Abassia and other parts but somewhat scabbed is in millions of the people free from that scab â—ho in all Ages disliked the Clergies usurpations â—â—ough we cannot expect to hear this from them in a â—eneral Councel where they are not to be But â—e take the people to be a true part of the Church â—e have separated from you as from Lepers not from the Dead We bury not your title of a â—hurch or Christians so you will adde Leprous â—nd a Leprosie proves most commonly a killing disâ—â—se We have reason to secure our selves from our infection though our love to you were never â— dear So that here 's the quarrel and here 's our defence â— all Christs Hospital in the Western part of the â—orld have much increased the disease that he would â—ave cured them of it doth not follow that any man â—â—at is cured of their Leprosie ceaseth presently to â—e a man that he that is reformed of those vices â—easeth to be a member of the Catholike Church â—r that such Reformed Churches are new things that â—ere not before The Reformation may be new as â—o the latter Ages since corruption prevailed but â—â—e Religion or Church-state is not new It s a sad case â—ith the Church when its corruptions are come to be â—â—counted of its essence so that he that will not reâ—ine the corruptions must not be accounted to be a â—hristian or a Catholike at least and he that will be â—ured must be accounted to be killed The Church â—as a Church before it catcht the Romish Scab or Leâ—rosie and therefore is a Church
or the greater part of them are true Bishops and lawfully called If as Bellarmine saith de Concil l. 2. c. 9. That the contrary be not manifest be enough then mans error can make Gods promise of Infallibility belong to those that it was never made to or else God hath promised infallibility to all that may be Popes or Bishops for ought we know and then it belongs not to the Pope and Bishops but to all that seem such 25. Yea that all those Bishops or most descend by uninterrupted succession from the Apostles which is made necessary If they plead onely the Bishop of Romes succession to warrant all the rest before the forementioned particulars be well answered it will appear that Romes succession hath been frequently interrupted 26. How shall men at a distance be sure that the Councils are indeed confirmed by the Pope 27. How shall we be sure when all is done that we have the right sence of the Canons or Decrees of such Councils when they speak as ambiguously as the Scripture and the Papists think they can have no certainty of the right sence of that without a living judge And if there be a living judge still of the sence of Councils either he is as infallible as they or not If not then he cannot make us infallibly certain by his Authoritative determination If he be then what need of a Council when he is infallible alone 28. When several Popes and Councils contradict one another how shall we know which of them to believe And this is no rare matter among them 29. When the Pope and Council contradict each other how shall the people know which is infallible 30. When both Pope and Council contradict the express Scripture must we take them for infallible and believe that Scripture only on their words These or most of these must be known by all Christians before they can believe the Articles of their Creed or that Scripture is Gods word according to the Romish grounds When as it is impossible for any man to know them as true they being either false or not evident and demonstrable So that it s now apparent that according to the Popish grounds the People can have no certainty of the truth of their Religion and that they shake the foundation of Christianity it self 2. And lastly not onely so but they build on a foundation certainly false that is the Popes infallibility or a Councils as I shall prove in the next dispute where their fallibility will be further manifested Arg. 3. If the Papists are not agreed among themselves either Clergy or Laity about the very fundamentals of their faith or matters which they make of necessity to salvation then Popery is no safe way to salvation But the Antecedent is true Therefore c. We need to go no further for the proof of the Antecedent then to what is said already They commonly maintain that we must receive our faith and the Scriptures upon the Authority of the infallible Church and they are not yet agreed among themselves nor ever like to be what that infallible Church is And the difference is not with a few inconsiderable dissenters but in their main body The Papists of France maintain that it is a General Council that is infallible and that the Pope is fallible The Italians maintain that a General Council is fallible and the Pope is infallible Some others think that both of them are fallible separated but both infallible when they concur And some think that they are both infallible though separated If the Church be the foundation and all must be received upon its infallible authority then no man can be saved that knows not which this infallible Church is either therefore the French or Italians one part or the other of them do erre in their very fundamentals when one saith This is the subject of infallibility and the other say This is it And if a Pope or General Councel differ to whom must the people hearken One part of them saith that the Pope is above the Council and others of them say the Council is above the Pope and of this mind have been General Councils themselves as the Council of Basil and Constance and of this mind Bellarmine names Cardinal Cameracensis Cardinal Cusanus Joh. Gerson Iac. Almain Card. Florentin Panormitan c. What a strange impudency then is it of these men to make the silly deluded people among us believe that they are all of one mind and it s we that are divided when as they are never likely to agree in their very principles and great fundamental Who it is that is the infallible Judge And till men know Who it is what the better are they know that such a judge there is seeing that the species existeth only in the individual and no man can believe him or apply himself to him as the infallible judge till he know that it is he indeed that is such Seeing then according to their own principles either the French Papists or the Italian and Spanish Papists must be in the way to damnation how shall we know which it is and which to joyn our selves to with any safety Were it not for weakening the Popes interest they would burn the French Papists as Hereticks as well as us Arg. 4. If Popery be a new devised way to heaven such as the Apostles never knew nor the Church after them for many a hundred year in the main parts of Popery then is it no safe way to salvation But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the consequent The consequence they will not deny that which the Apostles the Primitive Churches went in is only the safe way to heaven for there are not many safe ways But that which the Papists as Papists go in is not that which the Apostles and Primitive Church went in therefore it is not the safe way And that the Apostles and first Churches knew not Popery but it is a new Religion or new corruption of Religion appeareth by comparing the particular points with Scripture and Antiquity For Scripture which is the truest Antiquity it may give any indifferent man just cause of suspicion that the Papists do so obstinately refuse to be tryed by it which plainly shewes that they take it not to be on their side And for the Councils and Fathers for the first three hundred years or much more they ordinarily scorn us for mentioning them to this end because they say they wrote not of the points now in controversie and therefore are unfit to determine them But did not those ages take up their faith on the same grounds as we should do now And can they be all silent about the onely ground of faith If the Pope of Romes infallible authority had been the ground would they not have told us so How could they convert the infidels and confirm believers without acquainting them with the grounds of their Faith And what they took for the grounds their writings
shew Nay he that shall faithfully and impartially peruse the Writers of the first three-or four or seven hundred years is blind if he see not the novelty of Popery and in particular of the Popes infallibility universal headship and Episcopacy and his pretended authoriry to be the Judge of controversies with the rest of his usurpations Our Divines Chamier Jewel Vsher Field and many others have manifested this so largely that it would be superfluous for me to do it after them and somewhat will necessary fall in with the next dispute I do not deny but that many ceremonies and many controverted doctrines were very ancient as the use of Chrisme and a white garment and milke and honey to the newly baptized exorcisme confirmation by imposition of hands the Memories of the Martyrs with prayers and praises at their graves or places of suffering the oft use of the signe of the Cross the observation of Lent as well as Easter and Whitsontide not to kneel on the Lords day not to eat things strangled or bloody so the doctrines of the power of Free-will and predestination upon foreseen faith and the misuse of the terms Merit and Justification the denyal of the perseverance of all Saints c. were too early and commonly entertained But these be not the things that we call Popery nor wherein the great difference between us and the Romanists doth consist But as for the great points in difference between the Papists and us it is so evident in all antiquity that Popery is a novelty and that they have devised a new way to heaven which the Apostles and the Churches for many hundred years did never know that onely gross ignorance of the Churches records or a willingness to be deceived can keep men from the knowledge of it And here I might easily prove what is said of the novelty of Popery even from the confessions of their own most learned writers that so they may not say it is concluded from our own misunderstanding of Antiquity But that it would swell this disputation beyond the intended bulk and bounds I shall onely give a brief touch in a few points of moment which may shew you what to think of their charging us with novelty and of their general pretences to Antiquity Of the humane Ordination of Papacy and its late increase beyond its ancient bounds and the limitation of Ecclesiastical Power I shall desire you to see what in the following Disputation is cited out of their Cardinal Nicol. Cusanus a man so violent for the Eugenian faction that Aenaenas Sylvius afterward Pope Pius the second lamenteth that so learned a man should be the pillar of that Popes cause and a man so close to Papal interest and so addicted himself to domineering that he opposed his Prince Sigismund Duke of Austria and caused the same Pope Pius the second to take his part and excommunicate Sigismund and all his Counsailors and his subjects for taking this Cardinal prisoner by force of Armes of which see the story in Goldastus with Gregor Hemburg's one of the Princes excommunicated Counsailors his Defence against the Pope and Cardinal Yet this man himself in his books de concordia hath confessed enough to destroy the Popes cause and take down the Romane tyranny if they would stand to the principles of that confession Others also in the next disputation are mentioned as to that subject which I shall therefore now pretermit Polidore Virgil a Learned writer of theirs in his lib. 8. de Invent. Râ—â— cap. 5. pag. 475.476 Saith Item ut nullum conventum indici nullumque a quibusvis actum haberi ratum liceret sine Romani Pontificis authoritate Marcellus primus omnium sanxit deinde Julius Damasus Gregorius illud idem statuere i. e. Also that no Assembly or Council should be called nor any act of whomsoever be esteemed ratified without the Authority of the Pope of Rome this Marcellus was the first that did ordain and afterward Julius and Damasus and Gregory did ordain the same thing And though this sufficiently proveth the novelty yet Polidore is mistaken in taking this part of Papal Usurpation to be so ancient For he took it on the authority of the decretals which are meer fictions Of which I refer the Reader to Blondellus de Decretal The sum of whose censure on Marcellus Epistles is this As the frequent Barbarisme shew the Author so the following oft the version of Hiereme the excribing of divers instances out of Innocent Leo Hilary Gregory Adrian 1. and Acacius shew that he was many ages later then Marcellus See also the full evidence that he giveth in his censures against the Epistle of S. Julius and Damasus and for Gregory his Epistles to the contrary purpose are well known So that by Polidorus confession this Papal usurpation is a novelty but indeed many hundred years neerer then he imagined And what good this usurpation did himself confesseth in the following words Though it first broke the conventicles of Hereticks Ita deinceps nihil attulit commodi cum per id jam pene desitum sit a concilis habendis in quibus cuncta ex aequo traictarentur Pontifice Romano ejusmodi negotium non magnopere curante i. e. Afterwards it did no good when by reason of this Councils are almost ceased in which all things should be equally handled the Pope of Rome not much regaâ—ding any such matter Where he addeth That therefore Pope Martin the fifth in the Council of Constance decreed that a Council should be called every tenth year which hitherto hath not been kept and therefore Religion grows daily worse Where by the way we may see what power the Laws of the Pope and General Councils have and what a Religion Popery is which sweareth men to believe and obey the Decrees of such Councils which no man ever obeyed since they were made For there hath been never since a Decennial Council And the Pope himself by confirming that Council which decreed that a Council is above the Pope did shew himself obliged to obey it and so to have called a Council accordingly But all others must swear to that as Gods Word and infallible which themselves contemne But to proceed The same Polidore Virgil. lib. 8. cap. 1. g. 456. shews that the beginning of Indulgences was not till Gregory appointed his stations and made them a reward And shewing that thy were grounded on the Doctrine of Purgatory he bringeth in Bishop Fisher of Rochester to witness 1. That Indulgences are lately brought in 2. And that even of Purgatory Apud priscos nulla vel quam rarissima fiebat mentio sed Grecis ad hunc usque diem non est creditum esse quan diu enim nulla fuerat de purgatorio cura nemo quesivit indulgentias nam ex illo peâ—det omnis indulgentiarum existimatio Si tollas purgatorium quorsum indulgentiarum opus erit Caeperunt igitur Indulgentiae post quam ad purgatorii
duntaxat rebus in â—nibus ipsa defecit ab Apostolica atque adeo a seipâ— veteri pura Ecclesia neque alio discessimus zimo quam ut si correcta ad priorem Ecclesiae forâ—am redeat nos quoque ad illam revertamur â—mmunionem cum illa in suis porro caetibus habeamus Quod ut tandem fiat toto animo Domino Jesum preâ—mur Quid enim pio cuique optatius quam ut ubi â—r baptismum renati sumus ibi etiam in finem usâ—u vivamus modo in Domino Ego Hier. Zanchius Cum tota mea familia testatum hoc volo toti Ecclesiae Christi in omnem eternitatem Arg. 5. If Popery do make a new Catholike Church which was never known for many hundred years after Christ then is it no safe way to salvation But Popery doth make a new Catholike Church that was never known of many hundâ—ed years after Christ therefore it s no safe way to salvation The consequence of the Major will not be denyed for they confess that Christs Church is but one He had not a Church of one sort for the first ages and a Church of another sort since though its accidents may vary yet so doth not its essence The Minor I prove thus That which the Papists make to be the Catholike Church is only all those Christians that acknowledge the Pope to be the universal Bishop and head of the Catholike Church having universal supreme jurisdiction and the Church of Rome to be the Mother and Mistris of all other Churches and its only a Catholike Church convertible with the Romane Church But such a Catholike Church as this was never known by the Apostles or of many hundred years after Christ Therefore Popery maketh a new Catholike Church which the first ages never knew It s true that when Rome being then the ruling City of the world did come to own Christianity that the Glory of the Empire occasioned the Bishop to be called Primae sedis Episcopus as one that was to take place of the rest of the Patriarchs who had their several orders or places â—ssigned them as Alexandria to be the second Antioch the third c. which Bellarmiâ—â— confesseth might be after lawfully changed but as Alexandria had not the Government of Antioch by that predecency so neither had Rome any government of the rest And as Constantinople was afterward set up above Alexandria and Antioch and claimed to be above Rome so might it as lawfully have been set up above Rome But what ever be said about their quarrels of precedency which pride begun and cherished yet it s most evident in all antiquity that of many hundred years after Christ there was no such Catholike Church in being or known as was centred in the Pope as the head or universal Bishop or Governor or in Rome as the Mistris of the rest We have long ago challenged them to give us the least proof of such a Church in all antiquity and they give us nothing but such forced passages that are nothing to their purpose that its hard for the most charitable rational man to believe that they do indeed believe themselves and do not know that they hypocritically endeavor to cheat poor souls by their vain cavils All the Papists on earth will never be able to answer what our Divines have said already to prove the novelty of their Papal headship nor can all the Popes servants in the world bring us one word of currant antiquity for many hundred years after Christ to prove that ever such a Church was once dreamed of as they now call the Romane Catholike Church Indeed Rome was called then a Catholike Church and so was Alexandria Antioch and all that held the Catholike faith and were not heretical but it was never known till Boniface had usurped the Title of universal Bishop above 600. years after Christ which he procured by Phocas a Murderer that usurped the Empire when he had slain the Emperor Mauritius that the Romane Church and the Catholike Church was all one or that it was necessary to make any particular Church or person Catholike that they acknowledge the universal headship and jurisdiction of the Romane Pope much less his infallibility To heap up Records here would but stop the plain Reader in his course and somewhat shall be sâ—id of it in the next dispute Onely I now say that if any one question whether indeed the Romane Catholike Church as now constituted be a meer novelty I here offer my self to the fuller proof of it and shall desire no better recreation of such a sort then to entertain a dispute about it with any Papists that will undertake their cause And here I must needs annex this observation What a shameless cheat it is by which the Papists do delude the ignorant perswading them that theirs is the old Religion and the ancient Church which hath continued from the Apostles without interruption and that we are men of a new Religion and of a Church that had never a visible being till the dayes of Luther Costerous the Jesuite in the Preface to his Enchiridion instructeth his deluded novices how to deal with the Protestants by urging them with three Questions which we shall resolve anon to his shame and the last of them is a challenge to us To name one man before Luther that agreed with us in all things But we challenge and most confidently challenge all the Papists on earth to name one man for three hundred years after Christ I might say six hundred years that agreed with them not in all things but in their very Articles of Faith yea in theiâ— Church fundamentals yea in the very definition of the Catholike Church We challenge them to name us one man and prove it that ever knew or owned such a Church as Catholike that is now so called and owned by them We confidently affirm and challenge all the Papists in the world to dispute the point with us that their Church as Popish is a new thing unknown to our forefathers of the first ages that Popery is a fardel of new doctrines unknown to the first Churches We admire at the immodesty of these men to aske us where our Church was before Luther and to call it a new Religion which we profess and to ask us whether we think our selves wiser then all the world was heretofore in the purest times We do most confidently return on them their own demands We would know from any of them where their Church was for three hundred yea for six hundred years after Christs birth And we wonder how they can think to be saved in a way that was not known for so long time Do they think themselves wiser then Christ and his Apostles and all the Christian world for so many hundred years Again we challenge them to shew us the least proof that ever there was such a thing for so long time as a Catholike Church convertible with the Romane and
present the far purest and renounce communion with them all and proclaim them Hereticks or Schismaticks and sentence them all to the flames of Hell Yea that dare do the like by all ages of Christians that have gone before them yea that dare unchurch and damne to Hell the whole Church of Christ for many hundred years For what do they less when they unchurch and damne all that acknowledge not their new made universal Bishop which the Primitive Church never did And when they make that to be essential to the Catholike Church which the first Catholike Church did never know I know there be some Enthusiasts and Anabaptists and such giddy persons that do as the Papists do condemn all the Churches of Christ except themselves But yet the Schisme that they have made hereby is nothing to that which was made by the Papists who have set the Christian world into a flame of dissention and make it their very business daily to bâ—ow â—t up and do nourish so many Colledges of Jesuites and other orders to that end What notorious impudency is it then in these men to tell us that we are schismaticks separate from them and aske us how we dare judge all our forefathers to damnation and why we will not be of our forefathers Religion and do not observe how they condemne themselves by all these questions What more evident then that the Papists have separated from all other Christians in the world How dare they condemne the far greatest part of Christians on earth to eternal torment yea and by plain consequence though they will not acknowledge it the whole Church of Christ for many hundred years were it but one soul that they should presume to censure they might well bethink them of an answer to Pauls Question Who art thou that judgest another mans servant to his own master doth he stand or fall When Paul wrote that to the Church at Rome he knew of none then that would justifie the judging of all the world and say They are my servants or subjects and therefore I must judge them Do the blind Papists think that any sober considerate impartial Christian can be of their mind and damne the most of Christs Church on earth meerly because they will not be subject to the Pope of Rome If this Article be so necessary to salvation Why do not we find it in any ancient Creed Why must we not say I believe in the Pope of Rome as well as I believe in God Or if indeed it be the Pope and Romanists that is meant by the holy Catholike Church why would not the composers of the Creed tell us so And why did none of the ancient Churches understand and expound it so And why did no age add the word Romane and call it the holy Romane Catholike Church 2. And then withal besides the present Schisme which they have made they have laid the ground of a perpetual schisme For they have made a new definition of the Catholicke Church and made it another thing then it was before and they have made a new head and center of its unity so that all the old sort of Christians to the end of the world that cannot change their Church and unite to the new head and center must needs be of a different body from the Romanists And if these men say that it is the rest of the Christian world that first withdraws from them 1. Let them prove that the Greek Abassins the rest of the Christian world that deny subjection to them except these in the West were ever under them 2. And as for the Reformed Churches if they were drawn in heretofore I mean their forefathers to countenance the Romish usurpation tyranny they withdraw only from that usurpation separate from Rome only as it is a faction not as from a Church If we be drawn into a schism separation from all the Christian world by the fraud of Rome is it unlawful for us to repent return to the unity of the Catholike Church and to renounce the Schism that we were guilty of This is our great sin we are schismaticks because we will not continue schismaticks we are Schismaticks by casting off the Schism of Rome because we will not be Schismaticks by continuing to separate from all the Churches else on earth 3. But let us come to the tryal with them who laid the first Schismatical Principle Was it not they that first defined the Catholike Church as equipollent with the Romane and first made the universal Headship of their Pope to be the center Did ever Peter or Paul or any Apostle do so Did they give us such a definition of the Catholike Church Or did the Church do so for many a hundred year after them Prove this well and take all and we promise to turn Papists without delay The plaine truth is this The Catholike Church for many hundred years after Christ was that Body of Christians who were united or centred only in Christ the head and held communion in the fundamentals or great and necessary points of faith and worship and had no mortal head or Center But the worldly greatness of the City of Rome occasioneth the inflation and proud usurpation of her Bishop and he will needs make himself the Center of union and universal head when there was no Center or head but Christ before And is not this the vilest Schisme that men can tell how to be guilty of suppose that the King of Spaine having his Dominions remote one part from another some in Europe and some in the Indies that for five or six hundred years the Indies should acknowledge no other head but the King of Spaine and the Governors of each Province should receive their several Commissions immediately from him and stand in no regimental subordination to one another but onely be bound by the King to have communion and hold correspondence for their mutual safety and the common good If now after so long time the Vice King of Mexico shall by Degrees make himself the sovereign of the rest first claiming onely the first place in their Assemblies because he is Governor of the greatest City and then requiring them to do nothing without him or his consent and at last proclaiming himself the head of the Indies under the King of Spaine and that none are subjects to the King but those that profess themselves also subjects to him but all the rest are rebels and traytors and to be used accordingly exhorting and commanding all to fall upon them and use them as such And all this upon pretence that Spain is so far off that the King there is invisible and inaccessible to them in the Indies and therefore the King hath given him a Commission to be his substitute as being more visible and accessible If now the rest of the Presidents Governors and Provinces shall refuse to acknowledge the Headship of this man and shall declare that they dare
center to no head but the King of Spaine without his express Commission manifested and the Provinces of Mexico and the adjacent parts onely shall be otherwise minded and subject themselves to the usurper who is it that causeth the Schisme in the King of Spains dominions And which partie is it that holdeth to the ancient terms of unity and which are the dividers I need not stand to make a particular application It is even so between us and the Pope with his Romanists The Church of old was centred onely in Christ and headed onely by him At last the Pope pretending Christs distance and invisibility and a Commission that he hath from Christ to be his Vicar General written in letters that none can read but himself and his party will needs become the visible head and center and whereas before those onely were the rebels that rejected Christ now all must be rebels that are not subject to the Popes And to aggravate the crime by the addition of hipocrisie all this Schisme and separation must be carryed on by a pretence of unity They make the poor simple people believe that the Pope being the Head and center there is no unity to be held but in him and that we must all be guilty of Schisme that unite not in him and that all our divisions are caused by our departing from this center of unity when it is himself that hath divided from the rest of the Christian world and would drown the infamy of it by accusing others of the same sin that he is so notoriously guilty of By which we may well see that accusing others is none of the surest signs of innocency but too common a trick to divert the suspition from themselves When the Papists that are the greatest Schismaticks on earth do make such an outcry against us as Schismaticks because we have repented of our joyning with them in their Schisme and will not confederate with them in evil against the Laws of Christ and the necessary means of the unity of his Church Arg. 7. If the faith of Papists as Papists which is it that we call Popery be a meerly uncertain changeable thing so that a man can never tell when he hath it all then is it no safe way to Salvation But the faith of Papistâ— as such is such a meerly uncertain changeable thing Therefore it is no safe way to Salvation The consequence of the Major I suppose they will grant For how can that be a safe way 1. which is uncertain 2. and changeable when the true way to salvation is one and the same and changeth not since Christ had established and sealed his Laws All the question therefore is of the Minor which I prove 1. From the Popish principles 2. From their Practices both which do plainly shew that their new Religion is a meer Weather-cock that must fit with the winde of the mutable conceits of the Pope and his Clergy Even like the Religion of the Enthusiasts that wait still for new Revelations to be superadded to the Scripture And first for their principles one is that The Scripture is not the whole word of God or sufficient rule of faith or manners but onely a part of the Word and Rule and that unwritten Traditions are the other part Yea Rushworths Dialogues Bellarmine and the rest of them ordinarily tell us that Scripture was not chiefly given to be a Rule of faith at all saith Bellarm. de verbo dei li. 4. cap. 12. Finis Scripturae pracipuus non est ut sit Regula fidei sed ut variis documentis exemplis adhortationibus nunc terrendo nunc instruendo nunc minando nunc consolando adjuvet nos in hae peregrinatione that is The chief end of Scripture is not to be a Rule of faith but that by divers documents examples adhortations sometime by affrighting sometime by instructing sometime by threatning sometime by comforting it may help us in this our peregrination It is then unwritten Traditions that are part of Gods Word and at least part of the Rule of faith And where these Traditions are to be found and what they are and how many and by what notes they may all be known either they dare not tell us for fear of bringing mens faith to a certainty from under the lock and key of the Pope or else in telling us they do but cloud the business with general terms or else disagree among themselves That the Scripture it self is delivered to us infallibly we doubt not and thereby we know the Canonical books But this may be done without another word of God The act of Delivery from the Apostles is not a new Revelation or Word of God but the natural means of conveying the word to those for whom it was intended And the object of that Act of Delivery was not another Word of God but all and onely these same Canonical Books so that I know which is the Canon among other reasons because I can prove not by another Word of God but by infallible humane Testimony such as I have of the Laws of this Land that the Bible and these particular books in it were actually delivered by the holy Writers to the Churches If God write the two Tables of stone and therein make known that they are his Laws and then Deliver these to Moses this Delivering is not a new Word of God but a necessary act for the promulgation of the Word So that if you aske an Israelite how he knows whether onely the ten Commandments and all those ten were contained in the Tables He can prove it to you by the Tables Delivered and by proving the Act of Delivery though he could bring no other word of God which told you what was in those Tables And indeed if these must needs be another Word of God besides the Delivering Acts to prove the former to be the Word of God and tell us its parts then there must also be another word to discover that second Word to be the Word of God and another to discover that and so in infinitum Our acknowledged necessary Tradition therefoâ—â— is not another materia tradita or Word of God but onely one of the actus tradendi and act of delivering the same matter or word But for the Papists that will have another part of the Rule of Divine faith they will never be able to tell us what it is and where and to let us understand when we have all Bellarmine de verbo dei non Scripto li. 4. cap. 9. layes down five Rules by which we may know the true Traditions The first is When the whole Church embraceth any thing as a point of faith which is not found in the Scriptures of God we must needs say that this was had from the tradition of the Apostles The second is When the universal Church keepeth somewhat which none could constitute but God and which is not found written we must needs say that this was delivered from Christ and
the Apostles The third is That which is kept in the universal Church and through all times past is deservedly judged to have been instituted by the Apostles though it be such a thing as the Church might institute The fourth is When all the Doctors of the Church do with one consent teach that such a thing descended by Apostolical Tradition either Congregate in a General Councel or writing it apart in books this is to be believed to be an Apostolike Tradition The fifth Rule is this That is without doubt to be believed to descend from Apostolical Tradition which is held for such in those Churches where the succession from the Apostles is entire and continued These are Bellarmines five Rules But 1. What the particular Apostolical Traditions are which are Gods Word according to these Rules he had more wit or less honesty then to let us understand Is it because the word of God is indeed yet unknown or cannot be known or because it is not fit to make it known or because the Pope must pretend to the keeping of these hidden Laws that so the world may receive them at his mouth 2. And I would fain know whether these Rules of Bellarmines to know the unwritten word by are themselves the Word of God or not If they be are they written or unwritten and how known to be so If not then it seems we may have Rules and means which are not the word of God by which we may infallibly know which is the true word of God And then there needs no unwritten word to deliver or prove the written word 3. And why may not another Doctor by these Rules know the unwritten word as well as the Pope and another Church as well as the Romane 4. And why may not the Christian people through the world procure from some one charitable Pope through so many hundred years a Catalogue of those unwritten verities that the word of God may be once commonly known and men may know when they have all without uncertain dependencies on the Pope or travailing in vain to Rome to know 5. And for those few that Bellarmine hath instanced in viz. The perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary The Baptisme of Infants the validity of Hereticks Baptism the fast of Lent the inferior orders of the Clergy the veneration of Images To the first I say It is no Article of Divine Faith but of humane Ecclesiastical The second is proved fully out of Scripture And so is the third if you take it of such Hereticks in a larger sence as expresly exclude nothing essential to baptism but expresly include it all But for the rest Bellarmine should remember how elswhere he defendeth the Council that required the rebaptizing of those that were baptized by the Paulinists because they were Anti-trinitarians For Lent I say no more can be proved of it but onely that it is an ancient Ecclesiastical constitution And the inferior orders are apparently novelties introduced after the first age if not the second too and not mentioned in any of the first writers but the sum of Church Officers enumerated without them Much more novel is the unlawful use of Images in Churches or as immediate instruments to excite devotion in prayer and for other lawful use we deny it not 6. But principally I would intreat Bellarmine and the Pope that hereafter they would obtrude no unwritten word upon us but what is proved to be such at least by his own Rules Let us have some proof that it proceedeth from the universal Church and not their naked word without evidences And then we must intreat them to be so honest as not to unchurch the Greeks Abassines Armenians Protestants and all the Christians in the world except Romanists that so they may be the whole Catholike Church and then prove any thing to be the word of God by their own Testimony alone Nor yet to perswade us that such a Council as theirs at Trent conteined the whole Catholike Church real or representative nor yet to bring us two or three Fathers and say that those were all the Doctors of the Church More particularly I answer to his Rules in order To the first I say 1. That prove if you can that ever the whole Church embraced any thing as a point of Divine faith which is not contained in the Written Word 2. If the whole Church embrace it then it is no secret and therefore we all may know it yea and actually do know it as well as the Pope To the second Rule I say You may prove a mistaken observance of rites by the greater part of the Church but prove that the whole Church kept any thing unwritten which none could constitute but God But if they did still it must needs be known to all and therefore not controvertible or lockt up in the Popes closet Prove also that the universal Church may not erre in some lesser matters about Christs supposed constitutions To the third I say If by all times past you include the Apostles then we grant your Rule but meer Ecclesiastical Canons may be observed through all times shortly after the Apostles and yet not as Apostolical but Ecclesiastical Yet when you come to try your Traditions by this Rule I am not out of doubt that you will but disgrace them and fail your Readers just expectations To the fourth I say 1. I will believe you if you speak of all the Doctors of the Church next to the Apostles or so neer as that the danger of mistaking was not great 2. But I do not believe that you will find any of your Traditions asserted to be Gods Word by all the Doctors of the Church not neer all in any one age unless you make your faction to be all The last Rule is but a meer trick of wit to get the key into the Popes hand alone To which I say 1. A Church that hath had an interrupted succession of true Pastors from the Apostles may fall into many errors in process of time which in Tertullians and Irenaeus dayes when the memory of all the Apostles practices were so fresh they could not fall into so easily 2. Those Churches have received their unwritten verities either by writings from their predecessors or without If by writings why cannot others find it there as well as they If without it must be an uncertain and mutable means or by a means so publike still that all as well as they may know of it 3. And we undertake to prove that the succession of true Pastors of the Romish See hath been long ago and often interrupted And therefore this Rule will not serve your turns But though I have been long upon this principle of the Papists to prove the uncertainty of their faith yet the next is the chief that I intended which also proveth the mutability of it 2. The Papists ordinarily hold that as to us that is Gods Word which the Pope with his Clergy say is Gods Word
and so to eat of this Bread and Drink of this Cup Alas they know all this they cannot but know it and yet they will contradict the express word of God God saith Drink ye all of it and Let a man examine himself and so drink The Pope saith Let none of the people drink of it but the Clergy only What is this but to abrogate Gods Laws and set up the Popes above and against it Yea unless it were to shew the world their Power to contradict Christ and destroy his word who can imagine what should move them to this attempt If there were any temptation of profit or honor in the business as there is in the maintaing of the Popes supremacy Purgatory Indulgences Pardons c. we should not wonder at it But what profit or honor or pleasure is it thus to contradict Christ and for them that adde such a multitude of their own Ceremonies to affect so to cut off one half of the Sacramental Rite and matter which Christ ordained Nay thirdly Do not these men know that the Bread and Cup were both given to the people by the Primitive Church and that it so continued for many hundred years and that their alteration is a meer novelty Yes they know all this For the matter is so far past doubt that they cannot but know it And yet these deceivers would make the people believe that they are of the old Religion and our Region is new These are they that cry out against our casting off Apostolical Traditions and the Churches constitutions and customs and going in new wayes which our forefathers knew not These are they that make it a mark of an Apostolical Tradition that the whole Church hath received it and that as from the Apostles And yet these men dare cast off not onely that which they know the whole primitive Church received and practised as from the Apostles as Justin Martyr Tertullian and all antiquity profess but also is expresly contained in the Scripture With what face can these that exclaim against novelty introduce such a palpable novelty into the Church with what face can they that so cry up antiquity gainsay all antiqiuty and they that cry up the whole Churches consent so go against the consent of the whole Church for so many Ages after the Apostles They dare not deny but this part of Popery is utterly New against the constant practice and Canons of all Churches The third point which I shall instance in is Their performing Gods publike service in Latine and forbidding the people to read the Scriptures in their known vulgar Tongue when as the Apostle Paul hath written the greatest part of a whole Chapter 1 Cor. 14. expresly against this opinion and practice and for using of a known tongue that others may understand and be edified The evasions by which they would elude that part of Scripture are so senceless that I think it not necessary to recite them but rather suppose that they need no other confutation than the bare considerate reading of the Text and therefore I shall venture the Reader if he have common capacity and impartiality and be but willing to know the truth upon any thing that the Papists shall be able to say for their Latine Service and locking up the Scriptures so be it he will but read that Chapter considerately And are not these good Teachers in Christs School that will lock up the Grammar from their Schollars when it is the very office of the Presbyters to teach it the people And to hide from them that word of the living God which he hath given the world to be their Directory to salvation The Prophets and Christ and the Apostles did speak and write this word in a knowâ— tongue to the people to whom they did immediately direct it And must All hear and read it then and onely the Learned now Are not these the men that take away the Key of knowledge and will neither enter in themselves nor suffer others to enter They do expresly contradict the Commands of God and bid the people not read the Scripture when God hath charged them to write it on the very posts of their houses and on their doors and that it be as a frontlet between their eyes and that they teach it their children speaking of it lying down and rising up at home and abroad Deut. 6 11. God makes it the mark of the Blessed man Psal 1.2 3. To meditate day and night in his Law as making it his delight and the Papists commonly maintain in their writings that to have the Scripture in the vulgar tongue is the root of all heresies God maketh the study of his word the duty and mark of all his Disciples and the Papists make it the mark of a Heretick and have burned many a one for it here in Queen Maries dayes and tormented and burnt many by their bloody inquisition for it abroad The very Pharisees thought that their vulgar were cursed that knew not the Law and the Papists will not let it be made known to them lest it make them accursed God saith To the Law and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Isa 8.20 The Papists cry out precul hinc away let it alone meddle not with it it will make you Hereticks And indeed they have had large experience that the way which they call heresie and contradicteth their impieties is most effectually promoted by the word of God and therefore they think they have some reason to speak against it Saint John saith These things are written that ye might believe and that believing yee might have life throagh his name Joh. 20.31 The Papists say Read not these holy writings lest they destroy your faith and bring you to damnation When the man Luk. 10.26 asketh Christ What shall I do to inherit eternal life Christ answereth him thus What is written in the Law how readest thou directing to the course which the Papists do forbid The Apostle saith that Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our Learning that we through patience and comfort of the Scripture might have hope Rom. 15.4 But the Papists will not have men learn that which was written for their Learning Comfort and Hope Johâ— wrote to fathers young men and children 1 John 2.12 13 14. Gods anger against the Jews was that He had written to them the great or wonderful things of his Law and they had accounted them as strange things Hos 8.12 And the Papists will force people to be strange to these writings Yet how familiar comparatively they were to the vulgar Jews and their very children â—s known and acknowledged Is it not a high advancement of the Gospel Church above the legal Jewish Church which the Papists do vouchsafe it That we may not have the same liberty or means of knowledge as the very children of the Jews had Their children must be taught
that They will never take and interpret the Holy Scriptures but according to the unaniomous consent of the Fathers When as 1. The Fathers do not unanimously consent among themselves concerning the sence of the greatest part of Scripture and so they are sworn to take it in no sence because the fathers are not unanimous 2. He that knows not the unanimous sence of the Fathers where they are unanimous is sworn hereby to take and interpret the Scripture in No sence 3. If by The Church whose sence they also swear to admit be meant the present Romane Church then that Church and the Fathers do differ in the Interpretation of many Scriptures so that in one Article they must needs be forsworn 4. Nay there are divers particulars of the Popish faith yea which in this oath they swear to which are against much more without the unanimous consent of the Fathers The Fathers never consented to this very Article that we must take and interpret the Scripture onely in the unanimous sence of the Fathers They never consented that the Bread and Wine are truely really and substantially the whole Body and Blood of Christ by Transubstantiation Nay the consent of the Fathers is against these And yet these wretches swear not to take and interpret Scripture but in the unanimous sence of the Fathers and withal swear the contrary in particulars even that they believe that which the Fathers never consented to but against Never did the Fathers consent that There are seven truely and properly Sacraments Instituted by Christ Never did the Fathers consent who lived a thousand or fourteen hundred years before that the Council of Trent did not erre or could not erre Nor That in the Mass is offered a true proper propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and dead Nor that the Eucharist may be taken under one kind and the Cup withheld nor That there is a Purgatory or the souls there holpen by the suffrages of the faithful nor that the Saints with Christ are to be prayed to Nor that Images were to be worshiped nor the power of Popish indulgencies left by Christ in the Church and the use of them wholsome Never did the Fathers consent that the Romane Church is the Mistris of all Churches or that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ over them nor that all Christians or Bishops or Pastors should swear true obedience to the Pope as Christs Vicar Let these proud deceivers shew us if they can when the Fathers or any one of the Ancients did ever take any such oath himself or perswade others to it Yea or that they have consented to any one of these Articles of the Romish faith and Trent oath What more evident to any man that hath any acquaintance with the Fathers then that these wretches do here most palpably forswear themselves Even as if they should swear to believe nothing but according to the Ancient Creed and withal swear to believe that Christ never dyed rose or ascended or that there is no resurrection or everlasting life Certainly if the very faith of Papists be contradiction and the profession of it plain perjury then Popery is not a safe way to Salvation I would here have added as the fourteenth Argument That Popery is a mixture of old condemned errors formerly called Heresies which the ancient Church hath testified against and therefore it is no safe way to Salvation And here I should have tryed their particular errors not yet mentioned or insisted on as their Doctrine of Merits and Justification thereby Satisfactions and many Semipelagian errors Image-worship with many the like But that this is beyond my present intended scope and purposed brevity and is so fully performed already by so many unanswerable Treatises of our Divines Let us next here what is said of most moment to prove Popery to be a safe way to Salvation Obj. 1. That Religion which hath been delivered down from the Apostles to this day without interruption is a safe way to Salvation For it is the same that the Apostles and all the ancient Christians were saved in But the Religion of the Church of Rome is that which hath been delivered down from the Apostles Therefore c. Ans 1. There is a change of the very subject of the question It is Popery that we are disputing of and this argument instead of Popery speaks of The Religion of the Church of Rome The Religion of the Church of Rome hath two parts First the Christian Faith Secondly their own corruptions depraving and contradicting this Faith The first as it standeth alone uncontradicted in the Religion which â—e profess The second is it that we call Popery and â—ay It is no safe way to salvation 2. And of this I deny the Minor and say that Popery is not the ancient Religion the Apostles and Primitive Church never knew it There was no such creature as a Papist known in all the world till six hundred years after the birth of Christ It was about 606. when Pope Boniface did first claim his universal Papacy and Headship and after that it was not till about one thousand years that the usurpation and Tyranny was consented to any thing generally in thâ— West And even the multitudes still dissented and some opposition was still made against it and all the Esterne Churches and the rest of the Christian world did dissent Of these things there is enough said to silence all the Papists on earth in Bishop Vsher de contin successione slatu Eccles Occident and his Answer to the Jesuites Challenge and by Bishop Jewell and Doctor Field and in many of the old Treatises against the Pope published together by Goldastus which shew us that he setled not his Kingdom without continnual opposition and contradiction We affirm that Popery is a meer novelty and challenge all the Papists in the world to prove the Antiquity of it When they have once arrogated to themselves the name of the Catholike Church and taught the people to believe as the Church believes that is to believe that all is true which the Pope and his Clergy will report of themselves it is then an easie matter for them to prove any thing to be true which makes for their turn then they may say The Fathers are for them and that they have their Papal sovereignty from St Peter when there is never a true word in it Then they may frame and forge new Decretals and cut out of the Ancient Writers thâ— which is against them and bring forth spurious writings under their names and tell the people that our Religion begun with Luther for its easie to prove any thing where themselves are the Judges and no witnesses but their own must be heard But if they dare leave that hold and come into the light its easie to evince the novelty of Popery though not of every particular error they hold Obj. 2. If the Church of Rome be a true Church then Popery is a safe way to salvation
But the Church of Rome is a true Church Therefore c. The Antecedent is granted by most Protestants â—he consequence is good for it is the true Religion that maketh a true Church and Popery is their Religion If their Religion be not true their Church is not true If their Religion be true then their Church is true and if Church and Religion be true then they are in a safe way to salvation Answ 1. The word Church doth usually signifie among Christians a Christian society or a company of Christians associated for Gods worship and mutual edification sometime any company of Christians whether so associated or not sometime those are called Christians as distinct from Infidels who profess most of the substance of Christianity but deny some part or who profess the whole substance or the fundamentals though they contradict it again by plain consequence in other superadded points Though these as compared with the Orthodox are wont to be called Hereticks We deny not but that the greatest Papists are such Christians and that as the word Church is applicable to combinations or companies consisting of such materials so far the Romaâ—â—sts are a true Church supposing that we onely speak of Metaphysical Truth But as the word Christian is taken for one that so holdeth the fundamentals of Christian Faith as not to subvert them by plain consequence after he hath professed them so it is yet under dispute whether the Romanists be a true Church and therefore not to be taken as granted However those Protestant Divines that grant them to be a true Church do say that it is but by a Metaphysical verity convertible with the essence but that Morally it is a false Church and not a true as a thief is a True man that is truely a man but he is not a true man that is not an honest faithfull man 2. The thing called The Church of Rome consisteth not of Homogeneal parts or at least that word signifieth several sorts of persons There are some that with the Pope and his Cardinals entertain the full body of Popery and enslave the rest There are multitudes of the people that silently live under them and let them alone and are defiled by them in many things but receive not the great and most dangerous part of their corruption These are not equally to be called the Church nor are they equally in danger of damnation 3. I deny the consequence of the Major Proposition For if the Church of Rome be a true Church it is because they are true Christians and not because they are Papists so that to argue The Church of Rome is a true Church therefore Popery is a safe way to Salvation is as unsound as to argue Gebezi the Leper is a living man Therefore the Leprosie is a thing safe or profitable to mans life Popery is the disease of their Church and Christianity is it that makes them a Church You may well therefore coâ—clude that Christianity is a safe way to heaven but not that Popery is so To the confirmation I answer That the Religion of Papists hath two parts The Christian Religion as they are Christians and that maketh them a true Church if they be one And the Popish corruptions which denominate them Papists and that makes them not a true Church nor is a safe way to salvation Obj. 3. If Papists may be saved then Popery is a safe way to salvation But Papists may be saved Therefore c. Ans To the Antecedent or Minor I answer that Papists be not all of a sort some may be saved and some cannot if they so live and dye If you aske who may and who may not I answer that all those of them that hold the substance of the Christian faith and that practically notwithstanding their errors or that hold no errors but what consist with the Practical holding of the Christian faith these shall be saved But all those that finally hold any error which for matter or manner is inconsistent with the Practical holding of the Christian faith shall be condemned 2. To the consequence of the Major I answer by denying it and that on the aforesaid account If a Papist be saved it is not by Popery but from Popery It is therefore no better reasoning than to say If a Leper may live then the Leprosie is wholsome or a safe to preserve life I have already spoke more to this If such do live it is with more trouble and less â—omfort and it s fewer that live long with it then of other sounder men Men should not cast themselves into a course of great doubt and difficulty as to their salvation and when they have done encourage themselves in it because other men of moderate and charitable mindes are afraid to conclude that they shall certainly be damned Is it not a great probability or danger of damnation very terrible though you were not certain to be damned Obj. 4. There is but one true Church and consequently but one safe way to Heaven That one Church is the Romane Church And therefore they and onely they are in the safe way to Heaven Answ If you speak of the Universal Church which is Christs body there is but one and that is all true Christians But if you speak of particular associations of Christians called particular Churches there are many thousands And so we say that the Church of Rome is at best but one particular Church or one combination of some particular Churches under the Bishop of that City But that Rome or the Romane party are the whole of the Catholike Church of Christ we do with abhorrency deny 2. If the Church of Rome be any part of that Universal Church and so in a state of Salvation or way to it it is not as Papists but as Christians as was said before And therefore though there be but one safe way to Heaven yet that one being not Popery but Christianity why may not other Christians be in a safe way to Heâ—ven as well as the Papists especially who are free from those dangerous diseases wherewith the Papists Christianity is corrupted Obj. 5. That Church which hath Vnity Vniversality Antiquity and unintterupted succession of Pastors and Apostles is the onely true Church and consequently onely in the safe way to Salvation But such is the Church of Rome therefore Answ 1. This concludeth not the point in Question That Popery is a safe way to Salvation 2. We deny the Major and blame them that they still thrust it on us without proof To the particulars 1. If Mahometans have unity or if Satan be not divided against Satan it doth not follow that they have the true Church men may agree in evil 2. where was your universality also when there were scarce seven Bishops left that were free from the plague of Arrianisme Universality absolute so that all errors or other parties should be excluded the Church hath never had the happiness to enjoy since the begining of
Papal infallibility can be proved and so to forsake both Popery and Christianity Then it seems no man can know the Popes infallibility but upon the authority of Gods word which cannot it self be known till that infallibility be known It must be Gods Grant written or unwritten that must prove their infallibility But that word or Grant written or unwritten cannot be known to be of God till we first know their Authority to judge and infallibility in judging It evidently follows therefore according to them that neither one nor the other can be known because no one of them can be known till the other be first known But 2 If we could know the Scripture to be Gods Word before we know their infallibility in judging yet we cannot know the true sence of that Scripture as they confidently tell us first Well then I am one that doubt of the Popes infallibility and demand his proof Bellarmine turns me to Luk. 22. I have prayed that thy faith fail not I must know how I shall be sure that this is the meaning of that Scripture which is so little apparent to an ordinary eye He hath nothing to tell me but that the Church saith so And how shall I know that the Church is in the right Why because it cannot erre And how shall I know that Why by this Text. And so they are amazed in another Circle past recovery For they expresly and frequently tell us that the Scripture is no good evidence but when it is rightly expounded and that no exposition is right but that which is given by the infallible judgement of the Church and so the Popes infallibility cannot be known till the true meaning of Texts be known that prove it and the true meaning of those Texts cannot be known till their infallible judgement be first known What follows therefore but that neither of them can be known The true product of Popery This is the usual success of false arguing for a good cause to overthrow both the cause and argument so do the Papists as much as in them lyes overthrow both Christs Doctrine and their own 3. But let us examine the particular proofs from Scripture that they bring His first proof lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 3. is from Luk. 22. Simon Simon Satan hath desired c. but I have prayed for thee that thy faith faile not and when thou art converted strengthen thy brethren Doth this Text say that the Pope of Rome is infallible Yes if you will take Bellarmines word And first he tells us that among themselves there are three several expositions given of this Text and it is but one of the three that will serve their turn Good still And how shall we know that this one which Bellarmine hit on is the right Let any impartial man peruse his reasons and make his best of them For indeed there is no reason in them But on the contrary I shall presume to tell them why I suppose that this Text doth not talk of the Popes infallibility 1. Because here is never a word either of the Pope or of Rome or of Infallibility 2. Because the thing here promised is expresly restrained to one individual person Simon 3. The thing here promised was about Peters personal Faith and not about infallibility in judging For 1. In that respect that Satan desired to sift Peter in that respect Christ promised the not failing of his Faith But it was in respect of his personal Faith and not his Cathedral judgement that Satan is here said to desire to sift him Therefore c. 2. It is expresly said to be his Faith that should not fail But his Faith is not his tongue or Cathedral sentence words be not Faith 4. It is not all degree of infallibility or not failing that Christ prayeth for to Simon but he onely prayeth that his Faith may not be overcome foreseeing that it would shake and that he would deny him So that this is no promise of perfect Infallibility to Peter himself as appeared by the issue 5. Peter himself was to be converted from some failing Therefore he was not exempted from it And the case here in hand is such as that conversion had respect to Therefore it was not that he should not fail in Cathedral Determinations for he was not converted from such Bellarmine here most immodestly would intimate that the text speaks not of Peters conversion from any sin but of his turning to his brethren to speak to them as if it were When thou turnest thee to speak to thy Brethren strengthen them Nothing but the Popes infallibility or the gross fallibility of common reason could make a learned man think that this is the sence of the Text. 6. The Papists pretend that here is somewhat promised to Peter which the rest of the Apostles were not partakers of But that is not so For if it were as it was that he should not Apostatize the same was given to them all except Judas If it had been that he should be infallible in teaching the Church so were the rest too as well as he The reason therefore of mentioning Peter in particular was because Christ foresaw the temptations and lamentable fall of Peter in denying Christ with cursing and oathes from which he had need of a special conversion that God might not forsake him and give him up to a totall failing of his Faith 7. Two things saith Bellarmine are here obtained for Peter The one is that he himself should never lose the faith nor fall as to his faith The second is that he as Pope should never teach any thing contrary to faith or that none should ever be found in his seat that should so do Of which priviledges saith he perhaps the first did not descend to his successors but doubtless the last did But note here what a pass this learned Cardinal hath brought his great cause to 1. The text speaks but of one thing and not of two Faith is one thing and Cathedral determination is another Doth Christ mean both when he names but one Expresly it is onely the first priviledge that he promiseth Peter and saith not a word of the later It was his Heart and not his tongue that was the seat of faith and that Christ establisheth which is also evident by the issue for sure his tongue failed by speaking against the faith when he curst and swore that he knew not the man 2. Bellarmine confesseth that this priviledge that his own faith should not fail extendeth not perhaps to the Popes so that for all this their faith may fail If so 1. Then the onely priviledge mentioned in the Text extendeth not to them For it speaks of no more The text promiseth them nothing to the Pope but what it never promised to Peter 2. And if it did promise both priviledges to Peter that neither Faith nor tongue should fail how can Bellarmine prove that one part belongeth to the Pope when he confesseth the
the ancient Church do any such thing As other Bishops condemned Heresies as well as the Pope so many a Heresie was judged such by the faithful without any more interposition of the Pope then another Bishop Having seen thus how little their great Champion hath to say for the Popes infallibility I could willingly have look't about me into some of the rest of them to see if they can say any more but that it s known that most of them tread the same path Only I may not over pass the new way that some of them have taken up of late to prove their infallibility and to avoid their common Circle And this you may see in the Jesuites late superficial answer to Chilling worth Forsooth they tell us that when they prove the infallibility of their Church from Scripture it is but for our sakes because we confess the Authority of Scripture but not of their Church But when they go according to the true nature and order of the matter then they set the Church before the Scripture and independantly of it The reason of this Jesuite supposed to be Knot is this Because the Church is before the Scripture and because the Miracles wrought by the Apostles did first prove their own infallibility and from thence secondarily the infallibility of their Doctrine And when we are in high expectations of the proofs of the Romane infallibility by his Arguments which are Independent of Scripture and before the belief of it he tells â—s that it is by the like Aaguments as the Apostles proved their infallibility which he thus enumerateth So the Church of God by the like still continued Arguments and Notes of many great and manifest Miracles Sanctity Sufferings Victory over all sorts of enemies conversion of Infidels all which Notes are daily more and more conspicuous and convincing and shall be encreasing the longer the world shall last And withall he tells us that These Miracles c. prove them to be infallible in All things and not onely in some or else we cannot know which those some be and what to believe and what not Thus you have the sum of the new Fundamentals of the Romish faith and of the famous confutation of Chillingworth But all these Knots are easily losed without cutting yea shake them onely and they fall loose like Juglers Knots 1. We easily grant that Christ the head of the Church was before the Doctrine by himself delivered in the flesh as it containeth many things superadded to the old Testament and the doctrine of John Baptist 2. It s evident that Christ himself gathered his first Gospel-Church by preaching his Doctrine that is he drew them to be his Disciples by convincing them that he was the Messiah the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world so that this his Doctrine was before this his Church 3. We grant that the Apostles were Apostles before themselves did preach the Gospel as Apostles But it was the Gospel and preacht by Christ before they preach't it 4. We easily grant that both Apostles and Gospel were long before the writing of this Gospel which we call the holy Scriptures 5. We grant that the Apostles Miraculous works did sufficiently prove not some onely but all the Doctrine which they delivered to the Church or any part of it in the name of Christ and as his For though they confirmed onely those Doctrines which were delivered in execution of their Commission yet seeing God would not have set to this seal if they had gone beyond and against their Commission therefore it also assureth us that they kept close to it But this proved them not infallible before they received that Commission nor afterward in any point which they should deliver as their private opinion which they fathered not on the Inspiration of the Spirit The Apostles were not infallible about Christs Death Resurrection and Ascension when they understood them not The Disciples were not infallible about the Acceptableness of Infants to Christ when they forbad them to be brought Thomas was not infallible about Christs Resurrection when he believed it not Peter was not infallible when he gave Christ that Satanical councel for which he was â—antum non almost excommunicated Mat 16.22 23. Even presently after the great promise to him Nor when he denyed that he knew Christ with curses and oathes nor when he dissembled and Barnabas with him Gal. 2. 6. We maintain that the Apostles Doctrine thus sealed by Miracles and Delivered in Writing to the Churches doth carry with it an Attestation from God of its infallibility if there be never more Miracle wrought in the world For the proof of this I refer the Reader to my Determination in a Book Intitled The Vnreasonableness of Infidelity 7. It is this sealed Doctrine contained in Scripture and preached by Ministers which converteth men to Christ and maketh them Christians and therefore it is in order before the present Church and the cause of it 8. We deny and confidently deny that God hath Commissioned the Pope to do the work which he Commissioned the Apostles to do and gave them the power of Miracles to confirme that is to Attest the Works Sufferings Resurrection and words of Christ as eye or ear witnesses of them from himself and to be the first promulgators of some of his Laws to the universal Church and to deliver down an infallible sealed Scripture to all succeeding Ages and by the ordinary working of Miracles to convince the unbelieving world Let him shew his Commission for this Apostleship if he would be believed 9. We as confidently deny that the Pope is a Prophet or is inspired by the Holy Ghost as the Prophets and Apostles were that so they might infallibly deliver us Christs doctrine 10. And they cannot expect that we should believe till we have some proof of it that the Pope or the Church of Rome hath the Power of working Miracles or are endowed with a spirit of Miracles or that they can convince those that deny the Scriptures by their own Miracles that they are the true Church or that ever they confirmed those points by Miracles which is now called Popery Thus much to let the Jesuite know where we differ from him And now to the point We call for his proofs which he here mentioneth to us in general names Non esse non apparere are to us all one Give us sufficient proof of your sealing the Doctrine of Popery by Miracles or the Popes Infallibility by Miracles as the Apostles did the Scriptures and their preaching and then you shall carry the cause and we profess that we will rejoycingly pass into your Tents and proclaim you Prophets or Apostles of Christ But when we live among you and so did our Fathers before us and hear you prate and boast of Miracles when we cannot see that ever you did so much as make a dead flea alive again nor cannot see the least Miracle from you if we would
ride or go as far as our horse or legs can carry us to see it what can we take you for but the most shameless sort of cheaters If you could accuse us of negligence as if we might see your Miracles if we would but travail for it or of unbelief as if we denyed that which we have evidence of we might bear the blame but there 's no such thing I profess as weak as I am I would go many a hundred miles to see such Miracles as you boast of if I had sufficient ground of expectation that I might not lose my labor And I would read over any Volumes that I were able to find suciffient Testimony of them But where is this testimony Knot refers us to Brierly and others to such like reciters of their Fables And when all is done there are three sorts of Miracles that they speak of 1. The Miracles of the Apostles and first Churches mention in Scripture and these are against Popery so that we may well say that the doctrine which contradicteth Popery is confirmed by Miracles in that the Scripture is so confirmed 2. The Miracles of the following Churches till six hundred These were comparatively few and less certain and fabulous mixtures in many of the reports of them But whatever they were they were no confirmation of the Popes Infallibility or universal Episcopacy or Jurisdiction which neither the Instruments of those Miracles nor any man else on earth as far as can be proved did then believe And whereas there were some Ceremonious fopperies that were then used which the Papists do yet use and would perswade us that these Miracles were confirmations of them we deny it and profess the nullity of their pretended proofs They say If they be not infallible in all things how can we believe them in any thing I answ Because that 1. Their Miracles are expressed Attestations to some thing that is to Christianity but not to all things that they may think Nor could they ever work a Miracle to confirm such private opinions 2. And the substance of Christianity which their Miracles do attest were more unquestionable before attested by Scripture and former Miracles whereas the errors which they introduced are contradicted by Scripture and the Miracles that attested it And whereas they would make the Apostles case to be like that of the Fathers It is very much different For though the Apostles Miracles were attestations to all their doctrine as well as to some part that was because they were Officers Commissioned by Christ to that work to deliver his doctrine first to the world as inspired infallible men and to seal it to posterity for future certainty But the Fathers had no such work in Commission but onely to preach the doctrine thus sealed and delivered them by the Apostles and therefore their Miracles were to another more private and restrained use according to their Commissions and work that is to convert those persons to the faith that knew of them by a subservient attestation so that it could oblige none to believe them in other things much less in their mistakes 3. The third sort of Miracles are those of later times contained in their Legends And seriously would the Jesuites perswade us that these are of equal authority with the Miracles mentioned in Scripture or any whit like them I have given you a taste of some of them in the former Disputation more you may see of their ridiculous vanity in Doctor Franc. Whites Defence of his Brother pag. 147.148 We must believe Baronius that Saint Fulbeck suck't our Ladyes brests And Antonine that Saint Dominick walk't in the rain and was not wet and his Books lying all night in the river were taken out dry and without hurt That the same Fryer spyed the Devil sitting in the Church like a Sparrow and calling him to him deplumed him and so put him to a great reproach And that he made the Divel hold him the candle in his bare fingers till they were burnt that a leacherous Priest by kissing his hand was cured of incontinency That Saint Bernard by blessing their Ale and giving it some lewd persons to drink caused Gods Grace to enter into them That he made an old Grandame of above fourscore years old to give suck to the Infant when the mother was dead That he killed Flyes by Excommunication and excommunicated the Divel and thereby disabled him from lying with women That Saint Francis turned a Capon into a Fish and water into wine made the Rock send forth water and Anchors to swimme Preacheth to Birds and Beasts to praise God till they were so attentive to his doctrine that they would let him touch them and would not depart till he gave them leave and had blessed them with the sign of the Cross converted a cade Lamb by preaching to him so that he would frequent the Church of his own accord and kneel before the Altar of our Lady at the Elevation of the Host By which example Surius calleth on the Hereticks to learn to worship the Blessed Virgin and to adore the Sacrament Also that he caused Swallows Grashoppers and a wild Falcon to joyn with him in the Praises of God Abundance more of the like more foppish and too many to be here meddled with their Legends are full of And these are their proofs of their true Church and infallibility by which they may be known by them that believe not the Scripture I think indeed that these proofs are well said to be Independent of Scripture for the less a man believes the Scripture the more he is like to believe these But by what certain or probable Testimony shall we know that ever such things were done What! must we needs believe every doting Fryer that gives us but his bare word and that many a year if not age after these Miracles are supposed to be wrought Must we believe them that so shamefully contradict one another Math. Paris saith that Saint Francis was branded with his five wounds fifteen dayes before he dyed But Bonaventure Vincentius and Surius say he had them two years before he dyed Nay must we belive as the very foundation of our Faith that which the Papists themselves believe not How commonly do they among themselves deride these stories as pious fraudes and some of them soundly chide the Authors I will at this time cite but the words of one and that is no Babe even Melch. Canus whom Bellarmine referreth us to so oft Lib. 11. cap. 6. pag. mihi 33.34 Quidam enim corum aut veritatis amore inducti aut ingenuâ— pudoris c. That is Some of them the Heathen Historians either induced with the love of Truth or in ingenuous modesty did so far abhor a lye that perhaps we should be now ashamed that some heathen Historians were truer then ours I speak rather with grief then in reproach the Lives of the Philosophers are much more severely that is truely
and many thousand more Therefore those past Miracles should prove all Bishops infallible that succeeded them 2. Quest I desire also to know whether it be your Pope himself that Works these Miracles or some other persons And if others whether it be onely some of your Church or all If it be the Pope himself why then have we more murthers then Miracles charged on your Popes by your own historians and why will not his holiness do some Miracles in charity to poor Hereticks Why do you boast no more of you Popes Miracles One I confess we read of in the Golden Legend that Pope Leo the first by the means of a woman kissing his hand was so vehemently tempted with lust that he was fain to cut his hand off but the Virgin Mary having compassion on him joyned his hand to his body again But this is no foundation of our faith But it s plain that it is Saint Becket and Saint Brigit and Saint Katharine that you send us to for Miracles and not to the Pope And then I would further know whether one mans Miracles will prove another man infallible unless they were wrought in confirmation of the assertion of that other mans infallibility It should rather prove Saint Brigit and Saint Katharine infallible that are said to have the Revelations and Miracles then the Pope that had none Would it prove the Patriarch of Constantinople infallible if any one that is under his Government should work a Miracle Or are you sure that there is no Miracle wrought among the Grecians Abassines or Armenians Moreover if you are All Miracle Workers why can we never see one nor have certain proof of one But if it be but some very few of you as good as none how will that prove the infallibility of your whole Church When the Apostles wrought Miracles that proved their own infallibility but that proved not the infallibility of all in the Church nor of every teacher in it nor of the greater number of them 3. Quest If your Pope and Church be proved infallible by such Miracles as the Apostles were doth it not follow then that all your Popes are inspired persons or Prophets as the Apostles were by which the gift of infallibility was conveyed to them 4. Quest Yea will it not follow that all your Church are inspired Prophets if all your Church be thus infallible But you cannot expect that we should too easily believe these If you have Apostolick infallibility grounded on the like Miracles then must you not be each one dis-junctly infallible as the Apostles were and not onely altogether 5. Quest And is it not plain then that all your dictates are Gods word if you have the same seal and inspiration as the Apostles had And so your Pope at least if not each one of you must make us new Revelations or new Scripture And is not this hainous arrogancy thus to equal your selves with Prophets and Apostles when you are none They could but be infallible and so you say is the Pope They could but seal their doctrine by Miracles and so you say doth your Church 6. Quest Will you grant that we are all infallible here in England if we can prove any Miracles done among us and by us 7. Quest Is it not absolutely necessary to the validity of the Testimony of a Miracle that it be not controled by some greater Miracle or evidence Otherwise the Magicians in Egypt and â—imon Magus might have gone away with better reputation But your pretended Miracles are conâ—rolled by far greater and surer and therefore of no force For yours are to confirm a doctrine contrary to the Scripture which was confirmed by many surer Miracles This we are still ready to prove though here we take it for certain but you use to decline that tâ—yal 8. Quest Is not every Priest infallible and every Church that hath the Eucharist according to your doctrine For sure Transubstantiation is a Miracle I do not think you will deny it And a Priest even in deadly sin may be an instrument of this Miracle if your Church be infallible Is there then no Eucharist among the Abassines Greeks or any that subject not to you Or are they all infallible And if Miracles be as common as Transubstantiation the priviledge proved by them must be as common So much to Master Knots first proof of his Infallibility without Scripture His second Independent proof is Sanctity But Sir 1. Are all Saints infallible Sure you dare not say so 2. Will the Sanctity of one man as Saint Francis or Saint Dominicke prove the infallibility of the Pope that hath no Sanctity By what means Rather if Saints be infallible a Murdering Simoniacal Drunken Fornicating Pope as yours confess many of them were are not like to be infallible especially Saint Brigit cannot make the Pope infallible by that Sanctity that would not make or prove her self infallible 3. Who must be judge of your Sanctity and ours Your selves no doubt For my part if my salvation lay wholly upon the passing of a righteous censure between us in this point I must needs profess that even in England where the Papists should be of their best sort because it is not the common way of the Nation but a discountenanc't way and where they are but few yet I have known so few of them that have not been common Swearers Cursers Drunkards Whoremongers or the like and yet fewer that ever manifested any serious minding of God and the life to come or any experience of the work of Sanctification on their hearts and who shewed any more holiness than what say in certain ceremonies words gestures or other formalities and on the contrary I know so many Protestants of heavenly hearts as far as I can judge and obedient lives that there is no comparison in my most impartial judgement between Papists and Protestants in matter of holiness If this therefore be the proof of infallibility sure God will excuse me if I take England to be as infallible as Rome because he requires me not to put out my eyes nor to say the Swan is black and the Crow white because the Pope shall say so before me And yet we still disclaim all pretences to such infallibility The third mark that Knot brings is their Sufferings But 1. Sure the Pope suffers but little in this life but in the next let him look to himself How then do other mens sufferings prove him infallible 2. Do not the poor Greek Churches and other Christians under the Turks suffer more then the Romanists 3. Do they not make us suffer incomparably more then they Is it not impudence almost inhumane after the murder of so many thousands of the Albigenses Waldenses Bohemians after the Massacres in France Savoy Ireland the burnings in England the Powder-Plot after their bloody inquisition of so long continuance and the rest of this kind to tell the remnant of their surviving neighbors that their sufferings prove them
infallible while our sufferings prove us Heretical 4. Is it not ambition and desire of Rule that is the very cause which they contend for What 's the unreconcileable quarrel so much as that all the world will not be subject to them And yet the sufferings of these men prove them infallible If one Butcher Henry the third of France and another Henry the fourth and others would blow up the English Parliament with Gunpowder is the Pope infallible if some of these be hanged Or what if some of them have suffered from infidels Are not others as ready so to suffer as they and have suffered as much as they The next mark that he layes down is Victory over all sorts of enemies But is it over their minds or over their bodies that they mean If the first who must be judge of their victories but themselves I never heard any of them plead their cause but in my judgement they had the worst There iâ— no party but may turn divers others to their opinions Mahomet hath got far more followers in the world then Christ and Heathenism than either If Papists can turn all these why do they suffer themselves still to be confined to so small a part of the world And if it be victory over mens bodies that they mean I say the like Have not the Turkes a larger Dominion than the Pope Have they conquered the Great Turk the Great Mogol the Grand Cham of Tartary c Are we not as infallible as they on this account when we conquer them It seems then when Papists are so industrious to enlarge their Dominions to destroy their enemies by Poysoning or stabbing Kings or other means it is that they may have a further Testimony of their infallibility The last mark which the Jesuite mentioneth is the conversion of Infidels But 1 If that be a sure Mark we are infallible as well as they For we have been means of converting Infidels And so have the Greek Churches and others that disown the Popes infallibility 2. If that Argument be good then it was not only the Apostles but all that converted Infidels at the first or after preaching of the Gospel that were infallible which sure they never pretended to 3. If it will prove any body infallible it s liker to prove them so that did convert any Infidels then the Pope that onely gives them leave or order to do it 4. Let them not boast too much of their conversions till we have a better character of their new made Christians and a better report of their means of conversion then Acosta and other of their own Jesuites give us who have been eye witnesses of the case To cut men off by thousands or millions and force the rest to Baptism as cattle to watering when they have nothing of a Christian but the name and that sign and some forget the name it self this is not a conversion much to be boasted of Nor must they think that all are Christians that the King of Spain conquereth for love of their Gold and Silver Mines The Apostles did not convert Infidels by an Army but by the word and miracles but it is the King of Spaines souldiers that have been the effectual preachers to work the conversions that you have most to glory in If the Jesuit had put his proofs into well formed Arguments what stuff should we have had So much for the Answer to Chilling worth and the new Fundamentals of the Romish faith by which they can prove their Pope infallible without being beholden to Scripture for its help And I marvaile not at their contempt of Scripture-Testimony to them unless there were more or more appearance for them then there is Having considered the Papists proof of their infallibility I shall next though it be more then the cause obligeth me to say somewhat to prove the Negative and so proceed to my second Argument against them Argu. 2. If the common senses of sound men or their sensible apprehensions be infallible then the Pope with his pretended General Council is fallible But the common senses of sound men are infallible Therefore c. I know not how we should come neerer hand with a Papist nor to plainer dealing then to argue from common sense And as to the Antecedent Either sense is infallible or it is not If it be I have that I seek If not then mark what follows 1. Then no man can be sure that the Christian Religion is true For the proofs of it all vanish if sense be not infallible If you plead the Miracles of Christ and his Disciples no man was sure that he saw them If you plead the death and Resurrection and Ascension of Christ no man was sure he saw them and therefore could give no assurance of it to another All the Disciples senses and the worlds senses were or might be for ought we know deceived Nor are you sure that any writings or traditions came down to us from the Apostles For the eyes of the Readers and the ears of the hearers might be deceived 2. And then most certainly the Pope himself and all his Clergy are fallible For they cannot be sure of that which the Apostles and following Church were not sure of Nor can they be sure that in reading and hearing their eyes deceive them not And I take it for granted that the Pope and his Clergy do use their senses and by them receive these matters into their intellect Nay if sense be fallible no man in the Church of Rome can tell whether there be any such place as Rome or any such person as the Pope at all or ever was Nay what else can any man be sure of I suppose you will marvail why I bestow so many words on such a point But you see what men we have to deal with When all the quarrel between us must be issued by this point whether common sense be infallible For if it be we infallibly carry the cause Yea whether it be or be not as shall appear I come next therefore to prove the consequence and that I do thus The judgement of the Pope and his pretended General Council is directly contradictory to the apprehension or judgement of common sense therefore if common sense be infallible the Pope and his Council are fallible The consequent is unquestionable the Antecedent I prove by this known Instance Common sense takes it to be bread and Wine that remaineth after the words of consecration The Pope and his Council say it is not Bread nor Wine that remains after the words of consecration therefore the judgement of the Pope and his Council is directly contradictory to the apprehension of common sense For the first I appeal to the senses of all men that ever received the Eucharist Whether seeing feeling smelling and tasting do not as plainly take it to be Bread and Wine as they do any other Bread or Wine at their own tables and whether they can see or taste or smell
forbear to reckon up any more because the Reader may find it done so fully already in so many and the excuses of Bellarmine by Chamier and many others so fully answered and because it is a thing so far out of question that nothing but gross ignorance or impudency can deny it It is so common a thing for Popes to contradict and repeal one anothers Decrees that their Platina in vita Stephani saith Following Popes do alway either infringe or wholly abrogate the Decrees of the former Popes Erasmus Annot. in 1 Cor. 7. saith Pope John the 22. and Pope Nicolas are contrary one to another in their whole degrees and that in things that seem to belong to the business of Faith Lyra in Mat. 16. saith that Some Popes have Apostatized Occham shews that many things in the Docretals do savor of Heresie One Pope teacheth Emanuel King of Portugal to marry two sisters Another teacheth our King Henry 8 to marry his brothers wife And even Pope Paul 4. with his Council of Trent decree that it should be lawful for him to allow those degrees to marry together which God in Leviticus had forbidden and to forbid those which God had allowed which was a judicial error of the Pope and his Council as many more in that Council were But I will add another Argument like the last which is as followeth Argu. 4. If the Pope be infallible then all the writings of all Popes are of infallible verity But all the writings of all Popes are not of infallible verity Therefore the Pope is not infallible The consequence of the Major Proposition will be denyed by Bellarmine unless it be limited to such writings by which the Pope doth teach the Church in matters of faith Though indeed they will never prove him infallible in Teaching the Church while they confess him fallible in his own judgement yet let us for disputation sake grant them this But then for the proof also of the Minor I proceed thus All the Theological writings of Leo Gregory Gelasius Nicolus 1. Adrian 6. and other Popes are not infallible But all these writings were to teach the Church in matters of faith Therefore all the Popes writings which are to teach the Church in matter of Faith are not infallible I think no â—ober Papist will maintain that all these writings are infallible And that they are written about matters necessary to be believed or done for our salvation is evident to any man that readeth them And if they were not written to teach the Church to what end were they written Do Popes publish writings about matters of Religion and not to teach the Church by them If they say it is but to teach part of the Church I answer 1. What part is it and where is the limitation expressed for example of Gregories Dialogues Morals de officio Pastoris c. 2. The Pope in a Provincial Council may teach but part of the Church and yet Bellarmine saith that he is there infallible Moreover if all the Popes writings be infallible from his gift of infallibility then they are equal to the Scriptures nay what are they but Gods word and all Popes are Apostles or Prophets that is inspired men of which more anon but that 's false Therefore Obj. These writings come not from the Pope as Pope but as a private Doctor and so he may err Answ Can the Pope lay by his relation when he is teaching the Church do it as a meer private Doctor when he is not a meer private Doctor It is a hard strait that the Papists are in to tell us and themselves when the Pope teacheth as a private Doctor and when as Pope They are never likely to be agreed about this among them And all that we have for it is but the private word of Bellarmine and some such disputers but we have no Scripture Canon or Decretal to tell us how we shall know one from the other If therefore we have no infallible means to know when the Pope teacheth as a Pope and when as private Doctor then we have no infallible means to know when he teacheth infallibly But the former is most certain therefore so is the later And so if the Pope were infallible it would do us no good If they draw forth rational probabilities and make every private man judge of them they may as well warrant men by such means to judge of the sence of Scripture which they so much abhor Argu. 5. If General Councils be infallible or to be credited then the Pope is fallible But according to one party of the Papists a General Council is infallible therefore the Pope is fallible The consequence of the Major is easily proved 1. Because General Councils have differed from the Pope 2. Yea they have deposed divers Popes and that for heresie charging divers Articles against them as also for wickedness of life The Council at Pisa deposed two Popes at once Gregory the 12. and Benedict the 13. and in the tenor of their deprivation call them Notorious schismaticks hereticks departed from the faith scandalizing the whole Church cut off from the Church unworthy the Papacy The Council of Constance deposed the same Pope Benedict again commanding all men to esteem him as an heretick and schismatick The same Council deposed also John 23. accused for holding and defending as his judgement that there is no eternal life nor immortality of the soul nor resurrection of the dead and so was a stark infidel Concerning this Pope I would desire the impartial Reader to observe what a miserable answer Bellarmine is put to give and whether it do not plainly give up their whole cause His words are these de Pontif. li. 4. c. 14. Respondeâ— Johannem 23. non fuisse Pontificem omnino certum indubitatum proinde non necessario esse defendendum erant enim eo tempore tres qui Pontifices haberi volebant Gregorius 12. Benedictus 13. Johannes 23. nec poterat facile judicari quis corum verus ac legitimus esset Pontifex cum non deessent singulis doctissimi patroni That is I answer that John the 23. was not a Pope altogether certain and undoubted and therefore it is not necessary that he be defended for at that time there were three that would be taken for Popes Gregory the 12. Benedict the 13. and John 23. and it could not easily be judged which of them was true and lawful Pope seeing there were not wanting to each of them most learned Patrons So far Bellarmine Where observe 1. That even learned men yea General Councils and the Church may be uncertain which is the true Pope It s worth the enquiring then whether they be not uncertain that the Romane succession is interrupted and uncertain at that time whether God had any word or what was the sence of it and whether it was certain to them that the Church failed not when they had no certainty of the
extraordinary way it was given to them that they could not be deceived or erre But are these priviledges therefore granted to the Pope or to other Bishops And what is the infallibility that this Doctor resolveth his Faith into Let it be observed whether it be neerer the Miracles of Knot or to the universal Tradition of Chillingworth Pag. 174 175. He hath these words Statuendum 20. juxta superius stabilita principia Ecclesia soliditatem in fide seu in fidei divinae Catholicae in haerendi certitudinem infallibilitatem non in privilegio aliquo aut sedi Romanae Deo authore concesso aut S. Petri successori Pontifici Romano divinitus impartilo c. Sed universae Catholicae traditioni Ecclesia speciali Dei providentia Christi Domini promissis fulcitae praecipue tribuendam esse postea Deinde Catholicae universae traditionis rationem omnibus ommino fidei divinae dogmatibus pernecessariam esse Traditioniis vero medium seu testimonium adeâ— publicum universale apartum esse debere ut sensibus ipsis externis fidelibus omnibus Christianis oporteat constare That is The Churches infallibility and certainty of faith Is not in any privilege either granted by God as the Author to the See of of Rome or bestowed from God on the Pope of Rome as Saint Peters successor but it s chiefly to be attributed to the tradition of the universal and Catholicke Church upheld by the special providence of God and the promises of Christ And the account of this Catholike and universal Tradition is most necessary to all points of divine faith And the means or Testimony of this Tradition must be so publike universal and open that it must be manifest to all Christians to their very outward senses I confess this Doctor allows us pretty fair quarter in comparison of many others of his party If they will but give us such Open publike universal certain Tradition which must be known to the very outward senses of every Christian we shall be very ready to comply with them in receiving such a Testimony But if all the Romish Traditions had been such they would be known to all Christians as well as to the Pope and not lock't up in his Cabinet and our selves should sure have known them before now if we be Christians Quest 5. To proceed I am very desirous to know whether it be upon the credit of the present Church Pope or Council or of those former that are dead and gone that we must receive our faith and the Scriptures Or upon both If it be on the credit of any former Church then would I know of which age whether of the neerest or the middle or of the first and remotest age that is from the Apostles and the Church in their dayes If from the last age then 1. How know we their Testimony If it be by their writings Canons or Decrees why cannot other men who are much wiser and better understand these as well as the Pope And why do they not refer us to those writings but to their own determinations If it be by the Fathers telling the children what hath formerly been believed then why cannot I tell what my Father told me without the Pope and better then the Pope that never knew him 2. And then it must be known upon whose credit the former ages did receive that faith and Scripture which they deliver down to us Doubtless they will say from their predecessors and they again from their predecessors and so up to the Apostles And why then may not we take it immediately on the credit of the Apostles as well as the first ages did supposing that we have the mediation of a sure hand to deliver to us their writings without meditation of the like inspired prophetical persons or of any priviledged infallible judge of the faith And if it be on this Testimony of former ages that we must receive the Scripture as the word of God I shall then proceed further to demand Quest 6. Why may not the Greeks Abassines Protestants c. that acknowledge not the Popes authority or infallibility receive the Scripture as the word of God as well as the Papists Do they think that none else in the world but they can tell what was the judgement of the former Church What records or Tradition have they which all the rest of the world is ignorant of Or dare they say if they have the face of Christians that none of all the Christians on earth but Papists onely have any sufficient evidence that the Scripture was written by the Apostles and delivered from them and that this is it which is now in the Church Can no man indeed but a Papists know the Scripture to be the word of God upon justifiable grounds But if it be on the credit of the present Church or both that we must take the Scripture to be Gods word then I shall further desire to be informed Quest 7. What is it which they call the present Church Is it 1. The whole number of the faithful 2. Or a major vote or part 3. Or the Bishops or Presbyters in whole or part 4. Or a Council chosen from among them 5. Or the Pope If the first Quest 8 Do they not then make all Christians infallible as well as the Pope And so they are in sensu composito in the essentials of Christianity and the whole Church shall never deny those essentials but 1. whole particular Churches may and 2. the whole Church may erre some smaller errors against the revealed will of God the Apostle telleth us that we know but in part and as in many things we offend all so in many things we err all And moreover if this be their sense Quest 9. Will it not then follow that the Pope cannot be proved infallible because it is most certain that All the Church doth not take him to be infallible no nor the greatest part of Christians in the world Yea if they will take none for Christians but Papists yet it will hence follow that there is no certainty that either Pope or Council are infallible For the French take a Pope to be fallible and the Italians and others take a General Council to be fallible and therefore the whole Popish Church being not agreed of it we cannot be sure that either of them is infallible And moreover on this ground I demand Quest 10. How shall we know in very many cases at least either which is the judgement of the whole Church or of the major part What opportunity have we to take the account Or can no poor Christian believe the word of God that cannot take an account of this through the world The same Question also I would put if they take all or most of the Pastors for this Church Quest 11. But if they take a General Council for the Church I would first know How we shall be sure that ever there hath at least these
thousand years been ever a true General Council in the world The Popish Doctors as Doctor Holden de Resolut fid li. 1. cap. 9. pag. 156. say that It must arise to that degree of universality that there may not be any suspicion of conspiracies and combined factions that so every prudent man may be able heartily to say that the Assemblies are truely General And is it so when there are none but the sworn obliged vassals of the Pope of Rome and the Greeks Ethiopians Protestants c. and most of the Church are absent and when it is a known combination to promote their own espoused cause Quest 12. And then is the whole foundation of Divine faith extinct and lost when there is no General Council It may be we may have no General Council of a hundred or six hundred or a thousand years together Have we no Church then Or no certainty of Scripture or of the faith If they say that we are certain by the determinations of former Councils then they speak of the Church that is past and gone of which I moved the doubts before And the Canons of these we can read and understand as well as the Pope But when we appeal to former Councils and Ages they would hold us to the present Church and that must be their own and so be sure to be judges in their own cause Q. 13 I would know also whether it were by the judgment of a General Council that the first Churches believed the Scripture to be Gods word Did not the Church of Rome believe the Epistle to the Romanes and the Church of Corinth believe the Epistle to the Corinthians and so the rest to be the word of God as soon as they received them by an undoubted messenger from Paul Or did they stay till they had the judgement of a General Council or of all the Churches Indeed they made use of the intervening humane but certain testimony of him that was the messenger or bearer of the Epistle to know that it was the writing of Paul indeed and so we still maintain the necessity of a credible humane Testimony that these writings came from the Apostles hands But Tychicus or Trophimus or Timothy or Onesâ—mus were not a General Council nor the whole Church And doubtless those Epistles that were written to each particular Church were received by all the rest of the Churches upon the credit of that particular Church as having received it from an Apostle and not that the particular received it from the universal How did the universal Church know that those Epistles were written by Paul to Titus Timothy Philemon to the Ephesians c. but on the report of the persons and Church to whom they were written or else of those particular persons or Churches to whom the Apostle did communicate a copy of them Quest 14. And how did all the Church know the Scripture to be Gods word before the Council of Nice when there had been no General Council to â—etermine the business Quest 15. Dare a Papist undertake to justifie at Gods judgement all that part of the unbelieving world for not taking the Scripture for the word of God who have seen or heard it and had all other â—estimonies of it but never knew of the Testimony of the Pope or a General Council Shall none of â—hese perish for this unbelief Quest 16. And if it be the Pope that they call â—he Church and take it to be this infallible judge â— then demand How knows the Pope that the Scripture is Gods word or that the Christian Faith is â—rue The like also I ask of a Council How doth that Council know it themselves from whom we must know it Either the Pope and Council must believe it because they first believe themselves and so take it on their own words or else on the words of some others â—f the former then they Believe it because they Believe â—t then they are the original of their own belief and believe themselves first and then would have all the world to believe them And this is not onely to be â—o arrogant as to be the God of themselves and the Church but also so impudent and unreasonable as to believe themselves without reason and to expect that all others should do so too But if it be not from themselves that the Pope and Council believe the Scriptures from whom then is it not from any others of the present Church doubtless therfore it must be from the former Church And if so 1. Have not we the same means to know that the former Church believed the Scriptures as the Pope hath and therefore may believe it without recourse to him and as infallibly as he 2. And then it seems that acccording to their doctrine the Pope and his Council receive not their faith or the Scriptures on the same ground as all the rest of the Church must do so that the Church must have a twofold foundation of her faith whereof one is necessary only to one part and not to the other that is All the rest of the Church must believe the Scripture to be Gods word because the presenâ— Pope or Council saith so having first believed the infallibility but the Pope and Council themselveâ— need not any such ground of their faith And this distinction is not made between the Laity and the Clergy in general But even the Clergy themselves out of Council or who never were of the Council which sure is more then a hundred for one must thuâ— differ from the Pope and Council in the foundation of their Faith This is another taste of the famous Romane unity Paul saith there is One Faith bâ—â— if two divided Foundations or Reasons of Belieâ— do make two Beliefs surely the Church of Rome hatâ— two Quest 17. Do you believe that the Lord Jesâ— Christ understood the doctrine of your Papal Authority and infallibility when he so chid his Apostles foâ— striving who should be greatest and telleth them so expresly that the Kings of the Gentiles exercise Authority over them and are called Gracious Lords but with you it shall not be so And when he sets before them a little child and telleth them that he that will be greatest among them must be as that child that is that humility is the thing that they must strive to be great or excell in and so to serve one another in love Also when he commandeth them to call no man on earth Father or Master that is of their Faith Did ever Christ direct the world to go to the Church of Rome to know whether he be the Christ or whether the Scripture be his word or not Quest 18. Where is the Faith of the Church when the Pope is dead and when there are three or four at a time and when there is an interruption by Schisme thirty years together as it is known there hath been Hath not the Church then lost her faith by losing the foundation of it Or
of his contradictions Did it never come into the mind of Celsus Porphyry or any other unbeliever that we read of to doubt of and object against this fundamental infallibility O what an incredible thing is this Yea and yet the more incredible will it appear if you consider that all the whole cause between the Christians and the Infidels according to the Popish conceit must depend upon this one point of their infallibility For what man will be so mad as to contradict the Church if he once believe that the Church is infallible Can they think that all the learned Heathens were such fools It must needs be therefore that their first stop must be at the Major proposition even at this principle of the Churches infallibility and therefore certainly their most objections would have been against it and the most of the Christian Doctors labor would have been in the defending of it But that its certain they then believed no such thing and the Church was at that time utterly unacquainted with the foundation of the present Romish faith Moreover if this Popish foundation had been then known do you think that the Fathers would not have appealed to Rome for a decision of all their perplexing controversies What readier way to have silenced all gain-sayers and ended all strifes and to have saved the labor of so many volumes then to have bestowed their pains with all dissenters upon this one point alone That Rome is infallible and then have sent them thither for satisfaction in all the rest Common reason must needs have told men of such principles that this was the way But do we find that this way was taken How come we then to have so many volumes of the Fathers controversal writings and not one Book or Chapter or leaf or line to prove the Romane infallibility And because the order of our discourse hath brought us up to the judgement of the Fathers I shall here give you a brief taste of their judgement in this point and so conclude this argumentation In the contention about Easter day between the Eastern Western Churches Policrates with the Asian Bishops resisted the Popes judicial determination anno 198. And therefore doubtless they believed not his infallibility nor universal jurisdiction In the Council of Nice the first that subscribed was Eustathius Patriarch of Antioch before the Legates of the Bishop of Rome Theodor. li. 1. c. 7. So did Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spain as Athanas Apolog. 2. In the Council of Africk the Popes Legates had the last place Conc. Afric Can. 100. In the Council of Calcedon there was 157. subscribed before Philip the Popes Legate In the fifth Council of Constantinople Menna their Bishop was President Evangri l. 4. c. 38. And if the Pope had not then so much as the Presidency how much less an universal jurisdiction with infallibility When Stephen the Bishop of Rome determined judicially against rebaptizing Hereticks and excommunicated Firmilianus for not assenting and wrote to Cyprian about it what did they do Did they either submit to the judgement of the Pope as infallible or obey him as their universal Ruler No but Cyprian Firmilian with the rest of the Bishops did unanimously joyn against the Popes decree I would fain know by what spectacles the Papists can read these words of Cyprians to find out their infallibility in them In his Epist 74. ad Pempeium he saith thus I have sent a Copy of our Brother Stephens letters which when you read you will see his error more and more who endeavoureth to maintain the cause of Hereticks against the Christians and against the Church of God For among things which he writeth either proudly or nothing to the purpose or contrary to himself and ignorantly and unadvisedly he addeth c. Here mentioning Pope Stephens pleading of Tradition he saith Whence is that tradition Is it from the Authority of the Lord and the Gospel Comes it from the commands and Epistles of the Apostle For that we must do those things that are written God testifieth and propoundeth to Joshua saying Let not this Book of the Law depart out of thy mouth c. If therefore it be contained in the Gospel Epistles or in the Acts then let this Divine and holy Tradition be observed What obstinacy is this And what presumption to prefer Humane Tradition before Divine appointment and not to consider that God is angry and offended as oft as humane Tradition doth lose or pass by the commands of God As Isaiah saith This people honoureth me with their lips but their hearts are far from me in vain do they worship me teaching the doctrines and commendements of men and as the Lord in the Gospel reproveth them Yee reject the commandments of God to establish your Tradition So Paul 1 Tim. 6.3 If any teach otherwise and rest not in the wholsome words of our Lord Jesus Christ and of his doctrine he is proud or lifted up with stupidity knowing nothing from such we must depart The custome which hath crept in with some ought not to hinder the truth from prevailing and overcoming For custome without Truth is but antiquity of error therefore leaving error let us follow truth It is through a study of presumption and contumacy that a man will rather defend his own wicked and false opinions than consent to anothers that are right and true Paul therefore saith that a Bishop must be no quarreller but mild and teachable for a Bishop must not onely teach but be taught And there is a speedy way for Religious and simple minds to lay down error and to find and disclose the Truth For if we return to the Head and Original of Gods tradition humane error ceaseth and whatsoever was in cloudy darkness it opened in the light of truth If the water Pipes be stopt do we not run to the fountain to see what 's the matter So now must the Priests of God that keep his commandement that if in any point Truth have changed or wavered we may return to the original even the Tradition by the Lord by the Gospel and by the Apostles and the Reason of our action may rise from thence from whence both order and beginning did arise So far Cyprian If the Papists can make their followers now believe that Cyprian believed the Popes infallibility or that the Church of Rome was the onely keeper of Tradition or that Traditions were not to be tryed by the Scriptures then you may see to what purpose it is that they must needs be the judges of Controversie and the sence of Scripture and why they call it a Nose of wax even that it may be at their service and so flexible as to yield to what sence they will put upon it when they will needs exercise the same Authority on the Fathers themselves who in their familiar Epistles speak as plain as they can Firmilianus a famous Bishop writeth a confutation of Pope Stephens Epistle
is now used by the learned Papists to prove the Popes infallibity For they argue that the Pope cannot err de fide in Cathedra beâ—ause else the universal Church should fail with him if he fail The same Gregory in Epist 78. saith It is a thing too hard to endure that our Brother and fellow Bishop should be alone called Bishop in contempt of all the rest And what other thing doth this arrogancy portend but that the time of Antichrist approacheth already in so far as he imitated him who disdaining the company of Angels assayed to ascend to the top of singularity A man would think that all this should be plain enough to resolve us beyond all further doubting that the Popes Universal Episcopacy is new But to tâ—â— the Papisâ— have no thing to say but a foolish pretence that John of Constantinople would have been the sole Bishop on earth and have had no Bishop else but himself alone which the Pope never arrogated Ans A silly shift which supposeth all the world to be so unreasonable as to be satisfied with any thing or else would make them so A shift that hath not a word of proof to support it but contradicteth the full course of History and the words of Gregory themselves which all shew that it was but an universal Episcopacy to which all other should be subject which John of Constantinople did challenge if so much And all their shew of proof of the contrary is because Gregory here saith that He would be alone called Bishop But that 's not as if directly in terms but onely by consequence he is supposed to lay such a claim in that he claimed the title of universal Bishop But I now see that the Papists will make a nose of wax of their own Popes Writings as well as of the Scriptures and that the Pope hath no more the gift of speaking intelligibly than Peter Paul or Christ himself is by them supposed to have And therefore what should they talk any more of a living judge when that living judge himself cannot speak so as to be understood Platina saith that Bonifacius tertius a Phâ—ca Imperatore obtinuit magna tamen contentione c. That Boniface the third obtained of Phoâ—as the Emperor but not without great contention that the seat of the blessed Apostle Peter which is the Head of all Churches should be so called and accounted of all which place indeed the Church of Constantinople did seek to challenge to it self So that it was the same place or name which the Bishop of Constantinople would have had which Boniface after got and not as Bellarmine feigneth a quite different thing Nay I cannot perceive any probable evidence that Boniface himself had any thought of that Universal Jurisdiction which now is arrogated but onely to be the Greatest and Highest of all Bishops and in that sence called the Head or the universal Bishop If they knew the Pope to be the supreme infallible head of all the Church why did the Council of Calcedon the fifth general Council examin Leo's Epistle and profess to recive it onely on its agreement with former doctrine Yea why did this Council condemne Pope Vigilius his judicious sentence de 3 capitulis Yea and anathematize all that condemned not Theodorus of whom Vigilius was one and this in a Doctrinal Point Whether Hereticks may be condemned after death Yea they pronounce the Pope and his adherents defenders of impiety and such as cared not for Gods decrees or the Apostles pronunciations or the Fathers Traditions If these 165. Bishops had believed the Popes infallibility they would rather have craved his Definitive sentence And why did the Council of Calcedon also Decree without the Popes consent that the Bishop of Constantinople was equal with him and the 5-sixth general Council confirm it Any man of understanding that readeth over the Decretals of the several Popes shall find besides all other errors so many false expositions of Scripture even common reason and the Papists themselves being judges that there needs no other proof that they are too fallible Augustine in l. 2. Contr. Donatist saith Ipsa concila qua per singulas regiones c. That is Who knoweth not that the very Councils themselves which are held in several Regions or Provinces do without more ado yield to the authority of fuller Councils which are made out of the whole Christian world And that the full Councils themselves which were before are oft mended by the later when by some experiment of matters that is opened which before was shut up and that is known which lay hid and this without any smoak of sacrilegious pride without any inflation of arrogancy without any contention of livid envy with holy humility with Catholike peace with Christian charity This he brings as a majore to shew the Donatists the invalidity of Cyprians authority telling them that it is the holy Scriptures that are undoubted and of unquestionable credit but not the writings of any Bishops since no nor of Councils themselves This place of Austin doth confirm the French Papists as well as the Italian that they have nothing to say against it that without meer impudency can be thought to be of any weight What is vainly said by them you may see answered in A.B. Laud's Book against Fisher and A.C. Pag. 240 241 242. In Austines Book against Petilianus the Donatist the very question debated is How they may know where the true Church is And is it not a wonder that Austin never remembred to direct them to Rome or to the Popes infallibility if that had been the approved way Here then what way Austin went Cap. 2. pag. mihi Edict Paris 141. Quaestio câ—â—te inter nos versatur ubi sit Ecclesia utrum apud nos an apud illos Quid ergo facturi sumus in verbis nostris eam quaesituri an in verbis capiris sui Domini nostri Jesu Christi puto quod in illius c that is The question handled between us is where is the Church with us or with them What must we do then must we seek it in our words or in the words of our Lord Jesus Christ our head I think in his who is truth it self and best knows his own body 1 Tim. 3. The Lord knoweth who are his Cap. 3. p. 142. Sed ut dicere caeperam non audiamus haec dico haec dicis sed audiamus haec dicit dominus c. That is But as I began to say Let us not hear I say this and you say that but let us hear Thus saith the Lord. There are certainly the Lords Books to whose authority we both consent we both believe them we both obey them there let us seek the Church there let us discuse our cause Auferantur ergo illa de medio c. Away with those things from among us which we bring against one another not out of the Divine Canonical Books but from
elswhere Quia nolo humanis documentis c. Because I will not have the holy Church to be demonstrated by humane documents but by Gods Oracles For if the holy Scriptures have placed the Church in Africa alone and in a few places of Rome c. then whatsoever may be brought out of other papers the Church is onely with the Donatists Si autem c But if the Church of Christ is placed by the Divine and most certain testimonies of the Canonical Scriptures in all Natitions then what ever they bring and whence ever they recite it who say Lo here is Christ or lo there let us rather if we be his sheep hear the voice of our Shepherd saying Believe them not For those parcels are not found in many Nations where that Church is but it which is every where is found even where they are therefore let us seek it in the holy Canonical Scriptures And thus he goes on and proves at large by the Scriptures the true Church fitting all as meet to the present schisme of the Papists almost as if he had seen and named it Cap. 18. Begins thus Because therefore the holy Church is manifestly known in the Scriptures c. Remotis ergo omnibus c. Laying aside therefore all such matters let them demonstrate their Church if they can not in the speeches and rumors of the Africans not in the Councils of their Bishops not in the writings of any disputers not in signes and fallacious Miracles because we are prepared and cautioned against such things by the word of God but in the writings of the Law in the predictions of the prophets in the Psalms in the words of our Pastor himself in the preachings and labors of the Evangelists that is in all the Canonical authorityes of the sacred Books Next he shews that it must not be out of Parables Allegories or such Scriptures that make no more for one side then the other what then doth he tell them that it is all such and send them to Rome to know the sence no but it is the plain Scripture of which he produceth abundance that must tell us which is the true Church And he thus begins the 19 Chap. Omissis ergo c. Letting pass therefore the snares of delayes let him shew their Church c. and so shew it as not to say It s true because I say it or because my collegue said it or these collegues of mine or those Bishops or Clerks or our Layity or therefore its true because these or those wonders were done by Donatus or Pontius or any other or because men pray and are heard at the Memories or shrines of ours that are dead or because such or such things happen there or because that brother of ours or that sister of ours saw such a sight waking or had such a dreaming vision sleeping Away with these either fictions of lying men or wonders of deceiving spirits For either the things that are said are not true or if any wonders are done by hereticks we must the more beware seeing the Lord when he told us there would come deceivers who by doing certain signs would deceive if it were possible even the elect addeth Lo I have foretold you And if any be heard praying at the Memories of hereticks it is not for the desert of the place but the desert of his desire that he receiveth good or evil No man can have Christ for his head that is not in his Body which is the Church which Church we must know as we do Christ himself in the sacred Canonical Scriptures and not to inquire into the various rumors of men and their opinions and deeds and sayings and sights But let them shew me whether they have the Church no way but by the Canonical books of the divine Scriptuers Because neither do we therefore say that they ought to believe us that we are in the Church of Christ because that Church which we hold is commended by Optatus Melevitanus or by Ambrose of Millan or innumerable other Bishops of our communion or because it is predicated or praised by the Councils of our Collegues or because through the whole world in the holy places which are frequented by our communion so great marvailes of hearings or healings are done here some are named What ever things of this sort are done in the Catholike Church are therefore to be approved because they are done in the Catholike Church but it is not therefore manifested to be the Catholike Church because these things are done in it This he testifieth is written in the Law and the Prophets and Psalms this we have commended by his own mouth These are the documents of our cause these are its foundations these its upholders or confirmers We read in the Acts of the Apostles of some Believers that they daily search't the Scriptures whether those things were so What Scriptures but the Canonical of the Law and prophets Hereto are added the Gospels the Epistles of the Apostles the Acts of the Apostles and the Revelation of John Search all these and produce somewhat manifest which will demonstrate that the Church either remaineth in Africke alone or is to be from Africk so that it may be fulfilled which the Lord saith This Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world c. But bring somewhat that needeth nor an interpreter that you may not be convinced that it speaks of another matter and that you strive to turn it to your own sence Chap. 25. The question is not dark in which they may deceive you You see the Church is every where diffused and increaseth to the harvest This whole Book of Austin is written as if it had been purposed as a confutation of the Papists that will have the Church to contain onely the Romane faction and exclude all the rest of the world and will try the Scripture by the Church and not the Church by the Scripture but fly to I know not what visions and pretended miracles to prove their Church which Austin professeth are not a proof no not of the true Church though there be much more then there to boast of so that the Papists cannot here say that Austin thus dealeth with the Donatists because they denyed the Church of Rome and believed the Scripture he expresly enough preventeth all such expositions of his words August con Cresconium li. 2. cap. 33. p. 177. Saith Ego hujus Epistolae c. I am not bound by the authority of this Epistle of Cyprians ad Jubai because I take not Ciprians Epistles be Canonical but by the Canonical I consider them and that in them which agreeth to the authority of the Divine Scriptures I accept with his praise but that which disagreeth I refuse with his peace And so if thou hadst recited those things which he wrote to Jubajan out of some Canonical book of the Apostles or Prophets I should have had
nothing at all to gain-say But now seeing what thou recitest is not Canonical by that liberty to which the Lord hath called us I refuse it c. And he compareth it to Peters compelling the Gentiles to Judaize Gal. 2. shewing that even Peter should have been so refused in error The words of Austin in Epist 19. ad Hieron are commonly cited I have learned to give onely to those writings which are now called Canonical this reverence and honor as that I dare say that none of them erred in writing but others I so read that how holy and learned soever they be I do not therefore think it true because they so judged but because they perswade me either by those Canonical books or by probable reason that they say true As commonly cited is that li. 3. Cont. Maximin Arrian c. 14. pag. mihi 306. Sed nunc nec ego c. But now neither ought I as fore-judging or for prejudice to bring forth the Nicene Council nor thou the Council of Ariminum I am not bound by the authority of this noâ— thou of that Let matter contend with matter causâ— with cause reason with reason by the authoritie of the Scriptures which are witnesses not proper to either of us but common to both It were too long to recite the fourtieth part which Augustine hath to this purpose He that would seâ— more let him read his Epist 112. de Morib Ecclesâ— Cathol c. 7. Epist 111. Contr. Faustum li. 11. c. 5 de Trintat li. 3. c. The words of Optatus lib. 5. advers Parmen arâ— frequently cited by our writers which are thuâ— Quaerendi sunt judices c. We must seek judges Iâ— Christians they cannot be admitted on either side because by siding the truth is hindred We must seek a judge abroad or without If a Pagan he cannot know the Christians secrets If a Jew he is an enemy to the Christian Baptism On earth there can no judgment of this matter be found We must seek a Judge from heaven But wherefore should we go knock at heaven when we have it here in the Gospel A Testament I say because here we may well compare earthly things to heavenly is such as that a man that hath many sons doth command them all himself as long as the father is present there is then no need of a Testament So Christ as long as he was present on earth though yet he be not wanting or absent commanded the Apostles whatever was needful for the time But as a father when he feeleth himself neer to death fearing lest after his death the Btethren should unpeaceably quarrel doth before witness put his Will out of his dying brest into writings which may endure And if there shall rise any contention among the Brethren they go not to the Grave but seek the Testament and he that resteth in the Grave doth silently speak by the writings The Living Lord whose the Testament is is in heaven Let his will therefore be sought in the Gospel as in a Testament The Author of the imperfect work on Mat. commonly imputed to Chrysostome Homil. 49. saith At this time since heresie hath possessed these Churches there can be no proof of true Christianity nor any other refuge of Christians that would know the truth of Belief but the Divine Scriptures For before it was declared by many means which was the Church of Christ and which was Gentilism But now it is by no way known to them that would know which is the true Church of Christ but only by the Scriptures How therefore should he that would know which is the true Church of Christ come to know it but onely by the Scriptures One would think this were plain enough if the Papists were not the Judges of the meaning of all writings as well as the holy Scriptures which condemne their cause Junilius ad Primasium â— part divin legis li. 2. qu. 29 Saith Vnde probamus libros c. How do we prove that the Books of our Religion are written by Divine inspiration Many wayes of which the first is the truth Scripturâ— it self then the order of things the agreement oâ— precepts the manner of speech without affectation or compasses and the purity of words Therâ— is added also the quality of the writers and preachers that meer men could not have delivered such Divine things and vile men such high things and uneloquent men such subtile things unless they were filled with the Holy Ghost And the force oâ— the preaching of it which it had when it was preached though by a few contemned men Hereto is added the witness of the contrary party as the Sybils or Philosophers the expulsion of adversaries the utility of the consequents the event which by acceptations and figures and predictions were foretold and lastly the Miracles which were continually wrought till the Scripture it self was received by the Nations of which this sufficeth for the next Miracle that it is known to be received by all Saith Chamier citing this passage Here are arguments enough to prove the authority of Scripture internal and external but no mention of the Churches antecedent judgement to determine it The same may be said of Eusebius Anstia and the rest that prove the Scripture and Christian Religion Hieromes words are frequently cited on Math. 23. Hoc quia de Scripturis c. This is as easily contemned as proved because it hath not authority from the Scriptures And on Isaiah 8. He saith Side aliquo dubitatis c. If you doubt of any thing know what is written If you would know the things that are doubtful rather give up your selves to the law and to the testimonies of the Scriptures And on the 86. Psalm He saith Quamvis sanctus aliquis c. Though there be some Saint after the Apostles never so eloquent yet he hath not authority And Epist ad Rustic Since covetousness entered into the Church as into the Empire the Law is perished from the Priests and the vision from the Prophets And the same Hierome Epist ad Evagr. fol. 150. Edit Basil per Froben 1516. Tomo 3. pag. 329. Edict Basil 1536. Tomo 2. Saith thus Quid â—uim facit excepta ordinatione Episcopus quod presbyter non faciat Nec altera Romana urbis Ecclesia altera totius orbis existimanda est Et Gallia Britannia Africa Persis Oriens Judia omnes Barbarae nationes unum Christum adâ—rant unam observant regulam veritatis Si Authoritâ—â— quaritur Orbis major est Vrbe Vbicunque fuerit Episcopus sive Romae sive Fugubii sive Constantinopoli sive Rhegii sive Alexandriae sive Tanis ejusdem meriti ejusdem est sacerdotii Potentia divitiarum paupertatis humilitas vel sublimiorem vel inferiorem Episcopum non facit Caeteram omnes Apostolorum successores sunt Sed dicis Quomodo Romae ad testimonium Diaconi
presbyter ordinatur Quid mihi profers unius urbis consuttudinem Quid paucitatem de qua ortum est supercilium in leges Eccesiae vindicas That is For what doth a Bishop except ordination which a Presbyter may not do Nor is the Church of the Romane City to be esteemed one and the Church of the whole world another Both France and Brittaine and Africk and Persia and the East and Jndia and all the Barbarous Nations do worship one Christ and observe one Rule of truth If you seek for Authority the worlds is greater than the Cities of Rome Wherever there is a Bishop whether at Rome or at Eugubium or at Constantinople or at Rhegium at Alexandria or at Tanis of the same Merit he is also of the same Priesthood The Power of riches and the lowness of poverty make not a Bishop high-eror lower But they are all the Apostles successors But you say How is it that at Rome a Presbyter is ordained on the testimony of a Deacon What tell you me of the custome of one City why do you defend a few of which superciliousness is arisen against the Laws of the Church It may be the Papists by their supereminent power of interpreting all Church writers can put such a sence on these words of Hierom as shall consist with that which he purposly doth oppose But I think an impartial man can hardly believe that when he wrote these words he was acquainted with Romes claim of universal jurisdiction and infallibility Nay when it is the scope of much of the former part of this Epistle to prove the equality of Bishops and Presbyters in the beginning and that at that time they differed in no power but that of ordaining when yet he saith the Presbyters of Alexandria did long make their own Bishops how then could Hierome believe the Popes universal jurisdiction Could he think that the Bishop of Rome had that power over the Church which he thought not any Bishop to have over the Presbyters of any one Church Greg. Nazianzene saith of Councils If I must write the truth I am of this mind that I will flye or avoid all Councils of Bishops for I never saw a glad or happy end of any Councils or which did not rather bring an addition or increase of evils then a removal of them To this of Nazianzene Bellarmine answereth that Gregory meant that in his time no Council could be wholly lawful for he lived between the first and second general Council where he had seen many Councils which because of the great number of Hereticks had a bad end And he names five of them Answ 1. But by what Authority doth Bellarmine confine Gregories words to some Councils which he speaks in general of all that he had seen or might do resolving to avoid all hereafter 2. Here note that Bellarmine confesseth that Councils may erre and then where is the French Religion 3. I would fain know where was the Churches infallibility and power of judging of matters of faith in Nazianzens dayes If there were no lawful General Councils nor could be then it was not in them therefore it must be either in the people and how shall we gather the world together to consult with them or else as Bellarmine will say in the Pope alone or in the Romane Clergy with him I hear not yet that they are very forward to prove that the Romane Clergy in particular are Infallible though Bellarmine hath given us his bold conjectures of that It must needs be therefore that at that time all the Churches infallible judicial power and so the foundation of our faith must be resolved into the Pope alone and so the faith of all the world must then be resolved into the credit of the word of a single and silly man I know the Italian faction will not abhor this at any time but then they should for shame speak out and deal plainly with the world and not talke of the whole Church and all the Church when they mean but one man 4. And I would fain know of any friend of Bellarmines how far the universal Church was visible at that time when all Councils were bad and none could be lawful The visibility was not in a Council to represent the whole and the â—aity are not much noted when Councils go wrong â—o that the Church was visible onely in one man or â— few particular persons according to the Papists common reckoning who judge by the Pastors visiâ—ility Yea the Church of Rome it self was invisible â—hen and divers times when their Bishop was a Hereâ—ick If therefore they will say either that the Church was visible in one man or in the Laity of many partes opprest by the Clergy and Magistracy and they have nothing more to say then we will â—ay as much of the visibility of our Church before Luther and more too 5. It s confest here also that â—ot onely a Council but the greater number by â—ery many of the Bishops of the Church may be â—eretickes or erre in faith 6. And then the Church may lye in the smaller oppressed part and why then may not the most erre now Stapleton himself confesseth â—hat Luther was not much out of the way when he said â—here were scarce five Bishops â—o be found that turned not Arrians And Hieromeâ—aith â—aith Dialog advers Lucifer The whole world â—â—aned and wondred that it was turned Arrian â— And did the authority of the Scripture at that time â—ll quoad nos when the judge was turned heretick â—ven Liberius and the Councils And if the high Elogies of the Romane Church would prove its Authority then see what Nazianâ—ene saith of the Church of Caesarea In his 22. Epistle ad Caesarienses patris nomine scripta found among his own works Edit Paris Tom. 1. pag. 785. and also in Basils works translated by Musculus Edit Basil 1565. Tom. 2. pag. 17. Seeing every Church as being Christs body is to be watched over or looked to with greatesâ— care and diligence then specially yours which anciently was and now is and is esteemed almost oâ— nigh the mother of all Churches on which thâ— whole Christian Commonwealth doth cast their eyes even as the encompassing circle doth on the center not onely for the soundness of doctrinâ— long divulged to all but also for that conspicuouâ— grace of Concord which God hath given them What would the Papists say but that this were foâ— their supremacy if they found but this much in him for the Church of Rome And I think there is no doubt but that in thosâ— ancient times the Church was acquainted with thâ— true way of Government as well as Rome is now and therefore I would know further 8. Whether thâ— truest Government may not stand with great desolations divisions of the Church and multitudes of errors Greg. Nazianzene saith Orat. 20 pag. mihâ— 345. That when Basil seâ— upon the great work of healing the Church The holy
the creation to this day and we must now begin to feign a Necessity of their infallibility Let it be sufficient that God and the extraordinarily inspired Prophets and Apostles are infallible and that we have Teachers that can infallibly prove to us what he requireth of us in his words in points of Necessity to our everlasting happiness And for themselves pretending to infallibility makes them not nor procureth them infallible whereas their voluminous errors and the wicked practices grounded thereupon and their frequent self-contradictions and mutations do proclaim aloud to the world that they are both deceivable deceived and deceivers while the holy Scriptures whose sufficiency they deny is by themselves confessed to be of infallible verity We are resolved therefore by the grace of God in a business of such moment as the everlasting saving or losing of our souls to venture and bottom all our Hopes on that word of God whose infallibility they confess then on the wordâ— of men who pretend to infallibility and notoriously declare the vainty of those pretences Some more of the Sence of Antiquity in the main Controversie between us and the Papists to declare further who it is that is of the New Religion CYrill Hierosol Cateches 4. Sect. de spiritu sancto pag. Edit Paris 1631. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. e. For concerning Divine things and the holy mysteries of faith nothing no not the smallest thing ought to be delivered without the Divine Scriptures nor to be brought forth by simple probability nor by a train of words Nay do not simply believe me my self when I speak of these things to thee unless thou receive a demonstration of the things which I speak from the Divine Scriptures For the very safety of our faith resteth not on the elegancy of speech but on the proof of Divine Scriptures And pag. 36. Sect de Sacra Script he telleth you what Scriptures he meaneth earnestly disswading from the Apocryphal books and numbering the same onely which we own as Canonical save that he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and omitteth the Epist to Hebrews and the Apocalypse And Cateches 17. pag. 192. he saith And we now also ingeniously confess that we will not use humane reasonings but will only commemorate those things which are in the holy Scriptures for this is most safe as Saint Paul 1. Cor. 2.4 And Cateches 18. pag. 220 221 222. See how he describeth the Catholike Church without the least intimation of the Romane description August Cont. literas Petiliani li. 3. cap. 6. pag. Edit Paris 127. col 1. Proinde sive de Christo sive de ejus Ecclesia sive de quacunque alia re quae pertinet ad fidem utramque nostram non dicam nos nequaquam comparandi ei qui dixit Licet si nos sed omnino quod secutus adjecit Si Angelus de caelo vobis annunciaverit preterquam quod in Scripturis legalibus Evangelicis accepistis anathema sit Hac vobiscum cum omnibus quos Christo lucrati cupimus actitantes atque inter caetera sanctam Ecclesiam quam in Dei lieris promissam legimus sicut promissa est in omnibus gâ—ntibus reddi cernimus praedicantes ab iis quos ad ejus pacificum gremium attrahi cupimus pro actione gratiarum flammas meruinnus odiorum That is Moreover whether it be of Christ or of his Church or of any other thing which pertaineth to our faith and life I say not if we who are not to be compared to him who said Though we but that which he next added If an Angel from heaven shall preach to you any other thing then that which you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospel let him be accursed While we deal thus with you and with all men whom we desire to win to Christ and among other things do preach the holy Church which we find promised in Gods Scriptures and which we see to be placed in all Nations as was promised we have deserved or procured the flames of hatred from those whom we desire to draw into its pacifike bosome in stead of thanks And he proceedeth as if it were we that so long before had bid the Prophets and Apostles that they should not put in their books any Testimonies by which the faction or party of Donatus is proved to be the Church of Christ The Epistle ad Demetriadem commonly reckoned the 142. among Augustines cap. 9. saith Scito itaque in Scripturis divinis per quas solas potes plenam Dei intelligere voluntatem c. By the Divine Scriptures alone thou maist understand the full will of God I know the Lovaine Doctors put this Epistle in the Appendix and conjecture it to be of Pelagius but 1. it shews the doctrine of that age 2. Never did Austin contradict it but oft say the like August de peccat Merit Remiss li. 2. cap. 36. pag. mihi 304. saith Talis populus ut praedixi eruditus in Regno caelorum per duo testamenta vetus novum non declinans in dextram superba presumtione justitiae neque in sinistram secuva delectatione peccati in terram illius promissionis intrabit postea Vbi enim de re obscurissima disputatur non adjuvantibus Divinarum Scripturarum certis clarisque documentis cohibere se debâ—t humana presumptio nihil faciens in partem alteram declinando So that in Austius judgement the old and new Testament teach us enough to salvation and in the difficult points we must not so much as incline to either side without the Scriptures it being presumption to speak when they are silent And in his 49. Tract on John he saith Evangelista testatur multa Dominum Christum dixisse fecisse quae non scripta sunt electa sunt autem quae scriberentur quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur i. e. The Evangelist testifieth that the Lord Christ spoke and did many things that are not written but those were chosen to be written which seemed sufficient for the salvation of Believers And li. de Nat. Grat c. 26. he saith to the Pelagians Solis Canonicis debeo sine â—ulla recusatione consensum That is I owe a consent without any refusal to the Canonical Scriptures alone An hundred more such sayings might be cited out of Augustine Hierom on the first Ch. of Hag. fol mihi 102. speaking of the use of Hereticks saith Sed alia quae absque authoritate testimoniis Scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolica sponte reperiunt atque confingunt percutit gladius Dei i. e. But other things which without the Authority and Testimonies of Scripture they do of their own accord find out and feign as of Apostolical tradition the sword of God will cut down And he instanceth in the fastings and other austerities of the Tatiani which he saith they suffer causlesly The same Hierom against Helvidius saith Vt haec quae
scripta sunt non negamus ita ea quae non sunt scripta renuimus Natum Deum esse de virgine credimus quia legimus Mariam nupsisse post partum non credimus quia non legimus So then the Church in Hieromes time would believe no more by Divine Faith but what was written Chrysostome saith on the 95. Psal when any thing is spoken that is not written the very thoughts of the hearers are lame And again on the 2 Thess 3. All things are clear and sincere that are in the Divine Scriptures every thing that is necessary is therein plain The words are spoken against those that would not go to the Congregation because there was no Sermon And though Chrysostome was almost daily in preaching yet to shew them that the word read was worth their hearing he addeth this answer And he proceedeth to answer their other objections taken from the supposed obscurity of Scripture telling them they are spoken in their own tongue and plainly Orat. 3. pag. mihi 1503. And on 2 Cor. Hom. 3. he calleth the Scripture the ballance the square and rule of all things which words Bellarmine de verbo Dei l. 4. c. 11. endeavoreth to pervert in vain Theodoret Dialog 1. inter Orthodox Eranist in the beginning pag. 1. saith I would not have thee by humane reasons to enquire after the truth but seek the steps of the Apostles and Prophets and their followers And in the second Dialogue I am not so rash as to assert any thing wherein the holy Scripture is silent Cyril of Alexandria in his seventh book against Julian pag. mihi 159. saith The Divine Scripture is sufficient to make them that are exercised in it wise and most honest and to have sufficient understanding The like he hath twice or thrice over in that same Section which I will not stand to repeat lest I be tedious Ambrose having mentioned the diversity of Heresies agreeing in una perfidia giveth us this direction for cure Itaque tanquam boni gubernatores quo tutius praetermeare possimus fidei vela tendamus Scriptuarumque relegamus ordinem Amb. de fide li. 1. cap. 4. pag. 56. And many more express passages he hath as Quae in Scripturis sanctis non reperimus ea quemadmodum usurpare possemus This citation I take on trust from others that have before produced it having before mentioned more Athanasius in his Orat. against the Gentiles in the beginning saith The holy and Divinely inspired Scriptures are sufficient for all instruction of verity And afterward he addeth that the writings of the Fathers and our Teachers do help us to interpret and understand Scripture Hippolytus in Bibliothec. Patrum Tom. 3. Edit col p. 20.21 saith Vnus Deus est quem non aliunde agnoscimus quam ex sacris scripturis Quemadmodum enim siquis vellet sapientiam hujus seculi exercere non aliter hoc consequi poterit nisi dogmata Philosophorum leg at sic quicunque volumus pietatem in Deum exercere non aliunde discimus quam in scripturis Divinis i e. There is one God whom we no other way know but by the holy Scriptures For as he that will exercise the wisdom of this world cannot otherwise attain it but by reading the opinions of the Philosophers iâ— so those of us that will exercise piety towards God do no other way learn it but in the Divine Scriptures Clemens Alexandrinus Stromat li. 6. saith Without the Scripture we say nothing In the Life of Antony the Author saith The Scriptures are sufficient for our instruction Theodoret li. 1. histor c. 7 reporteth the words of Constantine the Great spoken to the Fathers in the Nicene Council after Eustathius Oration to him thus He shewed them how grievous a thing it was and how bitter when the enemies were profligate and there was none left that durst oppose them that they should strive against one another and should make mirth for their enemies and become their laughing stock specially seeing they dispute about Divine things and have the doctrine of the Holy Ghost laid down in the Scripture monuments For saith he the Books of the Evangelists and Apostles and also the Oracles of the ancient Prophets do evidently teach us what we are to hold concerning God Laying aside therefore all seditious contention let us resolve the matters that are brought into question by the Testimonies of the writings of Gods inspiration And Theodoret addeth that While he spoke these and the like things to bring them to a consent in the Apostolical doctrine all the Synod except a few Arrians obeyed and stablished concord on these terms Yet doth Andradius think to disable Constantines testimony by saying that the Arrians were pleased with these words of Constantine and Bellarmine vainly endeavoreth to lessen their esteem because Constantine was no Doctor of the Church Salvian saith Si scire vis quid tenendum sit habes literas sacras perfecta ratis est hoc tenere quod legeris i. e. You see Scripture is the only Rule of Faith with him But I will once more stop this work of citations it being so fully done already Onely desiring the Reader to lay those before produced together with these last and to compare with them 1. the Protestants judgement and then the Papists I shall lay them here by him that seeing them together he may the better judge And for the judgement of the Reformed Churches I shall say no more then what I before mentioned out of their own Polidore Virgil That they are called Evangelical because they maintain that no Law is to be received in matters of salvation but what is delivered by Christ or his Apostles And this is in the Scripture fully contained and safely delivered to us which kind of Tradition of the books of the old and new Testament as Canonical saith Molinaeus we readily receive which is so far from being an addition to Scripture that it tells us that nothing is to be added thereto Compare this with the Fathers judgment before laid down As for the Papists judgement you shall have it in their own words lest we seem to wrong them Vasquez Tom. 2. Disp 216. N. 60. saith Licet concederemus hoâ— fuisse Apostolorum praeceptum nihilâ—minus Ecclesia summus Pontifex potuerunt illud justis de causis abrogare Neque enim majâ—r fuit potestas Apostolorum quam Ecclesiae Pontificis inferendis praeceptis That is Though we should grant that this was a precept of the Apostles nevertheless the Church and the Pope might upon just causes abrogate it For the power of the Apostles was not greater then that of the Church and Pope in making precepts The Council of Trent say Sess 21. c. 1.2 that This power was alway in the Church that in dispensing the Sacraments saving the substance of them it might ordain or change things as it should judge most expedient to the profit of the receiver So that they
and therefore to be called upon to pray for us 12. That the Saints after death do obtain whatsoever they desire of God because they deserved it in this life 13. That their merits do profit us for salvation 14. That the Saints are helpers and coworkers of our salvation 15. That the faithful living are ruled and governed by the Spirits of blessed men 16. That the Saints are to be Canonized by the Pope and being Canonized to be worshiped 17. Therefore we must fly to the Saints in our misery § 16. Of the Church 1. THat the holy Catholike Church that we believe is visible 2. And alwayes is visible 3. That it depends not on Gods election nor on true faith and Charity that one belongs to this Church But even wicked and reprobate men are members of the Catholike Church 4. That the Catholike Church is no other than the Roman or that which the Roman Pope is over 5. That the Catholike Church and the Pope of Rome are the same terms 6. Neither are there any Catholicks but those of the Romish Church 7. That he is a Catholike who believes all that the Roman Church delivers whether it be written in the Bible or not 8. That there is no salvation out of the Roman Church 9. That the notes of universality antiquity unity and succession in the Apostles doctrine do agree unto it 10. That the sincere preaching of the Gospel and lawful administration of the Sacraments are not a certain note of the Church 11. To acknowledge the Roman Pope and to be under him as the Vicar of Christ the onely Pastor the head of the whole Church is a note of the true Church 12. That the particular Roman Church is the Mother Mistris and Lady of all Churches yea the Mother of Faith 13. That the Roman Church did obtain the primacy from our Lord and Saviour himself 14. That the Roman Church hath power of judging all neither is it lawful for any to judge her judgment 15. That the Roman Church hath authority to deliver doctrines of faith without or beside the Scriptures 16. That the Roman Church cannot erre in faith much less fail 17. That the Roman Church cannot erre in interpreting Scripture §. 17. Of the Roman Church The Head viz. The Pope The Members 1. THat the Roman Pope is the head foundation husband Monarch of the whole universal Church the universal Bishop or the Bishop of the whole world 2. That the Roman Pope is the rock upon whom the Church is built 3. The names which are given to Christ in the Scriptures from whence it appears he is above the Church all of them are given to the Pope Vnto this Antichristian throne he ascends by a gradation of most impudent lies such as these 4. That the universal Church cannot consist unless there be one in it as a visible head with chief power 5. Therefore the external regiment of the universal Church is Monarchical 6. That the Monarchy of the Church was instituted in Peter 7. That Peter in proper speech was Bishop of Rome and remained Bishop there untill death 8. That the Pope succeded Peter in the Ecclesiastical Monarchy 9. Neither do they give the Monarchy of Ecclesiastical power but of temporal also to the Pope 10 Neither do they make the Pope Christs General Vicar on earth but Gods also 11. They give a certain omnipotency to him 12. They give him power of deposing Kings and Emperors and absolving their subjects from the oath of fidelity 13. Moreover without shame they defend that the Pope teaching from his chair cannot erre 14. That his words when he teacheth from his chair are in a sort the word of God 15. That the Pope cannot erre even in those things which belong to good manners or in the commands of morality as well as in matters of Faith 16. We must piously believe that as the Pope cannot erre as Pope so as a private person he cannot be a heretick 17. That the chief authority of interpreting Scripture is in him 18. That the Pope is the chief judge in controversies of Religion 19. We must appeal from all Churches to him 20. They give him authority to dispense with humane and Divine Laws 21. They give him power of absolving men not onely from sin but from punishments censures laws vows and oaths 22. Also of delivering men from Pâ—rgatory 23. Of Canonizing Saints and giving them honors that they may be prayed to in the Publike Prayers of the Church that Churches and Altars may be built for their honor that Masses and Canonical hours be offered publikely for their honor and feast-dayes be câ—lebrated That their Pictures be drawn with a certain splendor that their Reliques be put into precious boxes and publikely honored 24. We must believe that the Pope who sometime puts Murderers Traitors King-killers and other Capital offenders into the Calendar of Saints and Martyrs never errs in the Canonizing of Saints § 18. The Members of the Church are considered either as Congregated in Councils or Severally 1. THe office of convocating General Councils properly belongs to the Pope 2 That in no case a true and perfect Council can be called without the Popes authority no not if it be necessary for the Church and yet the Pope will not or cannot call one nor if the Pope be a heretick And therefore that a Council held without the Popes Authority is an unlawful meeting or Conventicle not a Council 3. That 't is the proper office of the Pope that by himself or his Legates he be president of the universal Council and as the supreme judge do moderate all 4. That the decree of a General Council made without the consent of the Pope or his Legate is unlawful 5. That the Power of confirming or rejecting General Councils is in the Pope of Rome neither are the Councils authentical unless they be confirmed by the Pope 6. That the distinction of lawful and unlawful Councils does depend upon his onely will 7. That the sentence of a General Council in a matter of faith is the last judgement of the Church from which it cannot appeal yet that we may appeal from a General Council to the Pope 8. That the Pope can neither be judged nor punished by a Council or by any mortals 9. That the Pope cannot submit himself to the coactive judgement of Councils 10. That the Pope is absolutely over the universal Church and above a General Council so that he can acknowledge no judgement above him 11. We must believe with Catholike faith that General Councils confirmed by the Pope cannot erre neither in faith nor manners 12. That particular Councils approved by the Pope cannot erre 13. That the power of the Pope and Council together is not greater then the Popes alone Turrecrem l. 3. c. 41. § 19. Of the Members by themselves 1. THat to make a member of the Catholike Church there is not required grace or
That it is Ecclesia vel quacunque re alia that Austin speaks 2. That its cum omnibus and therefore not an Argument onely for such as deny the Church and right grounds 3. So do we procure the flames of Popish hatred ☞ 4. So may wâ— say As if we had bid the Apostles put nothing in the Bible to prove the Romane Catholike Church Andradius Defen l. 2. Vainly replyeth that this is spoken onely to those Hereticks that plead only Tradition and reject Scriptures 1. That 's plainly false for Tatianus did not so 2. He speaks of all such traditions therefore of the Popish * That is Savingly Constantinus Magnus See Andrad Tâ—ef l. 2. fol. 110 c Where are the rest of his cavils Salvianus Massil de Provid li. 3. pag. mihi 62. The sum of Vincentius Lirinensis adv Heres * That is before they corrupt antient Writers or grow so old as to pretend to antiquity themselves Because many of these Errors are delivered onely by particular Doctors and all be not of a mind as to the sence and some of the words may admit a tolerable and Orthodox meaning I thought meet to adde these Animadversions to acquaint you in what sence we reject them What I pass by without Animadversion I leave upon them as it is here charged and also suppose the difference to lie plain a 1. That is as the Authenticke sign of Gods will For we all confess that Christ and his Apostles are the foundation of faith as the Authorized chief revealers and God himself onely as the principal efficient and Christ the Mediator as the first corner stone of the matter revealed and the Catholike Church as the keeper or subject in quo of true Belief for the Law is written 〈◊〉 the hearts of its members and it is the Pillar and ground or foundation of truth 3. This erorr is one of the fundamentals of the Romish Fabrike 6. When yet it is most clearly proved by many especially Blondel in a just volume that abundance of them are forgeries and Dalaeus proves it particularly of the Clementines 7. At least quoad nos So that they never know when their faith is at its full stature 8. By this you may conjecture from whence the Quakeâ—s have their doctrine of the light within us 9. It is the voice of the Law giver and the Law is the Rule of life and of judgement 10. We confess as Peter saith of Pauls Epistles that there are somethings in them hard to be understood which the ignorant pervert as they do the other Scriptures to their own destruction But we maintaine that they have so much light as sufficeth to their ends that is to be the Rule of our faith and life 11. This is one of their greatest errors 15. The last clause that the Popes authority is greater then the Churches the French do not hold And so they are divided in their foundation 16. They yield that the Doctrine is elder then the Church and we yield that the Church is elder then â—â—â—ings But we affirme that the doctrine as fetcht from these writings is now before the present Church in order of nature as the cause of it at least as to the generality of members 17. The Negative is their master error but the Affirmative Proposition is not denyed of us as to every kind of dependance but of some special sorts of which I have spoken in the Pref. to the Saints Rest Part. 2. Edit 2. c. 18. The height of Romish arrogancy 20. And yet I would that vulgar Translation might but be allowed to be the deciding â—â—le for there is eâ—â—ugh in it against them 21. This error is an accusation of the Wisdom of God and contrary to express Scripture and destructive to the progress of knowledge and godliness and such as the experience of gracious souls should provoke them to detest and had they but this â—ne they could never expect that the Catholike Church should unite upon their principles 1. As concupiscence is taken improperly for the corrupted sensitive appetite so it was of God But as it signifieth the appetite distempered or corrupted or the corruption of the will inclining it to evil it is not of God 2. See Rada's first controversie 3. A posse mori and a posse non mori were not then Natural But a non posse mori or an actual non mori were to be the reward of obedience and is now given by Christ And a non posse non mori or an actual death are the fruits of sin 4 5. I would they would prove this Tradition to be Apostolical 1. In this they no more agree among themselves then with us 2. Saith Davenant the point of Predetermination is a controversie between the Dominicans and Jesuites which Protestants have no mind to trouble themselves with But they that do are not of a mind in it no more then they 4. God doth not cause sin even when it is a punishment but onely permitteth it But by such a permission as proceedeth from a punishing intention And so he justly withholdeth his grace and giveth men over to the power of the devil their own lusts 2. The body is not to be mortified by self-murder but the corrupt inclinations and actions of the sensitive appetite are to be mortifyed and all its motions subjected to holy Reason And this is called in Scripture the mortifying of the flesh and our corruption would never be called in Scripture so often The flesh and the body if it were not that the fleshly appetite is much of the seat of it and the pleasing of that appetite and imagination much of the end that I say not the whole 4. Sins are called voluntary either because they are in the Will or from the will In the first sence the vicious habits of the will are voluntary in the second the ellicite and imperate acts Also they are voluntary directly and formally as are the wills owne acts and habits or participative as are the acts and habites of all the imperate faculties And there is nothing sin but what is voluntary in one of these senses nor any further then voluntary 5. Neither they nor we are agreed about the quiddity of original sin 8. Metaphors are not usually the fittest terms to state controversies in We have vicious habits and the abscence of Rectifying habits call this what you will Free will is either Physical and that all men have as they are men or moral which is 1. To be free from a legal restraint from good and this all have or to be free from vicious Habits and this onely the sanctified have and that but in part 9. It is the most noble controversie among the Schoolemen and Thomists and the greatest part seem rather to erre on the other extream and the Scotists that hold this to rectifie them do giâ— such explications of their doctrine as are well worth our study as you may see in Rada's first controversie