p. 113. d. l. 1. p. 122. l. 8. r. thousand p. 124. l. 5. r. general p. 1â—5 l. 39. r. deceived p. 126. l. 18. r. of an p 135. l. 1. 12. d. het p. 140. l. 25. r. one ROMANISM Discussed OR An ANSWER to the nine First Articles of H. T. his Manual of Controversies ARTICLE I. The Church of Rome is not demonstrated to be the true Church of God by its succession SECT I. Of the Title Page of H. T. his Manual of Controversies in which is shewed to be a vain vaunt of what he hath not performed AMong the many Writings which have been dispersed for the seducing of the English People from the Protestant Doctrine and Communion to the imbracing of the Roman Tridentin opinions a Book of H. T. that is Henry Turbervile at I am told hath been instrumental thereto It is stiled as Becanus Costâ—rus and others before had done theirs A Manual of Controversies in which he pretends to have clearly demonstrated the truth of the Catholique Religion by which he means the Roman opinions branched by him into 28 Articles the truth of which he hath no otherwise demonstrated than by shewing that there is no truth in them Which will appear by considering that the two chief Points of the Roman Religion distinct from the Protestant are the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy and Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist into the very flesh and blood of Christ which he had of the blessed Virgin Now if he believe himself that he hath clearly demonstrated the truth of these by Texts of holy Scripture Councils of all Ages Fathers of the first 500 years common Sense and Experience yet there is so little said by him that carries a shew of proof of either or rather there is so much in his own Writing as gainsays it that were there not a spirit of error which doth possess men they would not believe him For that he hath not clearly demonstrated the truth of the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy over the whole Church is apparent in that he hath not demonstrated clearly Peter's Supremacy there being no Texts brought by him Art 7. to prove it but Ephes 2. 20. Matth. 16. 18. John 21. 16 17 18. Luke 22. 31. Matth. 10. 2. Mark 3. Luke 2. Acts 1. of which the very first proves that other Apostles were Foundations as well as Peter and therefore the term Peter or rock Matth. 16. 18. proves not the whole church so built on Peter as that thereby he is declared Supreme visible Head over them or over the whole church any more than other Apostles were Nor doth feeding the sheep of Christ prove any other Supremacy than was in the Elders of Ephesus commanded to do the same Acts 20. 28. and by Peter himself as a fellow-Elder with them required of them 1 Pet. 5 1 2 And confirming the brethren Luke 22. 31. is no more an argument of Peter's Supremacy than the same thing is of the Supremacy of Paul and Barnabas Acts 14. 22. The other Texts shew nothing but priority of nomination or speaking notwithstanding which H. T. p. 97. confesseth the Apostles to have been equal in their calling to the Apostlâ—ship nothing at all of supremacy and rule over the Apostles and whole church is deducible from them And for Transubstantiation or real substantial presence of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist that which he alledgeth is the words of institution Marth 26. 27 28. Mark 14. 22 24. Luke 22. 19 20. 1 Cor. 11. 24 25. which he would have it believed are spoken without trope or figure of speech saying p. 130. to whosoever shall peruse the Text Matth. 26. 27 28. there is no mention of any fâ—gure in it and yet p. 154. confesseth there is a figure in the word chalice And for the Councils of all Ages saith p. 7. that the second and third Ages produced no Councils and p. 25. he saith In this tenth Age or Century I finde no General Council nor yet Provincial in which any controversie of moment was decided And for Fathers of the first 500 years neither do any of the Fathers he cites ascribe to Peter such a supremacy over the Apostles and the whole church as the Romanists assert nor would any man imagine that Irenâ—â—us Cyprian or Augustine should intend such a supremacy to the Bishop of Rome who knows the controversies about Easter between Polycarpus and Anicetus Polycrares Irenaeus and the Asian Bishops and Pope Victor and about Rebaptization between Cyprian and Sâ—ephanus between the African Bishops about Appeals to Rome and Caâ—lestinus and other Bishops of Rome And for the point of Transubstantiation or real substantial presence of Christs flesh and blood in the Eucharist the sayings of Fathers being well viewed speak not what he would have them and Augustine's words cited by him p. 185. denying Judas to have eaten the bread which was our Lord himself must be understood as denying Transubstantiation sith he acknowledgeth he did eat the â—read of our Lord. As for common sense and experience how it should demonstrate clearly the Popes supremacy is beyond my apprehension yea against it sith Histories and Travellers tell me that the Greek and other churches to this day deny the Popes supremacy And that Christs real substantial bodily presence or transubstantiation should be demonstrated by common sense and experience is so impudent an assertion as no man can believe but he that hath tenounced common sense aud experience Nor can H. T. believe himself in that if he believe what he saith p. 203. The body of Christ in the Sacrament is not the proper object of sense p. 205. the evidence of sense is not infallible in the Sacrament which if there were no more said might satisfie an unprejudiced person that this Author doth not easily deserve belief but deals like a Mountebank that commends his Salves beyond their vertue and when p. 72. he forbids us to try by the dead letter meaning the Scripture or â—umanâ— reason it is a shrewd sign that what he said in the Title Page of his Demonstration was but a copy of his countenance no real thought of his own heart Nevertheless for the undeceiving of those who are willing to be undeceived I shall examine his Writing and shew that he hath not at all demonstrated the Roman Doctrine to be true nor answered the Protestants objections and that the true Fathers Prophets and Apostles and Teachers in the next Ages to them have not taught the now Roman opinions but the contrary SECT II. Of the Epistles before H. T. his Manual in which too much is ascribed to the Church and the Churches Authority deceitfully made the first point of his Treatise LEtting pass other things in the Epistles with the approbation and commendation of those of his own way as being no better than a kind of complement of one Papist with another of no moment but with that prejudiced party I shall onely take notice of that
10. according to the custom of master-builders whose names are written in their work not because they were themselves the Foundations as the twelve Tribes vers 12. in the twelve gates because by them entrance was in the Old Testament they being prime beginners of the people of Israel Yet if they be said to be Foundations they were Foundations as the Prophets were to wit by their preaching nor doth their being Foundations prove their Rule or Dominion any more than the Prophets being Foundations and certainly Peter is here made no more a Foundation than the rest The other proof seems to be this He that hath power to feed and govern his whole Flock is Head of his Flock and above his Sheep But every Shepherd hath such such power Ergo. The Major is denied A Parish-priest hath power to feed and govern his whole Flock of which a King may be a part and yet he is not Head of the King nor above him in dignity or authority nor perhaps in knowledge And the like may be said of his Physician SECT III. The Text Matth. 16. 18. proves not any Rule or Dominion in Peter over the Apostles but a promise of special success in his preaching H. T. adds The Minor is proved Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church St. Matth. 16. 18. the whole was built on him Answ THe Argument seems to be this He who is the Rock on which Christ would build his Church he was next after Christ the Foundation of the whole Church But Peter was the Rock on which Christ would build his Church Ergo. In which there are these things supposed 1. That the term Rock is as much as a Foundation and so it is not the absolute quality of firmness onely but also the relative use of a stone or a rock in building which is imported by it 2. That the term Rock notes Peter's person 3. That it notes Peter's person alone 4. That it notes Peter's person as being a Rock so as no other but Christ was a Rock as he was 5. That the Building upon this Rock notes Peter's person in respect of his singular Rule not given to other Apostles 6. That he was the Foundation next after Christ 7. That the Church comprehends the militant Church visible 8. That it notes the whole Church of Christ even the Apostles themselves each of these is to be examined 1. The term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used whether it be translated Rock or stone I deny not to denote not so much the absolute property of stability as the relative use of a foundation in a Building 2. Though some of the Ancients make Christ the Rock others the confession of Christ or the faith in him which Peter had professed yet by reason of the occasion of the speech and the Preface I say unto thee and the commemoration of his Name Thou art Peter and the allusion to that Name in the choice of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Cephas in Syriack I deny not that by this Rock or stone is meant Peter's person nor thirdly that it notes his person alone nor fourthly that it notes Peter's person in a singular manner so as that there is something peculiar to Peter intimated thereby But I deny 1. That it notes Peter's singular Rule or Dominion not given to other Apostles 2. That he was so a Foundation next after Christ as that the other Apostles were laid on him as a stone supporting them as is the conceit of some of the Romanists 3. That the term Church notes the visible Church as visible 4. That it notes the whole visible Church universally taken And each of these I prove thus 1. If the term Rock or Stone note Peter's person as becoming a Foundation or Foundation-stone by such an act as notes not any Rule or Dominion and was common to other Apostles with Peter then it doth not note Peter's singular Rule or Dominion not given to other Apostles but the term Rock or Stone notes Peter's person as becoming a Foundation or Foundation-stone by such an act as notes not any Rule or Dominion and was common to other Apostles with Peter Ergo. The Major is of it self evident The Minor is thus proved That act whereby Peter's person became a Foundation or Foundation-stone was Christ's building his Church on him But that act notes not any Rule or Dominion and was common to other Apostles with Peter Ergo. The Major is of it self evident The Minor is proved thus The act whereby Christ built his Church on Peter was Peter's preaching of the same Doctrine which he professed But that act notes not any Rule or Dominion and was common to other Apostles with Peter Ergo. The Minor I take for granted Papists do not ascribe Rule or Dominion to Friers that preach and other Apostles preached Christ as well as Peter Now that Christ builded his Church on Peter by his preaching is proved thus That act by which and no other the Church of Christ is said to be built is that act whereby Christ built his Church on Peter But it is the preaching of the Doctrine that Peter professed and no other act by which the Church of Christ is said to be built The Major is evident of it self The Minor is proved 1. By those places which speak of building the Church they still import teaching not rule as appears by an induction Acts 9. 31. Rom 15. 20. 1 Cor. 8. 1 10. 10. 23. 14 4. 17. Gal. 2. 18. 1 Thess 5. 11. 1 Pet. 2. 5. and the compound Verb used Acts 20. 30. 1 Cor. 3. 10 12. Ephes 2. 20 22. Col. 2. 7. Jude 20. and the Noun Rom. 14. 19. 15. 2. 1 Cor. 3. 9. 14. 3 5 12. 2 Cor. 10. 8. 12. 19. 13. 10. Ephes 4. 12 16 29. do all shew that the Building of the Church or Saints is by instruction not by rule the work being sometimes mutual as 1 Thess 5. 11. Ephes 4. 10. Jude 20. and sometimes the matter by which the building is being for informing and teaching as Ephes 4. 29. and sometimes the Builders are termed Teachers as Ephes 4. 11 12. and that Text Ephes 2. 20. which H. T. allegeth the Building being by Prophets as well as Apostles can be understood of no other Building than by teaching therefore so also must be understood Matth. 16. 18. 2. It is further proved from 1 Cor. 3. 10. where the Apostle tells the Corinthians that as a wise Master-builder he had laid the Foundation and that Foundation which he laid was Jesus Christ vers 11 and vers 5. he shews how that was to wit in that he was a Minister by whom with Apollos the Corinthians believed and that thereby they were God's Building and God's Husbandry vers 9. to wit by his planting Apollos watering and God's increase vers 6. which can be referred to no other acts but teaching or preaching of the faith of Christ in
is manifest that he makes Roâ—â— no more infallible than the Church at Smyrna or Ephesus referring the Inquisitor into the tradition Apostolical to apply himself to these as well as it for information nor doth he make the resort to be to the Church of Rome always but because at that time there was a succession of men that knew the Apostles or had the Doctrine of Christ delivered from them among whom he reckons Linus as made Bishop by Peter while he lived and so no Successour to Peter but if Peter were a Bishop of Rome which Papist say but we deny there were two Bishops of Rome together yea he makes the Church of Rome to have been founded by Peter and Paul not by Peter onely by reason of which tradition though either false or uncertain he judged there was the best assurance to be had of the Apostles Doctrine about God the Creatour against Valentinus and the rather because he was acquainted with the Teachers there as he had been with Polycarpus of Smyrna who was an acquaintance of John the Evangelist for which reason he directs also to him As for the more potent Principality which Irenaus speaks of whether it be meant of the Church or the State Ecclesiastical or Civil it is uncertain if of the Civil Principality because then it was the Seat of the Empire the necessity of resort thither must be because civil affairs would enforce them to go thither upon other occasions and then they might inform themselves being there most commodiously if of Ecclesiastical Principality yet there is nothing that shews it meant of universal jurisdiction and power over all Churches but of a more powerfull Principality it had in clearing Doctrines and ordering Church-affairs in those parts by reason of the eminency of their Founders and succeeding Teachers who were in those times of great note for purity of Doctrine and constancy in the Faith for which they were Martyrs And indeed were the question now between us and any such as Valentinus or Marcion concerning the Doctrine which the Apostles taught about another God besides the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Church of Rome had such Bishops as then they had who had acquaintance with the Apostles or received their tradition from them so near to the Apostles days as the Roman Bishops did then we should also think it meet in such a point wherein we knew they were right to refer it to them to determine But in so doing we should not acknowledg a perpetual Prerogative of infallible Supremacy over all the Churches in the World annexed to that See nor did ever Irenaeus intend it who is known to have opposed Victor Bishop of Rome when he excommunicated the Asian Bishops for varying from him in the keeping of Easter as Eusebius reports Hist Eccles lib. 5. cap. 22 23 24. The words of Origen in cap. 6. Epist ad Roman waving other Exceptions against Citations out of that Commentary as being so altered by Ruffinus that we can hardly know what is Origen's what not were they as H. T. sets them down which I cannot examine now for want of the Book yet they prove not Peter's supremacy of power over the Apostles He might have the chief charge of feeding Christ 's Sheep and the Church be founded on him yet have no jurisdiction over the Apostles and the Church be founded on the other Apostles as well as on him as hath been shewed before in this Article Sect 4. As for Cyprian's words calling Peter the Head and Root of the Church cited by H. T. as in an Epist ad Julian I finde no such Epistle in Cyprian's Works but in an Epistle ad Jubianâ—m concerning Baptism of Hereticks I finde these words about the beginning of the Epistle Nos autem qui Ecclesiae unius caput radicem tenemus that is But we who hold the Head and Root of one Church c. in which Peter is not named nor do I finde any thing that should infer that by the Head and Root of one Church he means Peter but Christ whom in his Book of the Unity of the Church he makes the onely Head of his Church and having alleged immediately before one Baptism as it is Ephes 4. 5. it is likely he meant by one Head the one Lord mentioned vers 5. as after also he mentions one Faith or else the meaning is this we have remained in the unity of the Church which is one and the Head and Root of the faithfull of which several particular Churches are members and branches Nor did he call Peter the Head and Root of the Church would it be for H. T. his purpose unless he meant it in respect of universal Jurisdiction and Supremacy over the whole Church belonging to him and his Successours Bishops of Rome which is not proved and there may be another reason given of such a Title given to Peter's person onely because of his eminent confession Matth. 16. 16. and his preaching Acts 2. 10 c. And though he term the Church of Rome Peter's Chair or rather the Bishoprick of Rome or Peter's Doctrine and teaching there yet that proves not he held the Popes Supremacy but that Peter's Doctrine was then held there Yea it is certain out of his Treatise of the Unity of the Church and his Epistle to Cornelius mentioned before and his opposition to Pope Stephanus that Cyprian did account all Bishops equal and the Bishops of Africa equal in Jurisdiction to the Roman Bishop and the Pope of Rome to be but his Collegue from whom he dissents and to whom he denied Appeals and whom he reproved of ambition and pride when he sought to impose his Judgement on others contrary to what Cyprian and a whole Synod of African Bishops besides Asiaticks held and therein opposed the Bishop of Rome And therefore it is certain that Cyprian never acknowledged the Supremacy of the Pope now asserted Of those which H. T. allegeth in the fourth Age not one of them giveth Peter that Supremacy of Jurisdiction over the Apostles and Christians which the Romanists claim as belonging to the Pope over all Bishops and Churches but either a primacy of order or preheminence of gifts or zeal or esteem or use in moderating in Assemblies The words which seem to be most for it are falsly ascribed to Chrysostom For however Trapezuntius have translated them yet in the four and fiftieth Homily as it is in Eaton Print the words are not as H. T. cites them The Pastour and Head of the Church was once a poor Fisherman But on Matth. 16. 18. he hath these words And I say unto thee Thou art Peter and upon this Stone or Rock I will build my Church that is on the faith of confession or confessed There he shews that many should believe and raiseth up his minde and makes him Pastour And after on vers 19. These things he promiseth to give him to shew a Fisherman stronger than any Stone or Rock
all the World oppugning If Optatus call Peter the Head of the Apostles it is meant as is frequent in Scripture and other Writers to call the forwardest and leader or first in order the Head of the rest But the words Apostolorum Caput Petrus inde Cephas appellatus gives occasion to conceive these words inserted in Optatus who it is likely would not have given so inept a derivation of the word Cephas as if it were from the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Head The words in Augustin Serm. 124. de tempore not as H. T. 12. de 4. temporibus which shews that he cites this passage without reading it and it is likely he did so in the rest have no likelihood to be Augustine's those Sermons being nothing like Augustine's Writings nor is it likely that Augustine would have called Peter the Foundation of unmovable Faith or have made the sin of denying Christ exiguae culpae a small fault The words in the eighty sixth Epistle ad Casulanum are either deceitfully or ignorantly alleged they being not the words of Augustine but of Urbicus whom he refutes For so the words are Peter also saith he that is Urbicus the Head of Apostles the Door-keeper of Heaven and Foundation of the Church Simon being extinct who had been a Figure of the Devil not to be overcome but by Fasting taught the Romans that thing whose Faith is declared to the whole World of Lands The words of Augustine of whom Peter the Apostle by reason of the Primacy of his Apostleship bore the person c. tract ultimo in Joannem being recited at large are so far from proving the Supremacy which Romanists ascribe to him that they are against the principal grounds by which they endeavour to prove it and therefore I will recite them at large This following Christ the Church doth blessed by hope in this sorrowfull life of which Church Peter the Apostle by reason of the Primacy of his Apostleship bare the person by a figured generality For so much as pertains to him properly he was one man by nature by grace one Christian by more abundant grace one and the same first Apostle But when it was said to him To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens and whatsoever thou shalt binde on Earth shall be bound also in Heavens and whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth shall be loosed also in the Heavens he signified the whole Church which in this World is shaken with divers temptations as it were showres flouds and tempests and falls not because it is founded upon the Rock from whence Peter also took his name For the Rock is not called from Peter but Peter from the Rock Petrus a Petra as Christ is not called from a Christian but a Christian from Christ For therefore saith the Lord upon this Rock will I build my Church because Peter had said Thou art Christ the Son of the living God Therefore he saith Upon this Rock which thou hast confessed will I build my Church For Christ was the Rock upon which Foundation Peter himself also was built For no man can lay other Foundation besides that which is laid which is Christ Jesus The Church therefore which is founded on Christ received from him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens in Peter that is the power of binding and loosing sins For what the Church is by propriety in Christ that is by signification Peter in the Rock by which signification Christ is understood to be the Rock Peter the Church In which passage though there are conceits not right yet clear it is that Peter's primacy is here asserted to be onely in this that he represented the whole Church that the Rock on which it is built is Christ that he had his first Apostleship by more abundant grace in that he was made a figure of the whole Church to signifie its unity that in him the whole Church had the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens that is the power of binding and loosing sins which points I presume the Romanists now will not avow That which he cites out of the council of Nice Can. 39. Arab. is but a late devised thing those Arabick canons being forged there having been but twenty in all in that council in the fifth of which number the Pope is equalled with other Patriarchs And the council of Chalcedon Act. 16. is falsly alleged as if it ascribed all primacy and chief honour of the Pope of Rome sith it makes the Pope and other Patriarchs equal in Jurisdiction within their circuit or Province notwithstanding the reluctancy of the Popes Legates and the flattery of some there and that preheminence which the Pope had was of order or place not of power nor that by divine institution for Peter's sake but by humane allowance by reason of the dignity of the City of Rome SECT VIII The holy Scriptures John 19. 11. Acts 25. 10 11. Luke 22. 25. 1 Cor. 3. 11. overthrow the Popes Supremacy H. T. adds after his fashion Objections solved Object Pilate had power over Christ himself Thou shouldest not saith he have any power against me unless it were given thee from above John 19. 11. therefore temporal Princes are above the Pope Which is strengthened by Christ's disclaiming a worldly Kingdom John 18. 36. saying Who made me a Judge over you Luke 12. 14. declining the being made a King John 6. 15. Answ I Distinguish your Antecedent he had a power of permission over Christ I grant a power of Jurisdiction I deny and so do all good Christians Nor is your Consequence less to be denied speaking of spiritual things and things belonging to Church-government in which we onely defend the Popes Supremacy and that without all prejudice to Princes and chief Magistrates in their Supremacy of temporal affairs I reply this Objection is most directly against the Popes Supremacy in temporal things which this Authour after Hart and sundry others seem not to allow the Pope though Carerius Baronius Bellarmine and others defend it places it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the third of Lu. 22. 25. upon another occasion the strife of the Disciples at Christ's last Supper who of the Apostles should be the greater our Lord Christ doth expresly determine the Kings of the Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is have dominion over them aud they that rule over them are called Benefactours but you not so and in all these places in the vulgar Latin which the Papists are bound to follow it is Dominantur corum or eis potestatem exercent in eos or potestatem habent ipsorum or super eos in none of the places doth that Translation express the words as importing tyrannical rule according to their own will without respect to the good of the persons ruled and the translating of it by H. T. over-rule and noting that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as importing a forbidding onely to lord it over Inferiours is not right
Minister which shews the meaning to be this If any affect to be as the elder greater or superiour to the rest be so far from ascribing or yielding to him such precedency greatness or superiority that my will is that you should account of him as the younger Servant and Minister to the rest and so it shall be ye shall be all equal none above another This is the very drift and purport of Christ's determination that there should be no superiority or inferiority among them but an equality and that which H. T. speaks of the mention of superiority and inferiority is meant of superiority that might be affected but not of any superiority allowed by Christ it being plainly forbidden And for what Bellarmine urgeth from the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if Christ had appointed one Ruler or Prince in the College of the Apostles though the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Leader is not the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Prince or Ruler yet if it did note Princedom it is manifested that Christ speaks of a Prince among them not by due constitution but by inordinate usurpation and therefore to infer from thence as if Christ would have one superiour over the rest when he determines there should be equality is the act of a man that is resolved to be lustily impudent By this whole discourse the Objection is fully vindicated against the shifts of H. T. and other Romanists and stands thus That Supremacy is not to be yielded to have been granted to Peter which Christ forbade to every one of the Apostles But to be a supreme Ruler over the rest Christ forbad to every one of the Apostles therefore Christ forbad Peter to be a supreme Ruler over the rest of the Apostles I yet add that were it granted that Christ did onely forbid spiritual Superiours to lord it over Inferiours this very grant would prove the Papal Supremacy which Popes claim and exercise to be certainly forbidden For if ever there were a Superiour that did lord it over Inferiours the Pope is such a one yea I may aver and easily prove it that let all the tyranny and lording which any Tyrants or Princes have exercised from the beginning of the World to this day be considered they will be found incomparable to the Papal tyranny and lording over the Church of God If this be not the highest lording to impose on mens consciences such Laws as Christ never imposed to enjoyn the holy as they term it inquisition with rigour to excommunicate deprive burn men and women old and young who yield not to the Popes Laws though contrary to Christ's to take on him to dispense with Gods Laws to challenge the defining of all controversies supremacy over all Councils power to depose and destroy Emperours and Kings if they acknowledge not his immense power yea if they be not his Butchers to kill their best and most peaceable Subjects if he once term them Hereticks to interdict a whole State for limiting by Law Donations to Ecclesiasticks and imprisoning notorious malefactours who were Ecclesiasticks the use of divine service to subject a King to whipping on the Bare for the death of an Ecclesiastick not by him killed to depose Emperours for investing Bishops to canonize Saints whom he will to be invocated even such an one whose holiness was disobedience to his lawfull Prince and to have a Feast proper to him besides innumerable other acts done against the Laws of God and Man I do utterly despair ever to know what it is to lord or tyrannize over others Surely it is easier to praise Busiris or to justifie Dionysius of Syracuse or Nero of Rome and to acquit them from lording than the Bishop of Rome for many hundreds years last past if we stand to the Relations of Writers of their own Church who speak too favourably of them H. T. proceeds Object Christ is the foundation of the church and other foundation can no man lay 1 Cor. 3. 11. Answ Other principal foundation can no man lay I grant other subordinate I deny for that he himself hath laid Peter thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my church St. Matth. 16. 18. and the rest of the Apostles were built on the foundation of them all although not equally Ephes 2. 20. I reply when it is said Christ is the Foundation of the Church and other Foundation can no man lay it is meant of a principal Foundation not excluding a subordinate But sith the term Foundation as hath been proved before in this Article Sect. 2 3. as applied to the Apostles doth not note settling or upholding by rule or dominion but by teaching the Papists who ascribe to the Pope such a Supremacy and Infallibility in teaching as is proper to Christ do lay another principal Foundation besides Jesus Christ not subordinate but coordinate to him Which that they do is proved by two things which are ascribed by them to the Pope either by himself or with his Council 1. That they can alter the plain express precepts of Christ as namely in determining that it is not necessary that other faithfull people besides the sacrificing Priest should drink the Wine in the Eucharist though the precept of Christ is as express for all the faithfull drinking of it as it is for their eating of the Bread and that it is not lawfull for a Priest to marry though the Scripture expresly saith Marriage is honourable in all men Heb. 13. 4. 2. In enjoyning under pain of Heresie Excommunication and Damnation things to be believed and practised which Christ never enjoyned to be believed or practised as namely Transubstantiation the unbloody Propitiatory Sacrifice properly so called in the Mass Purgatory Fire confession of all a persons known sins into the ears of a Priest the keeping of the Vow of a Monastick profession when the person cannot contain and to live an idle begging life when the person is able to work and hath no other imployment nor pretends to any which is usefull to men besides praying which is the common duty of all Christians Now surely he that takes on him to alter Christ's commands and to put his own in stead thereof doth make himself the principal Foundation equal to Christ which is contrary to Paul 1 Cor. 3. 11. and to Christ Matth. 23. 8 11. and so makes himself a Foundation co-ordinate as indeed more than Christ however he pretend himself the Vicar of Christ or the authority of the Church for his Warrant As for that which is said of Peter here it was answered before Sect. 2 3. that it doth not import any Rule or Dominion but some peculiar success in his preaching besides what others had which was but a personal preheminence derivable to no Successour much less to the rank of Roman Bishops in these last Ages who never build the Church by preaching but pull down Princes and oppress those that would build up Christ's Church Yet it is observable
the Church cannot be meant of every visible Church as if it were free from error but of the true Spouse of Christ nor is the true Spouse of Christ free from error of any sort but that which is in the main points of faith concerning the Father Son and holy Spirit as the words following shew nor is he said to be separated from the promises of the Father or not to have God for his Father who divides from the Church of Rome and hath not it for his mother nor are all other Churches said to be adulteresses who hold not with the now Roman church but he who divides from the Catholick church nor hath it for his mother of whom he had said Illius faetuâ—nascimur illius lacte nutrimur spiritu â—jus animamur whence it appears that he meant the church to be his mother who is born again with the same birth baptism or faith nourished by her milk that is the Word of the Gospel and animated by the same Spirit And of this it is granted that whoever is so severed from the church of Christ that is the multitude or number of believers throughout the world who professe and are baptized into the common faith and are nourished by the same Gospel and quickned by the same Spirit they are divided from God and have not him for their Father But this proves not that he that is divided from the now Roman church is divided from God But there are other words of Cyprian cited by him as found Epist 55. in mine edition at Bafil 1558. l. 1. Epist 3. as Bellar. also cites them l. 4. de Romano pontifice c. 4. which are thus set down by H. T. To Peters chair and the principal church infidelity or false faith cannot have access in which he would insinuate 1. That the Roman church is the principal church 2. That by reason of Peters chair there no error in faith could come to that church But the words being rightly and fully set down and the Epistle being read throughout it will appear that Cyprian had no such meaning as this Author would put upon him The words are these After these things which he had related before concerning the crimes of some excluded by him out of the church of Carthage as yet over and above a false Bishop being constituted for themselves by hereticks they dare saile and bring letters from Schismaticks and profane persons to Peters chair and the principal church from whence sacerdotal unity arose and not think them to be Romans whose faith the Apostle declaring is praised to whom perfidiousness cannot have accesse Iâ— which I grant the Roman church is called the principal church from whence sacerdotal unity did arise and the See of Rome Peters chair the reason of which speech is plainly set down by Cyprian himself in his book de simplicitate Prâ—latorum or de unitate Eccleâ—â—ae in these words The Lord speaketh to Peter I saith he say to thee that thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not overcome it I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven and what things thou shalt binde upon earth shall be bound also in the heavens and what things thou shalt loose upon earth shall be also loosed in heaven And to the same after his resurrection he saith Feed my sheep And although to all the Apostles after his resurrection he bestowed equal power and saith As my Father sent me I also send you receive the holy Ghost if ye remit sins to any they shall be remitted to him if ye â—old them to any they shall be held yet that he might manifest unity he hath disposed by his authority the rise of the same unity beginning from one Verily the other Apostles were also that which Peter was endued with equal allotment of honour and power but the beginning comes from unity that the church may be shewed to be one And a little after which unity we ought firmly to hold and vindicate chiefly Bishops who are President in the church that we may prove also Bishoprick it self to be one and undivided Let no man deceive the fraternity with a lye let no man corrupt the truth of faith with perfidious prevarication Bishoprick is one of which by each entirely a part is held By which words it is manifest that Cyprian made the Roman church the principal church not because the Bishop of Rome was above any other in honour and power or that Peters chair was more infallible than other Apostles chairs or that a supremacy over the whole church did belong to the Pope of Rome for he expressely saith that the other Apostles were the same that Peter was that they were endued with equal allotment or fellowship of honour and power and that in solidum wholly and entirely that is as much one as another each Bishop held his part in the one Bishoprick but because he made the unity of Episcopacy to have its original from Christs grant to Peter Matth. 16. 18. that all Bishops might be as one none arrogating more to himself than another And that this was Cyprians minde appears 1. By the words in his Epistle to Pope Cornelius presently after the words which H. T. cites where against the practise of those that sailed to Rome to bring thither letters of complaint against Cyprian he saith But what cause is there of their going and declaring their making a false Bishop against the Bishops For either that pleaseth then which they have done and they persevere in their wickedness or if it displeaseth them and they recede they know whither they should return For sâ—â—h it is decreed by all us and it is â—qual alike and just that every ones cause should be there heard where the crime is admitted and to several Pastors a portion of the flock is ascribed which each Pastor should rule and govern being to give account to the Lord of his own act it is meet verily that thosâ— over whom we are president should not run about nor break the cohering concord of Bishops by their subdolous and fallacious rashness but there plead their cause where they may have both accusers and witnesses of their own crime unless to a few desperate and wâ—etched persons the authority of the Bishops setled in Africa seem less who have already judged of them and by the weight of their judgement have damned their conscience bound with the many snares of their sins Which words shew that Cyprian denied the authority of the Bishops of Africa to he less thâ—n the Bishop of Rome and that persons should appeal from them to Rome but asserts that they ought to stand to the judgement of their own Bishops and that a portion of the flock is given to each Pastor which he ought to rule and govern and thereof must give account to the Lord not the whole to any one no not to the Bishop of Rome and therefore he ought
which Paul counts himself a Master-builder that built not on Peter 's foundation or any others Rom. 15. 20. and his edifying is there the effect of his Evangelizing or Preaching the Gospel and consequently the building of the Church Matth. 16. 18. must be interpreted to be by preaching the Gospel 3. It is further proved by those places which make the Foundation of the Building special Doctrine such as are Heb. 6. 1. 1 Cor. 3. 11. Rom. 15. 20. whence it follows that the building of the Church is by Doctrine and Matth. 16. 18. must be understood of it not of Rule or Dominion Yea the Council of Trent it self Sess 3. terms the Creed the firm and onely Foundation against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail and thereby intimates the Foundation Matth. 16. 18. to be chief points of Christian Doctrine 4. By the appositeness of the Phrase to signifie planting and increasing of knowledge and strengthening by teaching not imposing commands by way of Rule or Empire No where is a Prince said to edifie but Prophets Apostles and other Teachers nor is Excommunication Ordination calling of Councils and such acts as shew Dominion termed Edification but teaching and reproving 2 Cor. 13. 10. therefore such princely power as the Popes claim cannot be meant by building Christ's Church Matth. 16. 18. 5. The same may be proved from the matter of the Promise Matth. 16. 18. which is not of what power Christ would give to Peter but of what Christ would do by him and consequently cannot be understood of supreme power but of singular work 6. The end of the power which the Pope claims is for the exalting of himself and his visible Monarchy but the thing promised Matth. 16. 18. is not the advancement of Peter but the use of him for setting up his Church The Popes power is as all experience witnesseth for the destruction of the Church not for edification and therefore is not meant Matth. 16. 18. If any say How then hath Peter something singular ascribed to him I answer in that he did first begin to lay the Foundation of the Churches after Christ's Ascension by his preaching as Acts 2. 3. 4. 10. appears and seems to be observed by Peter as the accomplishment of Christ's Promise Acts 15. 7. who used Peter at the first more eminently than any other though afterwards he chose Paul who did labour more abundantly than the rest 1 Cor. 15. 10. 2. The second thing that Peter was not so a Foundation next after Christ as that the other Apostles were laid on him as a stone supporting them is proved 1. From Ephes 2. 20. where the building of the Church is said to be on the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone in whom the whole Building compacted together groweth to an holy Temple in the Lord therefore the Apostles and Prophets have equal place in the Building and it is Christ and not Peter in whom all the Building is fitly framed together 2. From Revel 21. 14. where the Wall of the City of new Jerusalem is said to have twelve Foundations and not one singular one supporting the rest but the Foundations are as many as the Apostles none of whom is the Foundation of the rest 3. That the term Church Mat. 16. 18. notes not the visible Church as visible is proved 1. In that it is termed Christ's Church but the visible as visible is not termed Christ's Church but as it is invisible by faith and Christ's Spirit dwelling in it 2. In that Christ promised that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against it But they have and do prevail against the visible Church as visible many visible Churches have been corrupted and perish 4. That my Church Matth. 16. 18. is not the whole Church universally taken is proved in that 1. Then the whole Church universally taken should be built by or on Peter but that cannot be true sith a great part of the Church specially of the Gentiles was built by Paul and he denies he built on anothers Foundation Rom. 15. 20. 1 Cor. 3. 10. 2. Then Peter should be built on himself sith Peter was part of the universal Church and the Virgin Mary should be built on Peter which are absurd Which things being evinced it appears 1. That this was a Promise to the singular person of Peter of a singular success of his preaching which no other had and so belongs not to any Successour 2. That it is not a Promise of Government and Jurisdiction in which H. T. placeth Peter's Headship pag. 75. for that Christ expresly forbade but of singular honour to Peter in his happy success in preaching the Gospel recompensing his readiness to acknowledge Christ And this Christ had elsewhere promised Luke 5. 10. under the Promise of being a Fisher of mâ—n Now this is nothing to the Dominion claimed by the Pope As for being a Rock on which the Church of Christ might be built we would most gladly it were true that the Pope were such we should then honour him and kiss his Toe but as he is and hath been for many hundreds of years he is to be judged the Butcher who hath slain the Saints of God and a tyrannical Antichrist domineering over the Church of Christ I marvel that H. T. saith nothing here of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven which the Pope is painted with as having them in his hands and by which he was wont to claim his power But perhaps he findes it too short for the proof of that peerless power which the Pope claims sith even in the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism in handling the Priests and Bishops power of Absolution the Keys are in their hands and so it is no more than others have beside the Pope therefore I need not insist on that here sith H. T. hath thought fit to omit it SECT IV. John 21. 16 17 18. proves not Peter's Supremacy over the whole Church But he adds And for a Reward of Peter's special dilection for he loved Christ more than all the rest of the Apostles he said to him Feed my Lambs Feed my Lambs Feed my Sheep St. John 21. 17 18. a Commission to feed all without exception Answ THe Argument seems to be this He to whom as a Reward of his special dilection by which he loved Christ more thaâ— all the rest of the Apostles Christ said Feed my Lambs Feed my Lambs Feed my Sheep St. John 21. 17 18. and thereby gave him a Commission to feed all without exception was Pastour of the whole Flock But this was Peter Ergo. Here four things are supposed whereof not one is true 1. That Peter loved Christ more than all the rest of the Apostles For neither were all the rest of the Apostles there nor doth Christ or Peter say he did love Christ more than they did but onely puts a question which may either have this sense Lovest
whose agents they were in bringing a deluge of ignorance and wickedness into the world which made that age to be termed a miserable age in which were neither famous writers nor Councils nor Popes that cared for the publick by Bellarmin in his book of Ecclesiastical writers and of it H. T. here saith in this tenth age or century I find no general council nor yet provincial in which any controversie of moment was decided So that by his own confession his catalogue of councils fails him And for his succession of chief Pastors it is of such persons and so uncertain a succession and by such irregular ways as yeilds proof that Rome was the Synagogue of Satan not the church of Christ Of the catholick professors added some of them as Dunstan c. were such as it may be well doubted whether they are in heaven or in hell And for the Nations converted it is not proved they were of the now Roman faith SECT X. The defect of H. T. his catalogue of succession in the eleventh and twelfth age is shewed IN the eleventh age are reckoned eighteen Popes worse if it may be as bad as any in hell most of them magicians if their own writers speak truth from Sylvester the second to Gregory the seventh all Necromancers saith Benno a Cardinal of Rome John the seventeenth or eighteenth H. T. himself is not resolved whether so uncertain is his succession on which he builds the truth of his church Their practises were to poyson one another and to set up one King and Emperor against another to advance their own greatness and to domineer over the greatest Princes by the terror of their excommunications and giving away their dominions which was brought to a stupendous heighth by Hildebrand otherwise Gregory the seventh under whose reign Satan seems to have been let loose for the executing of vengeance on the Emperors that had so adored Popes as to become their vassals whom Pope Gregory the great acknowledged his Lord and committed fornication with the whore of Babylon Of councils H. T. names but one telling us that in this eleventh age about the year 1049. Berengarius an Archdeacon of Ghent of Aniou he should have said mistaking Gaudavensis for Adegavensis began to broach his heresie he should more truely have said the doctrin of Christ his Apostles the Fathers even Gelasius himself Bishop of Rome in the first five hundred years and of the most learned to that time concerning the B. Sacrament affirming it to be only a sign or figure of the body and blood of Christ not his true body and blood for which saith H. T. he was condemned in the council of Lateran under Pope Nicolas the second 1057. As also in the Roman council under Pope Gregory the seventh Anno 1073. where he abjured his heresie in open council and died a Catholick after divers penances done for his sin But methinks H. T. should be ashamed to mention Berengarius his forced abjuration in which Pope Nicolas made him say I believe that the body of our Lord Jesus Christ sensibly and in very deed is touched with the hands of the Priests and broken with and rent and ground with the teeth of the faithful de con dist 2. Ergâ— Berengarius which occasioned the gloss it self to say unless you warily understand these words of Berengarius you will fall into a greater heresie than ever he held any And for his Catholick professors and Nations converted wherein or how far they avowed the Popes supremacy and the now Roman faith is not shewed by him nor do I believe he is able to prove that they did avouch the Popes supremacy which is now challenged or in all things the now Roman doctrin though Romish superstitions and the excessive esteem of the Popish Bishops did very much corrupt men in those days If the ignorant devotion of one Henricus the Emperor with his wife make any thing for the credit of the Roman papacy the story of another Henricus to wit the fourth his wife and childs usage by Gregory the seventh and other Popes is such as that it demonstrates the Popes of those times to have been no successors of Peter either in doctrine or practice but devils incarnate rather than men And however Anselms learning seem to credit the papacy yet in many points of doctrin he is not for the now Roman tenents as where he saith on Rom. 12. salvation consisteth not in mans merits but in Gods grace and his contention with the King of England being animated by the Pope is an evidence that the faith of Christ was not so much professed then as the greatness of Bishops and the unrighteous ways of Clergymen In the twelfth age are reckoned up eighteen Popes and three Lateran councils of which Popes it will be hard for H. T. to shew what their faith was or to prove they did orderly succeed especially considering how many Antipopes were set up and what abominable practices were used to get up into the chair and how wickedly they lived as men that cared not what rebellions they raised what wars and bloodsheds they caused not against infidels but of subjects against their soveraign Christian Emperors not for the Gospel of Christ or their lawful liberties but for the Popes most impudent claim of freedom from subjection to Emperors and investiture of Bishops and Abbats things which Jesus Christ and his Apostles never granted but commanded the contrary Their own writers tell us so much of them specially of Calixtus the second Innocent the second Adrian the fourth Alexander the third and their monstrous pride in oppressing and insulting on the Emperors beyond what is to be found in any Priests of Pagan Gods towards the Princes of the earth as shews them to be inspired by the devil not guided by the Spirit of God H. T. adds three Lateran councils for instauration of discipline for the right of the Clergy for reformation with presidency of Calixtus the second Anno 1122 of Innocent the second Anno 1139. which he tells us defined little in matters of controversie and so by his own confession prove not his succession in the profession of the same faith As for the ends in those two councils which he mentions all the instauration of disciplin therein was concerning monks in the former and in the later the right of the clergy was about the Bishop of Romes power in civil things at Rome and exempting of clergy men from the Senate and Consuls of Rome Wherein the Romans desired to be restored to their ancient power in civil things but the Pope and his council withstood it anathematizing them that laid hands on a clergy man yet limiting the Bishop of Rome in some sort These are the great businesses of three hundred at one time and one thousand Bishops and Abbats at another time Which may shew how little the Popes and councils then regarded Christs doctrin or precepts but minded the upholding their own inventions and
but they are not meerly visible believers as some Reprobates are who profess faith which they have not But the true Church of Christ against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail Matth. 16. 18. contains onely such believers as have that faith which is true and that Election of God which with their faith are invisible and so are rightly denominated the invisible Church from that which is more excellent and the Reprobate have not ARTIC IV. One Catholick Church not the Roman The Church of Rome is not that one Catholick Church which in the Apostolick and Nicene Creeds is made the Object of Christian Faith SECT I. Unity in non-fundamentals of Faith and Discipline is not essentially presupposed to the Universality of the Church Militant H. T. to his fourth Article gives this Title The true Church demonstrated by her Unity and Universality and then saith Unity being essentially presupposed to Universality I thought it not improper to joyn these two in one Article Answ IF this Authour had meant to deal plainly he should have told us what Unity is essentially presupposed to Universality and how the true Church is demonstrated by her Unity and Universality Unity in general is so far from being essentially presupposed to Universality in general that the contrary seems more true that one is not universal Unity not consistent with Universality it being in effect as if iâ— were said One is many or all yet I deny not some unity in special may be essentially presupposed to some universality in special There are many sorts of unity which Logicians and Writers of Metaphysicks reckon up in respect of which it is certain that the true Church of Christ cannot be said to be one as it cannot be said to be one with generical or specifical unity for that is not essentially presupposed to universality of time and place but is abstracted from it But he seems to mean unity in Doctrine Discipline and Faith by the words following Universality likewise is manifold as Logicians and Writers of Metaphysicks shew as there is an universality of predication of essence and existence Now this Authour seems to mean universality of existence for time and place and his meaning is this that unity of Doctrine Discipline and Faith is essentially presupposed to universality of existence for time and place that is that Church which hath not the same Doctrine Faith and Discipline which all Churches of Christ in all times and places have had is not the true Church of Christ and that which hath is the true Church of Christ Now these Propositions I grant if meant of Doctrine and Faith in the Fundamentals but not if meant of meer outward Church-discipline or Doctrine and Faith in points not fundamental having learned from the Apostle 1 Cor. 3. 11 12 13 14. that some may build Hay and Stubble that is some errors upon the foundation Christ who yet may be saved which they could not be if they were not of the true Church of Christ or that is no true Church of Christ which consists of such In like manner the Apostle Rom. 14. 2. expresly tells us in the Church of Rome one did believe he might eat all things and another did eat herbs one esteemed one day above another others esteemed every day alike and yet God received them both and they were Gods servants v. 3 4 5. And that in Discipline there may be disagreement yea Schism and disorder is apparent from the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 1. 11 12. 51. 6. 7. 11. 17 c. 14. 26. 15. 12. who are termed the Church of God 1 Cor. 1. 2. And therefore without distinction and due limitation which this Authour omits his Position is not true But let 's view what he writes SECT II. The antiquity of H. T. his saying of the Roman Church its unity and universality is shewed Now saith H. T. that the church of Rome is both perfectly one and also universal for time and place is thus demonstrated Answ HEre again this Authour deals sophistically putting the Roman church for the true church as if they were the same and not explaining what he means by the Roman church which may eitherâ— signifie the church that is in Rome which is the expression of the Apostle Rom. 1. 7. or the Church where ever it be which holds the Roman faith And this Roman faith may be either the faith in all points which now at this day the Bishop and Priests and People dwelling at Rome hold or which the Christians at Rome held in the days of Paul and some Ages after If it be meant in this this last sense the true Church is no more the Roman church than Corinthian nor so much as the Hierosolymitan whence all churches received the faith if in the former sense the term is not according to the ancient use either in Scripture or ancient Ecclesiastick Writers though I conceive it so meant by this Authour To be perfectly one is also ambiguous it may be meant either that they have not the least disagreement in Doctrine Discipline and Faith or they hold the same Faith and Doctrine in the main or points fundamental To be universal for time and place may be either meant thus that the persons now termed the Roman church are universal for time and place But this is contrary to sense it being known by it that they were born within a certain definite time at certain definite places not in all times and every place existent or that the faith which now the Romanists hold is that which in all times and places the true church of God hath held And this we deny if it be meant of the Articles in Pope Pius the fourth his Creed and are willing to put all our controversies to this issue But H. T. looks quite awry from this as will appear by viewing his dispute which is thus SECT III. Unity under one visible bead without division in lesser points and disciplin is not proved from 1 Cor. 10. 17. Ephes 1. 22 23. John 10. 16. 1 Cor. 1. 10. Act. 4. 32. John 17. 11. and the Nicene Creed H. T. saith The argument for unity The church of Christ is one body one fold or flock of which he himself is the supreme invisible head and the Pope his deputy on earth the visible or ministerial But the Roman Catholick church and no other is this one body one sold or flock therefore the Roman Catholick church and no other is the church of Christ The Major is proved We are one bread and one body as many as participate of one bread 1 Cor. 10. 18. He hath made him Christ head over all the Church which is his body Ephes 1. 22 23. There shall be made one fold and one Pastor John 10. 16. I beseech you that you all speak one thing and that there be no Schisms among you but that ye be perfect in one sense and one judgement 1 Cor. 1. 10
live c. he shall be excluded from life they are impudently appropriated to the Roman church For a few lines before Augustine declares whom he calls the catholick church that which is spread over the earth which is designed by the divine testimonies of holy Scriptures which beginning from Hierusalem increased in places in which the Apostles preached and have written the names of the same places in their Epistles and Acts and was spread over the other Nations So that clearly Augustine tells us it was not the Roman Church onely which he meant by the Catholick but also the Corinthian Ephesian Thessalonian and all the rest in the world And therefore it is apparent that neither this not any other Father understood by the Catholick Church the Roman onely and those who acknowledged the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy nor did they hold a necessity of union with it SECT VIII That it is non-sense or falshood to term the Roman Church the Catholick Church and the shifts of H. T. to avoid this Objection are discovered H. T. adds Object The Roman Catholick Church is a particular Church therefore it is not Catholick or Universal Answ I distinguish your Antecedent the Roman Church as taken onely for the congregation of Rome or Italy is a particular Church I grant as taken for the whole collection of Churches holding communion with the See of Rome I deny it For so it is an universal Church containing all particular Churches as all the parts are contained in the whole and in this acception also it is called the Roman church because the particular Roman church is the mother church and hath a power of headship and jurisdiction over all the rest Object How can a church of one denomination be universal Answ I have told you already by the extent and latitude of her power which is over all So a particular man is called a General by reason of his power over all the Army I Reply Protestants do rightly object that the terming of the Roman church catholick is according to the right sense of words to speak contradictions to call that the whole which is not the whole but a part universal which is onely particular The Answer is by a Distinction which is meer non-sense The Church of Rome as taken onely for the congregation of Rome or Italy is a particular Câ—urch as taken for the whole collection of churches holding communion with the See of Rome so it is universal But was ever such language used by any Apostle or Ancient to term the Church of Rome any other than the believers dwelling or being at Rome Did ever any of the first Ages term the congregation of Italy or the whole collection of churches holding communion with the See of Rome the Roman church Paul when he wrote to the Church of Rome wrote to all that were in Rome Rom. 1. 7. and Ignatius the Martyr when he wrote to the Church of Rome terms it the Church which is seated in a place of the Region of Romans and the old Councils termed the Bishop of Rome The Arch-bishop of old Rome to distinguish it from new Rome and a Roman Synod is always meant of a Synod in the City of Rome If the new-minted gibberish of these men be received then the Church of Millain of Paris of Toledo and the rest are all one with the Roman Church and the Bishop of Millain c. the Bishop of Rome Who would not think that man crazed that should talk or write so By this kinde of talk the Roman Church should not be one and the Corinthian another but the Roman church the Corinthian Ephesian and all and the Apostle writing to the Corinthian should write to the Roman Church charging the Corinthian with Schisms should charge the Roman But this new canting Language is fit for these Juglers who have by such terms bewitched silly Papists to receive their new Doctrine H. T. saith As the Roman church is the collection of all churches holding communion with the See of Rome so it is an universal church containing all particular churches as all the parts are contained in the whole I reply Neither doth he shew any approved Authour for his speech nor what sort of parts other particular Churches are as they are contained in the Roman as the whole He will not make it an universal whole which is predicate or said on more churches in quid that is when the question is what the more churches are to say they are the Roman For then it were true to say the church of Naples is the Roman and so of other churches If any were asked who is in his wits What is the church of Naples Would he say It is the church of Rome Nor are other churches essential parts For then the Roman church should not be if the churches of Naples c. were not if they apostarize the church of Rome ceaseth to be Nor will it be said other churches are integral parts For then the church of Rome should be maimed and be but half a church if they revolted from the faith or obedience to the See or church of Rome What other parts he means I understand not nor do I think H. T. distinctly knows himself but that he is used to this unintelligible Jesuitical non-sense of Roman catholick church Sure before he made this the definition of catholick that it is nothing else but to be coexistent with all time and to be spread or diffused over all places according to which by terming the church of Rome catholick he should mean that the Roman church hath been in all places since Christ built this church and in every place of the world but both these are palpable Lies contrary to all Histories and sense nor in this sense should it be as a whole that hath parts but be the onely and an ubiquetary church But he gives two Reasons of this Title that it is the Mother Church and hath power of headship and jurisdiction over all the rest I reply 1. that both these are manifestly false For the Roman Church is not the mother Church in any true sense It is a saying indeed that God is a believers Father and the Church his Mother But however the Ancients have used it yet the Scripture saith not so nor is it in any good sense true For the church is but a congregation of believers who are first such aâ—ore they are a church now then the sense must be the church that is believers are the mother of believers that is the church which is ridiculous It is true it is said Gal. 4. 26. The Jerusalem which is above is free which is the mother of us all but that is the Evangelical covenant v. 24. not the church Nor is there any thing done by the Church or upon the church from which in a meet resemblance the church may be termed the mother of believers They are the Preachers of the Gospel not the church who bring forth souls to
them later than the time of Gregory the great even in the Roman Church and were opposed more or less at least some of them by a considerable party of the Church of Christ who were far better Christians than the Popes or Roman Clergy which condemned and persecuted them as Hereticks From which crime we are able to acquit our selves other ways than H. T. saith we can chiefly by shewing the agreement of our Doctrine with the holy Scripture and first Churches after Christ's Ascension and the Orthodox Teachers in them as will appear in answer to his ninth Article It is a meer frontless impudence in him to charge us with any blasphemous evasion or excluding our selves from all possible assurance of faith or salvation and to arrogate to himself as if he had proved either The Reformation which was begun 1517. by Luther and after by Zuinglius and others continued hath been blessed by God notwithstanding the Persecutions of the Papal party and the Differences among Protestants And the Reformation sought in England since 1641. hath been blessed notwithstanding the Troubles and Differences fomented by the Popish and Prelatical parties as the Preaching of the Gospel by the Apostles and first Preachers was notwithstanding the Persecutions Heresies and Schisms that followed it Notwithstanding what H. T. or any other Romanist have said the Roman Church and Pope have not proved infallible but may be proved and have been false and heretical which is in part proved by the Objections following SECT VII The Objections from Scripture and Reason against the infallibility which H. T. ascribes to the Church are made good against his Answers H. T. saith thus Objections from Scripture and Reason solved Object All the Israelites adored the golden â—alf therefore the whole Church erred Answ Moses and the Levites did not who were many thousands Exod. 32. Numb 3. 39. therefore both those Propositions are false TO which I reply that whereas the Romanists do allege to prove an universal Bishop over the whole Church who by himself or with a Council is an infallible Judge of controversies of faith Gods ordinance of one high Priest in Israel to whose judgement all must stand Deut. 17. as Bellarmine lib. 3. de verbo Dei cap. 4. c. doeth this Argument is retorted thus If Aaron and the People of Israel were not infallible then if there were such an universal Bishop over Christians as there was over the Israelites and such a Council as the Jewish Synedrium which were to be Judge of controversies as Romanists would have yet they might be fallible sith the Jewish high Priest and Council who were to be Judge of controversies were not infallible though they were as much privileged by Papists own arguings who infer their sovereign infallible Judicature of controversies which they ascribe to the Pope and his Council from the Jewish high Priest and his Council But Aaron and the Jewish Council and Church were not infallible for Aaron and the Council and Church of the Jews did erre as is manifest by the making the golden Calf and the peoples motion and concurrence thereto Now though Moses and the Levites did not erre yet the high Priest and the People did from whose privilege and not from Moses the civil Magistrate the infallible judicature of the Pope as universal Bishop and the Roman Church Catholick is fetcht and therefore the Answer avoids not the Objection H. T. adds Object The Jews Council â—rred in condemning Christ Answ No wonder it was not perfectly oecumenical for Christ himself was then Head of the Church on earth and the highest Authority was in him not in the Jews Council and if the Jews Church could erre it doth not follow that the Church of Christ can for it was built as St. Paul saith on better Promises I reply 1. This Answer which makes that Council not perfectly oâ—cumenical and therefore no wonder it erred plainly intimates that if a Council be nor perfectly oecumenical though it would be otherwise infallible yet in that case it may erre Whence it will follow unless the Papists can prove their Councils which they say are approved by the Pope to be perfectly oecumenical that is called out of the whole World they are not infallible Now certain it is that neither the Trent nor the Lateran Councils nor those of Constance Basil Florence nor any other Council for a thousand years last past have been so called yea sometimes one party hath kept a Council in opposition to another and Pope against Pope And from the Trent Council to which they adhere not onely the Greek and Asiatick and African Churches were wholly absent but also the French for a time and the Council consisted in effect of none but Italians and the Popes Hirelings some of whom were onely titular Bishops having never been at the places whereof they carried the Titles and these by the plurality of Voices served the Popes ends but in nothing either seriously sought the truth or reformation of corruption as the History of the Council of Trent written by that intelligent man Frier Paul of Vâ—nice hath cleared to the World By which were it not that Papists are a sort of men that hood-wink themselves they might see how meer a cheat that Council was and how justly it was refused by the French Papists themselves unto this day 2 Though Christ were then Head of the Church yet he did not exercise Jurisdiction among the Jews not act but as Prophet to his Disciples he did not deny subjection to the Priests he was circumcised the eighth day as subject to the Law of Moses presented at the Temple with an Offering went up to the Feasts kept the Passover denied not the Authority of the high Priest yea directed the Leper to offer to the Priest for his cleansing as Moses bade him and John notes that the high Priest in that he was high Priest that year prophesied of Christ's death John 11. 51. which are sufficient proofs that if there were a Privilege of Infallibility in the high Priest and Council of the Jews it was not taken away by Christ's being on earth But sure then they did erre and therefore were not at all infallible in their ordinary determinations 3. It follows if the Jews Church could erre notwithstanding those passages in the Old Testament which the Papists bring for the Popes and Roman Churches infallibility from their infallibility then the Popes and Roman Churches infallibility is not well proved thence 4. St. Paul doth not say The Church of Christ was built on better Promises than the Church of the Jews but that the second Covenant was made a Law on better Promises than the first is said Heb. 8. 6. But those Promises are set down vers 10 11 12. of that Chapter of which there is none concerning any much less a greater degree of infallibility in any chief Bishop on earth oecumenical Council or Church of Christians above the Jewish high Priest and Council and therefore
this allegation doth no whit infringe the Objection H. T. adds Object St. Peter erred in faith when St. Paul contradicted him to the face Answ No it was onely in a matter of fact or conversation according to Tertullian lib. praescript cap. 23. by withdrawing himself and refusing to eat with the Gentiles for fear of the Jews Gal. 2. 12. I reply 'T is true Tertullian saith that Peter 's fact was conversationis vitium non praedicationis a vice of his conversation not of his Preaching and he shews wherein that he preached not another God or Christ or â—ope But this doth not shew that Peter erred not at all in any point of faith nor that Tertullian thought so yea the very words of Paul Gal. 2. 15. that he did not walk uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel shew that his practise did infer an opinion contrary to the truth of the Gospel and the words Why compeâ—lest thou the Gentiles to Judaize which could be no otherwise than by suggesting to them that opinion that they must do so shew he taught the Gentiles an Errour in a point of Faith contrary to the Decree of the Council Acts 15. It follows Object Christ blamed the incredulity of his Disciples in not believing his Resurrection St. Mark 16. 14. Answ He onely blamed their slowness in believing not any errour in faith or loss of faith in them seeing they had it not before for they understood not what Christ had said to them of it as appears St. Luke 18. 1 St. John 20. they did not know all points of faith at once but by degrees I reply the Question now is of Infallibility not of Apostasie now it is certain they were not infallible if they did actually erre and it is certain they did erre who did not believe Christ to have been risen from the dead which was sure an errour in a point of faith and so much the greater in that it was foretold by Christ himself that it should be and told by Women that it was so and of this number Peter was one after he was termed Peter and according to the Romanist's Doctrine had been made Prince of the Apostles and chief Pastour of the universal Church Now if Peter did erre then in faith much more may the Popes of Rome who pretend to be his Successours and to derive their Privileges from his grant and consequently cannot pretend to any more than he had Again Object Every man is a Liar Answ In his own particular be it so yet the holy Ghost can and will teach the Church all truth he is no friend to truth that contradicts it and albeit man of himself may erre yet by the holy Ghost he may be guided so that â—e erre not I reply The words that make every man a Liar do speak this of man in contradistinction to God's being true and thereby shew that this is made God's Prerogative to be true without any errour and that no meer man is such and therefore not infallible and consequently neither Roman Bishop nor Council nor Church infallible nor doth the Answer avoid it For if they be every one a Liar in his own particular they must be so in a community or Council as if each person in his own particular be blinde the whole company must needs be so too I grant the holy Ghost can and will teach the Church of Christ meaning the Church of the Elect all truth necessary to their salvation and he is no friend to truth that contradicts it but that he will teach any or all the visible Churches or their Bishops and Teachers or any one Bishop all truth in any point controverted so as that they shall be infallible Judges in determining controversies of faith is more than yet is proved by H. T. or any other And if man may of himself erre though he may by the holy Ghost be guided so that he erre not then unless it may be known that in this or that Definition of Faith he is so guided by the holy Ghost no man can rest upon his Definition as infallible But it is not certain that either a Council or Pope who are confessedly fallible of themselves and therefore do implore the holy Ghost's help as knowing they may erre are guided by the holy Ghost that they may not erre but by examining their Definitions by the holy Scripture For there is no other way to know they have not erred and consequently such a not erring being uncertain their Definitions can at no time without proof from Scripture which each person is to try for himself be a sufficient assurance to build a firm Faith upon which is confirmed by the next Objection Object Try all things hold fast that which is good 1 Thess 5. Believe not every spirit but try the spirits if they be from God 1 John 4. Answ Try them by the Churches authority and Apostolical tradition that is the Touch-stone not the dead Letter humane reason or the private spirit I reply If Christians are to try all things then they are to try the Churches authority and therefore the Churches authority can be no Rule of trial And indeed the Precept had been ridiculous if he had bid them try the Churches Definitions whether they were good or no and the spirits whether of God by the Churches authority unless the Churches authority were to be tried by something else which were of it self credible For when the Church defines for examples sake Transubstantiation to try this by the Churches authority is no more but to enquire whether the Church hath defined it if we must rest on its authority without examining its proof which would be all one as to say Try not at all what the church propounds but believe it But it is a vain Rule till we know who are the church by whose authority and what is their authority by which we must try especially considering it is not agreed among Papists whether a Pope or council jointly or severally be the church even H. T. pag. 70. speaks as if he would fain take in all but is doubtfull on which to fasten Nor are they agreed whether the Pope or council be superiour nor which council is approved which reprobate nor how far that which is approved is so The Rule is more uncertain when council is against council and Pope against Pope The truth is Papists contrary to the Apostles Precept are not allowed by their Doctrine to try what their church that is their Pope and Prelates teach them but they are bound to believe them with an implicit assent without any trial or explicit knowledge As for Apostolical tradition we like it well to try by it if it be in truth and not in pretence onely Apostolical tradition in which case we are to take heed that we be not deceived by such sayings as pretend to be from the Apostles but are not The Apostle Paul 2 Thess 2. 2. tells us there were such pretensions
and infallibility in matters of faith yet were they each consonant to other in all their doctrines of faith and whatever was taught by any of them was stedfastly believed by all I reply H. T. saith in his Epistle to the reader that it is agreed by all parties that Christ our Lord hath founded and built a Church in his own blood which was the onely Mâ—stris of divine faith and sole repository of all revealed truths at least for an age or two which if true then the Apostles were in that age to depend on their decrees But here he eats his words in the Epistle the Church was the sole Mistris of divine faith here the Church was to depend on the Apostles as on the first masters and proposers of faith How these hang together I understand not That which he saith here of the Apostles is very true understanding by masters not Lords but teachers The Church neither now nor in any age was Mistris of faith it is not the Church in right sense that is the teacher or propounder of divine truths but the learner It is the meer sophistry of Papists to term the Pope and Prelates the Church and to call a hundred or two of Bishops some of them meer titulars without any Diocesse such as never knew what the office of a Bishop was nor ever preached the Gospel to any people the Catholick Church The concession that the Apostles had each of them a peculiar prerogative of divine assistance and infallibility in matters of faith proves that this was not Peters prerogative and if it were a peculiar prerogative to each Apostle then it descends not to any successors and so by this Authors own words the infallibility of the Pope or council is a meer figment Nor is infallibility to be sought from any but Christ and his Apostles doctrin who do still propound matters of divine faith to us in the holy Scriptures Nor hath the Church of Rome any more priviledge of keeping or conveying to us the truths revealed by the Apostles then that at Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus Alexandria or any other which the Apostles founded and therefore Ireneus Tertullian and such of the Fathers as direct us to repair to the Apostolick Churches for establishment against hereticks direct us to other Churches where the Apostles preached besides the Roman It is further objected the Church hath now no new revelations nor can â—he make now any new points of faith therefore we are not bound to believe her definitions H. T. Answers I grant the antecedent but deny the consequence for though she can make no new points yet she can explicate the old and render that clear which was before obscure and can define against new herefies I reply The grant of the antecedent is sufficient to prove that if the Church as it is termed teach any other points of faith then were revealed to the Apostles we are not bound to believe her definitions and consequently she must prove her definitions by Apostolical tradition and not only say they are Apostolical ere we are bound to believe them it being still to be heeded which Paul saith Gal. 1. 8. If he or an Angel from heaven or any man preach I may adde or believe any other Gospel then what was preached by Paul and received by the Galatians he is accursed and consequently each person is to examine and judge for himself whether that which is preached or defined for him to believe by Pope or council agree with the Apostles Gospel or no and if the Church can onely explicate the old then an heresie cannot be made by a council which was not before and if Pope John the two and twenteth his tenet condemned in the council of Constance were heresie after the council condemned it it was so before contrary to what Bellarmin saith l. 4. de Rom pontif c. 14. and it follows he that can best explicate the old and render it clear which was before obscure hath the best title to infallibility and if the Church or Pope have no new revelations then he must explicate by study and so not by prerogative of his chair but by ability in languages arts and other knowledge in which if he have lesse knowledge as certainly some if not all the Popes for a thousand years have had one of them as Alpâ—onsus a Castro saith not understanding Grammer and one of them being necessitated to substitute another to do divine offices for him by reason of his ignorance in literature there is lesse reason to adhere to their explications then to others who have more skill therein Arias Montanus Vatablus and such other learned men are to be relied more upon for explications and definitions in points of faith then the Pope or Bishops if they be such as were in the Trent council of whom it is manifest by Frier Pauls history of that council that there were scarce any of them learned in the Scriptures especially in the main point of the Gospel concerning justification by faith then it is unjust to tye men to follow the Fathers who had lesse skill then others in interpreting Scripture as the learned of the Roman party do often shew in their writings then did Innocent the third ill to make a new point of faith in defining transubstantiation which was but an opinion before as Scotus and Tâ—nstal have asserted then it is monstrous tyranny beyond all that ever any tyrants before practised to burn to death men women children old and young Bishops and Noblemen for not holding it then are the Popâ—s and Popish party guilty of shedding a sea of blood in England France Belgia Germany Italy Spain Poland and elsewhere for denying transubstantiation the Popes supremacy and such other new tenets as Popes have thrust on the Christian Churches then hath Pope Pius the fourth done wickedly in imposing on men a new Creed and Popish Doctors do ill in justifying it and not opposing it But is not this a mockery to say the Church may not do it and yet they do it and H. T. avoucheth it what else are their tenents of receiving the eucharist under one kinde of worshipping images of purgatory invocation of Saints indulgences service in an unknown tongue monastick vows with many more but new points of faith and is it not all one to make new points of faith as by authority onely without any agreeablenesse to the meaning of the words so to explicate the Scriptures as that they shall be wrested to maintain that which is not there taught and that condemned as heresie which is not contrary to them Rightly said Chillingworth Answ to Char. Maint part 1. ch 2. num 1. Tyranny may be established as well by a power of interpreting laws as by making them and so doth the power of Rome set up the greatest tyranny that ever was in the world by usurping this vast power of being an infallible interpreter of Gods laws though in their Prefaces to their corrected editions of their
all their Worship and in their invocating of Saints and Angels as Mediatours to God they are departed from the two great points of Christianity 1 Tim. 2. 5. 1 Cor. 8. 6. Ephes 4. 5 6. and thereby are become Pagans so by their substituting of another Rule of Religion than the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles in their Writings to wit unwritten Traditions which are nothing else but the Determinations of Popes and Councils approved by him they do prove themselves not to be Disciples of Christ which is all one with Christians Acts 11. 26. and accordingly are not to be judged a church of Christ but Papists which name Bellarmine lib. de not is Eccles cap. 4. doth not disown or the Popes Church truly Antichristian SECT VI. Sayings of Fathers and Councils prove not unwritten Traditions a Rule of Faith H. T. recites the sayings of eight Fathers and two Councils for Tradition The first of Irenaus lib. 3. cap. 4. doth not at all prove that we have now unwritten Traditions for a Rule of Faith but that if the Apostles in stead of which fraudulently as I fear H. T. puts If the Fathers had left us no Scripture at all ought we not to follow the order of Tradition which they delivered to whom they committed the Churches To understand which it is to be noted that Irenaeus having proved Valentinus his Doctrines of Aeones or more Gods and Lords than one to be false out of the Scriptures chap. 2. he speaks thus of the Valentinian Hereticks When they are reproved out of Scriptures they are turned into accusation of the Scriptures themselves as if they were not right nor from authority and because they are diversly said and because the truth cannot be found out of these by those who know not Tradition For that truth was not delivered by Letters but by living voice which is the very Plea for Traditions which H. T. here useth for which cause Paul said We speak wisdom among them that are perfect as they took themselves to be and said They were wiser than either Presbyters or Apostles and would neither consent to Scriptures nor Tradition and then cap. 3. shews the Tradition of the Apostles by what was preached in the Churches founded by them and to avoid prolixity refers to Linus Anacletus Clemens at Rome and to Polycarpus and his Successours at Smyrna and after useth the words mentioned chap. 4. which do not at all mention Tradition in all after ages as a Rule but the Tradition from the Apostles to them that knew the Apostles and that onely in the main point of Faith concerning God the Creatour and onely upon supposition there had been no Scripture and that after he had alleged the Scripture to stop the course of Hereticks that declined the Scripture Whence it is apparent 1. That Irenaeus counted Scripture the constant Rule of Faith 2. That he counted Tradition unwritten a Rule onely upon supposition that the Apostles had not left us Scripture 3. No Tradition to be that Rule but what was from men acquainted with Apostles 4. To be used onely in case men were so perverse as to decline Scripture which is our case in dealing with Papists which moved Bishop Jewel in his Sermon at Paul's Cross to offer that if the Papists could prove the Articles then enumerated by antiquity of the first five hundred years after Christ he would subscribe which neither Harding nor Bellarmine nor Perron nor any of the Romanists could or can do The words of Tertullian lib. de praescript advers Haeret. cap. 21. 37. are indeed that the Doctrine is to be held which the Church had from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ Christ from God But he expresseth how he means it when he saith in the same place But what the Apostles have preached that is what Christ hath revealed to them I will also prescribe that it ought to be no otherwise proved but by the same Churches which the Apostles themselves built they themselves by preaching to them as well by living voice as they say as by Epistles afterwards Which plainly shews that Tertullian mentioned no other Doctrine to be received from the Churches than what the Apostles after wrote nor from any other Churches than those which the Apostles by preaching built by which he means the Corinthian Philippick Thessalonian Ephesian as well as Roman chap. 36. And though he use against Valentinus Marcion and other Hereticks the Tradition of those Churches yet chap. 8. he plainly directs to the Scriptures as the way to finde Christ by using his words to the Jews John 5. 39. Search the Scriptures in which ye hope for salvation for they do speak of me This will be Seek and ye shall finde Which being considered it will appear that Tertullian was far from asserting unwritten Traditions of things not contained in Scripture delivered in these later ages and called Apostolical by Popes and Councils the Rule of Faith Cyprian's words lib. 2. Epist cap. 3. ad Cacilium in some Editions Epist 63. shew his mistake about Traditions as he counted the mingling of Water and Wine in the Eucharist to be the Lord's tradition so he did also Rebaptization in which the Romanists desert him neither shew he held unwritten tradition a Rule of Faith yea arguing against them that used Water without Wine he proves the Lord's tradition out of Scripture and urgeth it against them and though his Reasons be frivolous yet these expressions shew he adhered to the Scripture as his Rule But if it be commanded by Christ and the same be confirmed and delivered by his Apostle that as oft as we drink in commemoration of the Lord we do the same thing which the Lord also did we are found that it is not observed of us which is commanded unless we also do the same things which the Lord did and mingling the Cup in like manner recede not from the divine magistery Again I marvel enough whence this hath been used that against the Evangelical and Apostolical Discipline in some places Water is offered in the Lord's Cup which alone cannot express Christ 's Blood Whence may be perceived that even in Cyprian's days corrupt usages came in by following other Traditions than those that are written In the same Epistle Cyprian adds this remarkable speech Wherefore if Christ alone be to be heard we ought not to attend what any one before us hath thought is to be done but what Christ who is before all neither ought we to follow the custome of a man out the truth of God sith God speaks by the Prophet Esay and saith Without reason do they worship me teaching Mandates and Doctrines of men Origen's words do not prove unwritten Traditions a Rule of Faith when he saith In our understanding Scripture we must not depart from the first Ecclesiastical tradition Tract 27. in cap. 23. St. Matthai nor Athanasius when he saith This Doctrine we have demonstrated to have been delivered from hand to hand by