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
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
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
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
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
it and at last it s come to this that there is nothing remaineth established and inviolable with us nor with any before us And as for the likeness ' of God the Son to God the Father it is the Belief of our miserable time that he is not like in whole or but in part We are excellent judges or Arbitrators sure the seekers of the heavenly misteries who do calumniate in our professions of the faith of God we decree yearly and monethly Beliefs of God we repent of our decrees we defend them we Anathematize those that were defended we damne other mens matter in ours or they damne ours in theirs and biting one another we are consumed one of aouther A Belief is again sought for as if there were no beliefe A belief must be written as if it were not in our hearts Being already regenerated by faith we are now taught to believe As though the Regeneration were without Belief We learâ— Christ after Baptism as if Baptism could be anything without the faith oâ— Christ p. 309. Amonâ— these shipwracks of faith the heritage of our heavenly patrimony being noâ— almost profligate it is the safest way for us to retain that first and onely Evangelical Belief confessed in Baptism and understood and not to changâ— that good Belief which onely I have received and heard Not as if those things which are contained in the Council of our Fathers are to be damned as irreligiously and impiously written but because through mens rashness they are used to contradiction that for this the Gospel might safely be denyed under the name of novelty as if it were innovated that it might be mended That which is mended alwayes effecteth this that while every amendment doth displease every amendment may be condemned by a following amendment as if now whatever it be it were no amendment of an amendment but began to be a condemnation of it In this much O Emperor Constantius I admire thee as of a blessed and Religious will desiring a Belief onely according to what is written and indeed justly hastening to those very words of the onely begotten God that the brest capable of impartial solicitude may also be full of the knowledge of the words of God He that refuseth this is an Antichrist and he that counterfeiteth it is Anathema But this one thing I intreat of thee that the Council being present which now quarrels about the Belief thou wilt vouchsafe to hear me a few words of the Holy Scriptures and I may speak with thee of the words of my Lord Jesus Christ whose banished man or Priest I am O Emperor dost thou seek a Belief Hear it not out of newpapers but out of the Books of God Remember that it is not a question of Philosophy but in the doctrine of the Gospel I desire not audience so much for my self as for thee and the Churches of God For I have my Belief with my self and need none from without That which I have received I hold and I change not that which is of God But yet remember that there is no hereticke but doth falsly pretend that he speaks that in which he blasphemeth according to the Scripture Here he names Marcellus Photinus Sabellius Montaneus Manichaeus Marcion They all speak Scripture without its meaning they pretend faith without faith For the Scriptures lie not in reading but in understanding nor in prevarication but in charity Hear I pray thee what is written of Christ lest under them those things that are not written be preached Submit thy ears to those things which from these Books I shall speak lift up thy faith to God Hear that which profiteth to Belief to Unity to Eternity I will speak to thee with the honor of thy Kingdom and thy faith all things profitable to the peace of East and West under the publike knowledge under a disagreeing Council under a famous contention I will defend nothing to scandal nor that is without or besides the Gospel Here he reciteth a short creed in Scripture words especially about Christ I confess I fear I am too tedious in these long citations but I do it that the Papists may not say that we take particular words or shreds of sentences without the full sence Here I desire that it may be noted 1. That Councils may erre and differ 2. That they are so far from being the authorized judges of our belief that in Hilaryes judgement their determinations have occasioned the ruine and dangerous divisions of the Church 3. And that this is not onely true of the Arrian Councils but of the Council of Nice it self though its Belief were sound even by the novelty of terms and example for further innovating 4. That Hilary never calls the Emperor to consult with the Pope or Church of Rome as the authorized infallible judge even when he professeth to tell him all that was necessary to the peace of the whole Church East and West If it be said that this is because Hereticks believed not Romes authority or infallibility I answer It had then most neerly concerned Hilary to teach it them when he taught them all that was necessary to peace especially if that be the foundation into which the rest of our faith must be resolved 5. Lastly note that it is only the word of God and the ancient Baptismal Creed which Hilary here calls them to for Peace and healing of all the worlds division O sad case that this advice was never taken to this day O happy Church when ever it shall be taken and never till then And here because I am afraid of wearying the Reader and making these testimonies unproportionable to the brevity of the disputation I shall forbear adding those that I thought to have added yet assuring any Papist that readeth it that it is not for want of more sufficient Testimonies of the Fathers on our side For I had ready to transcribe in those few books which stand at my elbow sufficient Testimonies shorter or longer in all these following Authors in their own writings viz. Clemens Romanus Ignatius Justin Martyr Irenaeus the supposed Dionisius Areop Tertullian Origen Clemens Alexandr Athenagoras Fatianus Arnobius Athanasius Lactantius Macarius Cyril Alexand. Cyril Hierosol Synesius Epiphanius Eusebius Caesariensis Chrysostome Gregorius Thaumat Neocaesar Greg. Nyssen Basilius Seleuciae Ambrose Theodoret Damascene Isidore Hispal Gaudentius Brixianus Vincentius Lirinensis Salvianus Massil Caesarius Arelatens Alcuinus vel Albinus Beda Vigilius Joannes Maxenâ—ius Alcimus Avitus Prosper Fulgentius Oecumenius Theophylact. Bernard with many others besides all before named of whom some speak fully to the point and all the rest call us to the word of God in Scriptures for the resolution or ground of our faith and not to the authority or infallibility of the Pope of Rome I shall onely stay so long as to adde two or three of the eldest though briefest and two or three Canons of some Councils because there will seem more weight in
indicted by the instinct of the Holy Ghost and so are they Infidels or else they think themselves wiser then the Holy Ghost and what other thing do they in that than shew themselves possessed of the Devil So that if we must go to the Arbitration of the Pope to know whether the Scriptures were indited by the Holy Ghost We must go to him to know whether we must be Infidels or not For they that deny this are Infidels But I hope all the world will not remain Infidels till they know the Arbitrement of the Pope or till his Authority move them to be Christians For its an impossibility and contradiction that any man should believe in Christs pretended Vicar as his Vicar and believe an authority and infallibility which he or his Church of Rome hath received from Christ before they believe in Christ himself How Tertullian lib. de Pudicitia c. 21. takes up the Pope if he pretend to his pardoning power from Do tibi claves or supra hanc Petram I shall for brevity refer you to the place in him And Origen upon Math. on the words is large and full against them I refer you to the words themselves in him I conclude this ranke of testimonies in the words of Tertullian Credunt sine Scripturis ut credant contra Scripturas They believe without the Scripture that they may believe against the Scriptures Had Scripture been for the Pope and Papists then the Pope and they would have been for Scriptures and then we might have spared all this ado But because it is against them no wonder if they be against it I shall next give a touch more of some passages of Councils concerning this controversie And first it is known that the first Councils did commonly decree that appeals should be from a Bishop to a Synod or the Metropolitane and that if the Synod of Comprovincials disagreed that the Metropolitane should call some of the next Province to assist them and that was the highest unless there were a more general Council as Concil Antiochen Can. 14. and divers more beyond doubt declare So that here was no appeal to the Pope Yea in the 6. Canon of that Council of Antioch it is decreed that till an offending Priest Deacon or Layman be reconciled to his own Bishop or else have given satisfaction to a Synod that no other Bishop shall receive him so that Rome it self may not receive him much less absolve him Also in the 22. Canon of the same Council and in many other Councils it is decreed that no Bishop shall come into the City of another Bishop not subject to him about ordination and if they there ordain any it shall be void and they shall be questioned by a Synod And Chrysostome hereupon complaineth of Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria for exercising authority at Constantinople out of his oâ—n jurisâ—iction contrary to the Canons as may â—e sâ—en in his first Epipse to Pope Innocent I know they pretend that by that Epistle he yet acknowledged Innocents superiority and jurisdiction As if a man might not make his moan or seek all possible relieâ— from any that are capable of helping them without respect to superiority or jurisdiction It was Râ—mes greatness and interest in the Emperor and others and not a universal jurisdiction that made Innocent seem capable of affording some help to Chrysostome But thus Baronius the Popes Annalist where ever he findeth but a letter writen to the Bishop of Rome or his advice or help in any thing desired doth presently conclude that they acknowledged in the Pope universale regimen an universal Government And by the like reason many another should be universal Governor as well as he Moreover in the third Council of Carthage Can. 26. it is decreed Vt primae sedis Episcopus non appâ—â—â—tur princeps sacerdotum aut summus sacerdos aut â—liquid huâ—â— modi sed tantum primae sedis Episcopus that iâ— That the Bishop of the first seat shall not be called the chief of the Priests or the chief Priest or any such thing but only the Bishop of the first â—â—at One would think that this were as express against Romes usurpation as can be spoken But they that must be the interprets of Scripture because it speaks â—â—t plain enough must be judge of Councils too which it seems can speak no plainer then Scripture 〈…〉 taught them to speak anew Or if plainer may be of the power as well as the name let us hear the Council of Milevis of which saith Prosper Aurelius was the Captain and Augustine the ingenium And Baronius saith that Augustine was magna pars a great part of the Council and by reason of his great abilities and interest Whether there were two Milevitane Councils as Baronius not improbably thinks or but one it much matters not The Canons are now usually commixt as if they were one and undoubtedly the true Canons and so that which is now the 22. Canon runs thus Item placuit ut Presbyteri Diaconi vel caeteriis inferiores clerici in causis quas habuerint si de judiciis Episcoporum suorum quaesti fuerint vicini Episcopi eos audiant inter eos quicquid est finiant adhibiti ab eis ex consensu Episcoporum suorum Quod si ab eis provocandum putaverint non provocent nisi ad Africana concilia vel ad Primates provinciarum suarum Ad transmarina autem qui putaverit appellandum a nullo intra African in communionem suscipiatur That is It seemeth good that Presbyters Deacons and the other inferior Clergy if in their causes they complain of the judgements of their Bishops neighbor Bishops shall hear them and being used by them with their Bishops consent shall end whatever is between them But if they think good to appeal from them they may not appeal but to the Africane Councils or to the Primates of their Provinces But if any think to appeal to those beyond Sea let none in Africk receive him into communion Then it was a matter of excommunication to appeal to Rome and consequently to acknowledge their universal Government and now it is become essential to a Church and to a Christian to believe it The General Council of Nice before this according to such Canons as are now extant C. 6. doth give the Patriarchs of Alexandria power over Egypt Libia Pentapolis quoniam quidem Episcopo Romano parilis mos est Because the Bishop of Rome hath the like custome so that the Bishop of Rome is equalized with them and his power restrained to his own Patriarchate or the Ecclesiae suburbicariae of the extent whereof read Salmasius his learned Treatise against Sirmondus de Ecclesiis subuarbicariis which was so plain to Cusanus a Cardinal of Rome that it made him say hereupon Videmus quantum Romanus Pontifex ultra sacras observationes ex usu consuetudine subjectionalis obedientiae hodie â—cquisivit That is We see
where that is cuâ—ed and I think far better without it then with â—t By all this therefore it evidently appeareth that a Papists do most vainly charge us with novelty 〈◊〉 call for a Catalogue â— the professors of our Râ—ligion when the noâ—ty is theirs and theâ—selves do yet profess â— Religion though to â— they have added thâ— corrupting Leprosâ—â— Though we cannot â—â—der take to prove that thâ— Church was perfect nor never will be till it coâ— to heaven yet we have oft proved that it was maâ— Ages without their Popery and are ready to undeâ—take the further proof Of which the next Dispâ—â—tion shall give you a tast There is a Railing Pamphlet extant called â— brief confutation of certain absurd heretical 〈◊〉 damnable doctrines delivered by Master James Ushâ—â— in a Sermon preached before King James at Wansteâ— Jun. 20. 1624. The Author calls himself Paulâ— Veridicus Its printed at St Omers 1627. Because take the same way against the Romanists as this Reverend Bishop of Armagh taketh and hath led me iâ— that Sermon I think my self the more obliged 〈◊〉 consider of what is said against it The first onset of this Mr Maledious pag. 9.10 11 Is against our assertion that we are of the same Reâ—gion and Church as the Grecians Aegyptians Christians Aethiopians c. and that all these are not â— be damned as Hereticks and unchurched because they â—re not subjects of the Pope To this 1. He conâ—â—sseth that even the Greeks themselves are not subâ—ect to the Pope and that they soon departed â—om the seeming union made in the Councel of â—â—lorence about the year 1439. 2. He confesseth â—at their doctrine about the Procession of the Holy â—host a patre per silium and not a patre filioque was â—ch that when they had explicated it they were â—und to believe very Orthodoxly and Catholikely in â—e same matter and for such were admitted â— He affirmeth that he findeth not that in any subâ—â—antial point they do dissent from the Romane â—atholike Church excepting the matter of Primacy Let us first observe the consequences of this much â— From hence it followeth that the Greek Churches â—e guilty of no Heresie but non subjection to the â—ope of Rome 2. And that therefore indeed they â—re no Hereticks 3. And therefore it is not of neâ—essity to the being of a Church or Catholike Chriâ—ian to be subject to the Pope And that the Pope â—r Romane Church is not to enter the definition of â—he Catholike Church for as the Greeks may be Caâ—holikes without subjection to Rome so may others â— And therefore they are no General Councels â—here all those Churches are absent as at Trent Constance c. And that its a false excuse of Bellarâ—ine and the rest to say that the Greeks and the rest â—re Hereticks or Schismaticks 5. And therefore it â—eclareth to all the world both that the Popish deâ—gne and Religion is carnal and selfish to exalt â—hemselves above the whole Church of God and â—lso that they are more then barbarously tyranniâ—al censorious and most extreamly schismatiâ—al that will presume to cut off from Christ and the Church the greatest part of the Christiâ—â— in the world even those that themselves confess â— be in all other things Orthodoxe and that meâ—â— because they will not be the Popes subjects â— now proceed to the next The substance of his Answer consisteth of tâ—â— gross untruths in a publike matter of fact wherâ— many millions of men are able at the first hearing â— prove him a bold false witness making falshood â— prop of his ill cause The first untruth which â— layeth down is that the Grecians do claim that â—â—preamacy to their own Patriarke of Constantinople which they deny the Pope and therefore if it be hâ— it is as bad in them as the Papists and so they are â— Protestants To which I say it is not true whatever any private or particular man may say its weâ— known that it s not true of their Church in commâ—â— nor found in any of their Church confessions â— utterly and ordinarily disclaimed by them Thougâ— John of Constantinople did claim the title of Universal Bishop because of the Emperors residence there yet did he not get it much less to be the Universal Governor and yet much less is it now claimed whâ— the Christian Empire is removed To be Episcâ—pâ— prima sedis is as much as is desired by the Patriarcâ— himself which yet he is content to leave and taâ—â— the second place though neither of them concerâ—eth an Universal Episcopacy Can they read such books â— Nilus Archbishop of Thessalonica de primatu Paâ— Parham and many other of the Greeks and yet belieâ—â— themselves in these fictions Why do we read or hear nothing from the Patriache of Constantinople inâ—iting and perswading us all to submit to his Governâ—ent as we and all the Christian world almost have â—een solicited by the Popes Emissaries to submit our â—elves to him A short Reply may serve to such â—mmodest false assertions as this nicknamed Veriâ—ieus maketh the chiefest part of his confutaâ—ion The second untruth which constituteth this part of â—is answer is that The Grecians Moscovites and Egyptians do in one only point dissent from Rome and â—n no point at all agree with the Protestants sin quanâ—um such and dissent from their Catholike Church This one great falshood containeth two not small ones in it and each of those two contain abundance more 1. That all these Churches differ from you in no one point but the Popes supreamacy is a falshood beyond all modesty For besides the supremacy they believe not your pretended Infallibility nor do they pretend to the like of their own They believe not your Purgatory they own not your pardons for easing the pains of Purgatory nor prayers for the dead to that end nor the application of the treasury of the Saints Merits to that end or for satisfaction to the Justice of God They own not your Transubstantiation They have the Scripture in their known languages They worship God in their Liturgies in their known languages the Moscovites in the Moscovian tongue the Georgians in the Iberick the Arabians in the Arabick and so the Carmanians Slavonians Greeks in theirs They administer the Eucharist in both kinds and detest your Sacrilegious withholding of the cup They reject your confirmation so do they your extreme Unction They admit Priests to live with their wives which were married before ordination They reject tâ—e Religious use of graven Images or Statues They teach that the holy Scriptures are a sufficient and perfect rule of faith they believe that they should not be lockt up from the people They maintain that God is to be worshiped in understanding and they aâ—hor your praying by Beads and tale They think not to wash away sin or drive away the devil by holy water They take not Traditions to be one part of Gods Word necessary to supply the defects
Images They elevate not the Sacrament nor reserve it after Communion Their Priests labor but beg not The Emperor conferreth Bishopricks and Benefices They use no confirmation nor extreame unction They admit a first marriage in Bishops and Priests They eat flesh on Fridays And yet this man saith they differ not from them The second Chapter is the meer ebullition of foolish malice deserving no reply to those that do not desire to be deceived He would prove that according to these laxe principles of our charity we may agree with Jews Turkes Mahometans As if we needed a dispute to prove that these are no Christians and that the Greeks Abassines c. are But such disputes do the Papists put us upon The Bishop had concluded in his Sermon that If we should survey the several professions of Christianity that have any large spread in any part of the world and put by the points wherein they differ one from another and gather into one body the rest of the Articles wherein all generally agree we should finde so much truth in them as being joyned with holy obedience may be sufficient to bring a man to everlasting salvation neither have we cause to doubt but as many as do walk according to this rule neither overthrowing that which they have builded by superinducing any damnable heresies thereupon nor otherwise vitiating their holy faith with a leud and wicked conversation Peace shall be upon them and Mercy and upon the Israel of God And what hath the Confuter to say against this Why first he begins with the Sacraments to try whether those commonly agreed on may save And here he first tells us that Some Churches are for seven some for three and some for two â—â—d no more therefore here is no agreement Rep. 1. Leâ— the nominal differences about the word Sacrament be first laid by unless you think that word necessary to salvation and then we shall the better see what real difference remaineth 2. The two Sacraments then are confessed by all and the use of the rest which you call Sacraments This much in its own place then may save where no more is confessed 3. You vainly put in the exclusion of more for that 's none of the things that all agree on All agree that there are two Sacraments and those may save But all agree not that there is but two This man therefore seems to dote when he should gather up the common agreements according to the Bishops proposal he gathers up the disagreements or vainly pretendeth that we agree in nothing What do not you confess that Baptisme and the Lords Supper are Sacraments and do not we do so too Next he comes to the use of Baptisme and saith that The Romanes and Greeks say that there is no other use of baptisme but to wash away sin The Protestants of England and Geneva say that it is no laver of Regeneration at all but onely a seal of Gods promise made to the party baptized and that the childe unbaptized may be saved and the baptized damned Repl. 1. You make your selves much more the Greeks worse then you are Do not your own maintain that Baptism admitteth into the Church and granteth many other priviledges besides washing away sin 2. We say that to the children of promise it doth secondarily and by obsignation wash away or pardon sin by way of obsignation and solemne exhibition as the promise doth primarily as a deed of gift or legal Grant as also that in the same way it secondarily conveyeth further Grace according to the capacity of the subject and admitteth into the Church And all this is commonly confest by your selves and all Christians of the Greek or Abassine Churches c. This much alone without your additions is as much at least as is necessary to salvation to be believed concerning baptism Next he cometh to the Lords Supper and saith that one party holdeth the real presence and the other not And what of this Doth that prove the insufficiency of what all are agreed on what we hold you deny not We hold the signifying and sealing and exhibiting use of the Sacrament though we deny Transubstantiation And dare you deny these We hold that it is the commemoration of the sacrifice of Christs body and blood offered once on the Cross for the sins of the world and that it is a means of Church-communion And dare you deny these Lay by your Additions and that which we are all agreed in is enough to salvation His next instance is about Faith Because we say that Historical faith may be in Devils and Miraculous faith in the wicked and Calvin defineth justifying faith to be a firme and certain knowledge of the love of God to us c. and the Lutherans that it is an undoubted perswasion of the pardon of our sins and adoption c. and this faith is by the Councel of Trent condemned to the pit of hell therefore he concludeth that there is no saving faith common to Papists and Protestants Repl. Here again you vainly and fallaciously bring in the disagreements and over pass the agreements 1. We are agreed that all those which the Protestants call the Canonical books of Scripture are the word of God and true and particularly all the Articles of the Creed and many things more We are agreed that Christ and life is offered by the Universal promise in the Gospel to all that hear it and that all must first believe the truth of this promise and then heartily consent to the offer and accept the benefit and also believe and fear the threatning and joyn sincere love and obedience to all this This we are all agreed in And this is certainly saving to all that sincerely believe and do as they thus profess But then whether Historical faith be common or not whether assurance or strong perswasion of pardon be faith or justifying faith with other the like these we are not agreed in and without these we may be saved The next exception is only this The Bishop tells us not what be those Heresies that destroy this common faith Rep. And doth that cross his former charitable conclusion What because he undertakes not an alien task Why in general they are any thing that is so held as that the common Articles of faith cannot be held with it and that practically The sum of the next passage is this That its absurd for us to call them the true Church or say they may be saved when we have charged them with so much error and idolatry c Repl. 1. We onely say that you are a polluted part of the Church 2. If your salvation be made so difficult by your errors look you to that The Bishops conclusion of the sufficiency of the communiter credita is nevertheless sound though you destroy your selves by your corrupt additions 3. Multitudes among you believe not your Infallibility Transubstantiation and many the like errors 4. Many that behold them as opinions
and so with much ado scapeth death I think notwithstanding the scaping of these last we may well conclude that Poison is no safe or wholesome food I come now to prove the Proposition last expressed In general 1. Popery is No way to salvation Therefore it is no safe way God hath no where prescribed it as a way to salvation therefore it is not a way to salvation 2. It is the way toward damnation and from salvation therefore it is no safe way to salvation The proof of all together shall be next fetcht from some general reasons drawn from the dangerous nature of Popery For if I should descend to every particular error I must be voluminous and do that which is sufficiently done by multitudes already Arg. 1. Those doctrines which are founded upon a Notorious falshood and resolved into it are not a safe way to Salvation But such are the doctrines which we call Popery Therefore For the Minor They are founded on and resolved into the doctrine of the Popes Infallibility or at least his Councils This the Papists do confess and maintain But that this is a Notorious falshood is evident 1. In that it is notorious that Popes have erred and judicially erred and erred in matters of faith Bellarmine is put to answer to no less then fourty instances of erring Popes and how shamefully or shamelesly he doth it any Learned man that will search the records and peruse the case may soon discover 2 It is notorious that Councils have erred I shall not now intermix my Testimonies to interrupt the plain course which I have begun but rather give you the proof of all this distinctly by it self in the next disputation 3. The Papists themselves confess this that we affirm I mean One part of them do confess that the Pope may err as the French and the other the Italians and Spaniards confess that a Council may erre One saith the Infallibility is not seated in the Pope and the other that it is not sealed in a Council particular or general of which see Bellarmine de Conciliis lib. 2. cap. 10. 11. In which last he seeks to prove that a General Council may erre 1. When they dissent from the Popes Legates 2. And when they consent with the Lâ—gates if those Legates do cross the Popes instructions 3. Yea if the Legates have no certain Instructions the Council and all they may consent in error And he proves the two former by the instance of the second Council of Ephesus and the Constantinopolitane Council in the time of Pope Nicholas the first which erred saith he because the Popes Legates followed not his instructions The third he proves by the Council of Basil Sess 2. which together with the Popes Legate did by common consent Decree that the Council is above the Pope which now saith Bellâ—rmine is judged erroneous 4. Some Popes themselves have confessed that they are not the seat or chief subject of the infallibility As Adrian the sixth who hath wrote his judgement of it that the Pope may err out of Council And in my opinion we shall do the Pope much wrong if we shall not believe him when he speaks the truth and tells us that he is fallible Did Bellarmine better know Pope Adrians understanding then the Pope knew his own Surely I must do as I would be done by and if any man should perswade me that I know that which I do not know or that I am infallible when I know my self subject to error I should confidently expect that all men would rather believe me of my self then believe another of me that speaks the contrary And so will I believe Pope Adrian that he was fallible But of this more in the next disputation where you shall have fuller proof Arg. 2. If Popery do build even the Christian Religion it self as held by them on a foundation that is utterly uncertain or else certainly false then is it no safe way to salvation For it would extirpate Christianity it self But the Antecedent is true as I shall thus prove 1. They are divided and disagreed among themselves even their greatest Learned Doctors about the very foundation of their faith as I shall further shew in the next argument They believe upon the infallible judgement of the Church and they are not agreed what that Church is 2. They build the assurance of their faith upon such a ground as none of the common people no nor any Doctors in the world can have the knowledge of therefore their faith must needs be uncertain To manifest this I shall review one leaf that I wrote heretofore on this subject in the Preface to the second Part of the Saints Rest It is the Authority of the Church they say upon which we must believe that the Scriptures are the word of God and were it not for the Churches authoritative affirmation they would not believe it saith one of them no more than Aesops Fables Now suppose they were agreed what this Church is and that we now take notice of their more common opinion that it is all the Bishops of the Church headed by the Pope or a General Council approved of and confirmed by the Pope I would fain know how the faith of any of us that live at a distance yea or of any man living can be sure and sound when all these following particulars must be first known before we can have such assurance 1. It must be known that God hath given to the Church this power of judging what is his word and what is a point of faith and what not so that that is so to us which they judge so or that we are bound by God to believe them Now which way doth God give the Church this Power Is it not by Scripture or unwritten tradition in their own judgment And by what means doth he oblige us to Believe the Church in such determinations It must be also by Scripture or unwritten Tradition by their own confession For if they fly to universal Tradition and natural obligation they give up their cause and let go their Authoritative Tradition and Obligation as from their Romanâ— Church So that a man must according to their doctrine believe that the word of God written or unwritten hath given Power to the Church to determine what is the word of God before he can believe the word of God or know it to be the word of God that is He must know and believe the word of God before he can know and believe it Here is one of the impossibâ—lities that lye at the very foundation of the Romane way of faith 2. Before men can know the Scripture to be Gods word yea or their supposed unwritten verities infallibly according to the Romane way of believing they must first know that the Church is infallible in her judgement and this also must be known by the word of God which is supposed not to be known yet it self 3. They must also know
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
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
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
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
concilii sententia magis tenentur cujus antiquior pâ—tior est authoritas That is As oft as we find in the acts of Councils disagreeing judgements let us hold the judgement of that Council which hath the more Ancient and the greater authority But the confession of the adversaries here may spare us more labour who acknowledge that a General Council though rightly Congregated and though the Popes Legates concur may yet erre in the faith if so be that the Pope doth not approve or confirme their Decrees So that when they say that All the Church cannot err and therefore a General Council cannot erre their own meaning is that one man cannot erre but All the Church viz. a General Council without him may erre Argu. 19. The infallibility of the Pope or Romane Church was never acknowledged by the Ancient Churches or Fathers for six hundred years after Christ Therefore it is not now to be received The Antecedent is so fully proved by our Writers and so easily discernable by those that read the writtings of those times that there needs not any more to be said That which I shall produce to this pupose shall be anon to prove the following point and this together In the mean time I refer them to Bishop Jewell Chamâ—er Bishop Vsher Doctor White who with many more have fully proved this Argu. 20. If the Pope be not the Authorized judge of Scripture nor our faith to be resolved into his judgement or the judgement of his Church then is he not the Infallible judge of Scripture and of controversies about matters of faith For he that is no judge can be no infallible judge nor doth he need infallibility to qualifie him for a work which he was never called to nor doth at all belong to him It is not the Pope as a private Doctor or as the Bishop of a particular Church which is made by them the subject of infallibility but the Pope as the supposed head of the Catholike Church authorized to interpret Scripture and to judge of all controversies of faith into whose judgement at least with his Clergy our faith they think must be resolved If therefore we can prove the nullity of the subject we do thereby prove the nullity of the Adjunct And this leads us up to the third Question which we have now to deal with Quest 3. Whether our faith must be resolved into the infallibility of the Romane pretended Authoritative judgement Or whether the Popes Authority and infallibility be the thing first to be known and thence the truth of Scripture or Christian Religion to be received as upon his judgement But because this is not the principal point intended in this dispute and because there is enough said to it in the beginning on the by and because I have said yet more for explication of the whole matter in the Preface to the later Editions of The Saints Rest I shall therefore say but little to it now reserving a fuller handling it if necessary to a fitter season Only I shall here adde a few more Reasons to prove that the Pope or Romane Church have no such Authority to be judge of Scripture or controversies to all the rest of the Churches on earth and then I shall adde a few words to prove that we must believe in Christ and receive his doctrine before we believe in the Pope and receive his pretended authority and judgement that is without it Arg. 1. If the Pope or his consistory must be the universal Governor and Judge to all the Chrian world then must the greatest part of the Christistian world be ungoverned and have no recourse to their Judge But the consequent will be denyed by themselves therefore we have reason to deny the Antecedent The proof of the consequence is most obvious and certain from the Popes natural incapacity and insufficiency for such a work and so of his consistory It is naturally impossible that the Pope should perform the works of this Government to all the Christian world therefore the consequence is good He cannot make known his determinations to all If all men through the Christian world that have such doubts to be resolved as his Holiness supposeth belong to him properly to resolve should have recourse to him for resolution O how much would the wayes to Rome be beaten and frequented What a concurse would be about his Holiness doors What time would he have to resolve those millions of men If any differences or difficulties arise in Aethiopia or at the Antipodes before they go or send to Rome for Resolution and receive an answer the persons are like to be in another world where they will have a more infallible resolution And if they live to see the return of their messengers they must take it on the trust of their words that this is indeed his Holinesses resolution Hence it is that de facto there is so few people on earth even of the Papists themselves that are really goverened or resolved by the Pope himself nor know what he is or what is his minde but all is done by his Missionaryes or Delegates And if the Pope can delegate his power to others and make so many others also infallible then infallibility is not proper to himself and then why may not the rest of the Bishops of the Church be as infallible who are sent by Christ as these are that are sent by him Argu. 2. If the Pope be such an universal Governor and Judge then all Popes must needs be damned for utter neglect of the works of their office For sure when the wel-fare of the whole Church doth so much depend on the office of the head it cannot but be damnable in him to be a neglecter of the works of that office to the far greatest part of the Church on earth But he must unavoidably neglect I mean omit that work which it iâ— impossible for him to perform Therefore What I have further to say against the resolving of our faith into his judgement shall be contained in these few Questions following Quest 1. Doth he not contradict the very definition of a Pope that tells us that we must first believe him to be an infallible Pope before we can believe the Doctrine of Christ For a Romane Pope is supposed to be the Vicar of Christ the successor of Saint Peter the head of the Church And can he be thus known by a man that knoweth not or believeth not that there is a Christ who is the Saviour and principal head and who is supposed to send him Quest 2. And doth it not contradict the definition of a Church to say that we must believe the Church before we can believe the doctrine of Christ For what is a Church but a society of Christians that is men professing the Christian Faith And how can they know that such men are Christians or profess that faith before they know what that faith is And how can they know that they are to
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
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
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
Church li. 3. Cap 7. Of the several points of difference between us and our adversaries wherein some in the Church erred but not the whole Church FOr neither did that Church wherein our Fathers lived and dyed â— hold that Canon of Scripture which the Romanists now urge nor that in sufficiency they now charge it with nor corruption of the Originals nor necessity of following the vulgar Translation nor the Heresies touching mans creation brought into the Church by certain barbarous Schoolmen as that there are three different estates of men the first of pure nature without addition of Grace or sin and two other the one of Grace the other of Sin That all those evils that are found in the nature of man since his fall as Ignorance Concupiscence Contrariety between the better and meaner faculties of the Soul difficulty to do well and proneness to do evil were all natural the conditions of pure nature that is of nature as considered in it self it would come forth from God That these evils are not sinful nor had their beginnings from sin that they were the consequents of nature in the state of creation but restrained by addition of supernatural Grace without which the integrity of nature was full and perfect That men in the state of pure nature that is as they might have been created of God in the integrity of Nature without addition of Grace and in the estate of Original sin differ no otherwise but as they that never had and they that have lost rich and precious cloathing so that Original sin is but the loss of that without which natures integrity may stand That no evils are brought in by the fall but nature left to her self to feel that which was before but not felt nor discerned while the addition of Grace bettered nature None of these errors touching the estate of mans creation were the Doctrines of the Church but the private fancies and conceits of men So likewise touching Original Sin there were that taught that it is not inherent in each particular man born of Adam but that Adams personal sin is imputed onely That the propagation of sin is not general Mary being conceived without Original sin That the punishment of it is not any sensible smart or positive evil but privative onely and that therefore there is a third place neither Hell nor Heaven named Limbus Puerorum which is a place whereas some think they who are condâ—mned thither though they be excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven and all possibility of ever coming thither yet are in a state of natural happiness and do enjoy the sweet content of Eternal Life These Pelagian Heresies were taught in the Church of God but they were not the Doctrines of the Chuâ—ch being condemned rejected and refuted as contrary to the Christian Verity by many worthy members and guides of the Church who as they never received these parts of false Doctrine So likewise the Church wherein they lived neither know nor approved that distinction and difference of venial and mortal sins which the Romanists now Teach nor power of nature to do the works of the Law according to the substance of the things commanded though not according to the intention of the Law-giver to love God above all and to do actiâ—â—s morally good or not sinful without concurrence of special Grace nor election and reprobation depending on the foresight of something in us positive or privative nor merit of congruence and condignity nor works of supererogation nor counsels of perfection as they now teach nor justification by perfection of inherent qualities nor uncertainty of Grace nor seven Sacraments properly so named nor local presence nor Transubstantiation nor â—rall manducation of the body of Christ nor real sacrificing of it for the quick and the dead nor remission of sins after this Life nor tormenting of the souls of men dying in the state of Salvation in a part of Hell hundreds of years by Divels in corporal fire out of which prayer should deliver â—hem nor that the Saints hear our Prayers â—ow or are acquainted with our particular wants nor the gross idolatry in those times committed and intollerable abuses found in the number fashion and worship of their images nor their absolution as now they define it nor treasure of the Church growing out of the superstuity of Saints merits not rewardable in themselves to be disposed by the Pope for the supply of other mens wants to release them out of Purgatory by way of indulgence nor the infallibility of the Popes judgement and plenitude of his power such and so great that he may depâ—sâ— Princes and dispose of their Crowns and digrâ—â—ieâ— and that whatsoever he doth he may not be broughâ— into order or deposed by authority of the whole world in a general Council Those are the errors which we condemne and our adversaries maintain and defend these we are all assured were not the Doctrines of that Church wherein our Fathers lived and dyed though we do not deny but they were taught by some in that Church All these we offer to prove to be error in matter of our Christian faith and that seeing we could have peace no longer with our adversaries but by approving these impieties we had just cause to divide our selves from them or to speak more properly to suffer our selves to be accursed anathematized and rejected by them rather then to subscribe to so many errors and heresies contrary to the Christian and Catholike verity WHereas the Papists have little else to say to us but onely to call still for a Catalogue of Professors to prove the successive visibility of our Church we require of them first an answer to those Writings that have been extant so long on this subject especially Bishop Vsher de successione Statu Eccles and his answer to the Jesuits challenge Defended by Master Sing and Master Puttock Doctor Fields Treat of the Church especially the Appendix to the third part Simon Birkbecks Protestants evidence Doctor Whites Way to the true Church Abbot against Hill Illiricus his Catalogues testium veritatis Mornays two Treatises of the Church and the Mystery of iniquity to say nothing of that of the Mass Johan Lidii Waldens Nicol. Vignier Ecclesiast Histor. And the confessions of your own Writers Your after Pope Aenaeas Sylvius Histor Bohem. and that commonly cited passage of your inquisitor Rainnerius which I will adjoyn Rainerius contr Waldens cap 4. Inter omnes sectas que adhuc sunt fuerunt non est perniciosior Ecclesiae quam ea Leonistarum idque tribus de causis 1. Quia est diuturnior aliqui enim dicunt quod duravit a tempore Silvestri alii a tempore Apostolorum 2. Quia est generalior fere enim nulla terra est in qua haec secta non sit 3. Quia cum omnes aliae sectae immanitate Blasphemiarum in Deum audientibus horrorem inducant haec scilicet Leonistarum magna habet speciem pietatis eo
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
2. Either the Catholike Church is one or not If not then Popery is deceitful which maketh this its principal pretence for the usurping the Universal Headship If it be One then Popery is deceitful which is renounced by the far greater part of the Catholike Church and again renounceth them and separateth from them because they will not be subject to the Pope who never yet in his greatest height had the actual Government of half the Christian world 3. Either the Judgement of the Antient Doctors is sound or not If not then the Church of Rome is unsound that is sworn to expound the Scripture onely according to their concent If it be sound then the Church of Rome is unsound that arrogate a Uiniversal Government and Infallibility and build upon a foundation that was never allowed by the Antient Doctors as in the third Disput I have fully proved and which most Christians in the world do still reject 4. Either Reason it self is to be renounced or not If it be then none can be Papists but mad men If not then Popery must be renounced which foundeth our very faith upon impossibilities and teacheth men of necessity to believe in the Pope as the Vicar of Christ before they believe in Christ with many the like which are afterwards laid open 5. Either our five Senses and the Judgement made upon them is certain and Infallible or not If not then the Church of Rome both Pope and Council are Fallible and not at all to be tâ—â—â—â—ed For when all their Tradition is by hearing or reading they are uncertain whether ever they heard or read any such thing and we must all be uncertain whether they speak or write it And then we must not onely subscribe to Fransc Sanchez Quod nihil scitur but also say that Nihil certo creditur But if sense be certain and Infallible then the Church of Rome even Pope and Council are not onely Fallible but certainly false deceivers and deceived For the Pope and his Council tell the Church that it is not Bread and Wine which they take eat and drink in the Eucharist But the senses of all sound men do tell them that it is I see that its Bread and Wine I smell it I feel it I taste it and somewhat I hear to further my assurance And yet if Popery be not false it s no such matter One would think the dullest Reader might be quickely here resolved whether Popery be true or false Look on the consecrated Bread and Wine touch it smell it taste it and if thou canst but be sure that it is indeed Bread and Wine thou maist be as sure that Popery is a delusion And if thou canst but be sure that it is not Bread and Wine yet thou maist be sure that the Pope or his Council nor any of his Doctors are not to be believed For if other mens senses be deceitful theirs and thine are so too But these things are urged in the following Disputations It s worth the observing how much they are at odds among themselves about the Resolution of their Faith and how neer some of them come to us of late as in White 's Sonus Buccinae and Doctor H. Holden de Resol fidei and in Cressy and Vane and others may be seen And their silly followers in England think verily that theirs is the common Doctrine of that Church And how solicitous Cressy and others are to take that Infallibility out of our way as a stumbling stone which the Italians and most of them make the Foundation and chief corner-stone What a task were it to Reconcile but Bellarmine and Holden Knot and Cressy both in English White had so much wit in his Defence of Rushworths Dialogues when he wrote in English to carry on the matter as smoothly as if they had been all of a mind But when he writes in Latin How many wayes of Resolution of Faith that are unsound can he find among the Papists as different from his own Vid. de fide Theolog Tract 1. Sect. 28.29 Reader Adhere to God and the Righteousness of Christ and the Teachings of the Holy Ghost by the Holy Scriptures and a faithful Ministry in the Communion of the Saints and as a member of the Catholike Church which arising at Jerusalem is dispersed over the world containing all that are Christians renounce not right Reason or thy senses and live according to the light which is vouchsafed thee and then thou shalt be safe from Popery and all other pernicious damning errors Marc. 10. 1656 7. R.B. To the Literate Romanists that will read this Book Men and Brethren A Writing that so much concerneth your cause I think should tender you some account of its publication especially when I know that not onely the divulging but the holding of the Doctrine contained therein is so hainous a matter in your eyes that if I were in your power the suspicion of it might bring me to the Rack and the Strappado and the confession of it would expose me to the flames I have many times considered that you could never sure endure to torment men in your Inquisition and consume them to ashes and so industriously to embroyle the Nations of the earth in blood and miseries to work them to your minds and set up your own way if you did not think it right and think them exceeding bad whom you thus destroy I find that my own heart would serve me to use Toads and Serpents and destroying Vermine half as bad as you do Protestants that is to put them to death though not to torment them so long but for gentler and more harmeless creatures I could not do it without a great reluctancy of my nature I must needs therefore by your works bear you record that you have a zeal for God but so had some before you that guided it not by knowledge Rom. 10.2 And I suppose your way is undoubtedly right in your own eyes or else you durst never prosecute it with such violence And yet one that was once as zealous in his way and shut up the Saints in prison and received authority from the high Priests to put them to death and compelled them to blaspheam did afterward call all this but madness Acts 26.9 10 11. But methinks I find my self obliged when I see men differ from me with such height of confidence to give them some Reason of my differing thoughts And yet it is no great matter of success that I can expect from this account To make any addition or alteration in your belief I have no great reason to expect while you read my words with this prejudice that they are damnable heresie and depend upon him whom you suppose infallible for the fashioning of your Faith And if I should say that I expect satisfaction from you with any great hope I should but dissemble For I have not been negligent in reading such writings of your own as might acquaint me both with
your Faith and your Theological Opinions and can scarce reasonably expect that any of you should say more to satisfie me then these contain For any of you to recite the Canons or Decretals of your Church or Popes in a writing to me is in vain For I have them at hand already or can have them at a trice And if you say any thing to me by way of Answer which is not in those Canons or Decretals or solemnly pronounced already by your Church to be de fide you can give me little assurance of its verity but your own writing must incur all those reproaches which Knot bestows on the Doctrine of Chillingworth and we hear from you so frequently for â—he defect of Infallibility But yet let what will come of it I shall leave some slender Teâ—timony to posterity that I dissented not from â—o many confident men without giving them â—ome of the Reasons of my dissent I was born and bred here among the Proâ—essors of the Reformed Catholik Christian Religion When I was young I judged of â—our Profession as I was taught and the preâ—udice which I received against it did grow up â—ith me as yours doth against us Yet receiving much good to my soul by Parsons Book of Resolution corrected when I was but sixteen years of Age it run much in my mind that sure there were some among you that had the Fear of God When I was capable of it by Age and Studies I made some diligent search into your Writers that I might know the true state of the controversies betwixt us But still I confess I read them with prejudice and partiality till at last I attained as far as I can understand by my own heart such a love to the truth and an impartiality in my Studies and judgement of these things that I read your Writers with as free a mind I mean as willing to find what truth was there to be found as I do the Writings of Protestants themselves When I had discovered undoubtedly that in some doctrinal points the differences were made by most on both sides much greater then they were and much greater then the most Learned on both sides thaâ— had any moderation did conceive them to be I was the more confirmed in my resolutions to be impartial in my Studies and so have proceeded if I be a competent judge of my own mind to this day And after all I am left in the dissatisfaction which I here manifest And by what sheps my averseness to your waâ— hath been brought on since I began to search in to it impartially I shall here further declare First I have been most offended with those doctrines and practices that did most notoriously run against the stream of the Holy Scripture for here the case was so plain that without any singular acuteness it might be discerned as in your Latin Service of God with those that understand it not your administring the Bread in the Lords Supper without the cup that Image-worship which your Writers do maintain forbidding Priests marriages with many such like And yet suspecting my own understanding I read what your Writers say also for these But when I saw how palpably they forced the text it increased my dislike And then knowing that you contradicted the Scriptures in these and finding withal that you build your faith upon your Churches Infallibility I was exceedingly turned against your profession when I saw your foundation so clearly overthrown But yet this was not all There was scarce any thing that more offended me then the tendency of your Doctrines to destroy the Knowledge of the people and lead them on in ignorance and please and deceive them by a company of ceremonies instead of a Reasonable service of God and the manner of your worship I could never digest Other things did grate very hard upon those truths which I was confirmed in but these went against the very bent of my heart and crossed the very ends of my Religion and my Life Your keeping the Scriptures from the Laity as far as you do and maintaining it so commonly to be the Original of Heresies to translate them into a known tongue and making it so deadly a crime to have a Bible which they can read with your Latin Service aforesaid and the formalities and scenical worship in which you train up the ignorant vulgar with many other things in your doctrine and practice are such as leave me but little room for deliberation whither I should own them or not because they are so plainely against the very end of the Christian Religion Had these things come under my consideration in a carnal state when the flesh was my end and not God I know not how I should have entertained them But your own Doctors consent that God must be my end and chiefly Loved desired and sought And will you teach a man this and whoodwinke him when you have done Will you bid him love God and keep him from the Knowledge of him Will you bid him desire and seek him and when you have done lock him up in the dark Or will you bid him serve and obey him and yet forbid him to search after the knowledge of his laws and will If you would bring me to be of these opinions your reasonings would be to as much purpose as if you should perswade me to put out my eyes and put them in your pockets for fear of missing my way in my race when my life is at the stake Or as if you should perswade me to be ignorant of Plowing and Sowing and Merchandize and yet to seek after provision and riches in the world I am as easily reconciled as another to those that step out of the path that I am in if they go towards the same end But if you would teach me to turn my back upon Heaven as the onely way to attain it this will not easily down with me I know that God is light and with him is no darkness and that Christ is the light of the world and his spirit is the illuminater of the Saints and the word is a light to our feet and giveth wisdome to the simple And yet would you have us refuse this Light and choose the Darkness I know that Satan is the prince of darkness a state of death is a state of darkness tending to outer darkness and that it is the saving way of God to translate men out of darkeness into his marvellous light And yet would you perswade me that this is the way of Life What a difference is there between this doctrine of yours and the very scope of Scriptures and antient Writers and the sense of a gracious soul Solomon would have men to Hide the commandment with them and incline their ear to wisdom and apply their hearts to understanding and cry after knowledge and lift up their voiec for understanding and seek for it as silver and search after it as for hid treasure Prov. 2.2
it not For the will it self is under a Law which puts it upon duty and not onely restrains it from sinful volition or nolition And therefore if the will do but suspend its act in whole or in part and thereby let the commanded faculties miscarry I shall yet believe that this is forbidden and a proper sin What if you have a charge of the souls of your flock and you sleep while they are misled Or if you were a Physician and had charge of your patients lives and you fall asleep till they are past recovery are you no sinner and do you not go against the Law Yes you are a murderer For though the thing be not voluntary quoad actum voluntatis it is morally or imputatively voluntary propter omissionem actus If Wolverhampton Papists be fed with such doctrine as this they may well be many but they are unlikely to be good Inconsiderateness which I took for one of the most destroying sins it seems is a notable preservative from sin For be sure you deliberate not and you break no Law of God what ever you do And if there be no Law against Lying except the lyes of the higher strain that are by H.T. excepted no wonder then if Papists be Lyars And can you think it any injury to you if from hence I interptet not onely many of your Historical writings such as the Image of both Churches c. but also much of the jugâ—ing that is in England at this day If you put your selves in the Garbe of Quakers Enthusiasts Anabaptists c. and pretend that you are of their opinions and deny your selves to be what you are as long as you think that these lies are pious and rather honor God then greatly dishonor him and rather do good to others by promoting the Catholike cause then notably injure them can any man say that 's of your opinion that they are against the Law of God And why call you that a venial sin which is against no Law when sin is a transgression of the Law and where there â—s no Law there is no transgression 1 Ioh. 3.4 Rom. 4.15 And why say you â—hat veniam meretur when yet you say that â—aenam aeternam non meretur How can there â—e venia sine merito vel debito paenae What â—eed you any pardon of that which was never â—eserved by you And what need you ask forgiveness of these sins or be beholden to God â—or it if the punishment to be forgiven were never due Will you beg the remission of a debt which is no debt Aquinas makes venial and mortal sin to differ as Reparabile irreparabile because from an inward principle the one may be repaired but the other not without infused supernatural grace But is it ever the less sin because it is reparabile Nay what needs it reparation if it be not a transgression But what is this Reparation that he speaks of Is it the remission of the guilt and punishment No sure for eternal punishment he saith it deserveth not and internal principles do not sure forgive the punishment of sin Can we forgive our selves What is it then Is it the removing of the blot No properly peccatum veniale non inducit maculam as before said Is it that venial sin is easier conquered and forsaken then mortal No sure For Aquinas tells us that a man may live for a little while without venial sin but not long but without mortal sin they may easily live till death What this reparation then is I do not certainly know But whatever it is methinks it should suppose a proper sin and not onely Analogical an a desert of eternal punishment to be remitted And here I must adde that another thinâ— that lately hath much disaffected me to youâ— profession is to see by what actual fraud and jugling it is propagated Do you think I see not the game that you are now playing in the darke in England in the persons of Seekers Behmenists Paracelsians Origenists Quakers and Anabaptists I must confess I naturally abhor collusions and dissimulation in the matters of God If your way were of God it needed not such devices to uphold it nor would it suit so well with works of darkness If you have the truth produce it naked and deal plainly and play above board For my part I do not fear being cheated out of my Religion by any thing but seeming force of Argument for I mean to know what I receive before I take it and to taste and chew it before I let it down but the blind incautelous multitude and half witted giddy persons and discontented licentious half studyed Gentlemen may possibly be caught by such chaffe as this Another of your dissimulations which increaseth my dissatisfaction is Your pretending â—o the ignorant people that you are all of a mind and there are no divisions among you â—nd making our divisions the great Argument â—o raise â—n odium against our doctrine calling us Schismaticks Hereticks and the like When â—ndeed no one thing doth so much turn away my heart from you as your abominable Schism Do we not know of the multitudes of Opinions among you mentioned by Bellarmine and other of your Writers If you call me out to any more of this work I mean the next time to present to the world a Catalogue of your Divisions among your selves that it may appear how notable your unity is If the Jesuites are to be believed what a silly sottish generation are your secular Priests If your Priests are to be believed what a seditious hypocritical cheating packe are the Jesuites I speak not the words of your Protestant adversaries but of those of your own Church Do I not know what Guiliel de Sancto Amore and many another say of your own Church Do you think I never read Watsons Quodlibets and the many pretty stories of the Jesuites exploits there mentioned by him I do not think that you suffer many of your own followers to read these books that are written against one another by your selves But the great division among you that quite overthrows your cause in my esteem is that between the French and Italian in your very foundation which all your faith is resolved into You have no belief of Scripture nor in Christ no hope of heaven you differ not from Turkes and Infidels but onely upon the credit and authority of your Church And this Church musâ— be infallible or else your faith is fallible Aâ— least it must be of sovereign authority And when it comes to the upshot you are not agreeâ— what this Church is One saith it is the Pope with a General Council and another saith it is a General Council though the Pope dissent One saith the Pope is fallible and the other saith a Council is fallible One saith a Pope is above the Council and another saith the Council is above the Pope And now what is become of your Religion Nay is it not
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
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
Catholick Church If any depart from Scripcures as to the sence in points absolutely necessary they cease to be of our Religion If any depart from it in lesser things they may yet be of the same Religion with us but so far we disown them if we know it Popery hath no sure test or means to prevent mutation But we have in that we fix on the Immutable Rock If Anabaptists Separatists or any erroneous persons live among us so far as they hold those errors so far they are none of us And if any err whom we dare not reject we yet reject their errors and take them for no part of our Religion And if this Argument hold it will much more condemne the Romanists who have more diversity of opinions and wayes among them then the Protestants as may in due place be shewed Obj. 6. That is not the true Religion nor a safe way to Heaven which men can have no Infallible certainty of But the Protestant Religion is such For they all profess their Church to be fallible Answ We must distinguish between a man that May be deceived and a man that Is deceived And between Infallibility in the Object and in the Subject or Intellect And between Infallibility in the absolutely necessary points and in some Inferior smaller matters And so I Ans 1. The Rule of our Religion viz. the word of God is Infallible yea the onely Infallible Rule of Religion and therefore we have an Infallible and the onely Infallible Religion 2. The weakness of the Recipient must be differenced from the Religion which hath no such weakness There is still the certainty and Infallibility of the Object when the believer through his own weakness may be uncertain 3. No man is Falsus actually deceived while he believes that doctrine of our Religion that is the holy Scripture And this we are certain of 4. No Christian in sensu composito nor no Church is fallible or can err in the Fundamentals or points absolutely necessary For if he do so he ceaseth to be a Christian and that to be a Church 5. In sensu diviso he that was a common believer may Apostatize from the faith and so may a particular Church and therefore is fallible but is not as is said Deceived till it turn from the Infallible truth 6. The best man or Church on earth doth know but in part and therefore erreth in part and therfore is fallible in part or in lower things So that it is not the least proof of the fallibility of Scripture or the Reformed Religion that men may Apostatize from it or that they may stagger in Believing an Infallible Truth or that we are fallible in lesser things All true Believers are actually Infalliblly perswaded of the Truth of Gods Word and particularly of all things absolutely necessary Obj. 7. That Religion is not true nor a safe way to heaven which wanteth many Articles of faith But the Protestant Religion wanteth many Articles of faith Therefore Answ 1. We must distinguish of our Religion as it is in the Professed Rule and as it is Impressed in the mindes of men In the former respect we say that our Religion wanteth no Article of faith for Gods perfect Word is our Religion But in the minds of men Religion is more or less imperfect according to the strength or weakness of mens faith 2. We must distinguish between true Articles of Faith and false ones made by the Church of Rome We are without the latter but want them not but we expect that they who call them Articles of faith do prove them so Obj. 8. Your Religion is unsafe by your own Testimony You condemne one another the Lutheran condemneth the Calvinist as Blasphemous impious and damnable the Calvinists condemne the Lutherans the Anabaptists both and every sect is condemned by others Therefore Ans 1. The Churches confessions pass no such condemnation nor any moderate sober men 2. If two children fall out call one another Bastard they are never the more Bastards for that nor will the father therefore call them so else what will become of your Jesuites and Dominicans Obj. 9. The very name of Lutherans Calvinists Protestants do plainly express a Sect or party different from the Name Catholike which denoteth the true Church which only holds the true Religion And the very name Reformed is novel and no proper title of the Catholike Church but onely a cloak for your Schisme which discloseth the novelty of your Church and way Answ 1. And of how much better signification think you is the name Papist or Romanist You call your selves Catholikes and we call our selves Catholikes You scornfully call us Lutherans and Calvinists which are names that we disclaime and then argue from your own imposed names Would you have us do so by you And as for the names of Protestants and Reformed we use them not to express the Essential nature of our Religion but the Accidental Removal of your Corruptions So that though Scripture or Antiquity talke not of A Protestant or Reformed Religion by name yet it commendeth to us that same Religion which we now call Protestant 〈◊〉 Reformed but then it could not so be called because you had not then hatched your corruptions and deformities which are presupposed to our Reformation The man that fell among thieves when his wounds were healed was a Cured man whereas before he was not a cured man because not a wounded man And yet he was the same man as before and the Theeves â—hat wounded him would have made but a foolish â—lea if they would have dispossessed him of his Inâ—eritance on pretence that he is not the same man and have proved him not the same because he hath â—ot the same name it being not a Cured man that owned that inheritance before Obj. 10. Where the Catholike Church is there the Catholike Religion is and no where else But the Catholike Church is not with you but with us For you found us in Possession of the name and thing and then departed from us as Hereticks in former ages did from the Church Therefore it is not you but we that have the true Catholike Religion which is the onely safe way to salvation Answ 1. The Church must be known to be true and Catholike by the Religion which it owneth and not the Religion by the Church You begin at the wrong end As if I would prove such a thing to be a Vertue because it is in such a man as I esteem when I should rather prove him to be honest and Virtuous because that which is first proved honesty Vertue dwelleth in him 2. Did we not find the Greek Ethiopian and other Churches in possession of the name of the Catholike Church as well as you Yet you would dispossess them 3. We found you in Possession of All in your own account and all is yours if your selves must be Judges But in the account of the Greek Abassine and other Churches
their consciences 〈◊〉 when they have faln into it and know not the waâ— out again to have recourse to their faithful judicioâ—â— Guides for advice herein for the safety of their souâ—â— and so far to confess as is necessary to such advice aâ—â— safety But we do not believe that we are bound to tell the Priest of every sin no nor of every â—â—â—â—ous sin for in some cases we may have a fitter cure will not go to a Pyhsician for every prick of a pin â— cut finger which many neighbors or my self can â—re as well as he I will not so far needlesly trouble â—m Nor will I go to a bad unfaithful Physician â—hen I can have a better nor yet to an ignorant â—an because he hath got the degree of a Doctor of â—hysicke when I may go to an able man that proâ—sseth not Physick You know the Applicatiâ—n Its next said They Euangelical councels and works â— supererrogation You not Rep. We acknowledge â—hat there are many very good works 1. Which â—re the duty of some few Christians upon some speciâ—l occasions and not of all or most 2. Which are so â—he duty of those few as that yet many of them are â—aved that perform them not being not made of the â—ame necessity to salvation as some other duties are And we see not how any man can reasonably imagine â—hat there is any work more excellent than others which yet is not a duty when God hath commanded us to love him with all our heart and might and â—trength and to imploy all talents to the utmost for his Glory and that any Duty can be neglected without sin is as absurd How the Greeks and we differ in this we shall better know when you shew and prove it to us He next adds They the Merit of good Works you not We acknowledge that Good Works are pleasing to God through Christ and rewardable and they say in sence no more We thinke not meet to quarrel about the meer name They renounce and abhorre the Popish Merit of condignity ex proportione operis as is before said In the next place the confuter alledgeth his proofs of all these differences from us and consent with them The first proof is out of Act. Theolog. Witteâ—berg in Crispin de statu Eccles in these words Thâ— Greek and Romane Church are divided onely in the contoversie of Primacy and variety of Ceremony Repâ— I have not Crispinius now by me and therefore 〈◊〉 make no other answer but this that if he be truelâ— alledged yet 1. Abundance of great differences 〈◊〉 about Sacraments Orders Traditions c. may be comprised in that of Ceremony 2. Else your own Writers will tell you that this is a mistake His second proof is from Sir Edwin Sands Europâ— Specul To which I say 1. How unworthily did you conceal the multitude of differences mentioned in the same Author in the same place between you and thâ— Greeks and say there was but one 2. By Purgatory Sands tells you after he means not your Purgatory And it s known the Greeks deny it Though they think that the Saints have some less degree of glory distant from the face of God before the resurrection 3. About Transubstantiation and the Mâ—ss Sands is mistaken The Greeks hold a kind of Real presence but not Transubstantiation And the Mass of the Papists doth abundantly differ from theirs as in the denyal of Transubstantiation elevation c. may appear and is at large by many of ours eâ—pressed which may save me the labor of a recital Next the ignorant Priest would by a Syllogisme prove the Bishop a Papist and in the making of his Syllogisme he is out before he could reach the conclusion and begins again and yet would not blot out his former error so wary is he that he lose not a line of his own writing The mended Syllogisme is his Those who embrace the Communion of the Greciâ—n Church notwitstanding the error of supremacy â—annot in reason refuse the Communion of the Romane â—or the same But Mr. Ushers Church embraceth the Communion of the Greek Church notwithstanding that Error Therefore c. Repl. 1. To the Major it is â—alsly supposed that we refuse your Communion for â—hat Error alone It is for that with abundance more 2. To the Minor I answer by denying it and say you shamelesly slander the Greek Church They mainâ—ain not any Power of Governing the whole Church as the head of it and Christs Vicar general nor any infallibility c. as you do Next he will prove that Mr. Vshers Church can have no Union or Communion with the Greek Church at all and that by this Syllogisme That Church which is a member of another Church that other Church must also be a member of it But the Greek Church is no member of Mr. Ushers Church therefore Mr. Ushers is no member of the Greek Church The Minor he proveth from Jeremias Patriarch of Constantinople and Respons Basil Ducis Moscov Rep. 1. The part is not a part of another part a member is not a member of another co-ordinate member but of the whole 2. I say the proofs of your Minor are vain It is not two mens sayings that â—an make the Greek Church and the Protestants so dis-joyned as not to be members of the Universal Church If Italy tell France and France again tell Italy that they are no part of Europe it is not therefore true If Canterbury tell York that they are not a part of England it is not therefore true Every childe is not a Bastard that is so called by an angry brother If Patriarch Jeremiah fit yoâ—â— turn which I know not for I have not seen him why may not we as well plead the consent of Patâ—iarch Cyrill whose Protestant confession you may see in Alstedius's Euclucopaedia and elsewhere Next he comes to the Abassines where after the mention of their circumcision he as falsly affirmeth that In all other things they profess the faith of the Catholike Church acknowledging the Pope the supreme head thereof and Christs Vicar upon earth which he proves by a confession exhibited to Gregory the 13. and recorded by Possevine Rep. This is to make the foundation like the superstructure and defend falshood with falshood If you were so ignorant your selves as not to know the Romane jugling about that confession you could not imagine the learned Bishop so ignorant Not onely your own Godigam de rebus Abassinorum may tell you but the generality of your faction may sure inform you by this time that all your cunning industry cannot get the Abassines under your Papal Yoak And if you should prevail for the time to come that 's nothing to the time past The Abassines to let pass their errors wherein they differ from you and us do communicate in both kinds they believe the souls of Infants departing unbaptized to be saved because they spring from faithful parents They reject Statues â—â— massy
duntaxat rebus in â—nibus ipsa defecit ab Apostolica atque adeo a seipâ— veteri pura Ecclesia neque alio discessimus zimo quam ut si correcta ad priorem Ecclesiae forâ—am redeat nos quoque ad illam revertamur â—mmunionem cum illa in suis porro caetibus habeamus Quod ut tandem fiat toto animo Domino Jesum preâ—mur Quid enim pio cuique optatius quam ut ubi â—r baptismum renati sumus ibi etiam in finem usâ—u vivamus modo in Domino Ego Hier. Zanchius Cum tota mea familia testatum hoc volo toti Ecclesiae Christi in omnem eternitatem Arg. 5. If Popery do make a new Catholike Church which was never known for many hundred years after Christ then is it no safe way to salvation But Popery doth make a new Catholike Church that was never known of many hundâ—ed years after Christ therefore it s no safe way to salvation The consequence of the Major will not be denyed for they confess that Christs Church is but one He had not a Church of one sort for the first ages and a Church of another sort since though its accidents may vary yet so doth not its essence The Minor I prove thus That which the Papists make to be the Catholike Church is only all those Christians that acknowledge the Pope to be the universal Bishop and head of the Catholike Church having universal supreme jurisdiction and the Church of Rome to be the Mother and Mistris of all other Churches and its only a Catholike Church convertible with the Romane Church But such a Catholike Church as this was never known by the Apostles or of many hundred years after Christ Therefore Popery maketh a new Catholike Church which the first ages never knew It s true that when Rome being then the ruling City of the world did come to own Christianity that the Glory of the Empire occasioned the Bishop to be called Primae sedis Episcopus as one that was to take place of the rest of the Patriarchs who had their several orders or places â—ssigned them as Alexandria to be the second Antioch the third c. which Bellarmiâ—â— confesseth might be after lawfully changed but as Alexandria had not the Government of Antioch by that predecency so neither had Rome any government of the rest And as Constantinople was afterward set up above Alexandria and Antioch and claimed to be above Rome so might it as lawfully have been set up above Rome But what ever be said about their quarrels of precedency which pride begun and cherished yet it s most evident in all antiquity that of many hundred years after Christ there was no such Catholike Church in being or known as was centred in the Pope as the head or universal Bishop or Governor or in Rome as the Mistris of the rest We have long ago challenged them to give us the least proof of such a Church in all antiquity and they give us nothing but such forced passages that are nothing to their purpose that its hard for the most charitable rational man to believe that they do indeed believe themselves and do not know that they hypocritically endeavor to cheat poor souls by their vain cavils All the Papists on earth will never be able to answer what our Divines have said already to prove the novelty of their Papal headship nor can all the Popes servants in the world bring us one word of currant antiquity for many hundred years after Christ to prove that ever such a Church was once dreamed of as they now call the Romane Catholike Church Indeed Rome was called then a Catholike Church and so was Alexandria Antioch and all that held the Catholike faith and were not heretical but it was never known till Boniface had usurped the Title of universal Bishop above 600. years after Christ which he procured by Phocas a Murderer that usurped the Empire when he had slain the Emperor Mauritius that the Romane Church and the Catholike Church was all one or that it was necessary to make any particular Church or person Catholike that they acknowledge the universal headship and jurisdiction of the Romane Pope much less his infallibility To heap up Records here would but stop the plain Reader in his course and somewhat shall be sâ—id of it in the next dispute Onely I now say that if any one question whether indeed the Romane Catholike Church as now constituted be a meer novelty I here offer my self to the fuller proof of it and shall desire no better recreation of such a sort then to entertain a dispute about it with any Papists that will undertake their cause And here I must needs annex this observation What a shameless cheat it is by which the Papists do delude the ignorant perswading them that theirs is the old Religion and the ancient Church which hath continued from the Apostles without interruption and that we are men of a new Religion and of a Church that had never a visible being till the dayes of Luther Costerous the Jesuite in the Preface to his Enchiridion instructeth his deluded novices how to deal with the Protestants by urging them with three Questions which we shall resolve anon to his shame and the last of them is a challenge to us To name one man before Luther that agreed with us in all things But we challenge and most confidently challenge all the Papists on earth to name one man for three hundred years after Christ I might say six hundred years that agreed with them not in all things but in their very Articles of Faith yea in theiâ— Church fundamentals yea in the very definition of the Catholike Church We challenge them to name us one man and prove it that ever knew or owned such a Church as Catholike that is now so called and owned by them We confidently affirm and challenge all the Papists in the world to dispute the point with us that their Church as Popish is a new thing unknown to our forefathers of the first ages that Popery is a fardel of new doctrines unknown to the first Churches We admire at the immodesty of these men to aske us where our Church was before Luther and to call it a new Religion which we profess and to ask us whether we think our selves wiser then all the world was heretofore in the purest times We do most confidently return on them their own demands We would know from any of them where their Church was for three hundred yea for six hundred years after Christs birth And we wonder how they can think to be saved in a way that was not known for so long time Do they think themselves wiser then Christ and his Apostles and all the Christian world for so many hundred years Again we challenge them to shew us the least proof that ever there was such a thing for so long time as a Catholike Church convertible with the Romane and
headed by the Pope as the universal Bishop having a universal jurisdiction over the rest or an infallible Judgement in determining of controversies in matters of faith It is none of the least of our Reasons why we dare not be of the Romish faction or opinions called by them their Church and their Religion because it is so new and we dare not venture our souls upon new wayes nor dare we believe that Christ hath two sorts of Churches essentially different since his Resurrection one sort before the Popes universal headship and the other since nor dare we once imagine that Christ had no true Church on earth till Pope Boniface would needs be the universal Bishop or till Rome was advanced to the dignity and titles which it doth now usurpe I desire no better issue then this of our difference Let any Papists living bring out their cause to the tryal of antiquity and let them that are of the most Ancient Church and Religion carry the cause If we prove not theirs new and ours the most ancient or if they prove theirs more Ancient then ours as since Christs Resurrection then we are contented to be of their Church and way Arg. 6. If the Papists be the greatest Schismaticks upon earth most desperately rending the Church and separating themselves from the maine body of the visible Church then Popery is not a safe way to salvation But the Papists are the greatest Schismaticks on earth most desperately rending the Church and separating themselves from the main body thereof Therefore Popery is no safe way to salvation The consequences of the Major will be confessed by themselves It is only the Minor therefore that is to be proved which is too easily done being a matter of fact First The Papists do actually rend themselves from the greatest part of Christs Church on earth condemning all others to everlasting fire 2. They do lay the grounds of a continual schisme in making a new center of the unity of the Church of these two in order 1. He that shall consider of all the Christians in the world at this day who subject not themselves to the Pope of Rome and may truly be reputed to be of the Catholike Church will see that the Papists are but a small part of the Church But especially if we consider them as they were not many ages ago much more numerous then now they be The Grecians the Syrians called Melchites the Moscovites and Russians the Georgians all of the Greek Religion besides the multitude of the same Religion dispersed throughout the Turkes dominions also the Abassins Egyptians Armenians Jacobites who are neer of a mind and differ from the Papists and submit not to their authority Besides all the Reformed Churches in Germany Sweden Denmark Hungary Transylvania Brittain Ireland France Belgia Helvetia and other parts with those in the Indies I say consider of all these Christians together and it will appear that the Papists are but a few to them or not neer so many as they But if you further consider of the state of the Christian world not many ages ago when the Turkes had not yet subdued the Eastern parts and when the Abassian Empire was much more large and Nubia and other Countries had not revolted it will appear that we may well say that it was but a small part of Christians comparatively that did acknowledge the universall headship and jurisdiction of the Pope or submit themselves to him besides many other points of Religion in which they differ from him I know that the Papists say that these are all either Hereticks or Schismaticks and so no part of the Catholike Church But the accusation of Schisme is the meer voice of Schisme and for Heresie its true that all men and Churches have their errors which yet deserve not the name of Heresie The Jacobites and the rest that are neer them are afraid of acknowledging two Natures in Christ lest it lead them to make two persons with the Nestorians but yet they are not plaine Eutichites and both they and the Nestorians acknowledge Christ to be perfect God and perfect man only the Nestorians do amiss have these two natures two persons and that the Euticheans in flying too far from them are afraid to call them two Natures though they confess the Godhead and Manhood to be really distinct yet they say that both are as it were conjoyned or coupled into one Nature so that wise impartial men think that the Eutichites or at least these Christians that are so called amiss by the Papists do but misuse the term Nature for the term Person and so deny two Persons onely in sence and two Natures only in name and that by the same misuse of the terms the Nestorians do affirm two Natures onely in sence and two Persons in words onely Of this I desire the Reader to consider What Luther hath said de Conciliis This I must needs say that if I did not exercise the same charity in judging of the Romanists as I do in this excuse of the Jacobites and other Christians that are not of their Communion I should be forced to censure the former much deeper then the latter and if by all their errors I must hold the rest to be Hereticks or Schismaticks I must by the same measure judge the Romanists to be doubly Heretical as I certainly know them to be most notoriously Schismatical For though I know that they are not so barbarous and unlearned as most of these forementioned Christians and also that they are free from many of their mistakes yet withall they have many more in stead of them which the other are free from And for the Protestants they are Hereticks only on this supposition that the Pope be Judge By this time then it partly appeareth how great a part of the Church of Christ the Papists do differ from But yet this is not all nay the smaller part For if you will but consider the state of the Church of Christ for the first three hundred yea five or six hundred years you will find that the Papists do differ from them all even from the whole Church For then the Popes universal Episcopacy and jurisdiction was not known in the world as is said before All these doth the Romane party now separate themseves from All these they do pronounce to be no true Churches or true Christians but Hereticks and Schismaticks All these do they condemn to the pit of Hell They have now concluded that onely those are of the true Church that acknowledge the Mastership or universal Headship of the Pope and the Mistrisship of the particular Romane Church which none of all those forementioned did They now conclude that none can be saved but who are of this new-framed Church of theirs Now I do appeal to any reasonable impartial man alive whether there be any more notorious Schismaticks on earth then these men that dare unchurch the far greatest part of Christs Church on earth at
the Determination of their Church he must presently not onely believe the contrary to what he believed before but do it also without doubting though they 'l confess millions are saved that believe Christ to be the Son of God though not without doubting Well but see what unity is procured by the addition of these new Articles to their Creed The French Doctors ascribe to his holiness that the said Articles may be taken in several sences The one sence is Heretical Lutheran or Calvinian but that is a sence That the words lawfully used will not hear but onely may malignantly be fastened to them say they The other sence which is genuine and proper they Defâ—nd themselves as true and as pertaining to the Belief of the Church as the Doctrine of Augustine and as defined by the Council of Trent and the contrary Opinion of Molina and the adversaries others maintain to be Pelagian or Semipelagian See here what the Papists themselves now do implicitely charge upon the Pope That he by his express unlimited condemnation doth malignantly fasten an Heretical sence on the words which properly they will not bear or else that he contradicteth Augustine and the Council of Trent and Anathematizeth the Christian faith and maintaineth the Semipelagian Heresie of Molina And yet must we judge either their Pope to be infallible or their Church to be at such unity in faith as they would make the ignorant vulgar believe More of the like contention about his holiness Determinations you may see in Tho. Whites Appendicula ad sonum Buccinae and Franscus Macedo his Lituus Lusitanus In all which you may see that all the comfort that the poor Dominicans have left them even their hope of salvation if they be Papists indeed consisteth in this that the Pope speaks one thing and means another and that as White so merrily saith in so sad a matter The wise father of the Church was necessitated for the appeasing of contentions to grant the more turbulent party their words and the more obedient party their sence so that when the Pope hath done all that he can to determine their controversies they will still say that he determineth but the words nay he doth but grant one party their words and not the meaning and so not onely sence but bare terms must be made Articles of faith And here you may see the great force of the Papists arguing for a necessity of a living Judge to determine of the sence of Scripture because the Scripture is so ambiguous that each one will else wrest it his own way And do we not see that the Pope cannot after so many years deliberation determine five short Articles so expresly and plainly even when he doth it of purpose to decide the controversie as to make his learned Doctors understand him but that each party doth take his words to be either for or not against their opinions and hold their opinions as fast since his determination as before And so they do by Augustine Thomas and the Council of Trent each party confidently perswading the world that they were of their side And may not God have the honor of speaking as plainly as the Pope or Thomas or the Council of Trent and cannot we well be without the Decision of such a Judge as cannot speak so as to be understood by his greatest Doctors himself So that the Principles and Practices of the Romanists do assure us that their faith is unfixed growing and mutable they may be one year of one Religion and another year of another as pleasâ— the Pope A Dominican might have been saved at any time since the creation till May 31. 1653. when the Popes Determination was dated but now they must all be damned for heresie There is a new way to heaven made 1653. that never was before and for ought they know to the contrary before their Popes have done Determining there may be five hundred Articles more in their Creed So that for my part I desire not either to be shut out of heaven at the pleasure of every new Pope nor to be of so uncertain and changeable a Religion And I cannot think therefore that Popery is a safe way to salvation Arg. 8. That Doctrine which derogateth from the written Word of God and setteth the Decrees of men above it enabling them to contradict its most express institutions is no safe way to salvation But such is the Doctrine of Popery therefore it is no safe way to salvation The Major is unquestionably true among true Christians For the proof of the Minor I shall only give you three instances of the Popish Doctrine because I intend not to be too particular left I be too large The first is their affirming the Scripture both to be insufficient to discover the whole doctrine of faith as being but one part of Gods Word and Tradition the other part and also to be no Word of God at all to us till the Pope and his Clergy do authoritatively determine it so to be or that we cannot know the Scripture to be Gods word but upon the Authority of the Churches determination But of this I have spoken before and shall do more in another dispute The second instance that I give is Their changing Christs most express institution by withholding the Cup in the Lords Supper from the people and giving them but half the Sacrament I am not now disputing about the efficacy or inefficacy of one half so delivered but proving the intolerable Arrogancy of the Papists that dare set up the will of man above Gods Word and give power to the Pope to change Christs Institutions and not onely to adde but to diminish and expresly to contradict Christ and forbid what he commandeth I know they pretend that it was but to the twelve Apostles that Christ gave the Cup and not to the Laity True nor the bread neither but then if he intended that none but the Clergy have the Cup why may they not as well say so of the Bread But do not these deceivers know 1. That Christ gives this reason of his administring the Cup Drink yee All of it For this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of sins So that if this reason hold to others if his blood be shed for the sins of others as well as for the Clergie then the command extendeth to others Drink ye all of it And do they not know that Luke further intimateth this in his narration of the words of Christ This Cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you So that those whom it is shed for and we may discern to be Believers it may be applyed to 2. And do they not know that Paul delivereth the doctrine both of the Bread and Cup as from the Lord to the whole Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 11. and not onely to the Clergy Is it not all that he expresly commandeth to Examine themselves
that Christs body admitteth of augmentation and either daily or weekly receiveth new made parts or else that he hath new bodies made daily 15. Also it followeth that a creature either the Baker or the Priest may make God or make his Saviour at least instrumentally which is a horrid imagination 16. It followeth that either Christs body hath the accidents of colour taste dimension c. which are there sensible or else that those Accidents have no subject which is a contradiction 17. It followeth also that Christ hath not indeed a true humane body if it be such as is before implyed 18. And it followeth that the body of Christ is part of it condemned hated of God and tormented by the Devil Because his body was turned into the bodies of many millions of wicked men which must be so condemned hated and tormented 19. Also it followeth that the Scriptures are not true which tell us that the heavens must receive him in that humane nature which ascended from earth till the times of the restitution of all things Act. 3.21 and that he shall come again to judge the world 20. Lastly it will follow that a man must not trust his sences that though my eyes my smell my taste my feeling tell me that this is Bread and Wine yet they are all deceived and not mine only but all the senses in the world to which they are objected And if that be true 1. What reason have I to trust any Papist living For all my good opinion of him must be ultimately resolved into something that I see or hear of him And it seems I am uncertain whether I see or hear him indeed or not 2. And then how can I tell that I or any man is sure of any thing For if the senses of millions in perfect health may be all deceived in this why not in other things for ought we know 3. And then how can any Papist tell that the Bread is turned into Christs body If he say because the Church or the Scripture saith so How knoweth he that but by hearing or seeing and therefore for ought he knows his senses may be deceived when he thinketh he heareth or readeth such a thing as well as when he thinketh that he seeth feeleth smelleth and tasteth Bread and Wine And is there not need of very strangely cogent evidence now to impell them to believe against the concurrent vote of Scripture sense and reason And what is the ground of their contrary belief Not the Ancient Church unless they willfully or negligently deceive themselves for the stream of antiquity is full against them so full that its hard to believe that any of them that 's verst in antiquity can truly think that antiquity is for them if they have but the common reason of men to understand what they read What is it then that bringeth them to this belief Is it the Scriptures That 's not likely because they make so light of it and swear to take it in the sence of the Church or ancient Doctors in which last they are here and oft most desperately forsworn It must be then upon the Authority of the present Church that is the Pope and his Clergy that they entertain this hard belief That is The Pope and his Clergy believe it because they say it themselves and the rest believe it because the Pope saith it And is it truely possible that any man should have so good a conceit of himself yea or any other think so well of him as to believe unfeignedly so great a thing upon so weak a ground Can the Pope therefore believe it because he doth believe it Or is it not too probable that thousands of them are of that Belief which Melancthon sometime told them of very smartly You Italians saith he Believe Christ is in the Bread before you Believe that there is any Christ in heaven while they pretend to a faith above men that is to believe Impossibilities upon the Popes credit I wish they prove to have the common belief of Christians and that in heart they do not as once one of their Popes did account the Gospel but a commodious fable But let us suppose that indeed it is the word of God that is the ground of their strange belief and that Hoc est Corpus meum This is my body is the very word that doth convince them as some of them do pretend I would here be bold to aske them that say so a Question or two 1. What if the Ancient Church had intecpreted this Text as we do against your Transubstantiation would you then have believed it upon the bare Authority of this Text What need I ask this Your own Oaths and Profession saith No It is not then any evidence in this Text that compelleth your belief And let me adde that if I prove not in a fair debate upon a just call that the ancient Church for many hundred years after Christ was against Transubstantiation I will give all the Papists in England leave to spit in my face for all the high expressions of the Eucharist that some fathers have 2. What is there in those words This is my body that can perswade any sober Christian to their strange belief What is it because that they are properly and not figuratively to be understood And how is that proved Is it because we must not force the Scripture but take it in the plainest obvious sence I easily grant it But who knows not that both in Scripture and in all our common speech the figurative sence is oft the most plain and obvious and the literal the most improbable What three sentences do we use to speak together without some figurative expression I will appeal to any unprejudiced man of reason whether a Christian that should newly read those words of Christ and had never heard them or read them before would not sooner take them in our sence then in the Papists They may easily try this upon a new convert if they please and I dare make their own consciences judge if they have any left to befriend a common truth What is there more in This is my Body being a Sacramental business then for a man that is in a room among many Images to say This is Peter or Paul or this is Augustine or Hierom or Chrysostome And would not any unprejudiced stander by suppose that the most obvious sence of those words is This is the picture of Peter Paul c. Or would a man easily believe that it was the meaning of the speaker that this Picture was the very real flesh and blood of Peter and Paul and all other Pictures that ever should be made after the same exemplar should be so transubstantiated So what is the obvious signification of those words This is my body but This is the Sacrament or Representation of my Body Especially when his real body was distinctly there present and he expresly biddeth them Do this in remembrance of me
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
Ground of our Belief of the Christian Doctrine or of our Receiving the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God N. HAving already enquired whether the Romanists or the Reformed Churches are in the safe way to Salvation we shall now more particularly enquire whether their faith or ours be built on the surer grounds Our Belief is thus resolved we believe the Christian Doctrine to be True because the True God is the Author of it We discern that God is the Author of it both by his Intrinsicke and Extrinsicke Seals or attestations of it in that it beareth his image and superscription and is confirmed by his undoubted uncontroled Miracles and other effects which lead us to the cause The revealing containing signs or characters are the the holy Scriptures That these Books were written by the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists and were confirmed by Miracles and are uncorrupted in the main we are infallibly assured of by the evident certainty of the historical attestation and Tradition For we depend not barely on the credit of a deceivable or deceitful man such as is the Pope of Rome or of any fallible society of men but on such History as we can prove by plain reason to be infallible containing in it besides the Testimony of the Pope and all his party the same Testimony also of all the rest of the Christians in the world yea and of the very Hereticks who were enemies to much of the truth and enough also even from the mouths of Infidels to confirm us so that by this infallible history and universal Tradition we have a fuller discovery that these Books are the same that were written by the Apostles c. then we have that the Statutes of Parliaments in the Reign of King James or Queen Elizabeth are the same that they pretend to be And to a man that heareth not God himself or the Lord Jesus or the Apostles and hath not their immediate inspirations we know not how the Laws of heaven should be more fitly delivered in an ordinary rational way nor what surer other means such as we can expect who live at such a distance from the first receivers of it unless we would have God to speak to every man as he did to Moses or have Christ or Apostles still among us or unless God must make us all Prophets by his extraordinary inspirations And lastly the true meaning of this word we understand as we do the meaning of other Laws or writings having moreover the assistance of the spirit which is necessary because of the sublimity and spirituality of the matter and the necessity of the great effects upon our hearts Our Teachers by Translation and further instructions are our helpers as they must be in other things that we would learn and by the help of them without and of the spirit within we are able to understand the meaning of the words especially comparing text with text and so receive the sanctifying impress upon our hearts And thus is the Faith of the Reformed Catholike Resolved He receiveth the Bible from the hands or mouth of his Teachers and perhaps first believeth them fide humana that it is Gods Word He knoweth that this Book was written in Hebrew and Greeke by the Prophets and Apostles by Infallible Hystory or Universal Tradition He knoweth that they did it by Inspiration of the Holy Ghost by the Image of God which he findeth on it and by the uncontroled Miracles by which they sealed it He believeth it to be True because it thus proceeded from the Holy Ghost and so is the Word of God who is most True Of the Resolution of our Faith according to the Protestant Doctrine See L. du Plessis of the Church cap. 4. Translat pag. 121.122 123. and Conradus Bergius Prax. Cathol Can. p. 208.209 210. Disp 2. § 125 126. To this same sence Vid. Sibrand Lubbert Princip Christ Dogm li. 1. pag. 20 c. What the Resolution of the Romane faith is the Question which we are now to discuss doth intimate in part for it cannot be laid down in one proposition because they are of so many minds themselves Indeed we may see in this their foundation that Popery is a very maze and dungeon for the builders of this Babel are all in confusion at the laying of their first stone Yet this much they seem to be mostly agreed in That the Scripture is the word of God and part of the Rule of faith and duty but not the whole Rule nor the whole Word of God but that unwritten Traditions are the other part and the judgement of the present Church is Gods Word after a sort as they speak That the Scripture hath its Authority in it self from God the prime truth but quoad nos as to us it hath its Authority from the Church That it is the act of Tradition or the unwritten part of Gods word to tell us that the Scriptures are the word of God or a Divine Revelation And that it is the Office of the Church to judge both of this Tradition and the Scripture as also to decide all controversies in Religion and to judge which is the true sence of Scripture and that this Church must be one only visible infallible authorized thus to judge by Christ and this is onely the Romane Church Thus far the most of them seem to be agreed But when these mysteries of iniquity come to be opened they fall all to pieces For 1. Sometimes they say that the judgement of the Church is Gods word after a sort sometime that it is some middle thing between a Testimony Divine and Humane 2. And what the formal object of faith is they are not all of a mind whether it be only the Prime Truth or whether the Revelation of the Material object be any part of the formal But I confess this controversie is more verbal then real 3. And what place here to assign to the Testimony of the Church they are not agreed neither 4. Especially they are divided in the main viz. what this Church is which is the infallible Judge and into whose judgement their faith is resolved whether it be the present Church or the former Church Whether it be the Pope only at least in case of difference between him and his Council or whether it be a General Council though the Pope agree not as the French and Venetians say Yea whether it be the Clergy only or the Laity also that are this Church Nay some of them plead Universal Tradition as Holden White Vane and divers other Englishmen of late as if that were the same with the Romane Tradition or as if it were the point in controversie between us and them And ordinarily they use to tell us of All the Church and All the Christian world and to mouth it in such swelling words that the simple hearer would little think that by All the Church they meant but one man or at the
to deliver them down to posterity in the purity as they receive them and to translate them into known tongues that the people may understand them Though others also have a part in this work yet the Pastors of the Church have by Office the chiefest part 4. It belongeth to them also to be witnesses and informers of the people how themselves did receive the Faith and Scripture from their Ancestors and to shew them how it came down to our hands by certaine Infallible Tradition from Age to Age. 5. The Church guides they are both Preservers of the Scripture Witnesses of the Tradition and Teâ—chers of the truth and have such a power of judging aâ— belongeth to all these three 6. In these acts of their office they ought to be Believed and that on a threefold account 1. Because of the evidence which they shew to prove the truth of their Assertions Though strictly this is rather to be called Learning and so Knowing then Believing and is common to Teachers with any others that shew the same proofs Yet it being supposed that ordinarily they have much more Knowledge in the things which they teach then other men have therefore we may well say that it more belongeth to them to convince and more efficacy is in their Teaching because of their proofs and better entertainment is due to their Teaching 2. Such a Belief also is due to them as all men should have in their own prosession wherein they have long studyed and laid out their time and labor and wherein they are commonly known to excell other men Every man that is less studyed in Law Physicke or any other Science or Art is bound in reason to give some credit to Lawyers Physicians and others that Study and Practice those Arts. This is but a humane Faith 3. Besides this credit before mentioned which Infidells themselves may give to the Ministers of the Gospel according to their capacities there is a further credit due to them from professed believers and that is as they are officers authorized by Christ and have a promise of his assistance to the end of the world which though it make them not infallible in all matters of Faith yet doth it assure them of a more than common help of Christ if they are his servants indeed 7. There is more of this kind of Belief due to many Pastors caeteris paribus than to one and to the whole Church than to any part 8. The credit of the Church or any Pastors in witnessing to the faith dependeth on their competency for such a Testimony which consisteth in their sufficency or Ability and their fidelity which they are rationally to manifest that it may gaine credit with others 9. In things which God hath left undetermined in Scriptures and committed to the Governors of the Church to determine of they have a Decisive Power 1. For the Time or Place or the like circumstances of Gods worship they are necessary in General viz. there must be some Time Place c. but not in specie such a Time such a Place is not necessary unless it be some that God hath already made choice of Here the Church guides must Authoritatively Determine whereupon the people are obliged to obey unless in some extraordinary cases where the Determination is so perverse and contrary to the General Rules which Scripture hath given for it that it would overthrow the substance of the duty it self 2. And in case of Church censures when any man is accused to deserve Excommunication the Church Governors have a Judicial Decisive Power as to those ends though not to make a man guilty that is Innocent yet to oblige the people to avoid Communion with the person whom they Excommunicate except in such palpable mal-administration and evident contradiction of the word of God which may nullifie their sentence for even here their Power is not unlimited 10. No man or company of men much less the Pope hath a proper Decisive Judicial Power in matter of Christian faith or whether the Scripture or any part of it be the word of God or not For the opening of this understand what we mean by a Decisive Judicial Power to wit such as a Judge hath in a controverted cause where the Plaintiff and Defendant must stand to his Judgement be it right or wrong so that though the sentence be not just yet must it be Decisive and obligatory so that he hath Power to Judge in utramque partem on either side and the judgement must be valid Such a Decisive power no creature hath in these cases that we have now in hand Where let it be still remembred that it is not the name but the Thing that we contend about If they will call that a Decisive Judicial Power which is so limited to one part or side that it shall not be valid or obligatory to the subject if it erre or go on the other side concerning which all men have a judgement of Discerning granted them by God so far as they are able to Discerne they have leave and authority then we easily grant that every Pastor of the Church is thus far the Judge of Faith and Scripture That is if any man doubt whether the Scripture be the Word of God and ask a Preacher or Bishop he hath Power to say Yea but not to say No But this is no Judicial Power but a Teaching and Witnessing act For the people are bound to disobey them if they erre and therefore bound to â—ry whether they erre or not and not to follow their judgement further then it is right and sound therefore they have no deciding Judicial Power which I prove thus Arg. 1. If the Pope or any other had such a Judicial Decisive Power then might they oblige us to Believe that there is no God that Christ is not the Redeemer that Scripture is not the word of God and so they might cast Faith and Scripture out of the Church But this is false and abominable therefore the Pope hath no such Power For the consequence it is manifest supposing that the Pope should give judgement against God Christ or Scripture then men must by this Doctrine be bound to obey it and forsake God Christ and Scripture for the Pope Whereunto add a second Argument from a further absurdity Then either such as renounce God Christ and Scripture may be saved or else God bindeth men by the Pope to renounce him and the faith to their own damnation But both these consequents are false and abominable Therefore I know they will here reply that we must not suppose that the Pope can err in his judgement and therefore being infallible he will certainly make no such false Decision To which I say 1. Why then should it be said that God hath given Authority to decide in utramque partem on either side Doth God give a man Authority to do that which he hath promised him and all others that he shal never do But he will
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
other doth not The Text speaks but to the same person and not in one half to one and in the other half to others I may well argue therefore in this manner To whomsoever Christ here promiseth that his faith shall not fail to him onely doth he speak in this text But he promiseth onely to Peter here that his faith should not fail therefore it is onely Peter and not the Popes that he speaks of The Major is clear according to the intelligible sence of the words and Bellarmine hath not yet proved a mystical sence The Minor is confessed by himself Lastly Bellarmine saith de verbo dei li. 3. c. 3. that Onely out of the litteral sence of Scripture effectual arguments are to be fetched But this great argument of his for the Popes infallibility is not fetcht out of the literal sence of Scripture therefore by his own confession it is uneffectual and unjust The second Text which he cites to this use is Mat. 16. On this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it A double argument he would fetch from hence One from the Name Rocke the other from the nature of a Foundation which both imply firmeness Ans 1. Note that here is in the Text not one word of the Pope of the Church of Rome more then any other or of infallibility 2. How doth he prove that by the Rocke is not meant Peters Faith or that Doctrine which he confessed but Peter himself 3 If he had proved it are not all the Prophets and Apostles as well as Peter called the foundation Eph. 2.20 So that here is no more promised to him then what was elswhere promised and given to the rest Onely his present confession occasioned the promise to be made expresly and particular at that time to him 4. As the rest of the Apostles were the Foundation on which we are built and yet their successors are not so So though Peter were the Foundation it followeth not that all or any of his successors are so The third text which Bellarmine citeth is Joh. last Feed my Sheep Where note again 1. That here is not a word of the Pope or Rome or infallibility 2. Did not Christ bid the rest of the Apostles Feed as well as Peter Sure Mat. 28. He bid them all Go teach all Nations baptizing them and teaching them to observe all things whatever he commanded them And what could Peter do more in Feeding Yea thirdly Are not all Pastors though inferior to Apostles bound to Feed the Sheep of Christ and yet it follows not thence that they are infallible 4. Bellarmine would next prove this from The High Priests wearing the Urim and Thummim Exod. 28. When he first confesseth that it is not agreed among Jews or Christians what these are And yet it will serve him for a proof 2. The Priests were not infallible for all their Urim and Thummim therefore no more is the Pope They judged Christ not to be the Messiah and therefore crucified him They lived and died Infidels and hardened the people in the same Infidelity for which they were broken off and unchurched 3. And whereas he argueth that the High Priest was infallible because the people were to go to him for resolution of difficulties and obey them Deut. 17. I must say that Bellarmine had some fault in his eyes that caused him to overlook the Judge and name onely the High Priest God sendeth them to the Judge who was the chief Magistrate in those dayes as well as to the High Priest as any man that will read the text may see If therefore the one of them be infallible because of this why is not the other so too But perhaps they will make the Pope to be the successor both of the Magistrate and Priest and so to be the universal Emperor as well as the universal Bishop and use both his swords that so this promise may belong onely to him For he will hardly grant every King or Judge to be infallible 4. By this rule the rest of the Priests also should be infallible For the people were also to receive the Law at their mouthes 5. When was there ever one Priest in any age so impudent at Bellarmine and his faction are to plead for or pretend an infallibility in themselves Let them name one Priest or person if they can that ever had such a conceit of themselves except it were Gods Prophets in the matters of their Prophecy 6. What if the Jews High Priest had been infallible What 's that to the Pope of Rome any more then to another man Hath he indeed yet proved himself successor of the Jews High Priest Except as a corrupter of the Law and a persecutor of the Church of Christ Well! you have heard all the Scripture arguments that Bellarmine had to bring for he brings no more to prove the pretended infallibility of the Pope May I not well say that it is no marvaile that they are such ill friends to Scripture who have no more Scripture that is none at all to befriend the very foundation of their cause And may I not justly recite again Bellarmines own conclusion lib. 3. de verbo Dei c. 3. and from thence shew them that their cause is built upon confessed fraud and vanity It is agreed bâ—tween us saith Bellarmine that onely out of the literal sence of Scripture effectual Arguments are fetcht But Bellarmine bringeth no one Argument for the Popes infallibility out of the literal sence of Scripture therefore he bringeth no one effectual Argument from Scripture But yet one other Argument he hath though not from Scripture and no more and that is from a double pretended experience And his first experience is That in all the other Patriarchal seats there have been Hereticks but not in that of Rome But here 1. Bellarmine must be judge or the Pope who is a party before all the Patriarchs can be thus condemned 2. And what if that were true Can he say the like of all the Bishops as well as Patriarchs If not they may as well hence prove themselves infallible as the Pope can do 3. Whether ever there were in the chair at Rome either Pope Liberius an Arrian Pope Honorius a Monothelâ—te Pope John denying the immortality of the soul with abundance more such like we shall have fitter opportunity to open anon to the shame of this experinemt of Bellarmines His second experiment is that The Pope without a Council hath condemned many Heresies which upon that very account have been taken for true Heresies by the whole Church of Christ Ans But you must first unchurch the greatest part of the Catholike Church and damne most of the Christians on earth the Greeks Armenians Abassines c. and make your own faction to be the whole Church of Christ before you will ever give us the least proof of this All the Church doth not do that which your flatterers do Nor did
written by Laertius than the Lives of the Saints are by Christians and Suetonius did far more incorruptly and more entirely set forth the affairs of the Romane Caesars then Catholikes have set forth I say not the affairs of Emperors but of Martyrs Virgins and confessors For they But ours do for the most part either follow their own affections or else of set purpose forge so many things that indeed I am not onely ashamed of them but also aweary of them For I know that these have brought to the Church of Christ small profit but much disprofit I spare mens names because It is certain that they who write Church History feignedly and deceitfully cannot be good and sincere men and that their whole Narration is invented either for lucre or for error whereof one is filthy and the other pernicious The complaint of Ludovicus is most just of some feigned Histories in the Church He doth indeed prudently and gravely reprove them that take it to be a matter of piety to forge lyes for Religion A thing that is very pernicious and no whit necessary For we are wont not to believe a Lyar even when he tells truth They therefore who by false and lying writings would stir up the minds of mortal men to worship the Saints these seem to me to have done nothing else then to make men deny belief to truths because of falshoods To what purpose is it to pretend the name of History to fictions and fables As if the holy men of God did need our Lyes But while some do too much indulge their own affections and write those things which the writers mind and not the Truth doth dictate they make us such Saints sometime as the Saints themselves would not be if they could Can any man believe that Saint Francis was used to take the Lice on him again which he had shak't off him The Writer thought this was part of the mans holiness but so do not I who know that the holy man was pleased with poverty but not with filthyness And how ridiculous is this that the Divel raging on a time against our father Dominicke was constrained by this Saint to hold the candle so long in his hands till it did not onely trouble him but incredibly pain him Such examples cannot be numbred but in these few most of the rest may be understood which have darkened the histories of the most famous Saints They do therefore exceedingly wrong the Church of Christ who think they do not well set forth the excellent deeds of the Saints unless they adorn them with feigned Revelations and Miracles Wherein the impudency of men hath neither spared the Holy Virgin nor the Lord Christ Of late years when I was at the Council of Trent I heard by some that Aloysius Lippomannus was healing this disease by writing a history of the Lives of the Saints in a constant and grave speech But I could never yet see this nor any other which I could allow of all those that have come into my hands So far for Melch. Canus And do their own most Learned and Judicious Writers cry out of Lyes and Histories so much more false then the Heathens and impudent forgeries and say that they never saw any of these Histories which they could allow of and yet must we needs make these the Foundation of our Faith instead of the sealed Word of God What a Religion have the Papists that is built on such a foundation Yea of the reports of some of the late Writers that were next before Popery I will add a few more words of Canus ib. li. 11. pag. 337. Cicero thought Demosthenes nodded somtime and Horace thought so of Homer himself For though they were excellent yet but men And the same perhaps may I say justly and truly of Beda and Gregory One of them in his History of the English the other in his Dialogues do write certain Miracles talk't of and believed by the vulgar which the criticks of this age will judge to be uncertain I should have more approved those Histories if their authors had according to the aforesaid rule to severity of judgement joyned more care in their choice And how he lets fly at the lyes of Antonius and Valvacen The next page shews And page 338.339 how he censures Eusebius himself But I must forbear more such citations lest I weary the Reader It is now long since Doctor John White told them of their Cajetans words who saith It cannot be known infallibly that the Miracles upon which the Church groundeth the Canonization of Saints are true And their Antoninus Florent saith of the visions of Bernard and Brigit about the Virgin Maries conception They are fantastick visions and mens dreams And their Claudius Espeucaeus saith No stable is so full of dung as the Legends are full of fables Yea very fictions are in their portesses And Gerson All these the Church receives and permiteth them to be read not as certainly true but more attending to what might be in pious recogitation then to what indeed was done And Doctor White then made a challenge to them that we will admit of all those Miracles which are reported by such men as some of their own Writers do openly Note for Lyars Which challenge the Popish Replyer had no mind it seems to take up But though it belong to the Romanists to prove their Miracles which prove their Infallibility without Scripture and not to us to prove the Negative yet I shall try to shame their confidence by a few pertinent Questions when it shall appear how little they have to say in answer to them Q. 1. And first I desire to know of them whether the Miracles that prove their infallibility without Scripture are wrought by the Present Church or by the Church of former ages onely If by the present why cannot we see them Why are we still sent to Saint Brigit or Saint Francis or Saint Somebody that is long ago dead and gone We thought once we had had one neer us here I mean the Boy of Bilson who did wondrous things in favor of the Papists but in the Issue by the industry of Bishop Morton he was proved to be a counterfeit and confessed himself trained up by the Papists for the cheat But if it onely the Generations that are dead and gone that wrought Miracles then I would further aske 1. Doth it not seem then that your Church is Apostate in that it hath lost the gift of Miracles which you suppose so necessary And how will the Gifts of your predecessors prove your present infallibility any more then the Gifts of the predecessors of the Greek Bishops will prove their infallibility that now are 2. If past Miracles may serve without present then what need any more than the old Miracles of the Apostles And then why are not all the Apostles successors infallible as well as the Pope Seeing all the Apostles had the gift of Miracles
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
head and whether their head and so their Church were then visible or invisible when they could so hardly be known And note that Bellarmine doth disclaim the Com-popes with this John 23. and saith elsewhere that it was most likely that this was the true Pope They have brought their glorious head Church and infallibility to a fair pass Besides this the General Council at Basill did shortly after depose Pope Eugenius the forth declaring him to be A rebel against the holy Canons a notorious disturber and scandalizer of the peace and unity of the Church a Simonist and a perjured wretch incorrigible a schismatick and an obstinate heretick To this Bellarmine hath not a word to say but onely that the Council did him wrong and at Lansanna undid their acts And thus he is content to grant that 1. A General Council may erre which he maintaineth 2. And that a Pope may be a heretick and to be deposed in the judgement of a General Council And are the Papists forced to yield us thus much I would fain know then from Bellarmine or any Papists surviving him whether that General Councils do erre in faith and be Hereticks or not for that their judgement If they do so err then where is the visibility of their Church with the rest of its privileges which they so boast of when its Representative body a General Council are Hereticks as thinking the Pope to be fallible But if they erred not de fide or were no hereticks 1. Then its seems the Popes infallibility is no fundamental 2. Then it seems we are no hereticks neither for denying that which General Councils of Papists pretended by them to be General have denyed 3 Nay why should they be angry with men for erring such an error as they account it which their own general Councils may one after another erre Argu. 6. From the Papists own open known confession If the Papists themselves do confess both Pope and Council to be fallible they have little reason to blame us for affirming the samewhich they confess But the Papists themselves do confess both Pope and General Council to be fallible Therefore c. I do not mean that all the Papists confess it of both but one part of them confess it of one and the other of the other of them Bellarmine and his fellow Jesuites with the Italian party do confess that a General Council may erre in matters of Faith The French and Venetian Papists with all the Doctors of their party affirm that the Pope may erre and be a heretick and teach heresie so that by the confession of one half of them a Council may erre and by the confession of the other half the Pope may erre If any imagine that though both may erre dis-junctly yet not conjunctly I shall onely now say that the concession that each of them dis-junctly may err destroyeth the force of all those Arguments which are brought for their infallibility and therefore will prove it of them also conjunctly But we have yet further proof Argu. 7. If the very substance of Popery be nothing but a fardell of errors brought in by the Pope and his Council to corrupt the Christian Religion among them then certainly the Pope and his Council may erre But the Antecedent is true Therefore so is the consequent All the Question being of the Antecedent and it being proved before in the former disputation and fully by our writers against them I shall thither for brevity refer you What impudency is it to introduce such abundance of corruptions contrary to the express word of God and after all this to say they cannot erre when they have so plagued the Church with their errors They teach men to serve God in an unknown tongue and speak and hear they know not what to worship the Bread with divine Worship to receive onely the bread when Christ ordained that they should have the cup and so do abolish one half of the Sacrament they adore the Virgin Mary and other Saints they plead for justification by the merit of their own works as having a condignity of the reward they make the Church a new thing by making a new head and center of unity and a new and daily mutable Religion in a word they poison both Church policie Worship and Doctrine by their errors and when they have done they stand to it that they cannot erre Like a Leper that should maintain he cannot possibly be Leprous when he is covered with it already or like a swearing or drunken beast that should swear that he never did swear nor was drunk nor ever can be when he lyeth drunk in the dirt and breaths out his oaths What need any impartial diseerning man any other proof that the Pope and the Church of Rome is not infallible then actually to observe the swarm of their errors that have troubled the Church Argu. 8. If the Popes themselves are to be believed or if they are not to be believed they are not infallible But either they are to be believed or not Therefore If they be not to be believed what need there any more proof If they are what need there also any more proof when they themselves confess themselves fallible Not a Pope for above six hundred years after Christ did ever pretend to infallibility as can be proved Pope Adrian the sixth one of the most Learned and best that ever they had this many hundred years hath written his judgement that the Pope may erre And I think he is liker to know himself as to his infirmities than any of his flatterers are His words are these De Sacram. Confirm art 4. ad fin Dico quod si per Ecclesiam Romanam intelligatur caput ejus puta Pontifex certum est quod possit errare etiam in iis quae tangunt fidem haere sin per suam determinationem aut decretalem asserendo plures enim fueâ—unt Pontifices Romani haeretici That is I say that if by the Church of Rome be meant the Head of it to wit the Pope it is certain that he may erre even in those things that touch the faith by asserting heresie by his Determination or Decretal for there have many Popes of Rome been hereticks Thus you hear what a Pope sayes of himself Argu. 9. If the Pope be infallible then either it is his mind in believing or his tongue in speaking or his pen in writing that is infallible But it is neither his Mind nor Tongue nor Pen Therefore he is not infallible 1. That his mind is not infallible in point of belief is confest by the Papists themselves One part of them saying he may erre and the other maintaining that he may be a hereticke and that many have been so That his tongue and pen is not infallible when his understanding erreth is plain 1. In that otherwise he should be infallible in dissembling and God is feigned to promise a man to keep his tongue from error when he
speaks against his own heart which cannot be proved nor soundly imagined 2. The infallible dictates of the Pope while he erreth in mind should be all either unreasonable acts as being the words of one that knoweth not what he saith or interpretatively lies For when a man speaks contrary to his judgement if his words be true in themselves yet they are interpretatively lys because he so takes them and intendeth them as falshoods to deceive others For instance If Pope John the 23. that was deposed by a General Council upon Articles exhibited against him for denying the Resurrection and the Life to come should with his tongue have taught the Resurrection and the Life to come this had been as lying to him though the thing it self be most true And we must have a promise that the Pope of Rome and his Clergy among all the Lyars in the whole world shall be the onely infallible Lyars A happy generation of Lyars sure But where is that promise 3. It was for the error of the tongue as well as of the mind that the Clergy desposed Liberius Felix and that the Councils of Pisa Constance and Basil deposed the other Popes above mentioned For 1. they could not know their minds but by their words 2. They charged them with the errors of their tongues as well as mindes Argu. 10. If Popes be infallible in the matters which they understand not then it must be by Enthusiasm or prophetical inspiration But all Popes are ignorant of many Divine Truths and some more notoriously ignorant and yet neither All nor Any of them for ought is ever proved were Prophets or divinely inspired therefore they are not infallible For the Major its plain that as no erring man must speak against his own mind if he be infallible so an ignorant man in those points must 1. either have his ignorance cured suddainly by prophetical inspiration or else 2. must speak as in an extasie without or beside his own mind there being no other way imaginable And as for the Minor I prove both parts of it 1. That Popes are ignorant of many Divine truths I prove thus 1. They that are ignorant of many truths revealed in the Scriptures are ignorant of many Divine truths For Scripture being Gods word all that is therein revealed is Divine truth But Popes have been ignorant of many things revealed in Scripture therefore I need not sure stand to prove the Minor for they confess it themselves And if the Pope understood all the Scripture he were sure the most damnable sinner in the world for not revealing his knowledge to others 2. Yea some of them have been so notoriously ignorant and unlearned that their own Alphonsus a Castro saith advers hares li. 1. c. 4. that It is certain some Popes be so unlearned that they do not understand the Grammar And sure if they that understand not any Hebrew or Greek which are the languages in which the Scripture is written no nor the Latin Grammar should understand all the Bible and erre in nothing it must needs be by a Miracle and by Prophetical inspiration 2. But that all Popes be not inspired Prophets nor illuminated by Miracles I will leave to be judged by the Papists themselves Read Platina Stella yea or Baronius himself or if they have any other that is a more notorious Parasite to them and let them be judges Argu. 11. If the Pope and his Council be infallible then it is either in All things that God hath revealed in the Scripture or are necessary to be known or but in some If he be infallible in all things necessary to be known believed or decided then will it follow 1. That the Pope is the most cruelly wicked man on earth and the greatest enemy to the truth and Church that will suffer the Church to lye in so much ignorance and contention and will not reveal the truth to reconcile and enlighten them Why doth he not write an infallible commentary on all the Bible to perfect our knowledge and end all our quarrels And why doth he not write an infallible summary of all his superadded traditions Hath not Christ told him that no man lighteth a candle to put it under a Bushel but where it may be seen of all 2. Why doth not one Pope reveal that which they think fit to reveal but leave it to successors one after another to do it by degrees Dare they say that there is any point of faith revealed in Scripture and necessary to this age to know which was not meet to be revealed by the Pope to the last or former age 3. Why do so many of themselves yea their General Councils so much contradict their Popes in many things if he be infallible in all things And all of them confess that either a Pope or a Council may erre But if it be but some things that the Pope is infallible in then how shall we be sure which be those some Can we know before he discloseth them or onely after I suppose they will say It is in all those things which he determineth or declareth But if that be the rule to know the extent of his infallibility by then I Every Pope beginneth to be infallible when he beginneth to Determine or declare and not before 2. And then every Pope increaseth in his infallibility as he increaseth his Decretals or Canons 3. And then one Pope is much more infallible then others who have made more decrees then others 4. And then some Popes were never infallible who never made any decrees or determinations or expositions at all so that their cause is lost if their actual discoveries be the Rule of the extent of their infallibility And yet I cannot imagine what else they can say that may have any appearance of consisting with their interest For it is either a Positive or a Negative infallibility which they mean and ascribe to their Church If a Positive then 1. All the foresaid absurdities unavoidably follow whether they say that they can infallibly teach us all things and will not or but some But if it be a Negative infallibility which they maintain viz. that the Church shall never teach any false doctrine Or the Pope shall never deceive us by obtruding any error though withall he may possibly teach us but part of the truth yea the necessary truth yea perhaps teach us none at all I say if this be their meaning then every infant or bird or beast hath as glorious a priviledge as the Pope of Rome For every infant and bruit is so infallible that we are certain they will not deceive the Church by teaching any error Perhaps they 'l say that the Pope is positively infallible as a sufficient Teacher of the Church in all things de fide at that time or necessary to salvation and negatively infallible in all the rest which are not de fide or necessary To which I answer 1. Either such points are de fide and
Because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved and for this cause God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lye They that receive not the love of the truth that they may be saved are threatened to be given up to delusions and therefore have no certainty of being infallible They that choose their own wayes God will choose their delusions Isa 64.4 There is no communion between light and darkness Christ and Belial therefore no infallibility with the children of Belial Of all men naturally till Christ illuminate them by special grace it is said in Scripture that they are blind deceived lyars of no understanding receiving not the things of the spirit of God for they are foolishness to him neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned 1 Cor. 2.14 Prov. 28.5 Rom 3.11 Prov. 6.32 9.4.10 15.21 7.7 12.11 2 Pet. 1.9 2 Tim. 3.13 Tit. 3.3 It is onely the elect that cannot be deceived even in the foundation Mat. 24.24 None of the wicked shall understand but the wise shall understand Dan. 12.10 They are threatned to be given over to blindness that they may not understand Isa 6.9.10 Act. 28.26 27 Mar. 4.12 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom Psal 111.10 God promiseth to teach the humble Psal 25. but the proud he still resist when he giveth to the humble his grace 1 Pet. 5.5 Jam. 4.6 And not onely the minds of the wicked but their tongues are deceitful even when they know the truth so that a wicked Pope may lye and deceive Psal 36.3 Prov. 12.5 Mar. 7.22 Rom. 3.13 I confess that a wicked man may have some kind of superficial knowledge of all those doctrines dis-junctly at least which are known to true Believers but as he hath no solid knowledge of them so he hath no promise or assurance of infallibility in that which he is capable of knowing Nor is it so like that a blind deceitful man should be universally orthodox And for the Minor that many Popes have been notoriously wicked I need not prove it while their own Historians and disputers too do so commonly confess it It s well known what wickedness the Councils that deposed them charged upon some and what poisoning and other murders Simony conjuration incest common adulteries and other wickedness is by the writers of their lives and other Historians charged on so many more that I should but trouble the weary Reader to no purpose to cite them Read the lives of Pope Sylvester the Witch the 2. Alexander the 3. and the 6. John 13. and the 22. and the 23. Gregory the 7. Vrbane the 7. c. in Platina Luitprandus Fasciculus temporum Martinus Polonus c. Ticinus hist li. 6. of John 13. shews that his sins were proved in Council that he ravished and committed filthiness with maids widows and wives at the Apostolick doors committed many murders drunk to the Devil and at Dice ask't help of Jupiter and Venus and at last was slain in the act of adultery See of Sylvester 2. Fascic temp an 1004. Martin Polonus Anno. 1007. Platin. in ejus vita Of Boniface the 7. See Baronius himself anno 985. n. 1. Of Alexander the 6. see Guicciardine hist li. 1. and Onuphrius vit Alex. 6. But I will name no more Argu. 15. Other Bishops and Churches who have as good a pretence to plead for their infallibility as the Bishop and Church of Rome are yet generally acknowledged fallible even by themselves and by the papists Therefore the Pope and Church of Rome also are fallible All that 's doubtful is whether any other Churches or Bishops have as fair a plea for infallibility as the Romane which I prove thus 1. The Plea of the Romanists is that their Bishop is the successor of an Apostle who was infallible and so the Promises belonging to him do belong also to his successors And the successors of the rest of the Apostles may have the same plea For all the Apostles after the Holy Ghost fell on them were infallible as well as Peter And therefore their successors have as fair a plea as Peters successors Obj. But there was not the like promise made to the rest for their successors stability as was to Peter Answ 1. There can no greater a promise to Peters successors be shewed then was made Mat. 28.29 to them all Lo I am with you alwayes even to the end of the world 2. The Papists according to their new fundamentals must not plead Scripture promises for their infallibility for they say their infallibility is in order first known evidenced and to be proved before it be known that Scripture is Gods word 2. The plea of the Romanists for their Popes infallibility is that he is the successor of Peter But the Bishop of Antioch might as well pretend to be the successor of Peter and yet he pretendeth not to infallibility Therefore c. That History which telleth us that Peter was Bishop of Rome doth tell us that he was Bishop of Antioch also yea and that he was Bishop of Antioch before he was Bishop of Rome so that Antioch is undoubtedly the ancienter Church What reason then can the Papists give why the Bishop of Antioch might not as well plead that he is Peters successor as the Bishop of Rome Unless they could prove that Peter did by his last Will and Testament bequeath the honor of succession and the priviledges of infallibility to Rome onely which they have not yet that I can find been so bold as to go about to prove Otherwise if one must needs be preferred why should not the eldest unless they be disinherited and the younger hath the blessing which must be proved Whence is it but from the honor of their Antiquity that Antioch Hierusalem Alexandria and Rome should be preferred as Patriarchates before all other Churches And if Antiquity be a good reason for that then why should not Jerusalem and Antioch on the same account be preferred before Rome seeing its beyond all doubt that they were both the more ancient Churches and Antioch the more ancient seat of Peter in the judgement of them that make him Bishop of either So that its clear that other Churches have as much or more to say for infallibility then Rome who yet make no prentence to it Argu. 16. The Apostles themselves were not infallible till the holy Ghost fell on them nor by any other help without the extraordinary inspiration of the Holy Ghost for before they understood not that Christ must dye rise and ascend till it was done but Peter Mat. 16.20 disswadeth him from suffering therefore the Pope if he might plead succession from Peter cannot expect more then Peter himself had and therefore cannot expect his infallibility without his spirit and inspiration And therefore those Popes that have not the Holy Ghost and that inspiration as Peter had cannot pretend to be infallible as his
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
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
Nation the Kingly Priesthood was so far amiss that it was distracted into six hundred opinions and errors And spoiled and wasted by the Devil If the Popes Monarchical Government was then a foot then it seemâ— that Government will no more prevent sects and errors then the worst If it were not then 1. They are now usurpers 1. And they cannot prove ouâ— way of Government to be wrong by the multitude of errors that are in the Church Basil was far from resolving his faith into the Popes infallibility when he wrot his Ascetica or at least Eustathius Sebastienus if they be his when pag. 195. Tom. 2. translat Musculi Basil he saith It is a manifest lapse of faith and apparent vice of pride either to refuse any thing which the Scripture containeth or to bring in any thing which is not written seeing Christ saith My sheep hear my voice and premiseth But another they will not follow but flye from him because they know not a strangers voice And pag. 193. he saith that sometimes he had used unwritten sayings against hereticks But never aliene from the Scripture sence c. and that now he was resolved To make use of what he had learned from Scripture and but sparingly to use the very names and words which are not literally conform to the divine Scripture though they do retain the Scripture sence The same Basil Epist 80. To. 2. p. mihi 74. renouncing the argument from custome saith Let us stand therefore to the arbitration of the Scriptures inspired from God and with whomsoever is found the opinions which are agreeable to the Divine oracles to him let the sence or sentence of truth be wholly adjudged This is Basils judgement of the judge of controversies Hilarius Pictav in his Epistle de Synodis adversus Arrianos pag. mihi 318 319. and fully sheweth his thoughts that Councilâ— have erred and that even those of the Orthodox are to be tryed by the Apostolical doctrine And lib. 2. de Trinitate pag. 16. col 2. he saith Commendat autem fidei hujus integritatem c. The integrity of this faith is commended by the Authority of the Gospel and Apostolical doctrine For this foundation standeth strong and unmoved c. And he maketh it a remedy against all Heresies And in his Commentary on Mat. Canon 8. pag. 498. he saith Igitur secundum haec Ecclesiae intra quas verbum Dei non vigilaverit naufragae sunt c. i. e. The Churches in which the word of God doth not watch are shipwrackt And most fully lib. 4. de Trinitate pag. 31. col 2. Nemini autem dubium esse oportet c. that is No man ought to doubt but that we must use Gods doctrine for the knowing of divine things For humane weakness cannot of it self attain the knowledge of heavenly things It is God himself that we must believe concerning himself and those things which he offereth to our knowledge of himself must we obey For either we must deny him as the Gentiles do if we disallow his testimonies or if he be believed to be God as he is nothing of God can be understood but as he hath witnessed of himself Let mens own opinions therefore cease or be laid by and let not mens judgements extend themselves beyond Gods constitutions For the understanding of sayings must be fetcht from the causes of the speech because the thing is not subject to the words but the words to the matter And li. 4. de Trinitate pag. 29. col 1. when he sheweth that the hereticks use to plead Scripture misunderstood he doth not send them to Rome for a judgement of the sence but still concludeth Respondendum esse existimo haereticorum perversitati omnes corum stultas ac mortiferas institutiones Evangelicis atque Apostolicis Testimoniis coarguendas That is I judge that we must answer hereticks perverseness and all their foolish and deadly institutions by the testimonies of the Gospel and of the Apostles And the same Hilary doth largly perswade to a close adhering to the Gospel and the sum of Faith called the Apostles Creed without adding or altering under any pretence of amending and sheweth the divisions and depravations that have followed since the Council of Nice would make one emendation and on their example other Councils had made and mended done and undone so oft that they had marr'd all by it and he perswadeth the Emperor to hearken to the ancient Gospel faith and not to Synods His words are in Epist vel Lib. ad Constant August pag. Edit Paris 307.308 where having shewed how he had erred in looking after Councils he saith Recognosce fidem quam c. that is Reacknowledge that Belief which thou desirest to hear from the Bishops but hearest not For they of whom it is required do write their own things and do not preach the things of God they have drawn about an endless and perpetual circle For the modesty of humane infirmity should have contained all mysteries of divine knowledge in those bounds of conscience onely which he believed in and not after a Belief confessed and sworn in Baptism in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost to doubt or innovate any thing else Under the improbable occasion of this necessity the custome is come up of writing and renewing the Belief Which after that it began rather to frame new things then to retain what was received it neither defended the old nor confirmed the new and Belief is now become rather a belief of the times than of the Gospels while it is written according to the years and not held according to the Confession of Baptism It is a most perillous and miserable thing that we have as many Beliefs as Wills and as many Doctrines as manners and that as many causes of blasphemy spring up as there are vices And when according to one God and one Lord and one Baptism there is one Belief we are faln from that Belief which is but one and while many are made they therefore begin to be that there may be none For we are on both sides conscious that since the meeting of the Council of Nice we have wrote nothing but Beliefes While there is quarrel about the words and questions about the newness and occasion about the ambiguityes and complaints about the Authors and strife about the parties and difficulty in consents and while every one begins to be an Anathema to another almost no one now is Christs For we are carryed about by an uncertain wind of Doctrine and either while we teach we trouble or while we are taught we erre And what is the change that is in the last years belief The first decreeth that the word homousion shall be silenced The next decreeth and preacheth the homousion The third doth by indulgence excuse the word usia which was simply before used by our fathers The fourth and last doth not excuse it but condemn
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
spirit But I find that even there Durandus destroyeth the Romane cause For he immediately addeth that Hoc quod dictum est de approbatione Scripturae per Ecclesiam intelligitur solum de Ecclesia quae fuit tempore Apostolorum qui fuerunt repleti spiritu sancto nihilominus viderunt Miracula Christi audierunt ejus doctrinam ob hoc fuerunt convenientes testes omnium quae Christus fecit aut doâ—uit ut per eorum testimonium scriptura continens facta dicta Christi approbaretur That is This which is said of the approbation of the Scripture by the Church is onely meant of the Church which was in the times of the Apostles who were filled with the Holy Ghost and also saw the Miracles of Christ and heard his doctrine and therefore were fit witnesses of all that Christ did or taught that by their testimony the Scripture containing the deeds and words of Christ might be approved This he proveth from Scripture and concludeth that the Gospels which that Church approved cannot now be rejected because there is not the like cause and that Immo tenens contrarium haereticus est cujuscunque status aut conditionis existat Yea he that holdeth the contrary is a heretick of what state or condition soever he be Not excepting the Pope himself Is this liker the doctrine of Papists or of Protestants Yea one word to Master Knot and those of his that will resolve their faith into the Miracles of the present Rome Church If those Miracles which they glory in be indeed regardable then the Church of Rome is not infallible for the author of those Miracles do witness them to be fallible The old Saint Austin and the rest of his time and before whose testimonies about Miracles they bring in as I have sufficiently proved are against their usurped jurisdiction and infallibility Their Saint Maud saith that the Romane Church shall ere long Apostatize from the faith totally and openly which did obscurely Apostatize of a long time before Their Saint Elizabeth saith That Christ the head of the Church cryeth out but his members are dead that the Apostolike seat is possessed with pride and the flocks go astray The supposed Prophet Abbat Joachim saith There is yet another figtree withered by the curse of prevarication the Latin Church or the Ship of Peter whose temporal leaves are made covers to excuse sin with which both Adam the Pope and Eve the subjects of the Church do cover the dishonesty of their lives and miserably hide themselves in the wood of Ecclesiastical Glory But I will trouble my self and the Reader with no more of this work fearing that I have trespassed in doing more than needs in so plain a case already I will therefore shut up all that I have to say from humane Testimony with the words of Chrysostom or whoever else is the author of the imperfect work on Math. and his own certain expressions elsewhere In the Imperfect Comment Edit Commel an 1617. in Math. 20. Hom. 35. pag. 900.901 it is said as followeth Fructum humilitatis terrestris posuit primatum caelestem primatus terrestris fructum posuit confusionem caelestem Quicunque ergo defiderat primatum caelestem sequatur humilitatem terrestrem quicunque autem desiderat primatum in terra inveniet confusionem in caelo ut jam inter servos Christi â—on sit de primatu certamen That is He hath made the Celestial primacy to be the fruit of terrestrial humility and the fruit of earthly Primacy he hath appointed to be Celestial confusion Whosoever therefore desireth Celestial primacy let him follow terrestrial humility but whosoever desireth Primacy on earth shall find confusion in heaven That so a mong the servants of Christ there may be no strife for Primacy And afterward he addeth Primatum autem Ecclesiasticum concupiscere neque ratio est neque causa quia neque justum est neque utile Quis enim sapiens ultro se subjicere festinar servituti labori dolori quod majus est periculo tali ut det rationem pro omni Ecclesia apud justum judicem nisi forte qui nec credit judicium Dei nec times uti abutens primatu suo Ecclesiastico seculariter convertat eum in secularem That is But to desire an Ecclesiastical Primacy there is neither reason nor cause because it is neither just nor profitable For what wise man will voluntarily hasten to subject himself to servitude labor grief and which is more to such a danger as to be accountable to the righteous judge for all the Church unless it be one that perhaps doth neither believe the judgement of God nor feareth it that abusing secularly his Ecclesiastical primacy he may turn it into a secular One would think this should be plain enough against the Papal usurpation If they tell me that this is none of Chrysostomes works but some hereticks I answer When they have use for it they can magnifie it Let their Sixtus Senensis words be weighed which are printed before this book especially what he saith of some ancient Copies which have the errors onely in the Margin written by some Arrian hand and withall that it is very observable that the errors are so intermixed that yet you may take them out and not maim any of the sence but leave the rest entire yea they seem as parenthentical or superfluous and then conjecture whether yet it may not be Crysostomes But whos 's so ever it is it is ancient and commonly much commended But let that go which way it will as long as in the undoubted works of Crysostome there is over and over again the like In his Homil. 66. alias 67. in Mat. 20. pag. 577. he saith They that seek Primacy are a disgrace to themselves not knowing that by this means they shall thrust themselves into the lowest state The like he hath in Homil. on Math. 18. I shall now leave it to the consideration of the impartial by this smal taste of the judgement of former tmes whether the Romane infallibility and universal government were a thing known to the Church of Christ of old or yielded as soon as ambitiously sought And whether this be a sit ground for us to build our faith upon or resolve it into And if any would see more of the resistancy of their usurpations even when it was at the highest he may read in Mich. Goldastus a multitude of Volumes that will give him further information or in Bishop Vsher de Success stat Eccles he may find enough in narrower room The last part of this disputation should consist of an answer to the Popish Arguments for their cause but I can find so little in any of their writings that 's worthy to be taken notice of more then what is answered before that I shall not need to stand long upon this They tell us that if our Church be not infallible then people
may change any thing that God appointeth about Sacraments except the substance And it were well if they would have left that unchanged The Council of Constance took the cup from the Laity Licet in primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub utraque specie Though in the primitive Church this Sacrament was received of the faithful under both kinds So that they confess they contradict the Primitive Church Bellarmine plainly saith li. 4. de Pontif. c. 5. Si Papa erraret in praecipiendo vitia vel prohibendo virtutes teneretur Ecclesia credere vitia esse bona virtutes malas nisi vellet contra conscientiam peccare That is If the Pope should erre in commanding vices and forbidding virtues the Church were bound to believe that vices are good and vertues bad unless they would sin against conscience And against Barelay cap. 31. he saith In bono sensu dedit Christus Petro Potestatem faciendi de peccato non peccatum de non peccato peccatum That is In a good sense Christ hath given power to Peter to make sin no sin and no sin to be sin compare this doctrine with the Fathers The Glasse in Can. Lector Dist 34. saith Papa dispensat contra Apostolum The Pope dispenseth against the Apostle Innocent 3. Decret de conces prebend tit 8. c. proposuit saith Secundum plenitudinem potestatis de jure supra jus possumus dispensare According to the fullness of our power we can dispense with the Law above Law And the Glosse addeth For the Pope dispenseth against the Apostle and against the old Testament as also in vows and oaths And another Gloss saith The Pope dispenseth with the Gospel in interpreting it More such Glosses you may find if not yet more gross and impious which I 'le not stand to recite Gregory de Valentia Tom. 4. disp 6. qu. 8. p. 5. § 10. saith Et certe quaedam posterioribus tempâ—ribus rectius constituta esse in Ecclesia quam initio se haberent That is And certainly some things are more rightly constituted in the Church in the latter times then they were in the beginning Andradius Defens Concil Trident. lib. 2. pag. mihi 236. saith Vnde etiam liquet minime eos errasse qui dicunt Romanos Pontifices posse nonnunquam in legibus dispensare a Paulo primisque quatuor Conciliis ad Ecclesiam exornandam moresque componendos pro temporum necessitate edictis qualis est illa quae interdicit ut digamos creari ne liceat Episcopos i. e. Whence it appeareth that they did not erre who say that the Pope of Rome may sometime dispense with Lawes made by Paul and the four first Councils for the necessity of the times to the adoring of the Church and the composing of manners such as is that which forbiddeth those to be made Bishops who are the husbands of two wives Cardinal Perron against King James li. 2. Obser 3. â— 3. p. 674. hath a Chapter purposely Of the Authority of the Church to alter matters contained in the Scriptures And pag. 1109. 1115. he saith that When in the form of the Sacraments some great inconvenicies are met withal the Church may therein dispense and alter And that the Lords words Drink yee all of it were a precept not immutable nor in dispensable for the Church hath judged that there may be a dispensation for â—t Bâ—ovius Observ on C. 24. constit Apost saith Ecclesia Romana quae Apostolica utens potestate singula pro conditione temporum in melius mutat i.e. The Church of Rome using Apostolical power doth according to the condition of times change all things for the better Cardinal Tolet saith Cum certum sit non omnia qâ—ae Apostoli instituerunt jure Divino esse instituta i. e. It is certain that all things which the Apostles instituted were not instituted by Divine right And the Council of Trent hath shewed its usurpation of power above Scripture in dispensing with the degrees of Marriage in Lev. 18. 20. adding to what God hath prohibited and relaxing what God hath restrained and that To Great Princes and for a publike cause When they make it sin to other men These and many more of their gross sayings and usurpations against Scripture and above it they have been long ago told of by Jewell Reignolds Whittakers Molinaeus and others and how sleight their evasions are the considerate and impartial may discern I have therefore recited thus much of their words here that you may compare them with the Ancients and then see who are the Changlings and Novelists and who they be that keep to the old Church and Religion And among other ancient Writers I would desire you besides all the forecited to compare the Popish frame with the Directions of Vicentius Lirinensis which he giveth us for the discovery of Truth and avoiding heresie in his book Contr. Haeres Which I the rather mention because I admire that the Papists should be so immodest as to boast so much of him as if he were on their side The sum of his advice to avoid heresie is this 10 Fidem munire Divinae legis authoritate 20 Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione To fortifie our faith 1. By the Authority of Gods Law 2. By the Tradition of the Catholike Church This way he saith he was himself directed to by all the holy Learned men that he enquired of Saepa magno studio summa attentioae perquirens a quamplurimis sanctitate doctrina praestantibus viris quonam modo possem certa quadam quasi generali ac regulari via Catholicae fidei veritatem ab haereticae pravitatis falsitate discernere hujusmodi semper responsum ab omnibus fere retuli cap. 1. Edit Colon. a. 1613 pag. 617. Edit Perionii Lugd. 1572. So that we are given to understand by this passage 1. That this was no private opinion of Vincentius but the common way that was then taken by Holy learned men to discern Truth from Heresie 2. And note well that he doth not once in all the book direct us to the Determination much less to the Inâ—allible determination of the Pope or the Romane Church as the way to discern Truth from Heresie And can any man of common reason that is willing to know the truth imagine that there is the least probability that Vincentius should silence this Romish decision in a Treatise written purposely and onely on that subject and wherein he undertaketh to give us the full and certain direction to avoid Heresies if the Church had then been of the Romanists opinion O intolerably forgetful negligent delusory man that would not give us one word of that which is now the foundation of all and into which our faith must be ultimately resolved What never a word to tell us that whatsoever the Pope or Clergy of Rome are for or against may be known accordingly to be true or false because he is the infallible Head
quod coram omnibus juste vivant bene omnia de Deo credant omnes articules qui in symbolo continentur solummodo Romanam Ecclesiam blasphemant et Clerum That is Among all the Sects that yet are and have been there is not a more pernicious to the Church then that of the Lyonists and that for three causes 1. Because it is the more 〈◊〉 or of longer continuance for some 〈◊〉 it hath endured from the time of Silvester other from the time of the Apostles 2. Because it is more general for there is scarce any land in which this â—ect â—s not 3. Because when all other sects do by the immanity of their blasphemy bring horror into the hearers this of the Lyonists hath a great shew of godliness in that they live righteously before all men and they believe all things well concerning God and all the articles that are contained in the Creed onely they blasphem the Romane Church and the Clergy To this adde what I cited out of Canus and others before Lastly Give us some tolerable answer to all that voluminous evidence of your oppositions by Princes Prelates Divines and Lawyers which Mich. Goldastus hath collected and published on his volumes de Monarche constitut Imperial APPENDIX A Translation of Bishop Downames Catalogue of Popish Errors lib. 3. de Antichristo cap. 7. To satisfie the earnest desires of some of the unlearned who would fain know wherein the Papists differ from us that they may be the better furnished against them and may the better understand those that under other Titles carry about their doctrines BEcause I find many ignorant persons both unacquainted with the Errors of the Papists and yet very desirous to know them I have adventured to translate a larger Catalogue of them gathered by Bishop George Downame in his Book written to prove the Pope Antichrist lib. 3. cap. 7. pag. 189. c. though it cannot be expected that in such brief expressions the true point of the difference should in all lie plain before them that are unacquainted with the controversies yet because I was resolved not to give you any such Catalogue of my own gathering and knew not where to find one so large as to the number of errors and brief as to the expressions I give you this as I find it Bishop G.D. Chap. 7. A Catalogue of the Errors of the Church of Rome THe Errors of the Papists are either about the Principles of Divinity or the parts of it The principles of Theology are the Holy Scriptures Here the Papists have many errors 1. They deny the Holy Scripture which is of Divine inspiration to be the onely Rule and Foundation of Faith 2. They take certain Apocryphal Books into the Canon of the old Testament which neither the Jewish Synagogue to which the Oracles of God were committed nor yet the purer Christian Church did receive 3. They make two parts of Gods word that is the Scriptures and their own Traditions 4. They contend that the Customes and unwritten Opinions of the Church of Rome are most certain Apostolical Traditions 5. These Traditions or as they call them unwritten veritys they make equal with the Holy Scriture and receive and reverence them with equal pious affection and reverence 6. They number the Popes Decretal Epistles with the holy Scriptures 7. They say its heresie for any to say that it is not altogether in the Power of the Church or Pope to appoint Aâ—ticles of faith 8. They prefer the faith and judgement of the Church of Rome which they say is the internal Scripture written by the hand of God in heart of the Church bâ—fore the Holy Scripture 9. That the Scripture in which God himself speaketh is not the voice of a Judge but the matter of strife 10. They accuse the Scripture which is the light to our feet and giveth understanding to children of too much obscurity 11. They condemn it also of imperfection and insufficiency 12. They say that even in matters of faith and the worship of God we cannot argue Negatively from Scripture as thus It is not in the Scripture therefore it is not necessary or lawful 13. That the Scripture is not sufficient for the refuting of all heresies as if there were any heresie but what is against Scripture 14. That heresie is not so much to be defined by the Scripture authority as by the Churches determination 15. That the authority of the Catholike Church that is the Romane is greater â—en of the Scriptures â—nd the Popes authority greater then the Church 16. That the Church is ancienter than the Scripture that is then the word of God which is now written because it is ancienter then the writing of it As if it were not the same word of God which was first delivered by voice That is now then in writing 17. That the Scripture dependeth on the Catholike Church that is the Romane and not the Church on the Scripture 18. Also that the sence of the Scripture is to be sought from the See of Rome and that the Scripture is not the word of God but as it is expounded according to the sence of the Church of Rome 19. They make seven Principles of the Christian doctrine which are all grounded in the authority of the See and Pope of Rome 20. They take the vulgâ— Translation only for authentical preferring it before the originals though it is so manifestly corrupt that the Copies lately published by the Popes themselves Sixtus the fifth and Clement the eighth do in many places differ 21. That either the holy Scriptures ought not to be Translated into vulgar tongues or if it be yet it must neither be publikely read in a known tongue nor permitted to be privately read by the common people § 2. Of the Belief The Parts of Theology are 1. Of faith or things to be believed 2. Of Charity or things to be done Matters of faith are 1. Of God his works 2. Of the Church The works of God are specially 1. Of Creation and Government of the world 2. Of Redemption of mankind 1. ABout the Creation the Papists erre in saying that concupiscence was then natural to man though John saith that it is not of God 1 Jo. 2.16 and themselves sometime confess it to be evil and contrary to nature 2. In the denying that original righteousness was natural to man before the fall created after Gods Image in Righteousness and holiness 3. In affirming that mortality was natural to man before the fall which yet is not from God the author of nature 4. In placing Paradise where the waters of the flood did not reach it which yet covered all the earth and were fifteen cubits higher then the highest mouâ—taines 5. Forsooth they would have that Paradise or Eden yet untouched that it may be a pleasant habitatian to Henâ—ch and Elias
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
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
have small reason to hear us or regard us or to trust their salvation on the doctrine which we deliver to them seeing for ought we know or they know we may but deceive them as being first our selves deceived so that this makes way to infidelity or uncertainty of the faith if the Church be not infallible This is their all the first and last for ought I can find that 's worth the repeating and of how little value this arguing is me thinks should be very easie to apprehend 1. Look back to the stating of the Question and remember how far we say the Church is fallible and how far infallible and it may suffice to confute all this 2. It s not all one to be absolutely infallible and to be actually Not-mistaken Nor to be certain of some things and to be certain of all things that ought to be known or believed Nor to be certain by such external evidence of verity and internal grace as is ordinary to the faithful and to be certain by a pretended priviledge above all the rest of the world even knowing the conclusion as such without knowing the medium We are certain that Scripture is Gods word and certain that we are certain and therefore pro tempore infallibly certain And if we should say that we are certain that no true Believer shall ever fall from this certainty we should speak more agreeably to the Protestant doctrine then to yours who say that they may fall away And we maintain that there is still an Objective certainly or Infallibility if I may use the word actively in the word of God and every sentence of it which can never fail if our faith should fail And we can manifest to our hearers such grounds of their belief as are infallible and will never deceive those that trust in them Your argument therefore most vainly supposeth that mens saith must be grounded on the word and credit of their Teachers and that therefore they can have no stronger a faith then is answerable to our credit with them But it s no such matter It is Gods Veracity and not ours that is the formal object of the hearers faith We do not desire as it seems the Papists do that they should take their faith on trust from us and believe all on our words We do but reveal to them that word of God which is the ground of faith and we prove it to be the word of God and shew them that in it which will prove it self to be so so that as long as our Reasons Proofs Evidences are infallible what necessity is there that the speaker must be infallible and that in every thing that ought to be believed Are all the Preachers of the Romish faction infallible You will say no your selves Must they not therefore be heard Or may not the doctrine which they preach beget a certain belief in the hearer You will I know with one voice say that I may and doth How then do fallible men among you by preaching bring men to an infallible faith in tantâ—m and why may it not be so with us Will you say that you preach in the name of the Pope who is infallible Why but how do your hearers know that Must they take it on the preachers word who proclaimeth himself fallible Why then may they not as well take it on our words that Christ and Scripture is infallible When we say we preach in Christs name as confidently as you say that you preach in the Popes name and so your doctrine and ours should be both uncertain if both rested on the fallible preachers word But if you will not bid your hearers take your word but will undertake to demonstrate to thtm by cogent evidence that you are sent by the Pope and that he is infallible and that you speak nothing but what he infallibly warranteth you to speak all which will be incumbent on you to prove then will we much more easily and truly prove that God is true and that Scripture is his word which is all that is incumbent on us to prove seeing an infallible word of an infallible God must be heard how fallible soever we may be so that you might easily see if you would that your task is incomparably harder then ours even as much as to prove a falshood is harder then to prove a truth How will you approve of such reasoning as your own in other cases What if ten men that have been at a fight come home and tell you which side had the better though they are all fallible may they not possibly give you such infallible proof of what they say as may make it certain What if all the Lawyers in the Land are fallible men yea and all other men in the Land and do not know all things nor all that should be known about the Lawes Doth it follow that these fallible men may not infallibly know themselves and infallibly prove to others even by certain humane testimony uncapable of deceit that this or that is indeed a statute Law of the Land made by King and Parliament Do all men hold their lands and lives by Law and so many dye at the Gallows by Law and yet is it uncertain whether they be the Laws indeed or not and all because the men that say so are not infallible and all are dead that saw them made Why but a man may be certain of many a thing that yet is not infallible in all things nor in all that he ought to know Your argument therefore is strong against your selves who resolve mens saith into humane credit but it s nothing against us who resolve it into Gods veracity and teach not men to take all upon trust from our bare words It is sufficient that God is infallible when we perswade them to believe and that we can infallibly prove to them that the Scripture is Gods word and what it containeth in the points of necessity to salvation We can without infallibility in all other matters infallibly prove to them what God requireth them to Believe and Do as Necessary to Salvation It is the infallibility of our proofs and not of our bare words that is necessary to mens belief But the Papists expect their misled flock should take their bare word and so make the faith of their followers a humane faith and to blind the business they pretend to a certain infallibility as if their sayings were Divine Men will make use of Phisicians for their bodies though they be not infallible Much more might they do it with encouragement if they could infallibly tell them the true cure of every mortal disease though there were an hundred smaller diseases that they could not cure or a hundred questions in Anatomy and about the nature of diseases which they could not resolve Why then should men conceit that the Ministry is vain that is not infallible and knoweth not all things Hath Gods Church been without infallible ordinary guides from
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