parties or from any that are yet in that Church and yet take up any dividing titles or wayes therein though they withdraw not from it as they are such I am none of them and therefore disclaim when I express my Religion such private names I am no Lutheran Calvinist Arminian Papist Socinian c. but a Catholike But yet when I say I am a Reformed Catholike I purposly disclaim the Corruptions of Popery and in that word renounce their Errors as such as by the word Catholike I renounced their Schisme And so I may agree with Luther Calvin or any man in Reformation so far as they hold to the word of God so that if malicious adversaries will put the name of Sect upon the Catholike verity and call it by the name of Zuinglianisme Lutheranisme Calvinisâ—â— or the like pretending that it had its spring from these men they shall not by such unworthy means remove me from the Catholike Religion nor yet cause me to own their Corruptions because they have named the opposition of them as a Heresie Augustine would not turn Donatist because they named the Catholikes Caecilians nor would Prosper turn Pelagian because they called the Orthodoxe Predestinarians or Fatalists nor would Athanasius before them turn Arrian because they called the Orthodoxe Tritheists It is not other mens fastening upon us the name of a man or of a Sect that proves us Sectaries or that we had our Religion originally from that man Yet do we so much reverence their names that we rejoyce in their labors for the Church and bless God for them and endeavor to imitate them in their holy doctrine and lives though we make none but Christ the Lord of our Faith As for the terms of the predicate they need no great explication By salvation we mean principally Everlasting Glory in Heaven By the way to it we mean the means appointed by God for the attaining it The principal means indeed is Christ himself who is eminently called The way and no man cometh to the Father but by him But in subordination to Christ all other means are the way By a safe way we mean a way that in suo genere is sufficient to the attainment of the end so that all that sincerely are that way shall attain that end A certain means of happiness to all that faithfully use it For it must be known that no Religion or sound Doctrines will save a man that is not faithful in the reception and improvement of them A True Religion will not save him that is not True to his Religion And therefore it is no wonder if multitudes even of Protestants do perish though their Religion be the onely Religion in the world For they are not heartily of the Religion which they profess They have that doctrine which is the seal and fit enough of its own nature quantum in se to imprint the image of God upon their souls But if they keep this seal in their Chests and apply it not effectually to their hearts they may have unholy hearts and lives though they profess a holy faith and Religion and therefore may perish for all that profession yea and perish most deplorably because their profession doth aggravate their sin If a mans Religion or believed doctrines be bad in the maine the man himself must needs be bad too and therefore no man of such a Religion can be saved But if a mans Religion or professed doctrines be never so good it is possible he may be bad that doth profess them and then no Religion can save a wicked man So that of the true Religion some are saved but not all but of a bad Religion in the main no man can be good or be saved I come to the Arguments by which I prove the Affirmative that The Reformed Catholike Christian Religion commonly called Protestant is a safe way to salvation Arg. 1. That Religion which best agreeth with the word of God above all other Religions in the world is a safe yea the safest way to salvation But the Reformed Catholike Christian Religion commoâ—â—â— called Protestant doth best agree witâ— the word of God therefore it is the safest way to salvation One would think among Christians the Major should be unquestionable But here the corrupt Romanists have presumed to make a new word of God that so the determination of the case might be impossible unless we will go up to these Philistines to sharpen our weapons For they deny the holy Scripture to be the whole word of God or sufficient to be the Rule for deciding of controversies in matter of saith and tell us that unwritten Traditions are another part And those Traditions are such as are received by the whole Church as delivered down from the Apostles and that whole Church is onely the Romane party and thus do they by their own Authority undertake to damne all the rest of the Christian world and make themselves onely the Catholike Church and by this trick of wit they have got one half of Gods word into their closets and that it is his word which they say is his word And that you may know that they are no blabs or revealers of secrets they have for some hundred years kept this close as a secret to themselves yea from themselves as well as to us so that when the common Proverb takes that to be a secret which one or two knows but not when three know it yet these men have a word of God which all the Catholike Church is the keeper of and yet those that keep it know it not themselves much less can we that stand by come to the knowledge of it but we must all wait till the last Pope have breathed out his last determination before the Catholike Church that is said to keep it can come to know what is the whole word of God And so among them it is â—ome to this pass that to be judged by Gods word is to be judged by the Pope and his entrusted Subjects But if any man whatever bring us forth a Tradition and say that this is the word of God and came down from the Apostles we shall desire more then â—his word for the proof of it And when he brings us as good proof that his Tradition came from the Apostles as we shall bring him that the Scripture came from them then will we cheerfully receive his Traditions but not without sufficient proof upon the boastings of corrupted interessed men As for the Minor that our Religion is most agreeable to the Scriptures I shall now say but this to the proof of it First we take the Scriptures for the only Test or Rule of our faith and practice and we tye not our selves to any other by-rule which may force us to a misunderstanding of it It is onely the Scripture that we still profess doth contain our Religion And it is the chief part of the quarrel between us and Rome that they will not take this word
and so with much ado scapeth death I think notwithstanding the scaping of these last we may well conclude that Poison is no safe or wholesome food I come now to prove the Proposition last expressed In general 1. Popery is No way to salvation Therefore it is no safe way God hath no where prescribed it as a way to salvation therefore it is not a way to salvation 2. It is the way toward damnation and from salvation therefore it is no safe way to salvation The proof of all together shall be next fetcht from some general reasons drawn from the dangerous nature of Popery For if I should descend to every particular error I must be voluminous and do that which is sufficiently done by multitudes already Arg. 1. Those doctrines which are founded upon a Notorious falshood and resolved into it are not a safe way to Salvation But such are the doctrines which we call Popery Therefore For the Minor They are founded on and resolved into the doctrine of the Popes Infallibility or at least his Councils This the Papists do confess and maintain But that this is a Notorious falshood is evident 1. In that it is notorious that Popes have erred and judicially erred and erred in matters of faith Bellarmine is put to answer to no less then fourty instances of erring Popes and how shamefully or shamelesly he doth it any Learned man that will search the records and peruse the case may soon discover 2 It is notorious that Councils have erred I shall not now intermix my Testimonies to interrupt the plain course which I have begun but rather give you the proof of all this distinctly by it self in the next disputation 3. The Papists themselves confess this that we affirm I mean One part of them do confess that the Pope may err as the French and the other the Italians and Spaniards confess that a Council may erre One saith the Infallibility is not seated in the Pope and the other that it is not sealed in a Council particular or general of which see Bellarmine de Conciliis lib. 2. cap. 10. 11. In which last he seeks to prove that a General Council may erre 1. When they dissent from the Popes Legates 2. And when they consent with the Lâ—gates if those Legates do cross the Popes instructions 3. Yea if the Legates have no certain Instructions the Council and all they may consent in error And he proves the two former by the instance of the second Council of Ephesus and the Constantinopolitane Council in the time of Pope Nicholas the first which erred saith he because the Popes Legates followed not his instructions The third he proves by the Council of Basil Sess 2. which together with the Popes Legate did by common consent Decree that the Council is above the Pope which now saith Bellâ—rmine is judged erroneous 4. Some Popes themselves have confessed that they are not the seat or chief subject of the infallibility As Adrian the sixth who hath wrote his judgement of it that the Pope may err out of Council And in my opinion we shall do the Pope much wrong if we shall not believe him when he speaks the truth and tells us that he is fallible Did Bellarmine better know Pope Adrians understanding then the Pope knew his own Surely I must do as I would be done by and if any man should perswade me that I know that which I do not know or that I am infallible when I know my self subject to error I should confidently expect that all men would rather believe me of my self then believe another of me that speaks the contrary And so will I believe Pope Adrian that he was fallible But of this more in the next disputation where you shall have fuller proof Arg. 2. If Popery do build even the Christian Religion it self as held by them on a foundation that is utterly uncertain or else certainly false then is it no safe way to salvation For it would extirpate Christianity it self But the Antecedent is true as I shall thus prove 1. They are divided and disagreed among themselves even their greatest Learned Doctors about the very foundation of their faith as I shall further shew in the next argument They believe upon the infallible judgement of the Church and they are not agreed what that Church is 2. They build the assurance of their faith upon such a ground as none of the common people no nor any Doctors in the world can have the knowledge of therefore their faith must needs be uncertain To manifest this I shall review one leaf that I wrote heretofore on this subject in the Preface to the second Part of the Saints Rest It is the Authority of the Church they say upon which we must believe that the Scriptures are the word of God and were it not for the Churches authoritative affirmation they would not believe it saith one of them no more than Aesops Fables Now suppose they were agreed what this Church is and that we now take notice of their more common opinion that it is all the Bishops of the Church headed by the Pope or a General Council approved of and confirmed by the Pope I would fain know how the faith of any of us that live at a distance yea or of any man living can be sure and sound when all these following particulars must be first known before we can have such assurance 1. It must be known that God hath given to the Church this power of judging what is his word and what is a point of faith and what not so that that is so to us which they judge so or that we are bound by God to believe them Now which way doth God give the Church this Power Is it not by Scripture or unwritten tradition in their own judgment And by what means doth he oblige us to Believe the Church in such determinations It must be also by Scripture or unwritten Tradition by their own confession For if they fly to universal Tradition and natural obligation they give up their cause and let go their Authoritative Tradition and Obligation as from their Romanâ— Church So that a man must according to their doctrine believe that the word of God written or unwritten hath given Power to the Church to determine what is the word of God before he can believe the word of God or know it to be the word of God that is He must know and believe the word of God before he can know and believe it Here is one of the impossibâ—lities that lye at the very foundation of the Romane way of faith 2. Before men can know the Scripture to be Gods word yea or their supposed unwritten verities infallibly according to the Romane way of believing they must first know that the Church is infallible in her judgement and this also must be known by the word of God which is supposed not to be known yet it self 3. They must also know
Ground of our Belief of the Christian Doctrine or of our Receiving the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God N. HAving already enquired whether the Romanists or the Reformed Churches are in the safe way to Salvation we shall now more particularly enquire whether their faith or ours be built on the surer grounds Our Belief is thus resolved we believe the Christian Doctrine to be True because the True God is the Author of it We discern that God is the Author of it both by his Intrinsicke and Extrinsicke Seals or attestations of it in that it beareth his image and superscription and is confirmed by his undoubted uncontroled Miracles and other effects which lead us to the cause The revealing containing signs or characters are the the holy Scriptures That these Books were written by the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists and were confirmed by Miracles and are uncorrupted in the main we are infallibly assured of by the evident certainty of the historical attestation and Tradition For we depend not barely on the credit of a deceivable or deceitful man such as is the Pope of Rome or of any fallible society of men but on such History as we can prove by plain reason to be infallible containing in it besides the Testimony of the Pope and all his party the same Testimony also of all the rest of the Christians in the world yea and of the very Hereticks who were enemies to much of the truth and enough also even from the mouths of Infidels to confirm us so that by this infallible history and universal Tradition we have a fuller discovery that these Books are the same that were written by the Apostles c. then we have that the Statutes of Parliaments in the Reign of King James or Queen Elizabeth are the same that they pretend to be And to a man that heareth not God himself or the Lord Jesus or the Apostles and hath not their immediate inspirations we know not how the Laws of heaven should be more fitly delivered in an ordinary rational way nor what surer other means such as we can expect who live at such a distance from the first receivers of it unless we would have God to speak to every man as he did to Moses or have Christ or Apostles still among us or unless God must make us all Prophets by his extraordinary inspirations And lastly the true meaning of this word we understand as we do the meaning of other Laws or writings having moreover the assistance of the spirit which is necessary because of the sublimity and spirituality of the matter and the necessity of the great effects upon our hearts Our Teachers by Translation and further instructions are our helpers as they must be in other things that we would learn and by the help of them without and of the spirit within we are able to understand the meaning of the words especially comparing text with text and so receive the sanctifying impress upon our hearts And thus is the Faith of the Reformed Catholike Resolved He receiveth the Bible from the hands or mouth of his Teachers and perhaps first believeth them fide humana that it is Gods Word He knoweth that this Book was written in Hebrew and Greeke by the Prophets and Apostles by Infallible Hystory or Universal Tradition He knoweth that they did it by Inspiration of the Holy Ghost by the Image of God which he findeth on it and by the uncontroled Miracles by which they sealed it He believeth it to be True because it thus proceeded from the Holy Ghost and so is the Word of God who is most True Of the Resolution of our Faith according to the Protestant Doctrine See L. du Plessis of the Church cap. 4. Translat pag. 121.122 123. and Conradus Bergius Prax. Cathol Can. p. 208.209 210. Disp 2. § 125 126. To this same sence Vid. Sibrand Lubbert Princip Christ Dogm li. 1. pag. 20 c. What the Resolution of the Romane faith is the Question which we are now to discuss doth intimate in part for it cannot be laid down in one proposition because they are of so many minds themselves Indeed we may see in this their foundation that Popery is a very maze and dungeon for the builders of this Babel are all in confusion at the laying of their first stone Yet this much they seem to be mostly agreed in That the Scripture is the word of God and part of the Rule of faith and duty but not the whole Rule nor the whole Word of God but that unwritten Traditions are the other part and the judgement of the present Church is Gods Word after a sort as they speak That the Scripture hath its Authority in it self from God the prime truth but quoad nos as to us it hath its Authority from the Church That it is the act of Tradition or the unwritten part of Gods word to tell us that the Scriptures are the word of God or a Divine Revelation And that it is the Office of the Church to judge both of this Tradition and the Scripture as also to decide all controversies in Religion and to judge which is the true sence of Scripture and that this Church must be one only visible infallible authorized thus to judge by Christ and this is onely the Romane Church Thus far the most of them seem to be agreed But when these mysteries of iniquity come to be opened they fall all to pieces For 1. Sometimes they say that the judgement of the Church is Gods word after a sort sometime that it is some middle thing between a Testimony Divine and Humane 2. And what the formal object of faith is they are not all of a mind whether it be only the Prime Truth or whether the Revelation of the Material object be any part of the formal But I confess this controversie is more verbal then real 3. And what place here to assign to the Testimony of the Church they are not agreed neither 4. Especially they are divided in the main viz. what this Church is which is the infallible Judge and into whose judgement their faith is resolved whether it be the present Church or the former Church Whether it be the Pope only at least in case of difference between him and his Council or whether it be a General Council though the Pope agree not as the French and Venetians say Yea whether it be the Clergy only or the Laity also that are this Church Nay some of them plead Universal Tradition as Holden White Vane and divers other Englishmen of late as if that were the same with the Romane Tradition or as if it were the point in controversie between us and them And ordinarily they use to tell us of All the Church and All the Christian world and to mouth it in such swelling words that the simple hearer would little think that by All the Church they meant but one man or at the
quod coram omnibus juste vivant bene omnia de Deo credant omnes articules qui in symbolo continentur solummodo Romanam Ecclesiam blasphemant et Clerum That is Among all the Sects that yet are and have been there is not a more pernicious to the Church then that of the Lyonists and that for three causes 1. Because it is the more 〈◊〉 or of longer continuance for some 〈◊〉 it hath endured from the time of Silvester other from the time of the Apostles 2. Because it is more general for there is scarce any land in which this â—ect â—s not 3. Because when all other sects do by the immanity of their blasphemy bring horror into the hearers this of the Lyonists hath a great shew of godliness in that they live righteously before all men and they believe all things well concerning God and all the articles that are contained in the Creed onely they blasphem the Romane Church and the Clergy To this adde what I cited out of Canus and others before Lastly Give us some tolerable answer to all that voluminous evidence of your oppositions by Princes Prelates Divines and Lawyers which Mich. Goldastus hath collected and published on his volumes de Monarche constitut Imperial APPENDIX A Translation of Bishop Downames Catalogue of Popish Errors lib. 3. de Antichristo cap. 7. To satisfie the earnest desires of some of the unlearned who would fain know wherein the Papists differ from us that they may be the better furnished against them and may the better understand those that under other Titles carry about their doctrines BEcause I find many ignorant persons both unacquainted with the Errors of the Papists and yet very desirous to know them I have adventured to translate a larger Catalogue of them gathered by Bishop George Downame in his Book written to prove the Pope Antichrist lib. 3. cap. 7. pag. 189. c. though it cannot be expected that in such brief expressions the true point of the difference should in all lie plain before them that are unacquainted with the controversies yet because I was resolved not to give you any such Catalogue of my own gathering and knew not where to find one so large as to the number of errors and brief as to the expressions I give you this as I find it Bishop G.D. Chap. 7. A Catalogue of the Errors of the Church of Rome THe Errors of the Papists are either about the Principles of Divinity or the parts of it The principles of Theology are the Holy Scriptures Here the Papists have many errors 1. They deny the Holy Scripture which is of Divine inspiration to be the onely Rule and Foundation of Faith 2. They take certain Apocryphal Books into the Canon of the old Testament which neither the Jewish Synagogue to which the Oracles of God were committed nor yet the purer Christian Church did receive 3. They make two parts of Gods word that is the Scriptures and their own Traditions 4. They contend that the Customes and unwritten Opinions of the Church of Rome are most certain Apostolical Traditions 5. These Traditions or as they call them unwritten veritys they make equal with the Holy Scriture and receive and reverence them with equal pious affection and reverence 6. They number the Popes Decretal Epistles with the holy Scriptures 7. They say its heresie for any to say that it is not altogether in the Power of the Church or Pope to appoint Aâ—ticles of faith 8. They prefer the faith and judgement of the Church of Rome which they say is the internal Scripture written by the hand of God in heart of the Church bâ—fore the Holy Scripture 9. That the Scripture in which God himself speaketh is not the voice of a Judge but the matter of strife 10. They accuse the Scripture which is the light to our feet and giveth understanding to children of too much obscurity 11. They condemn it also of imperfection and insufficiency 12. They say that even in matters of faith and the worship of God we cannot argue Negatively from Scripture as thus It is not in the Scripture therefore it is not necessary or lawful 13. That the Scripture is not sufficient for the refuting of all heresies as if there were any heresie but what is against Scripture 14. That heresie is not so much to be defined by the Scripture authority as by the Churches determination 15. That the authority of the Catholike Church that is the Romane is greater â—en of the Scriptures â—nd the Popes authority greater then the Church 16. That the Church is ancienter than the Scripture that is then the word of God which is now written because it is ancienter then the writing of it As if it were not the same word of God which was first delivered by voice That is now then in writing 17. That the Scripture dependeth on the Catholike Church that is the Romane and not the Church on the Scripture 18. Also that the sence of the Scripture is to be sought from the See of Rome and that the Scripture is not the word of God but as it is expounded according to the sence of the Church of Rome 19. They make seven Principles of the Christian doctrine which are all grounded in the authority of the See and Pope of Rome 20. They take the vulgâ— Translation only for authentical preferring it before the originals though it is so manifestly corrupt that the Copies lately published by the Popes themselves Sixtus the fifth and Clement the eighth do in many places differ 21. That either the holy Scriptures ought not to be Translated into vulgar tongues or if it be yet it must neither be publikely read in a known tongue nor permitted to be privately read by the common people § 2. Of the Belief The Parts of Theology are 1. Of faith or things to be believed 2. Of Charity or things to be done Matters of faith are 1. Of God his works 2. Of the Church The works of God are specially 1. Of Creation and Government of the world 2. Of Redemption of mankind 1. ABout the Creation the Papists erre in saying that concupiscence was then natural to man though John saith that it is not of God 1 Jo. 2.16 and themselves sometime confess it to be evil and contrary to nature 2. In the denying that original righteousness was natural to man before the fall created after Gods Image in Righteousness and holiness 3. In affirming that mortality was natural to man before the fall which yet is not from God the author of nature 4. In placing Paradise where the waters of the flood did not reach it which yet covered all the earth and were fifteen cubits higher then the highest mouâ—taines 5. Forsooth they would have that Paradise or Eden yet untouched that it may be a pleasant habitatian to Henâ—ch and Elias
speculatively may yet hold the contrary truthes practically not discerning the contradiction I would gladly have shewed the vainty of the rest of that Pamphlet because I see he hath contracted most of their common cavils into a narrow room but the rest is less to our present purpose and the same things are already answered by many and therefore I shall no further Digress in the pursuit of this Confuter having already said so much against the chief of their objections as may leave the impartial Reader confirmed in it That notwithstanding the Popish cavils to the contrary it is apparent that the Christian Catholike Reformed Religion commonly called Protestant is a safe way to Salvation Query Whether Popery be a safe way to Salvation Neg. IT is not as other mens Judges that we determine this Question to their own master do they stand or fall but it is to render an account of our own Belief and practice and for our further confirmation in the truth for the defence of it against gain-sayers and for the establishing of our people against the sophistry and seduction of Deceivers For the explication of the terms I shall tell you 1. What I mean by Popery 2. What I mean by Salvation 3. What by the way to it 4. What by the word Safe 1. Popery is a certain farrago a mixture of many grievous errors in the doctrine of Faith Government and Worship expressed in their Authorized writings especially in their decretals and Councils corrupting the Christian Religion which they profess the whole being denominated from that one falshood that the Pope of Rome is the Universall Bishop and Visible Head of the Universal Church and Christs Vicar-General on earth and that only is the Catholike Church and those only Catholiks that so believe Where note 1. That the Papists professing to be Christians do first own the substance of Christian doctrine and then corrupt it and contradict it by this fardle of their own inventions superadded They profess to believe the holy Scriptures to be the word of God and to be true every Book that we believe and more They profess to believe all the Articles of the ancient Creeds commonly called the Apostles the Nicene or Constantinopolitane It is not the Christianity or true doctrine which they profess which we call Popery 2. It is therefore onely their own invented corruptions by which they contradict the Christian verity which they profess which we call Popery 3. Note That the common denominating corruption is the forementioned doctrine of the Popes Universal Episcopacy and Headship or a supreamacy at least if not Infallibility and that the Catholike Church and the Romane Church is all one and the Pope is the visible center of its Unity 4. Note also that as to the rest of their corruptions they agree not among themselves what is to be esteemed of their faith or Religion and what not and therefore it cannot be expected that we should give you an exact enumeration of the points of their faith and so a compleat description of Popery which is such a self-contradicting unreconcileable hodg podge But their errors may be distributed into these three rankes 1 Those that are established by the Pope and his supposed general Councel These they all receive and own 2. Those that are established by the Popes Decretals without a Council These some own as points of their faith and some reject them I will not adde as the third those that are established by a Council without the Pope not because there never was a Council that dissented from him in Good but because it is a difficult matter at least to find any Council that did go beyond or without him in Evil or erred without his Approbation 3. The third sort therefore shall be those opinions that are commonly maintained by their most Approved Writers which are published in books that are licensed and commended by the Popes Authorized agents but are not determined by the Pope or his Council These though they contend for and lay great weight on them in their disputations yet dare they not own them as any part of the matter of their faith lest they seem to be what they are divided and mutable A man would think that those volumnious hot disputes about Divine things did intimate that the Authors did fide divinâ— believe those points which they do so zealously dispute of But if it be their pleasure that we should so distinguish we will call the rest the Popish faith or Religion and these last the Popish opinions because we would fasten on them nothing but their own If you ask me which be those doctrines which they take for points of faith which we call Popery I must refer you to their Decretals and Councils on one side and Gods word on the other and all the Doctrines in those their Canons or determinations that are against the word of God are the doctrines which we mean by this name If they do lay greater stress upon any one point than others its likely to be on those that are put into their Creeds and Vows and therefore I shall onely recite the latter half of their Tridentine Creed seeing they will own that or â—othing When they have begun with the ancient Constantinopolitane Creed containing the true Principles of Christian Religion and have ended that they proceed thus as followeth The Apostolical and Ecclesiastical traditions and the rest of the Observations and constitutions of the same Church I do most firmely admit and embrace I admit also the sacred Scripture according to that sence which the Holy Mother the Church hath held and doth hold to whom it belongeth to judge of the true sence and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures and I will never take and interpret it but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers I do profess also that there are seven truely and properly Sacraments of the new Law instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord and necessary to the salvation of mankind â—hough not all to every one to wit Baptisme Confirmation the Eucharist Pennance extreame Vnctiâ—n Order and Matrimony and that they confer â—race and that of these Baptisme Confirmation and Order cannot be reiterated without Sacriledge I do also receive and admit the received and approved Rites of the Catholike Church in the solemne Administration of all the aforesaid Sacraments I do embrace and receive all and singular things which in the Holy Council of Trent were defined and declared about Original sin and Justification In like manner I do profess that in the Mass there is offered to God a true pâ—per and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and fâ— the dead and that in the most holy Srcrament of â— Eucharist there is Truely Really and Substantiâ—â—y the body and blood together with the soul and Diâ—â—nity of our Lord Jesus Christ and that there 〈◊〉 change made of the whole substance of Bread â— the Body and of the whole substance of Wine 〈◊〉 blood which change
that it is the Church of Rome in particular that is the true Church and hath this power given from God 4. To this end they must know that all those perverted Texts or some of them that speak of Peters own person were also spoke of certain successors of his as well as of himself as that on them the Church shall be built and their faith shall not â—ail c. 5. They must know that the Pope is this successor of Peter 6. To this end they must not onely know that Peter was at Rome of which read well Vlricus Velenus in Goldastus and was Bishop there but they must know that he was the only Bishop there or at least the chief and that Paul was no Bishop there who is more likely to have been or else that he was the inferior and that the Pope is Peters successor and not Pauls or else succeedeth them both and hath his infallibility but from one unless the successors of the rest of the Apostles are infallible too 7. If Peter and Paul were Bishops at once of one Church in Rome then it must be known why they may not have two successors at once and if there be two which of them is to be believed when they disagree But if Peter and Paul were Bishops of two particular Churches in Rome the one of the Circumcision the other of the uncircumsion then it must be known by what right their successors made them one or whether it were not by a failing or cessation of the Church of the Circumcision when all Jews were banished from Rome and so the Church of the uncircumcision only continuing the Pope be not only Pauls successor 8. And it must be known whether Peter were not Bishop of other Churches as well as of Rome yea of Antioch before Rome and so whether the Bishop of Antioch be not his successor as well as the Pope of Rome yea and the chief successor if it follow the right of primogeniture either as to the Church oâ— the Bishop seeing Antioch was a Church before Rome and Peter was supposed to be Bishop there before he was of Rome And then if the Bishop of Rome and Antioch differ as they do how shall we know whom to believe and how shall we know that the Bishop of Antioch is not infallible as well as the Pope of Rome 9. It must be known what it is that makes a Pope what is necessary to his being Peters successor Iâ— it enough that he step up into the chair and call himself Pope Or that his party call him so Then if any Heathen or Arrian conqueror though a Lay maâ— did so he should be Pope And he that conquers Rome may make himself Saint Peters infallible successor at any time But if there must be an ordination and Election then it must be known whether every Ecclesiastical Ordination or Consecration and Election will serve or not If it will then when there have been three Popes chosen and consecrated at once they were all Saint Peters infallible successors though one condemned the other If not then it must be known who it is that hath the power of election which being the act that determineth of thâ— person is the maine that must resolve our doubts and also of consecration or ordination And hoâ— shall the people know this when the Clergy have been so disagreed among themselves 10. And here it must be known whether the Cardinals have the sole power to elect If they have then how came they by it And then whether werâ— all those that were elected by the people in the first ages and by the Emperors in after ages true Popeâ— or not If they were not then Saint Peter hath no successors because of the interruption of the succession so long and the Church had then no visible head If they were then the sufficient power is not onely in the Cardinals And if it be not onely in them then whether are any of those true Popes that have been chosen onely by them of late ages 11. And so it must be known how a possibility of uninterrupted succession can be proved when Popes have been chosen three several wayes sometime by the people or else there had not been so many slain at the election of Damasus nor had the ancient Canons made this necessary to all Bishops and sometime by the Presbyters of that Church and sometime by the Emperors and now by titular Presbyters who are Bishops of other Churches and are uncapable of being true Presbyters of the Church of Rome If all these several wayes of Election may make true Popes then it seems any way may serve and then the three Popes at once will be all true If not then there hath been an interruption of the succession and so according to their own Principles there can be now no true Pope 12. And here it must needs be known too whether there be any thing in the person that is a qualification so materially necessary that he can be no true Pope without it If not then a Pagan or a Mahometan may be Pope If there be then it must be known what that is which few private men at least do know 13. Particularly it must be known whether they that are known Hereticks yea judged so by Councils or by their own successors and those that were notorious Whoremongers Sodomites Murderers Poisoning their Predecessors to get the Popedome Simonists buying the Popedom with money c. were capable of being true Popes 14. If they are not capable then we must all know that all the Popes were none such when the Papists themselves confess they were such before we can know that they were the infallible successors of Saint Peter 15. But if such may be Popes then must we know why a Mahometane may not as well be a Pope or how an enemy of Christ and the Church should come to be a Son of Promise and the Vicar of Christ and the head of the Church and whether such were infallible in their judging falshood to be truth as they did 16. And we must know that the Pope onely is lawless and under no power of Canons or Decrees of former Popes and Councils Or else many such Canons will proclaim their calling null and so the succession still hath been interrupted And if the Authority of the former Church oblige the Pope to believe e. g. the truth of Scripture and Traditions then why must not the Authority of the former Church in its Canons be as obligatory to him in point of duty and penalty and so null his calling 17. Bellarmine saith that it is agreed among all Catholiks that the Pope as a private Doctor may erre through ignorance even in universal questions of faith Also that many Papists and Pope Adrian the sixth himself taught that the Pope as Pope may be a Heretick and reach Heresie so it be without a General Council And that most of the rest do only hold that whether the Pope be
center to no head but the King of Spaine without his express Commission manifested and the Provinces of Mexico and the adjacent parts onely shall be otherwise minded and subject themselves to the usurper who is it that causeth the Schisme in the King of Spains dominions And which partie is it that holdeth to the ancient terms of unity and which are the dividers I need not stand to make a particular application It is even so between us and the Pope with his Romanists The Church of old was centred onely in Christ and headed onely by him At last the Pope pretending Christs distance and invisibility and a Commission that he hath from Christ to be his Vicar General written in letters that none can read but himself and his party will needs become the visible head and center and whereas before those onely were the rebels that rejected Christ now all must be rebels that are not subject to the Popes And to aggravate the crime by the addition of hipocrisie all this Schisme and separation must be carryed on by a pretence of unity They make the poor simple people believe that the Pope being the Head and center there is no unity to be held but in him and that we must all be guilty of Schisme that unite not in him and that all our divisions are caused by our departing from this center of unity when it is himself that hath divided from the rest of the Christian world and would drown the infamy of it by accusing others of the same sin that he is so notoriously guilty of By which we may well see that accusing others is none of the surest signs of innocency but too common a trick to divert the suspition from themselves When the Papists that are the greatest Schismaticks on earth do make such an outcry against us as Schismaticks because we have repented of our joyning with them in their Schisme and will not confederate with them in evil against the Laws of Christ and the necessary means of the unity of his Church Arg. 7. If the faith of Papists as Papists which is it that we call Popery be a meerly uncertain changeable thing so that a man can never tell when he hath it all then is it no safe way to Salvation But the faith of Papistâ— as such is such a meerly uncertain changeable thing Therefore it is no safe way to Salvation The consequence of the Major I suppose they will grant For how can that be a safe way 1. which is uncertain 2. and changeable when the true way to salvation is one and the same and changeth not since Christ had established and sealed his Laws All the question therefore is of the Minor which I prove 1. From the Popish principles 2. From their Practices both which do plainly shew that their new Religion is a meer Weather-cock that must fit with the winde of the mutable conceits of the Pope and his Clergy Even like the Religion of the Enthusiasts that wait still for new Revelations to be superadded to the Scripture And first for their principles one is that The Scripture is not the whole word of God or sufficient rule of faith or manners but onely a part of the Word and Rule and that unwritten Traditions are the other part Yea Rushworths Dialogues Bellarmine and the rest of them ordinarily tell us that Scripture was not chiefly given to be a Rule of faith at all saith Bellarm. de verbo dei li. 4. cap. 12. Finis Scripturae pracipuus non est ut sit Regula fidei sed ut variis documentis exemplis adhortationibus nunc terrendo nunc instruendo nunc minando nunc consolando adjuvet nos in hae peregrinatione that is The chief end of Scripture is not to be a Rule of faith but that by divers documents examples adhortations sometime by affrighting sometime by instructing sometime by threatning sometime by comforting it may help us in this our peregrination It is then unwritten Traditions that are part of Gods Word and at least part of the Rule of faith And where these Traditions are to be found and what they are and how many and by what notes they may all be known either they dare not tell us for fear of bringing mens faith to a certainty from under the lock and key of the Pope or else in telling us they do but cloud the business with general terms or else disagree among themselves That the Scripture it self is delivered to us infallibly we doubt not and thereby we know the Canonical books But this may be done without another word of God The act of Delivery from the Apostles is not a new Revelation or Word of God but the natural means of conveying the word to those for whom it was intended And the object of that Act of Delivery was not another Word of God but all and onely these same Canonical Books so that I know which is the Canon among other reasons because I can prove not by another Word of God but by infallible humane Testimony such as I have of the Laws of this Land that the Bible and these particular books in it were actually delivered by the holy Writers to the Churches If God write the two Tables of stone and therein make known that they are his Laws and then Deliver these to Moses this Delivering is not a new Word of God but a necessary act for the promulgation of the Word So that if you aske an Israelite how he knows whether onely the ten Commandments and all those ten were contained in the Tables He can prove it to you by the Tables Delivered and by proving the Act of Delivery though he could bring no other word of God which told you what was in those Tables And indeed if these must needs be another Word of God besides the Delivering Acts to prove the former to be the Word of God and tell us its parts then there must also be another word to discover that second Word to be the Word of God and another to discover that and so in infinitum Our acknowledged necessary Tradition therefoâ—â— is not another materia tradita or Word of God but onely one of the actus tradendi and act of delivering the same matter or word But for the Papists that will have another part of the Rule of Divine faith they will never be able to tell us what it is and where and to let us understand when we have all Bellarmine de verbo dei non Scripto li. 4. cap. 9. layes down five Rules by which we may know the true Traditions The first is When the whole Church embraceth any thing as a point of faith which is not found in the Scriptures of God we must needs say that this was had from the tradition of the Apostles The second is When the universal Church keepeth somewhat which none could constitute but God and which is not found written we must needs say that this was delivered from Christ and
the Determination of their Church he must presently not onely believe the contrary to what he believed before but do it also without doubting though they 'l confess millions are saved that believe Christ to be the Son of God though not without doubting Well but see what unity is procured by the addition of these new Articles to their Creed The French Doctors ascribe to his holiness that the said Articles may be taken in several sences The one sence is Heretical Lutheran or Calvinian but that is a sence That the words lawfully used will not hear but onely may malignantly be fastened to them say they The other sence which is genuine and proper they Defâ—nd themselves as true and as pertaining to the Belief of the Church as the Doctrine of Augustine and as defined by the Council of Trent and the contrary Opinion of Molina and the adversaries others maintain to be Pelagian or Semipelagian See here what the Papists themselves now do implicitely charge upon the Pope That he by his express unlimited condemnation doth malignantly fasten an Heretical sence on the words which properly they will not bear or else that he contradicteth Augustine and the Council of Trent and Anathematizeth the Christian faith and maintaineth the Semipelagian Heresie of Molina And yet must we judge either their Pope to be infallible or their Church to be at such unity in faith as they would make the ignorant vulgar believe More of the like contention about his holiness Determinations you may see in Tho. Whites Appendicula ad sonum Buccinae and Franscus Macedo his Lituus Lusitanus In all which you may see that all the comfort that the poor Dominicans have left them even their hope of salvation if they be Papists indeed consisteth in this that the Pope speaks one thing and means another and that as White so merrily saith in so sad a matter The wise father of the Church was necessitated for the appeasing of contentions to grant the more turbulent party their words and the more obedient party their sence so that when the Pope hath done all that he can to determine their controversies they will still say that he determineth but the words nay he doth but grant one party their words and not the meaning and so not onely sence but bare terms must be made Articles of faith And here you may see the great force of the Papists arguing for a necessity of a living Judge to determine of the sence of Scripture because the Scripture is so ambiguous that each one will else wrest it his own way And do we not see that the Pope cannot after so many years deliberation determine five short Articles so expresly and plainly even when he doth it of purpose to decide the controversie as to make his learned Doctors understand him but that each party doth take his words to be either for or not against their opinions and hold their opinions as fast since his determination as before And so they do by Augustine Thomas and the Council of Trent each party confidently perswading the world that they were of their side And may not God have the honor of speaking as plainly as the Pope or Thomas or the Council of Trent and cannot we well be without the Decision of such a Judge as cannot speak so as to be understood by his greatest Doctors himself So that the Principles and Practices of the Romanists do assure us that their faith is unfixed growing and mutable they may be one year of one Religion and another year of another as pleasâ— the Pope A Dominican might have been saved at any time since the creation till May 31. 1653. when the Popes Determination was dated but now they must all be damned for heresie There is a new way to heaven made 1653. that never was before and for ought they know to the contrary before their Popes have done Determining there may be five hundred Articles more in their Creed So that for my part I desire not either to be shut out of heaven at the pleasure of every new Pope nor to be of so uncertain and changeable a Religion And I cannot think therefore that Popery is a safe way to salvation Arg. 8. That Doctrine which derogateth from the written Word of God and setteth the Decrees of men above it enabling them to contradict its most express institutions is no safe way to salvation But such is the Doctrine of Popery therefore it is no safe way to salvation The Major is unquestionably true among true Christians For the proof of the Minor I shall only give you three instances of the Popish Doctrine because I intend not to be too particular left I be too large The first is their affirming the Scripture both to be insufficient to discover the whole doctrine of faith as being but one part of Gods Word and Tradition the other part and also to be no Word of God at all to us till the Pope and his Clergy do authoritatively determine it so to be or that we cannot know the Scripture to be Gods word but upon the Authority of the Churches determination But of this I have spoken before and shall do more in another dispute The second instance that I give is Their changing Christs most express institution by withholding the Cup in the Lords Supper from the people and giving them but half the Sacrament I am not now disputing about the efficacy or inefficacy of one half so delivered but proving the intolerable Arrogancy of the Papists that dare set up the will of man above Gods Word and give power to the Pope to change Christs Institutions and not onely to adde but to diminish and expresly to contradict Christ and forbid what he commandeth I know they pretend that it was but to the twelve Apostles that Christ gave the Cup and not to the Laity True nor the bread neither but then if he intended that none but the Clergy have the Cup why may they not as well say so of the Bread But do not these deceivers know 1. That Christ gives this reason of his administring the Cup Drink yee All of it For this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of sins So that if this reason hold to others if his blood be shed for the sins of others as well as for the Clergie then the command extendeth to others Drink ye all of it And do they not know that Luke further intimateth this in his narration of the words of Christ This Cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you So that those whom it is shed for and we may discern to be Believers it may be applyed to 2. And do they not know that Paul delivereth the doctrine both of the Bread and Cup as from the Lord to the whole Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 11. and not onely to the Clergy Is it not all that he expresly commandeth to Examine themselves
to deliver them down to posterity in the purity as they receive them and to translate them into known tongues that the people may understand them Though others also have a part in this work yet the Pastors of the Church have by Office the chiefest part 4. It belongeth to them also to be witnesses and informers of the people how themselves did receive the Faith and Scripture from their Ancestors and to shew them how it came down to our hands by certaine Infallible Tradition from Age to Age. 5. The Church guides they are both Preservers of the Scripture Witnesses of the Tradition and Teâ—chers of the truth and have such a power of judging aâ— belongeth to all these three 6. In these acts of their office they ought to be Believed and that on a threefold account 1. Because of the evidence which they shew to prove the truth of their Assertions Though strictly this is rather to be called Learning and so Knowing then Believing and is common to Teachers with any others that shew the same proofs Yet it being supposed that ordinarily they have much more Knowledge in the things which they teach then other men have therefore we may well say that it more belongeth to them to convince and more efficacy is in their Teaching because of their proofs and better entertainment is due to their Teaching 2. Such a Belief also is due to them as all men should have in their own prosession wherein they have long studyed and laid out their time and labor and wherein they are commonly known to excell other men Every man that is less studyed in Law Physicke or any other Science or Art is bound in reason to give some credit to Lawyers Physicians and others that Study and Practice those Arts. This is but a humane Faith 3. Besides this credit before mentioned which Infidells themselves may give to the Ministers of the Gospel according to their capacities there is a further credit due to them from professed believers and that is as they are officers authorized by Christ and have a promise of his assistance to the end of the world which though it make them not infallible in all matters of Faith yet doth it assure them of a more than common help of Christ if they are his servants indeed 7. There is more of this kind of Belief due to many Pastors caeteris paribus than to one and to the whole Church than to any part 8. The credit of the Church or any Pastors in witnessing to the faith dependeth on their competency for such a Testimony which consisteth in their sufficency or Ability and their fidelity which they are rationally to manifest that it may gaine credit with others 9. In things which God hath left undetermined in Scriptures and committed to the Governors of the Church to determine of they have a Decisive Power 1. For the Time or Place or the like circumstances of Gods worship they are necessary in General viz. there must be some Time Place c. but not in specie such a Time such a Place is not necessary unless it be some that God hath already made choice of Here the Church guides must Authoritatively Determine whereupon the people are obliged to obey unless in some extraordinary cases where the Determination is so perverse and contrary to the General Rules which Scripture hath given for it that it would overthrow the substance of the duty it self 2. And in case of Church censures when any man is accused to deserve Excommunication the Church Governors have a Judicial Decisive Power as to those ends though not to make a man guilty that is Innocent yet to oblige the people to avoid Communion with the person whom they Excommunicate except in such palpable mal-administration and evident contradiction of the word of God which may nullifie their sentence for even here their Power is not unlimited 10. No man or company of men much less the Pope hath a proper Decisive Judicial Power in matter of Christian faith or whether the Scripture or any part of it be the word of God or not For the opening of this understand what we mean by a Decisive Judicial Power to wit such as a Judge hath in a controverted cause where the Plaintiff and Defendant must stand to his Judgement be it right or wrong so that though the sentence be not just yet must it be Decisive and obligatory so that he hath Power to Judge in utramque partem on either side and the judgement must be valid Such a Decisive power no creature hath in these cases that we have now in hand Where let it be still remembred that it is not the name but the Thing that we contend about If they will call that a Decisive Judicial Power which is so limited to one part or side that it shall not be valid or obligatory to the subject if it erre or go on the other side concerning which all men have a judgement of Discerning granted them by God so far as they are able to Discerne they have leave and authority then we easily grant that every Pastor of the Church is thus far the Judge of Faith and Scripture That is if any man doubt whether the Scripture be the Word of God and ask a Preacher or Bishop he hath Power to say Yea but not to say No But this is no Judicial Power but a Teaching and Witnessing act For the people are bound to disobey them if they erre and therefore bound to â—ry whether they erre or not and not to follow their judgement further then it is right and sound therefore they have no deciding Judicial Power which I prove thus Arg. 1. If the Pope or any other had such a Judicial Decisive Power then might they oblige us to Believe that there is no God that Christ is not the Redeemer that Scripture is not the word of God and so they might cast Faith and Scripture out of the Church But this is false and abominable therefore the Pope hath no such Power For the consequence it is manifest supposing that the Pope should give judgement against God Christ or Scripture then men must by this Doctrine be bound to obey it and forsake God Christ and Scripture for the Pope Whereunto add a second Argument from a further absurdity Then either such as renounce God Christ and Scripture may be saved or else God bindeth men by the Pope to renounce him and the faith to their own damnation But both these consequents are false and abominable Therefore I know they will here reply that we must not suppose that the Pope can err in his judgement and therefore being infallible he will certainly make no such false Decision To which I say 1. Why then should it be said that God hath given Authority to decide in utramque partem on either side Doth God give a man Authority to do that which he hath promised him and all others that he shal never do But he will
and Evill Heb. 5.14 The Papists would not have the people to have a judgement of Discerning If they must not Discern they must be ignorant When God so much requireth and extolleth knowledge But I 'le leave this Question and pass to the next Qu. 2. Whether the Pope be Infallible in this Decisive judgement which he pretendeth to Which we deny But before I come to give the reasons of our denyal I shall further declare our judgement about the whole matter of the Churches Infallibility that the true state of the controversie may appear And 1. We easily grant that as there is an Objective certainty in all points of the Christian Faith and in the very truth so the Pope is infallible while he believeth and declareth nothing but the truth He and every man else that speaks according to Gods word is so far infallible because that word is infallible They need not thank us for this concession 2. We grant that neither the Church of Rome if a true Church nor any other particular true Church can erre in fundamentals or in points of absolute necessity to salvation in sensu composito that is while they remain a true Church they never deny the essentials of a true Church For if they once deny the essentials they do eo nomine cease to be a true Church 3. We grant that Christs universal Church shall never deny any one point of Faith essential to Christianity or absolutely necessary to Salvation For then Christ should have no true Church on earth when the whole should thus Apostatize or turn Hereticks and all the then present world should be damned 4. The Church as Reasonable sensible men are infallible in many matters of fact of which they may give us unerring reports as that This Bible was delivered as the word of God by their Ancestors as they might testifie it was delivered to them and that this Creed or sum of Faith also was thus delivered in the words now in use c. 5. There is an infallible certainty in the evidence which the former Church hath left and the present Church possessetâ— to prove that this same Scripture was written by the Apostles and Evangelists and was delivered to the first Churches and from them down to us and that multitudes of miracles were wrought for the confirmation of the Doctrine contained in them 6. An illiterate person may have an infallible certainty that all points necessary to salvation are expressed in certain translations of Scripture and that so far and much further they are truely translated and that such things there are in that Book as the Readers affirm there to be though himself cannot read them For all this is infallibly discovered by common consent and especially of adversaries When all men that are certainly able to judge and are honest and impartial affirm it without doubt and those that would gladly contradict it as being by their interests carryed thereto yet cannot do it or at least not with any considerable pretence This gives men as infallible a proof as the common testimony of men doth that there is such a City as Rome or Paris which we never saw 7. And we further grant all that Teaching and Witnessing power to the Church officers which was expressed under the last Question and all that dueness of Belief and obedience to them which was there asserted So much for our Concessions But we deny 1. That either the Pope of Rome or a General Council are naturally or supernaturally priviledged from all error in matters of Gods revealed will or that they are priviledged from the danger or possibility of teaching these their errors to others even to the Church 2. We deny that the Pope or the Romane Clergy are secured from the danger of Apostasie or Heresie They may fall so far as to deny the Fundamentals or Essentials of Christianity though the Universal Church shall never so fall away We shall first speak of the Popes Infallibility and afterward of a General Council that we may speak to the several parties among the divided Papists herein And against the Popes Infallibility we thus argue Argu. 1 They that lay claim to this Infallibility do give us no proof of their claim Therefore they cannot expect that we should believe them The proof lyeth on the pretenders who give us no proof If they can prove it it must be either by his natural perfection or some supernatural endowment by which the Pope must be more Infallible then other men The former they pretend not to and no wonder The later they do pretend to But if God supernaturally have ascertained all Popes of an Infallibility in matters of Faith then he hath done this either by his written Word or by unwritten Tradition or both by which it must to us be proved But he hath done it neither by his written Word nor by unwritten Tradition For Tradition they must shew it us either in certain monuments of the Church which are in stead of writing but that they cannot do or else in the mindes of all the members of the Church For that which concerneth all their Salvation must be delivered to all But this they cannot shew Nay we shew them the contrary that is the greatest part of the present Church on earth denying any such Tradition and the most approved Writers of the former Ages telling us the contrary and all taking the Pope as fallible so that they cannot give us one line of any one Father or Council for many hundred years after Christ that ever had such a conceit as theirs And if they will pretend to a private Tradition which none but themselves have received and are entrusted with and so make themselves the absolute Judges of their own cause and give us no proof but their own words we will believe them as fast as we can but we must desire them not to be too hasty with us And for the written Word they cannot thence prove a grant of their infallibility 1. Because they tell us that we cannot know the Scripture to be the Word of God but by their infallible judgement Therefore we must know their judgement to be infallible first and therefore it is first to be known some other way and not by Scripture Indeed here they have long tired themselves in their Circle which some of them would hide by vain words if they could but Holden and others of them are forced to confess it and that they have no way out but by retiring to the universal testimony or tradition as an infallible evidence in stead of the Authoritative judgement or infallibility or private Tradition of the Church of Rome They tell us that we cannot know the Scripture to be the Word of God but by the infallible judgement of their Church And that is in the Issue of the Pope And when we call for the proof of that infallibility they refer us to the Scripture So that this is plainly to say that neither Scripture nor
of the Church and decider of controversies 3. Observe also that Vincentius doth fully and purposely acknowledge the Scripture sufficiency and never once mention any Traditions as necessary to supply the defects of Scripture or as part of Gods word when Scripture is but the other part Not a word of such Traditions But onely of Tradition subordinate to Scripture finaliter for the true expounding of them Hear himself Cap. 2. Hic forsit an requirat aliquis cum sit perfectus scripturarum Canon sihique ad Omnia satis superque sufficiat quid opus est ut ei Ecclesiasticae intelligentiae jungatur authoritas Quia videlicet scripturam sacram pro ipsa sua altitudine non uno eodemque sensu universi accipinut And in his recapitulation Cap. 41. Diximuâ— in superioribus hanc fuisset semper est esse hodie Catholicorum consuetudinem ut fidem veram duobus his modis approbent Primum divini Canonis authoritate deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae Traditione Non quia Canon solus non sibi ad universa sufficiat sed quia verba Divina pro suo plerique arbitratu interpretantes varias opiniones errores que concipiant So that Scripture is sufficient ad omnia ad universa onely the Churches tradition that is interpretation is the safe way to avoid heresie for the understanding of it 4 Note also that the Catholike Church which Vincentius mentioneth is not the Romane Church any more then any other but the Tradition that he referreth us to is that which hath been taught or held ubique semper ab omnibus every where alwayes and by all 5 Note also that it is not any authoritative Determination of any person or persons whomsoever but universal consent that he referreth uâ—to 6. And it is not in lesser probable or controverted points but in those great necessary points which the Church hath wholly every where in all ages agreeed in 7. Note diligently that one of the cases he putteth is this cap 4. Quid si novella aliqua contagio non jam portiunculam tantum sed totam pariâ—er Ecclesiam commaculare conetur i. e. But what if any novel contagion shall not onely stain a small part of the Church but also the whole Church A presumptuous Question in the Papists sence But what saith he to it doth he say it is impossible no but Tunc item providebit ut Antiquitati inhaeteat quae prorsus jam non potest ab ulla novitatis fraude seduci i. e Then let him see that he stick to antiquity which cannot at all now be seduced by any fraud of novelty Here 1. he supposeth that the present Church may all erre 2. He makes the remedy to be an appeal to the ancient Church and not as the Papists to appeal in all cases to the present Church or Pope Costerus seeks by a citation out of Tertullian in his Annot. to detort both 8. Lastly note diligently that it is not in all cases that Vincentius leadeth us to the exposition of the Church and Fathers but onely as in the weighty use beforesaid so in case of the newness of errors when they first arise before they falsifie the Rules of the ancient faith let them be forbidden by the straights of time and before by the large spreading of the poison they endeavor to vitiate the volumes of our Ancestors But dilated and inveterate heresies are to be set upon this way because by the long tract of time they have had a long occasion of stealing truth that is Antiquity and other signs of truth And therefore as for all those Ancient prophanesses of schismes or heresies we must by no means convince them but by the onely authority of Scripture if there be need or avoid them as certainly already of old convicted and condemned by the General Councils of Catholike Priests They are his own words translated pag. 677. Edit Perionii pag. 87 88. Edit Colon. 1613. So that you see Vincentius supposeth error may infect all the Church and may grow old and so seem to be the Truth and in such cases onely Scripture must be pleaded against it unless also we can produce some ancient Council that hath condemned it This is the very case between us and the Papists Their heresies are old and far spread though not universal nor of utmost antiquity therefore between us and them the Scripture only must be pleaded Where there is no need of a judge by reason of its plainness we need not go to the Ancient Church where there is need of an Expositor we are content to deal with them on Vincentius grounds and to admit of that which ubique semper ab omnibus hath been held in point of faith if they will do the like And indeed this is our very Religion Will the Papists but dispute their cause with us on these terms we shall readily joyn issue with them and doubt not of a good success Of this see more in our Conradus Bergius Prax. Cathol divin Canonis THe Dispute which we have hitherto managed being only against Popery in the gross and two or three branches of it onely in particular I had thought to have annexed a Brief enumeration of the particular errors of the Papists that the vulgar might observe and avoid them and therein I thought to have endeavored the true stating of the differences between us both for the avoiding of error on the other extream and also that we may take out of the Papists hands the greatest of all their advantages against us which is the false-opposed opinions and unsound Arguments of such as thus erre on the other side But perceiving how it would lengthen this work beyond the intended limits and how certainly all those that so run into extreams would fall a quarrelling with me for not stating the controversies according to their fancies I have thought best for answering all my ends at cheaper rates to give you the chief of the Popish errors in the words of Doctor Feild and to that end to tranâ—â—ribe his seventh Chapter of the third Book that so the simple Reader may have some help to inâ—orm him without a commixed means to pervert him And for those that desire to see the Protestant Doctrine solidly defended and cannot have time to read many books I know not of any one that they may more profitably and safely read to that end then the said Book of Doctor Field on the Church and especially the Appendix to the third part which is but the Defence of this very Chapter proving it in particulars that the Western Church was Protestant and not Popish even in the worst times before Luthers Reformation and that the Papists were but a seducing tyrannical party in the Church endeavoring to obtrude their errors against the mind of the generality of good men In which he hath quite broken down those pretences of Vniversality and All the Church which the Papists do so fondly boast in Dr. Feild of the
THE Safe Religion OR THREE DISPUTATIONS For the Reformed CATHOLIKE RELIGION AGAINST POPERY Proving that Popery is against the Holy Scriptures the Unity of the Catholike Church the consent of the Antient Doctors the plainest Reason and common judgment of sense it self By Richard Baxter Contra Rationem nemo sobrius Contra Scripturas nemo Christianus Contra Ecclesiam nemo Pacificus Senserit August de Trinit l. 4. c. 6. fine London Printed by Abraham Miller for Thomas Vnderhill at the Anchor and Bible in Pauls Church-yard and Francis Tyton at the three Daggers in Fleet-street 1657. TO THE Protestant Reader WHen the motion was first made for the Publishing of these Papers it seemed to me to be as the Casting of water into the Sea so great is the Number of the Learned Writings of Protestant Divines against the Papists which will never be well answered that the most elaborate addition may seem superfluous much more these hasty Disputations prepared but for an exercise which is the Recreation of a few Countrey-Ministers at a monthly meeting when they ease themselves of their ordinary work But upon further consideration I saw it was The Casting of water upon a threatning fire which the Sea it self doth but restrain It 's more Engines than a few that are openly or secretly at work at this time to captivate these Nations again to the Romane Pope When so many hundreds if not thousands are night and day contriving our seduction under the name of Reconciling us to the Church if no body counterwork them what may they not do It 's not enough that we have had Defenders and that their Books are yet in the World Old Writings are laid by though much stronger than any new ones But new ones are sooner taken up and read The Papists have of late been very plentifull and yet very sparing in their Writings Plentiful of such as run among the simple injudicious people in secret so that the Countries swarm with them But sparing of such as may provoke any Learned man to a Confutation That so they may in time disuse us from those Studies and so disable the Ministry therein and catch us when we are secure through a seeming peace and fall upon us when we have lost our strength And I am much afraid that the generality of our people perhaps of the best are already so much disused from these studies as to be much unacquainted with the Nature of Popery and much more to seek for a preservative against it and a through confutation of them So that if Papists were once but as fully set out among us in their own likeness as they are under the names of Quakers and other Sects what work would you see in many places I doubt many would follow their pernicius wayes and fall like Sheep of a common rot or people in a raging pestilence especially if they had but the countenance of the times Not through their strength but because our people are naked and unmeet for a defence The work that now they are upon is 1. By Divisions and Reviling the Ministers to loosen the people from their Guides that they may be as a Masterless Dog that will follow any body that will whistle him 2. To take down the Ministers maintenance and encouragements that they may be disabled so vigorously to resist them 3. To hinder their union that they may abate their strength and find them work against each other 4. To procure a Liberty of seducing all they can under the name of Liberty of Conscience that so they may have as fair a game for it as we And ignorance and the common corruption of nature especially so heightened by a custome in sin doth befriend the Devils cause much more than Gods or else how comes it to pass that the Godly are so few and Error Idolatry and impiety doth so abound in all the earth 5. To break the common people into as many Sects and parties as they can that they may not onely employ them against one another but also may hence fetch matter of reproach against our profession in the eyes of the World 6. To plead under the name of Seekers against the certainty of all Religion that men may be brought to think that they must be either of the Popish profession or of none And indeed when all Sects have done their worst it is but two that we are in any great danger of And of those I think we are in more danger then the most are aware of And that is 1. Papists who plead not as other parties onely by the tongue but by exciting Princes and States against us and disputing with the Fagot or Hatchet in their hands And if we have not Arguments that will confute a Navy an Army or a Powder-plot we can do no good against them 2. Prophaneness animated by Apostate Infidels This is the Religion that men are born in And men that Naturally are so endeared to their lusts that they would not have the Scripture to be true will easily hearken to him that tells them it is false Yea so much doth Popery befriend men in a vicious course that some are apt to joyn these together thinking at the heart that Christianity is but a Fable but yet for fear it should prove true they will be Papists that they may have that easie remedy for a reserve If God will preserve us but from these two dangers Popery and Prophaneness animated by infidelitie it will goe well with England The most of my former Writings having been bent against the later I thought it not amiss to let go this one against the former That so I may entice the common professors to a little more serious Study of these points and furnish them with some familiar Arguments that are suited to their capacities that every deceiver may not find them unarmed And here I thought it best to defend our own profession and overthrow theirs in the main and not to stand long upon particular controversies except that one of the Resolution and Foundation of our Faith which is the great difference Yet that private unstudyed men may understand wherein the particular differences lie I have given them a Catalogue of them in other mens words in the end as resolving not to do it in my own In short I have here made it plain that Popery is against Scripture Reason Sense and against the Unity and Judgement of the Church 1. Either Scripture is True or not true If not Popery is not true which pleadeth its warrant from it And some of them argue as if they purposed to disprove the Scripture and to imitate Samson in pulling down the house on their own heads and ours in revenge for the dishonor they have suffered by the Scriture If it be true as nothing more true then Popery is not true which palpably contradicteth it as in the points of Latin service and denying the Cup in the Lords Supper and many other is most evident
2. Either the Catholike Church is one or not If not then Popery is deceitful which maketh this its principal pretence for the usurping the Universal Headship If it be One then Popery is deceitful which is renounced by the far greater part of the Catholike Church and again renounceth them and separateth from them because they will not be subject to the Pope who never yet in his greatest height had the actual Government of half the Christian world 3. Either the Judgement of the Antient Doctors is sound or not If not then the Church of Rome is unsound that is sworn to expound the Scripture onely according to their concent If it be sound then the Church of Rome is unsound that arrogate a Uiniversal Government and Infallibility and build upon a foundation that was never allowed by the Antient Doctors as in the third Disput I have fully proved and which most Christians in the world do still reject 4. Either Reason it self is to be renounced or not If it be then none can be Papists but mad men If not then Popery must be renounced which foundeth our very faith upon impossibilities and teacheth men of necessity to believe in the Pope as the Vicar of Christ before they believe in Christ with many the like which are afterwards laid open 5. Either our five Senses and the Judgement made upon them is certain and Infallible or not If not then the Church of Rome both Pope and Council are Fallible and not at all to be tâ—â—â—â—ed For when all their Tradition is by hearing or reading they are uncertain whether ever they heard or read any such thing and we must all be uncertain whether they speak or write it And then we must not onely subscribe to Fransc Sanchez Quod nihil scitur but also say that Nihil certo creditur But if sense be certain and Infallible then the Church of Rome even Pope and Council are not onely Fallible but certainly false deceivers and deceived For the Pope and his Council tell the Church that it is not Bread and Wine which they take eat and drink in the Eucharist But the senses of all sound men do tell them that it is I see that its Bread and Wine I smell it I feel it I taste it and somewhat I hear to further my assurance And yet if Popery be not false it s no such matter One would think the dullest Reader might be quickely here resolved whether Popery be true or false Look on the consecrated Bread and Wine touch it smell it taste it and if thou canst but be sure that it is indeed Bread and Wine thou maist be as sure that Popery is a delusion And if thou canst but be sure that it is not Bread and Wine yet thou maist be sure that the Pope or his Council nor any of his Doctors are not to be believed For if other mens senses be deceitful theirs and thine are so too But these things are urged in the following Disputations It s worth the observing how much they are at odds among themselves about the Resolution of their Faith and how neer some of them come to us of late as in White 's Sonus Buccinae and Doctor H. Holden de Resol fidei and in Cressy and Vane and others may be seen And their silly followers in England think verily that theirs is the common Doctrine of that Church And how solicitous Cressy and others are to take that Infallibility out of our way as a stumbling stone which the Italians and most of them make the Foundation and chief corner-stone What a task were it to Reconcile but Bellarmine and Holden Knot and Cressy both in English White had so much wit in his Defence of Rushworths Dialogues when he wrote in English to carry on the matter as smoothly as if they had been all of a mind But when he writes in Latin How many wayes of Resolution of Faith that are unsound can he find among the Papists as different from his own Vid. de fide Theolog Tract 1. Sect. 28.29 Reader Adhere to God and the Righteousness of Christ and the Teachings of the Holy Ghost by the Holy Scriptures and a faithful Ministry in the Communion of the Saints and as a member of the Catholike Church which arising at Jerusalem is dispersed over the world containing all that are Christians renounce not right Reason or thy senses and live according to the light which is vouchsafed thee and then thou shalt be safe from Popery and all other pernicious damning errors Marc. 10. 1656 7. R.B. To the Literate Romanists that will read this Book Men and Brethren A Writing that so much concerneth your cause I think should tender you some account of its publication especially when I know that not onely the divulging but the holding of the Doctrine contained therein is so hainous a matter in your eyes that if I were in your power the suspicion of it might bring me to the Rack and the Strappado and the confession of it would expose me to the flames I have many times considered that you could never sure endure to torment men in your Inquisition and consume them to ashes and so industriously to embroyle the Nations of the earth in blood and miseries to work them to your minds and set up your own way if you did not think it right and think them exceeding bad whom you thus destroy I find that my own heart would serve me to use Toads and Serpents and destroying Vermine half as bad as you do Protestants that is to put them to death though not to torment them so long but for gentler and more harmeless creatures I could not do it without a great reluctancy of my nature I must needs therefore by your works bear you record that you have a zeal for God but so had some before you that guided it not by knowledge Rom. 10.2 And I suppose your way is undoubtedly right in your own eyes or else you durst never prosecute it with such violence And yet one that was once as zealous in his way and shut up the Saints in prison and received authority from the high Priests to put them to death and compelled them to blaspheam did afterward call all this but madness Acts 26.9 10 11. But methinks I find my self obliged when I see men differ from me with such height of confidence to give them some Reason of my differing thoughts And yet it is no great matter of success that I can expect from this account To make any addition or alteration in your belief I have no great reason to expect while you read my words with this prejudice that they are damnable heresie and depend upon him whom you suppose infallible for the fashioning of your Faith And if I should say that I expect satisfaction from you with any great hope I should but dissemble For I have not been negligent in reading such writings of your own as might acquaint me both with
your Faith and your Theological Opinions and can scarce reasonably expect that any of you should say more to satisfie me then these contain For any of you to recite the Canons or Decretals of your Church or Popes in a writing to me is in vain For I have them at hand already or can have them at a trice And if you say any thing to me by way of Answer which is not in those Canons or Decretals or solemnly pronounced already by your Church to be de fide you can give me little assurance of its verity but your own writing must incur all those reproaches which Knot bestows on the Doctrine of Chillingworth and we hear from you so frequently for â—he defect of Infallibility But yet let what will come of it I shall leave some slender Teâ—timony to posterity that I dissented not from â—o many confident men without giving them â—ome of the Reasons of my dissent I was born and bred here among the Proâ—essors of the Reformed Catholik Christian Religion When I was young I judged of â—our Profession as I was taught and the preâ—udice which I received against it did grow up â—ith me as yours doth against us Yet receiving much good to my soul by Parsons Book of Resolution corrected when I was but sixteen years of Age it run much in my mind that sure there were some among you that had the Fear of God When I was capable of it by Age and Studies I made some diligent search into your Writers that I might know the true state of the controversies betwixt us But still I confess I read them with prejudice and partiality till at last I attained as far as I can understand by my own heart such a love to the truth and an impartiality in my Studies and judgement of these things that I read your Writers with as free a mind I mean as willing to find what truth was there to be found as I do the Writings of Protestants themselves When I had discovered undoubtedly that in some doctrinal points the differences were made by most on both sides much greater then they were and much greater then the most Learned on both sides thaâ— had any moderation did conceive them to be I was the more confirmed in my resolutions to be impartial in my Studies and so have proceeded if I be a competent judge of my own mind to this day And after all I am left in the dissatisfaction which I here manifest And by what sheps my averseness to your waâ— hath been brought on since I began to search in to it impartially I shall here further declare First I have been most offended with those doctrines and practices that did most notoriously run against the stream of the Holy Scripture for here the case was so plain that without any singular acuteness it might be discerned as in your Latin Service of God with those that understand it not your administring the Bread in the Lords Supper without the cup that Image-worship which your Writers do maintain forbidding Priests marriages with many such like And yet suspecting my own understanding I read what your Writers say also for these But when I saw how palpably they forced the text it increased my dislike And then knowing that you contradicted the Scriptures in these and finding withal that you build your faith upon your Churches Infallibility I was exceedingly turned against your profession when I saw your foundation so clearly overthrown But yet this was not all There was scarce any thing that more offended me then the tendency of your Doctrines to destroy the Knowledge of the people and lead them on in ignorance and please and deceive them by a company of ceremonies instead of a Reasonable service of God and the manner of your worship I could never digest Other things did grate very hard upon those truths which I was confirmed in but these went against the very bent of my heart and crossed the very ends of my Religion and my Life Your keeping the Scriptures from the Laity as far as you do and maintaining it so commonly to be the Original of Heresies to translate them into a known tongue and making it so deadly a crime to have a Bible which they can read with your Latin Service aforesaid and the formalities and scenical worship in which you train up the ignorant vulgar with many other things in your doctrine and practice are such as leave me but little room for deliberation whither I should own them or not because they are so plainely against the very end of the Christian Religion Had these things come under my consideration in a carnal state when the flesh was my end and not God I know not how I should have entertained them But your own Doctors consent that God must be my end and chiefly Loved desired and sought And will you teach a man this and whoodwinke him when you have done Will you bid him love God and keep him from the Knowledge of him Will you bid him desire and seek him and when you have done lock him up in the dark Or will you bid him serve and obey him and yet forbid him to search after the knowledge of his laws and will If you would bring me to be of these opinions your reasonings would be to as much purpose as if you should perswade me to put out my eyes and put them in your pockets for fear of missing my way in my race when my life is at the stake Or as if you should perswade me to be ignorant of Plowing and Sowing and Merchandize and yet to seek after provision and riches in the world I am as easily reconciled as another to those that step out of the path that I am in if they go towards the same end But if you would teach me to turn my back upon Heaven as the onely way to attain it this will not easily down with me I know that God is light and with him is no darkness and that Christ is the light of the world and his spirit is the illuminater of the Saints and the word is a light to our feet and giveth wisdome to the simple And yet would you have us refuse this Light and choose the Darkness I know that Satan is the prince of darkness a state of death is a state of darkness tending to outer darkness and that it is the saving way of God to translate men out of darkeness into his marvellous light And yet would you perswade me that this is the way of Life What a difference is there between this doctrine of yours and the very scope of Scriptures and antient Writers and the sense of a gracious soul Solomon would have men to Hide the commandment with them and incline their ear to wisdom and apply their hearts to understanding and cry after knowledge and lift up their voiec for understanding and seek for it as silver and search after it as for hid treasure Prov. 2.2
it not For the will it self is under a Law which puts it upon duty and not onely restrains it from sinful volition or nolition And therefore if the will do but suspend its act in whole or in part and thereby let the commanded faculties miscarry I shall yet believe that this is forbidden and a proper sin What if you have a charge of the souls of your flock and you sleep while they are misled Or if you were a Physician and had charge of your patients lives and you fall asleep till they are past recovery are you no sinner and do you not go against the Law Yes you are a murderer For though the thing be not voluntary quoad actum voluntatis it is morally or imputatively voluntary propter omissionem actus If Wolverhampton Papists be fed with such doctrine as this they may well be many but they are unlikely to be good Inconsiderateness which I took for one of the most destroying sins it seems is a notable preservative from sin For be sure you deliberate not and you break no Law of God what ever you do And if there be no Law against Lying except the lyes of the higher strain that are by H.T. excepted no wonder then if Papists be Lyars And can you think it any injury to you if from hence I interptet not onely many of your Historical writings such as the Image of both Churches c. but also much of the jugâ—ing that is in England at this day If you put your selves in the Garbe of Quakers Enthusiasts Anabaptists c. and pretend that you are of their opinions and deny your selves to be what you are as long as you think that these lies are pious and rather honor God then greatly dishonor him and rather do good to others by promoting the Catholike cause then notably injure them can any man say that 's of your opinion that they are against the Law of God And why call you that a venial sin which is against no Law when sin is a transgression of the Law and where there â—s no Law there is no transgression 1 Ioh. 3.4 Rom. 4.15 And why say you â—hat veniam meretur when yet you say that â—aenam aeternam non meretur How can there â—e venia sine merito vel debito paenae What â—eed you any pardon of that which was never â—eserved by you And what need you ask forgiveness of these sins or be beholden to God â—or it if the punishment to be forgiven were never due Will you beg the remission of a debt which is no debt Aquinas makes venial and mortal sin to differ as Reparabile irreparabile because from an inward principle the one may be repaired but the other not without infused supernatural grace But is it ever the less sin because it is reparabile Nay what needs it reparation if it be not a transgression But what is this Reparation that he speaks of Is it the remission of the guilt and punishment No sure for eternal punishment he saith it deserveth not and internal principles do not sure forgive the punishment of sin Can we forgive our selves What is it then Is it the removing of the blot No properly peccatum veniale non inducit maculam as before said Is it that venial sin is easier conquered and forsaken then mortal No sure For Aquinas tells us that a man may live for a little while without venial sin but not long but without mortal sin they may easily live till death What this reparation then is I do not certainly know But whatever it is methinks it should suppose a proper sin and not onely Analogical an a desert of eternal punishment to be remitted And here I must adde that another thinâ— that lately hath much disaffected me to youâ— profession is to see by what actual fraud and jugling it is propagated Do you think I see not the game that you are now playing in the darke in England in the persons of Seekers Behmenists Paracelsians Origenists Quakers and Anabaptists I must confess I naturally abhor collusions and dissimulation in the matters of God If your way were of God it needed not such devices to uphold it nor would it suit so well with works of darkness If you have the truth produce it naked and deal plainly and play above board For my part I do not fear being cheated out of my Religion by any thing but seeming force of Argument for I mean to know what I receive before I take it and to taste and chew it before I let it down but the blind incautelous multitude and half witted giddy persons and discontented licentious half studyed Gentlemen may possibly be caught by such chaffe as this Another of your dissimulations which increaseth my dissatisfaction is Your pretending â—o the ignorant people that you are all of a mind and there are no divisions among you â—nd making our divisions the great Argument â—o raise â—n odium against our doctrine calling us Schismaticks Hereticks and the like When â—ndeed no one thing doth so much turn away my heart from you as your abominable Schism Do we not know of the multitudes of Opinions among you mentioned by Bellarmine and other of your Writers If you call me out to any more of this work I mean the next time to present to the world a Catalogue of your Divisions among your selves that it may appear how notable your unity is If the Jesuites are to be believed what a silly sottish generation are your secular Priests If your Priests are to be believed what a seditious hypocritical cheating packe are the Jesuites I speak not the words of your Protestant adversaries but of those of your own Church Do I not know what Guiliel de Sancto Amore and many another say of your own Church Do you think I never read Watsons Quodlibets and the many pretty stories of the Jesuites exploits there mentioned by him I do not think that you suffer many of your own followers to read these books that are written against one another by your selves But the great division among you that quite overthrows your cause in my esteem is that between the French and Italian in your very foundation which all your faith is resolved into You have no belief of Scripture nor in Christ no hope of heaven you differ not from Turkes and Infidels but onely upon the credit and authority of your Church And this Church musâ— be infallible or else your faith is fallible Aâ— least it must be of sovereign authority And when it comes to the upshot you are not agreeâ— what this Church is One saith it is the Pope with a General Council and another saith it is a General Council though the Pope dissent One saith the Pope is fallible and the other saith a Council is fallible One saith a Pope is above the Council and another saith the Council is above the Pope And now what is become of your Religion Nay is it not
undenyable that you are of two Churches specifically different Certainly a body Politick is specified from the summa potestas And therefore if the French make a Council the summa potestas the sovereign power and the Italians make the Pope the sovereign and a third party make the Pope and Council conjunctâ—only the sovereign are not here undenyably several Churches specifically different And then you have another deceit for the salving of all this that increaseth my disaffection You glory in your present judge of controversies and tell us it is no wonder if we be all in pieces that have no such judge And what the better are you for your judge when he cannot or dare not decide your controversies No he dare not determine this fundamental controversie whether himself or a Council be the sovereign power for fear of losing the French and those that joyn with them So that it must remain but dogma Theologicum and no point de fide what is the summa potestas and yet all that is de fide even our Christianity and Salvation must be resolved into it And doth not this directly tend to infidelity Would you have serious Christians deliver up themselves to such a maze as this for the obtaining of unity What the better are you for a judge of controversie in all those hundreds of differences that are among your selves when your judge either cannot or will not determine them Are not we as well without him as you are with him Plain things that are past controversie have no need of your judge It is no controversie with us whether Christ be the Messiah whether he rose ascended and will judge the world And if we go to darker points your own judge will say nothing or worse Why do you cry out so much against expounding the Scripture otherwise then according to the sence of the Church when your Church will give you no interpretation of them Do not your expositors differ about many hundred texts of Scripture and neither Pope nor Council will decide the controversies These are therefore meer delusions of the world with the empty name of a judge of controversies And indeed you sometime shew your selves that you have no such high conceit of your Pope whatever you would make the world believe as to trust his judgement Your own Priest Watson tells us in his Quodlib pag. 56.57 That the Jesuites Preached openly in Spain against Pope Sixtus the last of all holy memory and railing against him as against a most wicked man and monster on earth they have called him a Lutherane heretick they have termed him a Wolf they have said he had undone all Christendome if he had lived and Cardinal Bellarmine himself as judge paramount being asked what he thought of his death answered Qui sine paenitentia vivit sine paenitentia moritur proculdubio ad infernum descendit and to an English Doctor of our Nation he said Conceptis verbis quantum capio quantum sapio quamtum intelligo descendit ad infernum And yet we must hold our Belief in Christ on the credit of such a mans infallibility But yet I have not come to that point of your Schisme which above all things in the world doth alienate my mind from your profession And that is your separation from all other Christians in the world I find in my self so great an inclination to unity and the title Catholike is so honourable in my esteem to them that deserve it that if I had found you to have the unity and Catholike Religion and Church which you boast of it would have much inclined me to your Church and way But when I find you like the Donatists confining the Church to your party and making your selves a Sect and Faction and unchurching and damning the far greatest part of the Christians in the world this left me assured that you are most notorious Schismaticks When I saw so much knowledge and holiness comparatively among the Reformed Catholikes and so much ignorance and wickedness among the Papists even here where are but a remnant that adhere to their Religion against the course of the Nation and when I read so many plain promises in Scripture that Whoever believeth in Christ shall not perish and that if by the spirit we mortifie the deeds of the body we shall live and that if we Repent our sins shall be forgiven yea that Godliness hath the promise of this life and that to come and then when I find that the Papists for all these certain promises do unchurch and damne us all because we believe not in the Pope of Rome as well as in Christ this satisfied me as fully that you are most audacious Schismaticks as I am satisfied that you are Papists What! must I be a Papist on such grounds as these Must I believe because you tell me so that all the most conscionable heavenly Christians that I am intimately acquainted with are unsanctified ungodly and in a state of damnation When I am a witness of the earnest breathings of their souls after more communion with God When they would not live in one of those sins that you call venial for all the world When they mortifie the flesh and live in the spirit and wait for Christs appearance And yet that such as the Papists shall be saved that are so far below them because they believe in the Pope of Rome Why you may almost as well perswade me to become a Papist by telling me that you have eyes in your heads and noses on your faces and the rest of the world have none Doth Christ say He-that believeth and repenteth shall be saved and must I believe that all Protestants shall be damned let them believe and repent never so much This is to bid me cease to believe Christ that I may believe the Pope Cease to be a Christian that I may become a Papist I am confident I shall never be Papist if it may not be done but by believing that all the Godly that I am acquainted with are ungodly and in the way to hell And to speak of the quantity as well as the quality I feel a kind of universal charity within me extending to a Christian as a Christian and therefore to all the Christians in the world which will not give me leave to believe if a hundred Popes should swear it that the far greatest part of Christians shall be damned because they are not subjects to the Pope The Papists are but a handful of the Christians in the world at least the smaller part by far The most of them never acknowledged the sovereignty of your Pope And a few ages ago before Mahometanism and Heathenism diminished the number of Christians in Asia and Africa the Papists were but a small proportion There are but lately taken off from the Christian Religion its probable twice as many as all the Papists in the whole world If it were but the Kingdomes of Nubia and Tenduc how far would
believe not in him as well as in Christ but he flatly denyeth it and what he cannot get by Scripture and reason he would get by threatning and terrible words to affright the simple telling them that Protestants are not of the true Church or Religion nor in a safe way to salvation because they will not be the subjects of the Pope of Rome Well we shall briefly prove our way to be safe if not to the satisfaction of perverse ambitious or passionate and prejudiced men yet I doubt not to the satisfaction of all humble impartial diligent persons that are willing to know the truth and deny themselves that they may know it and do not stifle it by their lusts or imprison it in unrighteousness in their byassed resolutions And first we shall briefly open the termes By Religion here we mean the Doctrine de credendis agendis about matters to be believed and practised which we hold and profess as of Divine Revelation and injunction in order to Gods Glory and our salvation For though this be but the means towards those holy Affections and practices which are of neerer necessity to our salvation as being the necessary effects of the former yet is it not this later buâ— the former that we are now inquiring after Not of Subjective but Objective Religion not of the fides quâ but the fides quae â—creditur not whether we be true to our Religion and so truly Religious but whether we be of the True Religion or hold that Doctrine which will save them that are true to it in Belief and Practice I shall not much stop the plain Reader therefore with any further and unnecessary inquiry into the Etymology of the word Religion which some derive 1 a Relegendo some 2 a Religando and some 3 a Relegando Relinquendo But as long as we understand what is meant by the word we shall not stick at the Etymology or propriety By the Reformed Religion we mean the Christian Catholike Religion as it is separated from Popery and so by this word we do distinguish our Churches from the Romane Sectaries For it is not every Reformation much less every thing so called that here we have respect to but the Reformation by which we cast off Popery it self which because it was in one Countrey done by a solemn Protestation of certain Princes and Cities against Popery hath been since called the Protestant Reformation and our Churches the Protestant Churches and our Religion the Protestant Religion Our Religion is called Catholike because it is â—he Religion of the Catholicke Church which is so â—alled a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it is universal consisting not onely of Jews and their Proselites as heretofore nor of one Town like Rome and those that will be â—he subjects of the Bishop of that Town as the Papists dream but of all that Believe in the name of Christ through the whole world holding the Foundation or points of absolute necessity to salvation and not again denying them by any such contradicting Errors as will not consist with the practical belief of the said Fundamentals As that was called A Catholicke Epistle which was directed to the whole Church and not to any one person or people so is that the Catholike Church which containeth all Christians As Austin was wont to describe it against the Donatists who would have confined it to the adversaries of Caecilianus and followers of Donatus in Africke that the true Church was that which was spread over the world by the Gospel which was commanded to be preached to all Nations beginning at Jerusalem so do we By the Christian Religion I suppose we are agreed is meant the Religion of Believers in Christ or that whereof Christ is the Foundation and prescriber and faith in him the first act which must contain all the essential parts though it may possibly want many integrals or else it is not to be called the Christian Religion They that were called Christs Disciples were afterwards called Christians first at Antioch Act. 11.26 To be a Christian therefore and to be Christs Disciple is all one Note therefore that as the word Religion denoteth the sum of doctrines and way of salvation absolutely necessary so it is but One in all the worlâ— that 's true and saving and that is the Christian Religion So that if a Heathen Jew or Mahometane ask me what Religion I am of in opposition to theirs I will say I am a Christian and not onely that I am a Protestant But if a Christian aske me what Religion I am of I will say I am a Reformed Catholike Christian for such a question in the mouth of a Christian usually implieth that I am a Christian and intendeth the discovery of what sort or party of Christians I belong to But indeed Christianity is not many but one and therefore Christians as Christians are not of many Religions but of one No nor Christians at all that are truely such if by Religion you mean a systeme of doctrines in the main necessary or sufficient to salvation or conceited so to be For as there is no such Body of Doctrine but Christs so no man that is indeed a Christian can believe that there is seeing such a Belief contradicteth the essentia's of Christianity But among those that call themselves Christians there are some Hereticks that deny or plainly subvert some part of the essentials of Christian Religion And among those that are Christians some have such dangerous corruptions as do much hazard the salvation and tend to frustrate them of their benefits of the Christian Faith and these very corruptions they Entitle by the name of Part of their Religion as the Papists do In which sence I must say I am not of the same Religion with them though I hold the same Christian Doctrine as they because I hold not their mixture and add not those corruptioâ—s which they make a part of their Religion The name Protestant I reject not because it was taken up on a just occasion but I take it to be too extrinsecal and private to be the standing denomination of my Religion as being not taken from the nature of the thing but from an occasionall action of a few men in one Countrey though it intimateth that all of their judgement in all other Countries do virtually at least make the like Protestation in the maine I do therefore rather choose to say that I am a Reformed Catholike Christian and when I call my self a Protestant this is my meaning So that by the name Christian which expresseth all my Religion it self Positively considered I am differenced from Heathens Jews Mahometans and all Infidels and those by some called Hereticks who usurpe the name of Christians while they deny part of the very essentials of Christianity And by the name Catholike I adde nothing Positive to the former but onely intimate that I am of the Universal Church and negatively exclude my self from all divided
for the perfect or sufficient Rule of Judgement It is this word onely that we appeal to and desire to be judged by And the Papists wilful declining of this Tryal and Judgement doth give any impartial observer sufficient cause to suspect that they take the Scripture to be against their cause or else why should they not have as much confidence in it and commit their cause to it as well as we 2. To run over every point of difference between us and them and prove our part by Scripture would be a very easie work but it would make this Disputation swell too big And it is done so largely and often already by our Writers that it is less necessary If any of them complain for the omission â— this part let him but assure me that he will stand tâ— the Judgement of Scripture and I shall quickly aâ—â— willingly enter the lists with him and go over thâ—â— part of the task again In the mean time let it suâ—â—â— to tell young Students that Amesius his Bellarmiâ—â— Enervatus hath spoiled all their cause of this defence and manifested Scripture to be fully against them iâ— a little room which may spare them the reading oâ— many larger And for the meer English Reader Mr. Ri. Bernard in his book called Look beyond Luther in his help annexed to it hath given a brief and effectual discovery that Scripture is not on their side in an enumeration and proof of many of the pointâ— in difference between them and us which for brevity I refer them to In a word if the Scripture be true then that Religion which agreeth with them is a safe way to salvation But the Papists confess that the Scriptures are true Therefore c. The Major is plain in that Scripture affirmeth of it self that it is able to make us wise unto salvation and furnish us to every good work and is written that we might believe and believing might have life in Christs name c. Joh. 29.31 2 Tim. 3.16 17. Of which we have said somewhat in a sâ—ort Determination of that Question by it self Arg. 2. That Religion is a safe way to Salvation by which the Apostles and the Churches in their days were saved But by the Reformed Catholike Christian Religion now called Protestant were the Apostles and the Churches in their dayes saved therefore it is a safe way to salvation The Major with reasonable men needeth no proof There is not many Religions but only one that are a â—â—fe way to Salvation and that which the Apostles â—ent in and the Churches in their dayes is undoubâ—edly that one God hath not since taken down â—hat Religion and set up another and made â—hat way safe to us which was unsafe to them The Minor is thus proved The Apostles and Churches in their dayes were saved by that Religion which is contained or expressed in the holy Scriâ—tures But that is the same with this which is called â—he Protestant Religion For proof whereof I refer you and offer as abovesaid Yeeld once that Scripture shall be the Rule to judge by and the controversie will soon be ended betwixt us And I need not to say but these two things for proof of the point 1. That their own Writers confess that the Affirmative or Positive part of our Religion as it was here in England professed was not against the word of God contained in the holy Scriptures only they told us that the Negatives were of which we shall consider further anon 2. As it is the great care of the Papists to keep the Scriptures from the people accounting it the Original of Heresies to have them translated as Arboreus and many expresly say and burning men to ashes for reading the Scriptures when God will burn them in Hell if they obey them not which they are not like to do without knowing them so experience hath convinced them that where the reading of the Scriptures in a known tongue is but permitted there doth our Religion most encrease and Popery decay so that if this one means were but permitted in Spain and Italy as it is whether they will or no in other parts undoubtedly the Popes Kingdom would soon come down I say if they durst but permit men to read the Word of God in a known tongue They know this well enough or else they would never so torture poor Christians by the Inquisition for having a Bible in their houses They have sure some humanity in them as well as others and therefore could never go so exceeding far beyond the Turke in Cruelty to Christians themselves but that they know their whole cause and Kingdom is concerned in it and if once Scripture get in they are gone In a word multitudes of volumes have already proved that Scripture is against Popery Argu. 3. That Religion is a safe way to Salvation in which the Church in the three or four first Ages at least was saved But the Church in the three or four first Ages at least was saved in that Catholike Christian Religion which now is called the Reformed or Protestant Religion Therefore this is a safe way to salvation I mention not the former Ages as if all other following Ages had come to heaven by any other Religion then the former but 1. because in them alone there is a sufficient proof of the Major Proposition None could be saved in it especially not so many Ages of the purest times if it were not a safe way 2. Because some Popish Errors began among the worser sort of Ambitious Superstitious Prelates to creep in betimes and Popery it self appeared in the world soon after the six hundredth yeer and was openly established about the thousandth yeer And according to the degrees of corruption in the Church there was a greater difficulty of salvation because more impediments but still those that were saved were all saved in and by the same Religion of the former Ages and if they were saved in any Corruption yet not By it but from it or against it As for the proof of the Minor as it requireth a full volume of it self to produce the particular Testimonies of the Fathers for us so is it already done in many Volumes And because the continual clamor of the Papist is that Antiquity is on their side I shall anon disprove them in the fundamentaâ— difference between them and us in the following Disputation about their pretended Soveraignty and Infallibility and in other particulars desire them to give some reasonable answer to what is already alledged by Bishop Vsher Dr Field and many morâ— of our Writers before they expect we should regard their vain immodest pretences And still let is be remembred that for all the Positive part of our Religion they themselves cannot deny but that the Churches still held it Our Religion is the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures and doubtless that was entertained by all the Churches and in that Religion they were saved Argu. 4. That Religion is a safe
way to Salvation whose faithful Professors have a promise of Salvation made them by God in his holy word But such is the Reformed Catholike Christian Religion commonly called Protestant therefore it is a safe way to Salvation The Major cannot be denyed for God cannot â—ye or break his promise And the Minor is easily proved by parts Our Religion is to believe all that is in the Holy Scripture to be the true word of Godâ— and more particularly we believe all the Articles â— the Creed called the Apostles the Nicene Creed and that of Athanasius with the Doctrine of the Sacraments of Baptisme and the Lords Supper anâ— we confess that in a larger sence other sacred mysteries may be called Sacraments we believe that every man must unfeignedly Repent of all sin and tâ—â—â— from it to God and Love God above all and 〈◊〉 neighbor as himself and faithfully obey the whoâ—â— revealed will of God with other parciculars whicâ— may be seen at large in our several confessions Anâ— he that faithfully Believeth and doth all this hath mâ—ny promises of Salvation in the Scripture John 3.26 God so loved the world that he gave his only begotteâ— Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perisâ— but have everlasting life But Protestants believe in him and subvert not nor nullifie that belief by any contradiction therefore they shall not perisâ— if they be true to their profession but have everlasting life Mark 16.16 Go and preach the Gospel to every creature he that Believeth and is Baptized shall bâ— saved But Protestants believe and are baptized Obj. So Hereticks and wicked men may say Ans But not truely For 1. Hereticks truly so called that cannot be saved do not Believe the whole Doctrine which is fundamental or of Absolute necessity to Salvation Let them shew that by us if they can 2. As Hereticks have not the true faith so wickeâ— men are not true in the faith The former want the fides quae qua both that is both true objectivâ— and subjective faith and the later want true subjective faith at least And so they will confeâ—â— that many a Pope hath done Rom. 10.9 If thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thy heart that God â—aised him from the dead thou shalt be saved For â—ith the heart man believeth to righteousness and â—ith the mouth confession is made unto salvation â—ut thus do the Protestants therefore they shall be â—â—ved The Doctrine which Peter preached to Cornelius as sufficient to save him and all his house Act. 10.14 â—ut every word of that is believed by the Protestants â—â—erefore it may save them The Jaylor is promised Act. 16.31 that if he â—â—ll believe on the Lord Jesus Christ he shall be savâ—â— So Heb. 10.39 Luk. 8.12 It is not said If â—â—ou wilt believe in Christ and the Pope of Romeâ—â—ou â—â—ou shalt be saved Act. 4.12 Neither is there â—alvation in any other for there is none other name â—â—der heaven given among men whereby we must be â—â—ved Therefore not the Popes name In Act. 15.1 â—â—s said that certain men came down from Judaeaâ—â—â—ught â—â—â—ught the brethren that except they were circumâ—â—sed after the manner of Moses they could not be â—â—ved against these Paul wrote the Epistle to the â—â—latians where you may see how to think of such â—nd in the like manner do the Papists teach men that â—â—cept they believe in the Pope of Rome and except â—â—ey believe that there is a Purgatory and that Imâ—â—es may be worshiped and that the consecrated â—â—st may be adored and that we may pray to â—â—ints departed and that the Priest must take the â—â—crament while the people only look on and that 〈◊〉 the Priest must receive it in both kinds and the â—ead alone may serve the people and that prayers and other Church-service should be in thâ— Latine tongue when the people understand it not with abundance more of their vile inventions I say those that believe not all this they say cannâ—â— be saved But what say the Apostles Elders anâ— Brethren at Jerusalem when the former case â— brought before them They would not have me tempt God by putting a yoak on the most of thâ— Disciples but believe that through the Grace of thâ— Lord Jesus Christ those that used none of thâ— ceremonies should be saved as well as the Jews Verâ— 10 11. And the sum of their Decrees or answer is that Those men who went out from them and troâ—bled people with such words did but subvert theâ— souls by saying that they must be circumcised aâ— keep the Law and that they gave them no such commandment and that it seemed good to the Holâ— Ghost and them to lay upon the Gentiles no greatâ—â— burden than these necessary things c. The Pâ—pists thus go out as from the Apostles pretendiâ—â— an Apostolical Tradition and impose upon the whoâ—â— Christian world a multitude of Ceremonies and Dâ—ctrines as necessary to salvation which are not â— be found in the holy Scripture How shall we knoâ— whether these men indeed have any command â— Tradition from the Apostles for any such course Why 1. Let them shew their Commission and tâ—â— proof of their Traditions 2. We fully disproâ—â— them from the Apostles owne words It seems goâ— to the Holy Ghost and the Apostles to lay â— the Gentiles no greater burden then the â—â—cessary things here named and by these they mâ— be saved and they that teach otherwise are pâ—nounced by them subverters of souls that had â— â—ommand from them for what they did But it â—emeth good to the Pope and his faction to lay on â—â—e Gentile Churches unnecessary things and mulâ—â—tudes of them pretending a necessity of them â—hen they are none of the four that are here onely â—ade necessary by the Apostles nor are so made by â—ny other word of Scripture and some they impose â—n pain of damnation which they will not pretend â—o be of necessity themselves By proportion thereâ—ore we may hence judge that the Papists are meer â—lse pretenders to Apostolical Tradition and subâ—erters of souls and that the Protestants may be saâ—ed for all their presumptuous sentence to the conâ—â—ary The Gospel which Paul preached to the Corinthiâ—â—s and which they received was such as would â—â—ve them if they kept it in memory viz. that â—hrist dyed for our sins according to the Scriptures â—nd that he was buryed and that he rose again the â—â—ird day c. as Paul witnesseth 1 Cor. 15.1 2 3 4 â—nd the Corinthians by the beliefe of this Doctrine â—ere a Church of God and sanctified 1 Cor. 1.1 2. â—ut the Protestants believe all that the Corinthiansâ—â—ceived â—â—ceived to make them such a Church and sanctiâ—â—ed and saved Therefore the Protestants are so â—o John wrote his Gospel that men might believe â—nd believing might have life Joh. 20.30 31. Thereâ—â—re he that believeth that Gospel shall have life at the Protestants believe all that Gospel
therefore â—â—ey shall have life supposing it to be a true faith â—â—at worketh by love The Jews that heard Petersâ—â—rmon â—â—rmon Act. 2. were converted and added to the â—hurch even threâ— thousand souls and put into a state of Justification by Believing that Sermon 〈◊〉 37 38 41 46 47. But the Protestants believe â— that Peter preached in that Sermon thereâ—â— they also are of the Church and justified And least the Accusing Devil or Papists shâ—â— trouble the peace of any of his people Christ 〈◊〉 protested it with his own mouth Joh. 5.24 Veâ—â—ly Verily I say unto you He that heareth my word 〈◊〉 believed on him that sent me hath everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation but is passed frâ—â— death to life Me thinks this should make any â—â—liever tremble at the thoughts of condemning thoâ— that Christ hath protested shall not be condeâ—ned Christ hath promised that all those that receive â— words and in whom his words abide shall be beloved of the Father and have everlasting life and â— heard in what they aske Joh. 14.23 15.7 Doubâ—less that which Christ himself preached was the tâ— Gospel and so far sufficient that whoever believeâ— it shall be saved Otherwise Christ could not â—aâ— converted any soul so far as to have brought theâ— into a state of Salvation by his Doctrine and theâ— Peter and the rest of the Apostles were not trâ—â— Christians by the belief of the Doctrine of Christ 〈◊〉 if the Doctrine which Christ preached be sufficieâ—â— to make true Christians and Church-members oâ— those that receive it then the Protestants are such For they believe every word that the Evangelists record of the Doctrine of Christ And if the Papiâ—â— say that there is more of his Doctrine necessary tâ— salvation which the Evangelists did not record iâ— Scripture 1. We call for their proof of it and 2. Wâ—â—â—â—ow that the Evangelists did purposely write thâ— â—â—ur Gospels or Histories of Christ of purpose to acâ—uaint the world with his Nature Birth Life doctrine â—eath and Resurrection c. Luke professeth that he â—rote his Gospel upon perfect understanding of all â—â—ings from the very first which conteyneth a Declaâ—â—tion of those things which are most surely believed â—mong us even as they were delivered by them that â—â—om the beginning were eye Witnesses and Ministers â—f the Word Luk. 1.1 2 3 4. And he tells us Act. â— 1 2. that he wrote his Gospel of all things that â—esus began both to do and teach untill the day in â—hich he was taken up It would therefore have â—een an exceeding blemish to the Evangelists that â—rote of set purpose both the History of Christs â—ife and Doctrine if they had left out any part of it â—hat was of necessity to salvation Protestants thereâ—ore that believe all the Gospel do believe so much â—s may bring them safely to salvation If Christ himâ—elf be not a sufficient Teacher nor the Gospel it self a â—ufficient Doctrine of Life Then whither shall we go to seek it Then Peter himself was not the Rock â—or a true Christian by Christs Teaching And then â—he Pope could not derive that from Peter which he â—ad not But Peter himself thought and taught oâ—herwise He saith Lord whether shall we go we know that thou hast the words of Eternal Life For my part I will take Peters counsel and go to Christ for the words of Eternal Life which are purposely recorded by four Evangelists in the Gospel Let who will go to the Pope for another Gospel to supply the supposed defects of this for I will not In Act. 22. 26. and other places Paul preacheth so much of the Gospel as might have made true Believers and all that the Protestants receive The Church of Rome when Paul wrote his Epistle to them were a true Church Rom. 1.7 and all the Doctrine that Paul writeth to them we do believe Paul telleth the Elders of Ephesus Act. 20.27 that he had not shunned to declare to them the whole councel of God and this is summed up in Repentance toward God and Faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ vers 21. And whatsoever Paul hath written to these Ephesians or any other Churches or persons we believe But what should we talk any more with such an arrogant unreasonable sort of men that dare maintaine that the belief of all the Holy Scripture is not large enough to salvation Atheists and Infidels say of the Scripture that it is too big to be all true And Papists say that it is not big enough to bring a man to heaven that believeth and obeyeth it Shall the Holy Ghost endite a Volume as big as the Bible and when he hath done shall any pretending to be Christians perswade the world that he that believeth all this shall be damned if he believe not the closet Traditions which the Romane Bishop pretendeth to be the keeper of Nay see the strange contradictions of this giddy fiction They lock up this Scripture it self from the common people in an unknown tongue They damne the translating of it as the root of all Heresies and burn men to ashes for using the Bible when they cannot keep it unknown any longer they translate it themselves as far as they can to their own advantage and put it forth with their perverting Annotations and yet when they have all done they condemne any that read it without a special licence from their Ordinary which in England and France they sometime grant to avoid suspicions but in Spaine Italy c. too few if any at all And when they have written voluminously to prove that the Scriptures are not necessary to the people for salvation and that Ignorance is the mother of devotion they come back again and dispute against the Protestants that the whole Scripture is not sufficient to salvation and he that believes but the Scriptures is not in a safe way to salvation It seems then that the Popes Canons are more necessary then the Scripture For a man may be saved without the knowledge of Scripture but not without the knowledge of the Canons of the Pope Yes that he may too if some of them mistake not if they will but implicitely believe that the Church of Rome is the Catholike Church and that the Pope is the infallible soveraign of the Christian world and believe some Articles of the Creed upon his credit he may be saved without either Scripture or Canons so he be but ready to believe and obey whatever shall be offered to him by the Pope for the time to come Moreover Christ and his Apostles do frequently promise Remission and salvation to all that truely Repent that love God in Christ that mortifie the flesh c. but all this do the Protestants and their Religion teacheth them to do it Paul concludeth that There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus that walk not after the flesh but after the spirit Rom. 8.11 But the Protestants are in
Christ Jesus and their Religion teacheth and engageth them so to walk therefore there is no condemnation to them that do so and they may with the same Apostle Rom. 8.33 34. Challenge all the Papists in the world It is God that justifieth who shall condemne us Paul telleth Timothy that the holy Scriptures are able to make him wise to salvation 2 Tim. 3.15 therefore they may make us also wise to salvation And he addeth that All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for Doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good works vers 16 17. It were endless to recite all that proveth the salvation of them that believe and obey the holy Scriptures But this all true Protestants do I shall therefore leave this taske and next hear what the Papists can say to the contrary and what they are able to produce to prove that we are not in a safe way to salvation Obj. 1. There is but one safe way to Heaven The Protestant Religion is not that one way Therefore not a safe way The Minor is proved thus That Religion which the Church hath owned from the Apostles dayes till now is that one way The Protestant Religion is not that which the Church hath so owned therefore it is not that one Religion The Minor is proved by parts 1. As to Doctrine 2. as to Discipline 3. as to worship 1. The Church ever since the Apostles dayes hath maintained the Doctrines of 1. Free-will to good or evil 2. of Predestination upon foreseen faith 3. of mans merits 4. of Justification by Inherent Grace 5. against the certain Perseverance of all the Justified and consequently against their certainty of salvation 6. Vowed Chastity and Monastical Life In Discipline the Church ever held 1. The Popes Supremacy and Universal Jurisdiction 2. The Government by Bishops over Presbyters 3. Ordination by them and not without them 4. Pennance and Confession of sin 3. In matter of Worship the Church hath still used 1. Chrysme to the Baptized 2. Imposition of hands in confirmation 3. The sacrifice of the Altar 4. The Cross 5. Holy dayes 6. Fasting dayes All which the Protestants have cast off Therefore they are not of the same Religion Answ 1. To the Major Proposition of the main Argument I answer The word safe referreth to some Danger that we are safe from The way may be called safe therefore either in respect of sin or damnation Also this way may be called one in respect of the Essentials of Religion or else in respect of some inferior truths and duties that are not of absolute necessity to salvation And so I say that there is but one Religion as to the Essential and absolutely necessary points in which a man can be safe from Damnation And there is but one Religion as comprehending all the Integral parts in which a man can be safe from sin But yet that Religion which in the Essentials and Absolutely necessary points is but one may yet consist with errors in lower and lesser things in the minds of those that hold it and yet be a safe way to salvation though not so safe as to freemen from all sin And consequently there may be differences among true Christians that shall be saved though there be nothing but perfect Harmony in the entire Doctrine of Christian Religion as delivered from Christ and his Spirit Because no man holds that Doctrine entirely and perfectly without any error or ignorance and therefore there will be much difference among those that shall be saved To the Major of the Pro-syllogisme I answer Implicitely and in Generals the Church hath owned the perfect truth in all ages because it hath Believed that all that God saith is true and that the Scripture is his word But explicitely and particularly the Church hath not held all the truth of Religion in any one age since the Apostles For every man on earth hath been Ignorant and the most knowing men erroneous in some things seeing we are all imperfect and here know but in part And so one particular Church might erre in one thing and another in another thing as the differences about Easter Rebaptizing the Millennium Infants Communicating c. shew they did And of the same Church one Member might erre in one thing and another in another thing it being as certain that no two men on the earth are in all things of the same minde as that none on earth are perfect in knowledge To the Minor I answer that the Religion called Protestant is the same in all points absolutely necessary to salvation which the Church hath still owned And in other inferior points the Churches having not been all or alwayes of one minde some ages were more pure and others more corrupt The Protestant Religion is neerer to that of the purer times then the Papists is It is the same in the Essentials it is the neerest it in the Integrals it is more remote from latter corruptions introduced in times more remote from the Apostolical purity To the particular instances of our differences from the former Churches I answer particularly 1. For Free will to God if you mean a natural freedome which is the wills self-determining Power so the Protestants maintain it as well as the Fathers If you mean a moral freedom from ill-inclining habits which is properly a right-disposition so the Fathers maintained it not Obj. Let Scultetus in Medulla Patruâ— and others of your own Writers be judge who still number this inter naevos Patrum Answ Scultetus and Calvin and others might mistake the Fathers sence and think that they spoke of moral Freedom when they spoke but of natural which is inseparable from the will And its like that they did so seeing the Fathers maintained Original sin which is that pravity of humane nature which is clean contrary to moral Free-will 2. And if the Fathers were for a Free-will in a moral-Ethical sence so is one part of the Protestants as much as they were And if they were in the right so are those Protestants If in the wrong then the other part of the Protestants are in this in the right 3. This is a point that men may differ in as much as the Fathers did from us and yet be in a safe way to salvation 4. The Dominicans and the Jesuites differ about it as much as we and the Fathers yea they cannot yet agree what natural free-will is 2. For Predestination upon foreseen faith 1. There is no Declaration of the Churches minde in those times about it but what is found in the wrigtings of particular Doctors 2. We confess that men are Elected to Glory and Justification from guilt upon foreseen faith But we say withall that they are Elected to that faith and that God did foresee it as a thing which he intended to give and not as a thing which corrupted unregenerate
nature would produce 3. And we say also that this is a point that men may differ in that yet are in a safe way to salvation 3. As to the point of mans merits we say that the Fathers differed from us but in word and not indeed It seemed good to them to call every moral aptitude or Ordination ad Praemium that is the Rewardableness of our actions by the name of merit and every Rewardable work meritorious We thinke it fittest to forbear this name This Verbal difference makes not two distinct Religions 4. As to the point of Justification we confess that the Fathers commonly called that Justification which we now call Sanctification And we our selves maintain that Sanctification doth consist in Inherent Graces This difference therefore being but verbal the Religion and the way to salvation is nevertheless the same 5. As for the points of Perseverance and certainty of Salvation and Virginity or vowed Chastity with the supposed merit thereof and of a Monastical or Eremetical life we think that most of the Churches since the first century have departed from the Apostles Doctrine in these points and therefore we appeal to the Scripture But yet we know that these are not points of absolute necessity to salvation so that whether those Churches or we were mistaken yet is our Religion the same and both they and we in a safe way to Heaven 2. For matters of Government and Discipline we say 1. That we undertake to manifest it as cleare as the light that the Popes Supreme Headship and universal jurisdiction is a novelty introduced above six hundred years after Christ 2. For Diocesane Episcopacy and their ordination some of the Reformed Churches do own it But it is not a matter so necessary to Salvation as that all men that will be saved must needs be of one minde in it 3. We confess and maintain the necessity of true Penitence and such confession of sin as is necessary to manifest Penitence to the Church after a notorious scandal and of confession to those that we have wronged and of private confession to our Pastors in case that we cannot have a through cure of our wounds or comfort to our consciences without it Lastly as for the Ceremonies mentioned which the former Churches used and as for the bare name of a Sacrifice and Altar while they agreed with us in sence we take them not to be matters of so great moment as must make them and us of two Religions as if both were not in a safe way to salvation The best men on earth may differ in as great a matter as one of these and if they in a mistaken zeal shall depart from the Apostles so that we cannot imitate both the Apostles and them we had rather of the two leave them then the Apostles yet holding with them still in the maine Obj. The Religion of Protestants differs from the Abassine and Greek Churches and all the world as well as the Romane and therefore cannot be a safe way Answ 1. If that be not a safe way which differs from the Greeks Abassines c. then the Papists way is much less safe then ours for they do not onely differ from them but un-Church them and condemne them to Hell and so do not we 2. We are of the same Religion with them onely we have by Gods great mercy cast out of that one way some stones of offence which they have not yet cast out Obj. 2. The true safe Religion hath had a visible Church professing it from Christs time till this day But the Protestant Religion hath not had a visible Church professing it to this day therefore it is not the true safe Religion Ans The Major I easily grant and disclaim the needless snift of them that would deny it But the Minor I deny If they call for the proof of that visible Church and aske where it was before Luther we say that it was wherever Christ had a Church From Christs time till many hundred years after even at Rome it self and many other places and from Christs time to this day it hath been in Ethiopia Greece Egypt Mesopotamia and many other Countries if not still among the Romanists themselves for full proof of which note that it is from the Essentials and points of great necessity that we denominate our Religion and every difference in â—esser things doth not make a distinct Religion else there were as many Religions in the world as men Note also that the main difference between us and the Papists is not that they deny the substance of our Religion directly but that they superadde a great many of new Articles to the old Creed and have made their Religion much larger then ours many of their new Articles consequently subverting the Fundamentals which they profess So that our Reâ—gion is and still hath been among the Papists and other Churches and if they â—dde morâ— to it that makes it not cease in it self to be what it was Our Religion is wholly contained in the Holy Scriptures â—nd that all the Churches have still allowed of The Papists themselves confess it all to be the Word of God which we appeal to as the onely Touch-stone â—nd rule of our faith Obj. So you would make our Religion and â—ours to be all one Ans As the word Religion sigâ—ifieth the Essentials of the Christian Faith or the â—oints of absolute necessity to Salvation so our â—eligion is with you and is owned or confessed by â—ou As it signifieth all those points that are conceitâ—d necessary to Salvation with the professors so your â—eligion is not all but part with us And as it comâ—rehendeth also all those Integral parts which a man â—ay confessedly be saved without so he do not wilâ—lly reject them so yours and ours do much differâ—nd that your Religion is not all with us is no loss to â— because the points of yours which we disown â—e both novel additions of your own brain and alâ—â— such as contradict the acknowledged verities Wherever then Christ had a Church that did believe all the Doctrine of the Scripture and specially thâ— Creed the Lords Prayer the Decalogue the Doctrine of the new Covenant Baptisme the Lord Supper and the Ministry there was our Religion before Luther If any added hay and stubble if theâ— work be burnt and they suffer loss yet our Religion among them is the same still Obj. But do not you make this Negative a part â— your Religion that nothing but Scripture is to â—â— believed fide divinâ and what Church was of thâ— Opinion Answ 1. We have oft at large shewed that mâ—â— of the ancient Doctors of the Church have asserâ—â— the Scriptures sufficiency at large and appealed â— them as the full Revelation of Gods will concerniâ—â— all things necessary to salvation and the sufficienâ— Rule to Judge of controversies 2. If they did 〈◊〉 of them think that the Church had a supperadâ—â— Revelation by Tradition in
points of order of â— necessity to salvation this doth not make them â—â— us to be of two Religions or wayes of Salvation as long as they do not introduce any dangerous â— destructive points under that pretence Obj. But the Church still held those things as â—â—cessary to Salvation which you deny Ans Wâ— deny that to be true Some of the points in differâ—â—â— are novelties of your own which the ancient Churâ—â— did never hold the rest are such as they never â— such a stress as mens salvation upon To conclude Let it be considered whether thâ— Argument may not damne your selves which I tâ— against you Thus. The true safe Religion hath 〈◊〉 a visible Church professing it from Christs time â— â—â—w But the Religion of the Romanists as comâ—â—ehending all points of their faith or made by them be necessary to salvation hath not had any visible â—â—urch professing it of many hundred years after â—â—rist Therefore it is not the true Religion nor a â—â—e way to salvation The Minor I shall undertake â—â—re seasonably to make good And our Divines â—â—e done it already No doubt but common reason and justice requirâ—â— that you that call to us so earnestly for a Cataâ—â—gue of the Professors of our Religion in all Ages â—â—uld be as much obliged your selves to give us a â—â—â—alogue of yours yea and to give it first because 〈◊〉 are the first in pleading the necessity of it Unâ—â—â—take this task therefore and perform it well and â—u shall carry the whole cause Give us a Cataâ—ue of any besides impeached Hereticks that did â—n your main points of Popery for many hundred â—â—rs after Christ and we will give you a full acâ—â—nt of such as contradicted those conceits and beâ—â—â—ed as we do and let both be compared together â— let the most satisfaction and the fullest evidence â—â—â—ry it You make a meer empty noise among the â—â—gar of Antiquity and Universality and call for â—roof of the perpetual or continued visibility of â— Church as if in this you had the advantage â— the ballance did turn on your side When as â—â—ough we know that there is no such necessity of â— proof in this as you pretend yet we know your â—dvantage here to be so great that if you will â— be perswaded to this way of tryal it will be to the â—â—â—er shame and confusion of your cause What 's the â—â—tter else that you still appeal to the latter or preâ—â—t Church and that is only to the Romane and that 's onely to your selves If we do but invite you to tryal by Scripture and the Fathers and Records the three first ages you presently scorn the moâ— and fall upon the Fathers with accusations as if thâ— had not understood or believed all that was necessaâ—â— to salvation or to the being of a Christian or Church for you say they did not meddle with thâ— controversies and so you call us down to the laâ— or present times as having equal authority with â— first To which we say 1. That the silence of â— first times concerning these matters if there wâ— no more as yet there is is sufficient to prove tâ— they were not then taken for any necessary points faith For Though our Records of the secâ— Age be very short yet both they and mâ— more those of the third and fourth Ages containe such purposely undertaken explicationâ— the Christian faith that we cannot imagine sucâ— multitude of necessary points would have been oâ—ted 2. And though the Pastors of the present â— have equal Authority in Ruling their Congregatioâ— with those of the second yet they cannot give â— sure an account what was the doctrine and pracâ— of the former Ages nor any way prove it to us â— by producing such records The Papists themselves are so far from denyâ— that the Ancient Fathers and Churches did hold â— Positive part of our Religion that they hold it theâ—selves For they themselves profess to believe â—â— book of holy Scripture that we do They say â— believe the Creed called the Apostles and the â—cene and Constantinopolitane Creed and that of â—â—thanasius and so do we still taking the holy Scâ—pture onely for our Rule so that their own tongâ— â—ust confess the Antiquity and Universality and â—ccession of our Religion For this is ours But all that they have to obâ—ject is this That we â—n name no Churches or Fathers that held our Negatives To which I say 1. The Negatives at least for the most part of them if not all are â—e meer consequences of the Affirmatives and Posiâ—ves and implyed or plainly included in them For â—xample when our Religion saith Thou shalt worâ—ip the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve â—is includeth the Negative Thou shalt â—ot worship or serve Saints Angels or â—ny other save only by a service and honour duely â—bservient to the service and worship of God and â—herefore that we give not Divine worship to the â—onsecrated host or the Virgin Mary or to any â—ther meer creature Our Religion teacheth us to â—o all things to edifying 1 Cor. 14.26 This includâ—th the negatives that we must not worship God in â—n unknown tongue or unedifying manner bleating â—nd bellowing out our prayers in hideous or ridicuâ—ous tones Our Religion maketh it the Ministerial Commission to teach the Nations and Baptize Mat. 28.19 20. This includeth the Negative that women or lay men should not so teach that is as Commissioned officers nor baptize This affirmative Peter was sent to Disâ—iple Nations includeth this Negative Peter was not sent to be the fixed Bishop of Rome and there â—o reside This affirmative The Apostles are the Foundation of the Church includeth this negative â— Peter alone is not the Foundation of the Church This Affirmative It is bread and wine which we take â—nd eat and drink in the Eucharist containeth or implyeth the Negative that It is not Christs flesh and blood which the bread and wine is transubstantiatâ—â— into I might thus instance in many more Our Nâ—gatives are contained or implyâ—â— in our Affirmatives which yoâ— hold or confess your selves 2. I answer further that we have express negatives also both in Scriptures and Fathers in the main points of difference between us and the Papists We have a plain Thou shalt not make to thy self any Graven Image c. Thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them c. We have a plaine Iâ— the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding that I might teach others also theâ— ten thousand words in a tongue unknown 1 Cor. 14.19 We have a plain See thou do it not for I am thy fellow servant Rev. 22.9 And so of the chief differences through the rest 3. If we had but this one point proved that the holy Scripture is a sufficient Rule of Faith it fully warranteth all our Negatives wherein we differ from the Papists For to Believe all that is in Scripture and
that this is sufficient will surely warrant as to exclude their additions And we have oft proved that the first ages did maintain the Scripture sufficiency This one answer doth fully justifie us against this câ—vil of the Papists The Ancient Church and Fathers believed the Scripture and the sufficiency of that Scripture as containing all points of faith And so do we And so all Popish faith is excluded Though we â—onfess many Ceremonies and points of order â—ere then admitted as from the Church 4. Negatives became necessary to be expresly asâ—erted by occasion of Heresies And therefore who â—an wonder if many of them are never mentioned till â—hose heresies did call them out When there was â—o man so impudent as to say that The Pope of â—ome is the Universal Bishop and Governor of the whole Church or that God must be worshipped in â—n unknown tongue or that Images must be worâ—hipped who could expect that the Church should have occasion in words to express it as a part of their faith that The Pope is not the universal Bishop not infallible c. and so of the rest If Popery had risen sooner it had sooner been contradicted 5. There may be an hundred Negatives made necessary hereafter by heresies which it is not necessary now to put into our Creed or confessions because they are not yet sufficiently contained or implyed in the contrary Affirmatives If Hereticks arise that say that man hath seven souls that the soul returns to be Gods Essence and was so eternally that there are fourteen Sacraments that Infants must take Orders with a hundred the like then it might be necessary for us expresly to deny these and shall they then tell us that our Religion is new and theirs old because we cannot prove that any did before deny theirs So what if we could not prove that any before had said The Pope is not the Universal Governor that is because there was none so shamless for six hundred years as to say he was Whose Religion then is proved new by this ours or theirs But I shall say somewhat more to this anon in the end Obj. 3. That Religion which cannot be known 〈◊〉 having no certain test to discern it by can be no saâ—â— way to salvation But such is the Reformed Religion therefore c. The Minor is proved If they have any such test either it is Scripture or soâ—â— confessions of their own But neither of these therefore not Scripture For that is appealed to by many Religions and therefore can be no proper Test to discerne one of them from the rest Besides it knows not so much as the name of the Reforâ—â—â— Protestant Religion Not any confession for they have no one which they agree in but one disclaimeth what another owneth And they have none agreed on by a General Councel or by all themselves Ans 1. The Test of our Religion is the holy Scripture This we profess joyntly to be the Rule of our faith and life To this we still Appeal If we misunderstand it in any point we implicitely renounce all such eâ—rors because we explicitely in general renounce all that is contrary to the Scripture This may be the true Test of our Religion though others falsly preâ—end that theirs is more agreeable to it Many things may be tryed by the same Touchstone and weighed by the same ballance whereof some may be currant and others unfound or light May not the Law of the Land be the true Rule of our obedience to our Governors though in the Rebellious or disobedient should pretend to be Ruled by the same Laws 2. They are not all distinct Religions which the Papists call so Many appeal to the same Scriptures who agree in the maine concerning the sence and disagree onely in some inferior things These are not several Religions 3. Our confessions do shew how we understand the Scripture wherein we agree in the main as the Harmony of Confessions testifieth though in some lesser things we differ Obj. 4. They that have causlesly separated from all the Churches in the world are not of the true Religion nor in a safe way to Salvation But so have the Protestants done for they are divided both from Romane Church the Greeks Abassines Armenians and all therefore they are not in a safe way Ans It s one thing to withdraw from some corruption of a Church and another to withdraw from the Church 1. We that are now living did not withdraw from Rome or any of the rest for we were never among you or under you 2. Our Fathers withdrew not from the Church as Christian or Catholike but from the particular corruptions of the Romane faction in Doctrine Discipline and Worship rejecting their lately usurped Tyranny by which they would have still obliged them to sin against God As we are commanded to withdraw from each particular Brother that walketh disorderly so must we from a particular Church when they will be so disordered as to Tyrannize over the universal 3. The Church of Rome rejected us by a causeless excommunication who were not de jure under her power 4. We still profess our selves of the same Church with the Greeks Abassines Arminians Copties and all others on earth that hold the Scriptures and that so hold the Anticent Creeds or fundamentals of Christianity as that they do not evidently subvert it again by contradictory Errors If they hold no Errors but what may consist with a true belief of the Fundamentals in the same persons though by an unseen consequence they may contradict them we seperate not from that Church so as to disclaim it from being a true Church And therefore it s not true that we so separate from all the world but as to the Local Personal Communion or presence we dare not joyn with the truest Church in the least known sin But in that respect we cannot be said to separate from the Greeks or Abassines that we have no opportunity of Local Communion with While all men are imperfect one may see that Error which another seeth not and to separate meerly from a sin of one man or a Church is not simply to separate from the man or Church Obj. 5. That Religion which hath no unity in it self or consistency but is broken into many Sects and still running further is no safe way to salvation But such is the Protestant Religion therefore Answ We deny the Minor Our Religion is one simply one and most consistent and having one sure standing Rule not subject to changes as yours is even the word of God himself The same Rule that the first Churches had and the same Test by which the Christian Religion was known of old when the Belief of the Scripture and particularly the Ancient Creeds and the actual Communion with the true Church was the test of a Catholike the one in Doctrine the other in Communion as freeing him from Schismes We believe all the same Articles and we divide not from the
Catholick Church If any depart from Scripcures as to the sence in points absolutely necessary they cease to be of our Religion If any depart from it in lesser things they may yet be of the same Religion with us but so far we disown them if we know it Popery hath no sure test or means to prevent mutation But we have in that we fix on the Immutable Rock If Anabaptists Separatists or any erroneous persons live among us so far as they hold those errors so far they are none of us And if any err whom we dare not reject we yet reject their errors and take them for no part of our Religion And if this Argument hold it will much more condemne the Romanists who have more diversity of opinions and wayes among them then the Protestants as may in due place be shewed Obj. 6. That is not the true Religion nor a safe way to Heaven which men can have no Infallible certainty of But the Protestant Religion is such For they all profess their Church to be fallible Answ We must distinguish between a man that May be deceived and a man that Is deceived And between Infallibility in the Object and in the Subject or Intellect And between Infallibility in the absolutely necessary points and in some Inferior smaller matters And so I Ans 1. The Rule of our Religion viz. the word of God is Infallible yea the onely Infallible Rule of Religion and therefore we have an Infallible and the onely Infallible Religion 2. The weakness of the Recipient must be differenced from the Religion which hath no such weakness There is still the certainty and Infallibility of the Object when the believer through his own weakness may be uncertain 3. No man is Falsus actually deceived while he believes that doctrine of our Religion that is the holy Scripture And this we are certain of 4. No Christian in sensu composito nor no Church is fallible or can err in the Fundamentals or points absolutely necessary For if he do so he ceaseth to be a Christian and that to be a Church 5. In sensu diviso he that was a common believer may Apostatize from the faith and so may a particular Church and therefore is fallible but is not as is said Deceived till it turn from the Infallible truth 6. The best man or Church on earth doth know but in part and therefore erreth in part and therfore is fallible in part or in lower things So that it is not the least proof of the fallibility of Scripture or the Reformed Religion that men may Apostatize from it or that they may stagger in Believing an Infallible Truth or that we are fallible in lesser things All true Believers are actually Infalliblly perswaded of the Truth of Gods Word and particularly of all things absolutely necessary Obj. 7. That Religion is not true nor a safe way to heaven which wanteth many Articles of faith But the Protestant Religion wanteth many Articles of faith Therefore Answ 1. We must distinguish of our Religion as it is in the Professed Rule and as it is Impressed in the mindes of men In the former respect we say that our Religion wanteth no Article of faith for Gods perfect Word is our Religion But in the minds of men Religion is more or less imperfect according to the strength or weakness of mens faith 2. We must distinguish between true Articles of Faith and false ones made by the Church of Rome We are without the latter but want them not but we expect that they who call them Articles of faith do prove them so Obj. 8. Your Religion is unsafe by your own Testimony You condemne one another the Lutheran condemneth the Calvinist as Blasphemous impious and damnable the Calvinists condemne the Lutherans the Anabaptists both and every sect is condemned by others Therefore Ans 1. The Churches confessions pass no such condemnation nor any moderate sober men 2. If two children fall out call one another Bastard they are never the more Bastards for that nor will the father therefore call them so else what will become of your Jesuites and Dominicans Obj. 9. The very name of Lutherans Calvinists Protestants do plainly express a Sect or party different from the Name Catholike which denoteth the true Church which only holds the true Religion And the very name Reformed is novel and no proper title of the Catholike Church but onely a cloak for your Schisme which discloseth the novelty of your Church and way Answ 1. And of how much better signification think you is the name Papist or Romanist You call your selves Catholikes and we call our selves Catholikes You scornfully call us Lutherans and Calvinists which are names that we disclaime and then argue from your own imposed names Would you have us do so by you And as for the names of Protestants and Reformed we use them not to express the Essential nature of our Religion but the Accidental Removal of your Corruptions So that though Scripture or Antiquity talke not of A Protestant or Reformed Religion by name yet it commendeth to us that same Religion which we now call Protestant 〈◊〉 Reformed but then it could not so be called because you had not then hatched your corruptions and deformities which are presupposed to our Reformation The man that fell among thieves when his wounds were healed was a Cured man whereas before he was not a cured man because not a wounded man And yet he was the same man as before and the Theeves â—hat wounded him would have made but a foolish â—lea if they would have dispossessed him of his Inâ—eritance on pretence that he is not the same man and have proved him not the same because he hath â—ot the same name it being not a Cured man that owned that inheritance before Obj. 10. Where the Catholike Church is there the Catholike Religion is and no where else But the Catholike Church is not with you but with us For you found us in Possession of the name and thing and then departed from us as Hereticks in former ages did from the Church Therefore it is not you but we that have the true Catholike Religion which is the onely safe way to salvation Answ 1. The Church must be known to be true and Catholike by the Religion which it owneth and not the Religion by the Church You begin at the wrong end As if I would prove such a thing to be a Vertue because it is in such a man as I esteem when I should rather prove him to be honest and Virtuous because that which is first proved honesty Vertue dwelleth in him 2. Did we not find the Greek Ethiopian and other Churches in possession of the name of the Catholike Church as well as you Yet you would dispossess them 3. We found you in Possession of All in your own account and all is yours if your selves must be Judges But in the account of the Greek Abassine and other Churches
of Scripture but take them and Church customes and constitutions to be onely for matters of order and determination of such circumstances as it belonged not to the perfection of Gods Laws to determine but were to be left to the wisdom of Governors the Scriptures containing sufficient for salvation They believe with the Protestants that Justification is not by the Merit of works And that it is impossible for us properly to Merit ex condigno the least mercy much less the Kingdom of Heaven at the hands of God They have but one order of Monkes viz. of St Basil and those not such as the Papists that live a private unprofitable droanish life but their Monasteries are as Colledges to fit them for the service of God in the Church and thence they oft proceed to be Priests and Prelates They take your Pope to be condemnable for his pride cruelty and presumption his pride for pretending to an universal jurisdiction and usurping a power to depose Princes and dispose of their Crowns his cruelty in persecuting other Christians for their differing judgements and his presumption in granting pardons and deliverances from Purgatory In a word they take the Papists for Schismaticks and aâ—cordingly condemne them with a solemne condemnation The Muscovites and Russians admit not Priests or Deacons to Ordination unless they be marryed and they refuse to communicate with the Romane Church The Egyptian Christians allow not of Baptisme in any necessity whatsoever but onely by the Priest and in the Church and administer the Sacrament of the Eucharist in both kinds they give not the Lords Supper or extream unction to the sick They deny Purgatory and prayer for the dead They marry in the second degree of consanguinity without dispensations They elevate not the host They reject all the general Councels after that of Ephesus They repute the Papists to be Hereticks and avoid their communion no less then of the Jews Most of these â—lso is common to the Abassines who also admit Marriages of Priests and Bishops and eat flesh on Fridayes communicate standing in both kinds Are all these nothing What no one difference with this Popish Veridicus I will not desire him to take my word for all this because I will not take his for the contrary nor will I turn him to any Protestant for satisfaction unless he will better use that one which himself citeth Sands Relation of the West Relig. or Europae Specul p. 234. c. But I may with reason intreat him to believe his own brethren the Papists and the Greeks themselves And in some of them he may see many more differences then I have here named For example in their Possevin de Rebus Moscov at large See also Concil Florent Sess 18. Jerem. Patriarch Const in Resp 1. ad Germ. Zonar Annâ—l Tâ—m 3. in Imper. Leo. Nilus de Primat Papae â—aâ—lam de Primatu Papae figebert in Chron. ad 〈◊〉 1054. Leo Epist ad Episcop Constant Jacob â— Vitriaco histor Orient Sigism de Rebus Muscâ— Guagu descript Muscov Saecram de Errorib â—â—theâ— Boleri Relat. Thom. a Jes Conver. Gent. Gâ—iliel de Rubri Itiner Tartar Oforius de Reb. Emanuel Saligniac Itiner Alphons a Castro contr Haeres Damian a Goes Prateol de Haerefib Alvarez histâ—r Ethiop which yet have much falshood Guiâ— sumâ— de Haerefib Burchardus Descript teâ—â— Sanct. If our confuter cannot have leisure to read all these let him onely read Thom. a Jes Possevin deâ—eb Moscov Apparat. Sacra and see to his shame what his own friends say against his falshoods And that all these Christians are as considerable as all the Papists in the world far over matching them for number is apparent Much more when we adde to the Grecians and Moscovites and Copti's all the Syrians the Georgians the Indians of Saint Thomas the Abassines the Nestorians the Jacobits the Armenians and the Maronites and to them as Protestants where then is the Papists Universality and how few are they comparatively and how plainly do they play the Donatists but that it is on a far worse ground The Patriarch of Constantinople alone hath under him in Asia as Brierwood noteth the Christians of Natolia excepting Armenia the less and Cilicia of Circassia of Mengrelia and of Russia And in Europe also the Christians of Greece Macedon Epirus Thrace Bulgaria Rascia Sextia Bosnia Walachia Moldavia Podolia and Muscovia till lately together with all the Islands of the Aegean Sea and others about Greece as far as Corfu with much more And as is noted in Curopalat de Offic. Palas Constant Offic Mag. Eccl. he hath under him The Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia 2. Ephesus 3. Heraclea 4. Ancyra 5. Cizicum 6. Sardis 7 Nicomedia 8. Nice 9. Calcedon 10. Mitylene 11. Thessalonica 12. Laodicea 13. Synadae 14. Iconium 15. Corinth 16. Athens 17. Patrae 18. Trapezuntium 19. Larissae 20 Naupactus 21. Adrianopolis These are all Archbishops and have many Bishops under them viz. Of Muscovy 17. of Larissae 13. of Athens 11. of Corinth 10. of Tessalonica 9. c. And if these be under the Patriarch of Constantinople alone how great a number are all the rest in the great Empire of the Abassines and elsewhere through the rest of the Christian world I do not mention all these to intimate either that multitudes prove them or any to have the best cause if we were in all things of their mindes or as if I preferred them for Arts and Civil Policy to the Romanes but to shew both the haniousness of the Popish Schisme that would unchurch so many and the cruelty of their censures that would damne so many and the Impudency of their pretence of Universality and their vaine boasting of All the Church when they are so small a part of the Church and more bad then small But we have been too long on this let us come to the confuters next untruth and that is That the Grecians c. do in no one point agree with Protestants as such what hath been said doth sufficiently shame that fiction But he instanceth in our differences And 1. he saith The Grecians hold one supreme head of the whole Church under Christ Repl. An immodest fiction to uphold a cause that 's like it 2. He saith The Grecians hold the Real presence of our Saviours body and blood in the Eucharist Repl. not Transubstantiation which they deny The But Protestants do hold some kind of Reall presence 3. He saith The Grecians defend the necessity of Baptisme to salvation and that Original sin is remitted thereby Repl. And the Protestants hold it necessary necessitate praecepti and as an ordinary means where it can be had And neither the Greeks nor all your own dare damne all Infants that dye before Baptisme when it could not be had but you say that the Votum may serve turne And also Protestants hold that if the Infants be within the Covenant as it pardoneth their Original sin primarily so
or the greater part of them are true Bishops and lawfully called If as Bellarmine saith de Concil l. 2. c. 9. That the contrary be not manifest be enough then mans error can make Gods promise of Infallibility belong to those that it was never made to or else God hath promised infallibility to all that may be Popes or Bishops for ought we know and then it belongs not to the Pope and Bishops but to all that seem such 25. Yea that all those Bishops or most descend by uninterrupted succession from the Apostles which is made necessary If they plead onely the Bishop of Romes succession to warrant all the rest before the forementioned particulars be well answered it will appear that Romes succession hath been frequently interrupted 26. How shall men at a distance be sure that the Councils are indeed confirmed by the Pope 27. How shall we be sure when all is done that we have the right sence of the Canons or Decrees of such Councils when they speak as ambiguously as the Scripture and the Papists think they can have no certainty of the right sence of that without a living judge And if there be a living judge still of the sence of Councils either he is as infallible as they or not If not then he cannot make us infallibly certain by his Authoritative determination If he be then what need of a Council when he is infallible alone 28. When several Popes and Councils contradict one another how shall we know which of them to believe And this is no rare matter among them 29. When the Pope and Council contradict each other how shall the people know which is infallible 30. When both Pope and Council contradict the express Scripture must we take them for infallible and believe that Scripture only on their words These or most of these must be known by all Christians before they can believe the Articles of their Creed or that Scripture is Gods word according to the Romish grounds When as it is impossible for any man to know them as true they being either false or not evident and demonstrable So that it s now apparent that according to the Popish grounds the People can have no certainty of the truth of their Religion and that they shake the foundation of Christianity it self 2. And lastly not onely so but they build on a foundation certainly false that is the Popes infallibility or a Councils as I shall prove in the next dispute where their fallibility will be further manifested Arg. 3. If the Papists are not agreed among themselves either Clergy or Laity about the very fundamentals of their faith or matters which they make of necessity to salvation then Popery is no safe way to salvation But the Antecedent is true Therefore c. We need to go no further for the proof of the Antecedent then to what is said already They commonly maintain that we must receive our faith and the Scriptures upon the Authority of the infallible Church and they are not yet agreed among themselves nor ever like to be what that infallible Church is And the difference is not with a few inconsiderable dissenters but in their main body The Papists of France maintain that it is a General Council that is infallible and that the Pope is fallible The Italians maintain that a General Council is fallible and the Pope is infallible Some others think that both of them are fallible separated but both infallible when they concur And some think that they are both infallible though separated If the Church be the foundation and all must be received upon its infallible authority then no man can be saved that knows not which this infallible Church is either therefore the French or Italians one part or the other of them do erre in their very fundamentals when one saith This is the subject of infallibility and the other say This is it And if a Pope or General Councel differ to whom must the people hearken One part of them saith that the Pope is above the Council and others of them say the Council is above the Pope and of this mind have been General Councils themselves as the Council of Basil and Constance and of this mind Bellarmine names Cardinal Cameracensis Cardinal Cusanus Joh. Gerson Iac. Almain Card. Florentin Panormitan c. What a strange impudency then is it of these men to make the silly deluded people among us believe that they are all of one mind and it s we that are divided when as they are never likely to agree in their very principles and great fundamental Who it is that is the infallible Judge And till men know Who it is what the better are they know that such a judge there is seeing that the species existeth only in the individual and no man can believe him or apply himself to him as the infallible judge till he know that it is he indeed that is such Seeing then according to their own principles either the French Papists or the Italian and Spanish Papists must be in the way to damnation how shall we know which it is and which to joyn our selves to with any safety Were it not for weakening the Popes interest they would burn the French Papists as Hereticks as well as us Arg. 4. If Popery be a new devised way to heaven such as the Apostles never knew nor the Church after them for many a hundred year in the main parts of Popery then is it no safe way to salvation But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the consequent The consequence they will not deny that which the Apostles the Primitive Churches went in is only the safe way to heaven for there are not many safe ways But that which the Papists as Papists go in is not that which the Apostles and Primitive Church went in therefore it is not the safe way And that the Apostles and first Churches knew not Popery but it is a new Religion or new corruption of Religion appeareth by comparing the particular points with Scripture and Antiquity For Scripture which is the truest Antiquity it may give any indifferent man just cause of suspicion that the Papists do so obstinately refuse to be tryed by it which plainly shewes that they take it not to be on their side And for the Councils and Fathers for the first three hundred years or much more they ordinarily scorn us for mentioning them to this end because they say they wrote not of the points now in controversie and therefore are unfit to determine them But did not those ages take up their faith on the same grounds as we should do now And can they be all silent about the onely ground of faith If the Pope of Romes infallible authority had been the ground would they not have told us so How could they convert the infidels and confirm believers without acquainting them with the grounds of their Faith And what they took for the grounds their writings
the Apostles The third is That which is kept in the universal Church and through all times past is deservedly judged to have been instituted by the Apostles though it be such a thing as the Church might institute The fourth is When all the Doctors of the Church do with one consent teach that such a thing descended by Apostolical Tradition either Congregate in a General Councel or writing it apart in books this is to be believed to be an Apostolike Tradition The fifth Rule is this That is without doubt to be believed to descend from Apostolical Tradition which is held for such in those Churches where the succession from the Apostles is entire and continued These are Bellarmines five Rules But 1. What the particular Apostolical Traditions are which are Gods Word according to these Rules he had more wit or less honesty then to let us understand Is it because the word of God is indeed yet unknown or cannot be known or because it is not fit to make it known or because the Pope must pretend to the keeping of these hidden Laws that so the world may receive them at his mouth 2. And I would fain know whether these Rules of Bellarmines to know the unwritten word by are themselves the Word of God or not If they be are they written or unwritten and how known to be so If not then it seems we may have Rules and means which are not the word of God by which we may infallibly know which is the true word of God And then there needs no unwritten word to deliver or prove the written word 3. And why may not another Doctor by these Rules know the unwritten word as well as the Pope and another Church as well as the Romane 4. And why may not the Christian people through the world procure from some one charitable Pope through so many hundred years a Catalogue of those unwritten verities that the word of God may be once commonly known and men may know when they have all without uncertain dependencies on the Pope or travailing in vain to Rome to know 5. And for those few that Bellarmine hath instanced in viz. The perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary The Baptisme of Infants the validity of Hereticks Baptism the fast of Lent the inferior orders of the Clergy the veneration of Images To the first I say It is no Article of Divine Faith but of humane Ecclesiastical The second is proved fully out of Scripture And so is the third if you take it of such Hereticks in a larger sence as expresly exclude nothing essential to baptism but expresly include it all But for the rest Bellarmine should remember how elswhere he defendeth the Council that required the rebaptizing of those that were baptized by the Paulinists because they were Anti-trinitarians For Lent I say no more can be proved of it but onely that it is an ancient Ecclesiastical constitution And the inferior orders are apparently novelties introduced after the first age if not the second too and not mentioned in any of the first writers but the sum of Church Officers enumerated without them Much more novel is the unlawful use of Images in Churches or as immediate instruments to excite devotion in prayer and for other lawful use we deny it not 6. But principally I would intreat Bellarmine and the Pope that hereafter they would obtrude no unwritten word upon us but what is proved to be such at least by his own Rules Let us have some proof that it proceedeth from the universal Church and not their naked word without evidences And then we must intreat them to be so honest as not to unchurch the Greeks Abassines Armenians Protestants and all the Christians in the world except Romanists that so they may be the whole Catholike Church and then prove any thing to be the word of God by their own Testimony alone Nor yet to perswade us that such a Council as theirs at Trent conteined the whole Catholike Church real or representative nor yet to bring us two or three Fathers and say that those were all the Doctors of the Church More particularly I answer to his Rules in order To the first I say 1. That prove if you can that ever the whole Church embraced any thing as a point of Divine faith which is not contained in the Written Word 2. If the whole Church embrace it then it is no secret and therefore we all may know it yea and actually do know it as well as the Pope To the second Rule I say You may prove a mistaken observance of rites by the greater part of the Church but prove that the whole Church kept any thing unwritten which none could constitute but God But if they did still it must needs be known to all and therefore not controvertible or lockt up in the Popes closet Prove also that the universal Church may not erre in some lesser matters about Christs supposed constitutions To the third I say If by all times past you include the Apostles then we grant your Rule but meer Ecclesiastical Canons may be observed through all times shortly after the Apostles and yet not as Apostolical but Ecclesiastical Yet when you come to try your Traditions by this Rule I am not out of doubt that you will but disgrace them and fail your Readers just expectations To the fourth I say 1. I will believe you if you speak of all the Doctors of the Church next to the Apostles or so neer as that the danger of mistaking was not great 2. But I do not believe that you will find any of your Traditions asserted to be Gods Word by all the Doctors of the Church not neer all in any one age unless you make your faction to be all The last Rule is but a meer trick of wit to get the key into the Popes hand alone To which I say 1. A Church that hath had an interrupted succession of true Pastors from the Apostles may fall into many errors in process of time which in Tertullians and Irenaeus dayes when the memory of all the Apostles practices were so fresh they could not fall into so easily 2. Those Churches have received their unwritten verities either by writings from their predecessors or without If by writings why cannot others find it there as well as they If without it must be an uncertain and mutable means or by a means so publike still that all as well as they may know of it 3. And we undertake to prove that the succession of true Pastors of the Romish See hath been long ago and often interrupted And therefore this Rule will not serve your turns But though I have been long upon this principle of the Papists to prove the uncertainty of their faith yet the next is the chief that I intended which also proveth the mutability of it 2. The Papists ordinarily hold that as to us that is Gods Word which the Pope with his Clergy say is Gods Word
and so to eat of this Bread and Drink of this Cup Alas they know all this they cannot but know it and yet they will contradict the express word of God God saith Drink ye all of it and Let a man examine himself and so drink The Pope saith Let none of the people drink of it but the Clergy only What is this but to abrogate Gods Laws and set up the Popes above and against it Yea unless it were to shew the world their Power to contradict Christ and destroy his word who can imagine what should move them to this attempt If there were any temptation of profit or honor in the business as there is in the maintaing of the Popes supremacy Purgatory Indulgences Pardons c. we should not wonder at it But what profit or honor or pleasure is it thus to contradict Christ and for them that adde such a multitude of their own Ceremonies to affect so to cut off one half of the Sacramental Rite and matter which Christ ordained Nay thirdly Do not these men know that the Bread and Cup were both given to the people by the Primitive Church and that it so continued for many hundred years and that their alteration is a meer novelty Yes they know all this For the matter is so far past doubt that they cannot but know it And yet these deceivers would make the people believe that they are of the old Religion and our Region is new These are they that cry out against our casting off Apostolical Traditions and the Churches constitutions and customs and going in new wayes which our forefathers knew not These are they that make it a mark of an Apostolical Tradition that the whole Church hath received it and that as from the Apostles And yet these men dare cast off not onely that which they know the whole primitive Church received and practised as from the Apostles as Justin Martyr Tertullian and all antiquity profess but also is expresly contained in the Scripture With what face can these that exclaim against novelty introduce such a palpable novelty into the Church with what face can they that so cry up antiquity gainsay all antiqiuty and they that cry up the whole Churches consent so go against the consent of the whole Church for so many Ages after the Apostles They dare not deny but this part of Popery is utterly New against the constant practice and Canons of all Churches The third point which I shall instance in is Their performing Gods publike service in Latine and forbidding the people to read the Scriptures in their known vulgar Tongue when as the Apostle Paul hath written the greatest part of a whole Chapter 1 Cor. 14. expresly against this opinion and practice and for using of a known tongue that others may understand and be edified The evasions by which they would elude that part of Scripture are so senceless that I think it not necessary to recite them but rather suppose that they need no other confutation than the bare considerate reading of the Text and therefore I shall venture the Reader if he have common capacity and impartiality and be but willing to know the truth upon any thing that the Papists shall be able to say for their Latine Service and locking up the Scriptures so be it he will but read that Chapter considerately And are not these good Teachers in Christs School that will lock up the Grammar from their Schollars when it is the very office of the Presbyters to teach it the people And to hide from them that word of the living God which he hath given the world to be their Directory to salvation The Prophets and Christ and the Apostles did speak and write this word in a knowâ— tongue to the people to whom they did immediately direct it And must All hear and read it then and onely the Learned now Are not these the men that take away the Key of knowledge and will neither enter in themselves nor suffer others to enter They do expresly contradict the Commands of God and bid the people not read the Scripture when God hath charged them to write it on the very posts of their houses and on their doors and that it be as a frontlet between their eyes and that they teach it their children speaking of it lying down and rising up at home and abroad Deut. 6 11. God makes it the mark of the Blessed man Psal 1.2 3. To meditate day and night in his Law as making it his delight and the Papists commonly maintain in their writings that to have the Scripture in the vulgar tongue is the root of all heresies God maketh the study of his word the duty and mark of all his Disciples and the Papists make it the mark of a Heretick and have burned many a one for it here in Queen Maries dayes and tormented and burnt many by their bloody inquisition for it abroad The very Pharisees thought that their vulgar were cursed that knew not the Law and the Papists will not let it be made known to them lest it make them accursed God saith To the Law and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Isa 8.20 The Papists cry out precul hinc away let it alone meddle not with it it will make you Hereticks And indeed they have had large experience that the way which they call heresie and contradicteth their impieties is most effectually promoted by the word of God and therefore they think they have some reason to speak against it Saint John saith These things are written that ye might believe and that believing yee might have life throagh his name Joh. 20.31 The Papists say Read not these holy writings lest they destroy your faith and bring you to damnation When the man Luk. 10.26 asketh Christ What shall I do to inherit eternal life Christ answereth him thus What is written in the Law how readest thou directing to the course which the Papists do forbid The Apostle saith that Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our Learning that we through patience and comfort of the Scripture might have hope Rom. 15.4 But the Papists will not have men learn that which was written for their Learning Comfort and Hope Johâ— wrote to fathers young men and children 1 John 2.12 13 14. Gods anger against the Jews was that He had written to them the great or wonderful things of his Law and they had accounted them as strange things Hos 8.12 And the Papists will force people to be strange to these writings Yet how familiar comparatively they were to the vulgar Jews and their very children â—s known and acknowledged Is it not a high advancement of the Gospel Church above the legal Jewish Church which the Papists do vouchsafe it That we may not have the same liberty or means of knowledge as the very children of the Jews had Their children must be taught
being the fountain of all darkness or at least the cause of mens wandrings Onely where they cannot help it or as Stapleton saith where Heresies are most common there they will permit or connive at it for their own ends For Necessity hath no Law I conclude therefore and confidently conclude that Popery is not a safe way to heaven because it doth 1. both vilifie Gods Scriptures as an insufficient Rule and but part of his word And 2. presumeth to alter its most express institutions as the Cup in the Lords Supper And 3. expresly contradict it in forbidding the Prayers of the Church to be in a known tongue 4. And forbid the publike reading of Scripture in a known tongue 5 And forbid the translating of Scripture and the reading of such translations even by any private man unless he have the Ordinaries Licence which he may get in those Countries where there is no remedy The Kingdome of the Devil is called in Scripture the Kingdom of darkness and Christs Kingdom is called a Kingdom of light and when ever God converteth a sinner he translateth him from the Power of Darkness into his marvellous light even into the Kingdom of his dear Son Act. 26.18 Col. 1.13 1 Pet. 2.9 And God is the father of lights Jam. 1.17 And Satan is the Prince of the powers of darkness Luk 22 53. Rev 16.10 And Christ hath told us that he that walketh in darkness stumbleth and knoweth not whither he goeth Joh. 12.35 46. And that every one that doth evil hateth the light neither cometh to the light lest his deeds should be reproved but he that doth truâ—â— cometh to the light that his deeds may be made manifest that they are wrought in God Joh. 3.21 The Papists therefore give us reason to think they have not the truth were it but in this enmity which they bear unto the Light Arg. 9. That doctrine which teacheth men to worship the creature with Divine worship is no safe way to salvation But Popery teacheth men to worship the creature with Divine worship Therefore it is no safe way to salvation The Major will not be denyed by Papists The Minor I prove by one instance onely at this time and that is their worshiping of the consecrated Host or Bread in their Mass and at other times He that worshipeth the consecrated Bread with Divine worâ—hip doth worship the creature with Divine worship But the Papists worship the consecrated Bread with Divine worship therefore They deny the Major and tell us that it is no longer Bread but the Body of Christ But that they worship that thing which we call Bread and they call Christs Body with Divine worship they do not deny Onely some would excuse them from the guilt of Idolatry which is a worshiping the creature instead of the Creator by this because they think it is Christ that they worship and so interpretatively it is he in deed and the worship right But if they will think that to be Christ which is not Christ and then worship it that will not excuse them from being some kind of Idolaters What if they will think a Ranter or Quaker to be Christ who call themselves Christ are they therefore excusable if they worship them Then why might not the old Pagan Idolaters be justified or thus excused seeing they thought that the Sun and Moon had been Gods And when they worshiped an Image they thought that some Deity had affixed this special presence to that Image What if an Egyptian thought that an Oxe was God or that a Deity did dwell in him were they therefore no Idolaters And then how hainously God taketh the sin of Idolatry the Scripture fully witnesseth That which we have to do therefore is onely to enquire whether indeed it be bread or Christs body a creature or the Creator which they worship Concerning which there is so much said by Doctor Featly against Fisher and by Peter Martyr against Smith and elswhere and by Jewel Foxe and abundance more that if people would read it I should think it vain to say any more I shall onely annex â—hese Reasons very briefly which come first to my thoughts to prove that the Bread is not turned into the very body of Christ but remaineth Bread still 1. If the Bread were Christs real Body then Christ had two real bodies for he had one sitting at the table which delivered the Bread and if the Bread were another he had two or else the body that Christ sate and lived with was not a whole body but a part But Christ had but one body and that was entire 2. It would follow also that Christ had a living and a dead body a sensible and insensible body both at once 3. It would follow that the Apostles did tear Christ true flesh and draw out his blood as well as the Jews did 4. Yea and that they began to the Jews and did it before them And therefore why should the Jews act and theirs be so much differenced 5. It will follow that either Christ had one body torne by the Jews and another by the Disciples or else that one part of his body onely was crucified and not the whole for the other part was eaten and drunk by the Disciples before 6. Also either Christ had one body that did Rise again and another that never rose or else it was but one part of Christs body that rose from the dead for the other part was eaten and drunke before 7. The like may be said of his ascension Then it is not Christs whole body that ascended up into heaven for part of it was eaten before by the Disciples and digested by them 8. It will follow that Christs glorified body is corruptible and may be digested by a mans stomacke and turned into dung For so is that which is eaten 9. It will follow also that Christs body may become an integral part of our very natural bodyes and so his body is become sinful as being a natural part of a sinner for the Bread and Wine do nourish us and turn into our substance 10. Yea it followeth that Christ doth thus turn into the substance of every child of the Devil that eateth the consecrated Bread and drinketh the Wine For they certainly nourish him and turn into his substance A most horrid consequent For what communion hath Christ with Belial 11. Nay which is in some respect more horrid and abominable to imagine it will follow that the Glorified body of Christ may turn into the substance of a mouse or a Dog for if they eat it the bread will certainly nourish them and become their substance 12. It will follow that either Christ hath an insensible body or else men hurt him by eating him in the Eucharist 13. It followeth that Christ hath as many thousand bodies as there be consecrated hosts or else that by continuation of parts it is every where and filleth all the world which the Papists disavow 14. It followeth
that Christs body admitteth of augmentation and either daily or weekly receiveth new made parts or else that he hath new bodies made daily 15. Also it followeth that a creature either the Baker or the Priest may make God or make his Saviour at least instrumentally which is a horrid imagination 16. It followeth that either Christs body hath the accidents of colour taste dimension c. which are there sensible or else that those Accidents have no subject which is a contradiction 17. It followeth also that Christ hath not indeed a true humane body if it be such as is before implyed 18. And it followeth that the body of Christ is part of it condemned hated of God and tormented by the Devil Because his body was turned into the bodies of many millions of wicked men which must be so condemned hated and tormented 19. Also it followeth that the Scriptures are not true which tell us that the heavens must receive him in that humane nature which ascended from earth till the times of the restitution of all things Act. 3.21 and that he shall come again to judge the world 20. Lastly it will follow that a man must not trust his sences that though my eyes my smell my taste my feeling tell me that this is Bread and Wine yet they are all deceived and not mine only but all the senses in the world to which they are objected And if that be true 1. What reason have I to trust any Papist living For all my good opinion of him must be ultimately resolved into something that I see or hear of him And it seems I am uncertain whether I see or hear him indeed or not 2. And then how can I tell that I or any man is sure of any thing For if the senses of millions in perfect health may be all deceived in this why not in other things for ought we know 3. And then how can any Papist tell that the Bread is turned into Christs body If he say because the Church or the Scripture saith so How knoweth he that but by hearing or seeing and therefore for ought he knows his senses may be deceived when he thinketh he heareth or readeth such a thing as well as when he thinketh that he seeth feeleth smelleth and tasteth Bread and Wine And is there not need of very strangely cogent evidence now to impell them to believe against the concurrent vote of Scripture sense and reason And what is the ground of their contrary belief Not the Ancient Church unless they willfully or negligently deceive themselves for the stream of antiquity is full against them so full that its hard to believe that any of them that 's verst in antiquity can truly think that antiquity is for them if they have but the common reason of men to understand what they read What is it then that bringeth them to this belief Is it the Scriptures That 's not likely because they make so light of it and swear to take it in the sence of the Church or ancient Doctors in which last they are here and oft most desperately forsworn It must be then upon the Authority of the present Church that is the Pope and his Clergy that they entertain this hard belief That is The Pope and his Clergy believe it because they say it themselves and the rest believe it because the Pope saith it And is it truely possible that any man should have so good a conceit of himself yea or any other think so well of him as to believe unfeignedly so great a thing upon so weak a ground Can the Pope therefore believe it because he doth believe it Or is it not too probable that thousands of them are of that Belief which Melancthon sometime told them of very smartly You Italians saith he Believe Christ is in the Bread before you Believe that there is any Christ in heaven while they pretend to a faith above men that is to believe Impossibilities upon the Popes credit I wish they prove to have the common belief of Christians and that in heart they do not as once one of their Popes did account the Gospel but a commodious fable But let us suppose that indeed it is the word of God that is the ground of their strange belief and that Hoc est Corpus meum This is my body is the very word that doth convince them as some of them do pretend I would here be bold to aske them that say so a Question or two 1. What if the Ancient Church had intecpreted this Text as we do against your Transubstantiation would you then have believed it upon the bare Authority of this Text What need I ask this Your own Oaths and Profession saith No It is not then any evidence in this Text that compelleth your belief And let me adde that if I prove not in a fair debate upon a just call that the ancient Church for many hundred years after Christ was against Transubstantiation I will give all the Papists in England leave to spit in my face for all the high expressions of the Eucharist that some fathers have 2. What is there in those words This is my body that can perswade any sober Christian to their strange belief What is it because that they are properly and not figuratively to be understood And how is that proved Is it because we must not force the Scripture but take it in the plainest obvious sence I easily grant it But who knows not that both in Scripture and in all our common speech the figurative sence is oft the most plain and obvious and the literal the most improbable What three sentences do we use to speak together without some figurative expression I will appeal to any unprejudiced man of reason whether a Christian that should newly read those words of Christ and had never heard them or read them before would not sooner take them in our sence then in the Papists They may easily try this upon a new convert if they please and I dare make their own consciences judge if they have any left to befriend a common truth What is there more in This is my Body being a Sacramental business then for a man that is in a room among many Images to say This is Peter or Paul or this is Augustine or Hierom or Chrysostome And would not any unprejudiced stander by suppose that the most obvious sence of those words is This is the picture of Peter Paul c. Or would a man easily believe that it was the meaning of the speaker that this Picture was the very real flesh and blood of Peter and Paul and all other Pictures that ever should be made after the same exemplar should be so transubstantiated So what is the obvious signification of those words This is my body but This is the Sacrament or Representation of my Body Especially when his real body was distinctly there present and he expresly biddeth them Do this in remembrance of me
that They will never take and interpret the Holy Scriptures but according to the unaniomous consent of the Fathers When as 1. The Fathers do not unanimously consent among themselves concerning the sence of the greatest part of Scripture and so they are sworn to take it in no sence because the fathers are not unanimous 2. He that knows not the unanimous sence of the Fathers where they are unanimous is sworn hereby to take and interpret the Scripture in No sence 3. If by The Church whose sence they also swear to admit be meant the present Romane Church then that Church and the Fathers do differ in the Interpretation of many Scriptures so that in one Article they must needs be forsworn 4. Nay there are divers particulars of the Popish faith yea which in this oath they swear to which are against much more without the unanimous consent of the Fathers The Fathers never consented to this very Article that we must take and interpret the Scripture onely in the unanimous sence of the Fathers They never consented that the Bread and Wine are truely really and substantially the whole Body and Blood of Christ by Transubstantiation Nay the consent of the Fathers is against these And yet these wretches swear not to take and interpret Scripture but in the unanimous sence of the Fathers and withal swear the contrary in particulars even that they believe that which the Fathers never consented to but against Never did the Fathers consent that There are seven truely and properly Sacraments Instituted by Christ Never did the Fathers consent who lived a thousand or fourteen hundred years before that the Council of Trent did not erre or could not erre Nor That in the Mass is offered a true proper propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and dead Nor that the Eucharist may be taken under one kind and the Cup withheld nor That there is a Purgatory or the souls there holpen by the suffrages of the faithful nor that the Saints with Christ are to be prayed to Nor that Images were to be worshiped nor the power of Popish indulgencies left by Christ in the Church and the use of them wholsome Never did the Fathers consent that the Romane Church is the Mistris of all Churches or that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ over them nor that all Christians or Bishops or Pastors should swear true obedience to the Pope as Christs Vicar Let these proud deceivers shew us if they can when the Fathers or any one of the Ancients did ever take any such oath himself or perswade others to it Yea or that they have consented to any one of these Articles of the Romish faith and Trent oath What more evident to any man that hath any acquaintance with the Fathers then that these wretches do here most palpably forswear themselves Even as if they should swear to believe nothing but according to the Ancient Creed and withal swear to believe that Christ never dyed rose or ascended or that there is no resurrection or everlasting life Certainly if the very faith of Papists be contradiction and the profession of it plain perjury then Popery is not a safe way to Salvation I would here have added as the fourteenth Argument That Popery is a mixture of old condemned errors formerly called Heresies which the ancient Church hath testified against and therefore it is no safe way to Salvation And here I should have tryed their particular errors not yet mentioned or insisted on as their Doctrine of Merits and Justification thereby Satisfactions and many Semipelagian errors Image-worship with many the like But that this is beyond my present intended scope and purposed brevity and is so fully performed already by so many unanswerable Treatises of our Divines Let us next here what is said of most moment to prove Popery to be a safe way to Salvation Obj. 1. That Religion which hath been delivered down from the Apostles to this day without interruption is a safe way to Salvation For it is the same that the Apostles and all the ancient Christians were saved in But the Religion of the Church of Rome is that which hath been delivered down from the Apostles Therefore c. Ans 1. There is a change of the very subject of the question It is Popery that we are disputing of and this argument instead of Popery speaks of The Religion of the Church of Rome The Religion of the Church of Rome hath two parts First the Christian Faith Secondly their own corruptions depraving and contradicting this Faith The first as it standeth alone uncontradicted in the Religion which â—e profess The second is it that we call Popery and â—ay It is no safe way to salvation 2. And of this I deny the Minor and say that Popery is not the ancient Religion the Apostles and Primitive Church never knew it There was no such creature as a Papist known in all the world till six hundred years after the birth of Christ It was about 606. when Pope Boniface did first claim his universal Papacy and Headship and after that it was not till about one thousand years that the usurpation and Tyranny was consented to any thing generally in thâ— West And even the multitudes still dissented and some opposition was still made against it and all the Esterne Churches and the rest of the Christian world did dissent Of these things there is enough said to silence all the Papists on earth in Bishop Vsher de contin successione slatu Eccles Occident and his Answer to the Jesuites Challenge and by Bishop Jewell and Doctor Field and in many of the old Treatises against the Pope published together by Goldastus which shew us that he setled not his Kingdom without continnual opposition and contradiction We affirm that Popery is a meer novelty and challenge all the Papists in the world to prove the Antiquity of it When they have once arrogated to themselves the name of the Catholike Church and taught the people to believe as the Church believes that is to believe that all is true which the Pope and his Clergy will report of themselves it is then an easie matter for them to prove any thing to be true which makes for their turn then they may say The Fathers are for them and that they have their Papal sovereignty from St Peter when there is never a true word in it Then they may frame and forge new Decretals and cut out of the Ancient Writers thâ— which is against them and bring forth spurious writings under their names and tell the people that our Religion begun with Luther for its easie to prove any thing where themselves are the Judges and no witnesses but their own must be heard But if they dare leave that hold and come into the light its easie to evince the novelty of Popery though not of every particular error they hold Obj. 2. If the Church of Rome be a true Church then Popery is a safe way to salvation
utmost him and his factious Clergy So also they are disagreed among themselves whether the Bishops in a General Council are Judges with the Pope or onely the Popes Counsellors Yea or what a General Council is Though they all agree that it is not necessary that it be out of all the Christian world much less the Bishops of all Churches but onely some of those that adhere to the Pope of Rome yet they agree not whether it must be freely elected by all the Bishops of the Romish faction or onely so many and of such Countries as the Pope shall choose and whether the major part of the Council must concur with the Pope or the Pope and the Minor part may not serve turn 5. So also they are exceedingly disagreed about the nature and extent or pretended infallibility of the Church of the Pope in judging Some say that the Church judgeth de mediis discursive sed de conclusione per doctrinam propheticam Divinam And so these men may affirm agreeably to this principle that the Popes Definitions are part of the holy Canonical Scripture as Melchior Canus affirmeth he heard a most excellent Divine confess and citeth Gratian and Innocent also as of the same mind And thus all the most wicked Popes are made Prophets and speak by inspiration of the Holy Ghost But others of them do deny this Though yet they know not how it is that the Pope is infallible without declaring themselves Enthusiasts Also though saith Bellarm. l. 4. de Pontif. c. 2. all yield that the Pope may personally erre through Ignorance yet they are disagreed among themselves whether he may be a Hereticke Some say he may not and others that its most pious and probable to think he may not Others reject that as false and say he may And one would think it should have been out of question by long experience before this time And Bellarmine confesseth that three General Councils did believe that the Pope might be a Hereticke ubi sup c. 11. some say that when the Pope is consulted and giveth his judgement in matters of faith he cannot err though in matters of fact he may and that he is Infallible in his Courts and Councils though not as a private Doctor Others say that he cannot err when he intendeth to binde the whole Church to receive his sentence or when he teacheth the whole Church Others say that the Pope may err even defining in Council but not in errors manifest to the Church but onely in new or not manifest points Others come yet neerer the matter and tell us merrily that the Pope cannot so err in judgement about matter of Faith because when he first erreth thus he ceaseth to be Pope but this is a hard conclusion in the eyes of their brethren The like disagreements there are among them about the Infallibility of a General Council some will make it the proper seat of Infallibility and say that the Pope cannot err if he be guided by the Council else he may Others say that a Generall Council may err if it be not confirmed by the Pope yea though the Popes Legates did consent or if they do not follow the Popes instructions But that they cannot erre if they follow them or be confirmed by him So Bellarmine Canus and the late champions And if the Pope and Council differ as they have shrewdly done when Councils have deposed Popes for heresie and wickedness some say that we may more safely follow the Council then the Pope But others say the clean contrary and place the Infallibility in the Pope onely and make it his work to reclaim the Council Though they are thus all in pieces among themselves even about these their fundamentals yet is it the custome of their deceitful Writers to make the simple people believe that they are all agreed and to tell them that they have the Consent of the Universal Church and of all the Christian world and they have Universal Tradition c. that by the noise of these big words they may do that which they cannot do by argument Thus Doctor Vane their late proselite and divers others do in their writings overlooking all their own disagreements and passing on as confidently in their boasts of the Universal Consent as if they were either such Novices as understand not their own Religion or such hardened seducers as are not willing that others should understand it Here are in this our Question contained three of the greatest controversies between us and the Papists 1. Whether it belong to the Pope or Romane Church to be the Judge of Faith and Scriptures to all the world 2. Whether the Pope or his Clergy be inâ—llible in judging of matters of Faith 3. Whether our Faith must be resolved into this infallible judgement of theirs Our intent in this present Dispute is to deal most with the second yet so as it is connexed with the other two and therefore shall take them in on the by but say less to them distinctly and the rather because there is so much said already by our Divines as all the Papists on earth will never be able solidly to answer To let pass all those beyond Sea that have effectually confounded them we have Brittans enough to hold them perpetual work as Jewell Reignolds Whitaker White Field Vsher Camero Baronius Davenant Chillingworth to whom they have lately lost their cause by shewing in a vain and frivolous Reply how little they have to say against him with many more who will either remain unanswered or the answers will be worse to the adversaries cause then silence it self which we have sufficient ground already to foretell As to the first of these controversies to dispatch it in short as we distinguish between Judicium Descretionis Directionis Decisionis a Judgement of Discretion of Direction and of Decision so we knâ—w that it is onely the later that properly denominateth a Judge in the publike and ordinary sence Take our doctrine in these few Propositions 1. We say that every Christian hath a judgement of Discretion to know that the Christian Faith is true and Scripture is the word of God Or else he were no Christian or faith were not an act of judgement or Reason but a bruitish thing This therefore we confess the Pope either hath or ought to have 2. Every Pastor of the Church hath a judgement of direction that is it belongeth to him by office to be a Director of the people and to teach those the Christian Faith that yet receive it not and to confirm those in it that have received it And they ought to have abilities for the work of this office If therefore the Pope were a true Pastor Bishop or Preacher this power we should confess to be in him as in others 3. It belongeth to these Teachers also to be specially careful to preserve the sacred Scriptures from corruption and
must lye upon the exposition of them The points absolutely necessary to salvation are plainly delivered 2. Obscurity shews the need of a Teacher but not of a Judge At least its plain that when any Teacher shall remove the obscurity those texts oblige us as well as the plainest 3. As I said If the Pope be Judge of all difficult controverted texts he is an unfaithful Judge that will not expound them to us and decide so many controversies as yet depend What good will it be to the Church to have such a Judge of difficult controverted texts of Scripture as in the consciousness of his ignorance dare not give us his judgement but hath left them undecided these fifteen hundred years This dumbe Oracle that hath eyes and sees not and a mouth but speaks not is not a fit foundation for the Churches Faith 5. Where God calleth men to Office and Power he accomplisheth or fitteth them in some measure for the performance of it but God hath not fitted all Popes no nor any to Jugde Decisively of all controverted difficultyes in Scripture and Religion Therefore he hath not made them Judges of them The Minor shall be further proved anon Many Popes have been ignorant and unlearned many Heretickes unfit to decide all such controversies and they have shewed their unfitnesse by their non performance or ill performance The great Objection of the Papists is this Obj. 1. What! Shall every one be the Judge of Scripture and take it in what sence he please shall every unlearned man or woman expound it according to their own fancies then we shall have variety of expositions Whether is it fitter for the Church or every simple fellow to be Judge Answ 1. Neither Hath God made subjects to be Judges of his Lawes by which they must live and by which they must be judged Neither they nor your Pope must be Judges of the Lawes in a proper sence but obeyers of it 2. We say not that the people should expound the Scriptures as Teachers of others unless in their own callings as to the children servants c. when they are able This we reserve to the Officers of the Church 3. Nor do we say that any people must expound Scripture according to their own fancies or mis-guided conceits but according to the true meaning of them 4. Nor should they in difficult cases which are past their understandings presume of their own wit to know the right meaning but have recourse to the Teachers that God hath set over them that so by their help they may learn the meaning of that word which they understood not 5. And if their Teachers be singular or give them just cause to suspect their skill or fidelity they have more reason to regard the Judgement of the Judicious then of the ignorant and of the whole Church then of any one or few so far as the credit or authority of men must support a learner while he is a learning 6. But what Is it indeed such a monstrous heretical conceit in the eyes of a Papist that every Christian should have a Judicium discretionis a Judgement of discerning to perceive and discern which is truth and which is falshood Good Lord whether will the heat of contention carry men Why if they must not have this discerning judgement 1. Then God doth bind them all to be fools and ignorant 2. And then Religion and the Christian Faith are the endowments of bruits that know not what they hold or do and not of Reasonable men 3. Or else they that will be Christians must have no Faith or Knowledge which is a contradiction Is not Faith an act of discretion Must not he that believeth the Resurrection and Everlasting Life believe them with his own understanding And doth he not in believing them Judge them to be True and Judge the contrary doctrine to be false 4. Why will you read or preach Scripture to the people if you would not have them receive it by a judgment of discerning would you not have their judgment discern the Truth of what God hath written or the Priest shal preach to them 5. Doubtless you will allow them a judgement of Discretion about the Popes Decrees and Canons and your own Determinations How can they believe you if they do not by judgement discern the things you say to be true And why will you not allow them the like towards God and his Word Will you say It is their duty to believe the Pope and their sin to believe God Or it s their duty to understand the Popes Laws and their sin to understand Gods Laws Why what do you say less when you yield them a judgement of discretion as to the Pope or Church and deny it in Respect to the Word of God If you say that they will misunderstand the Scripture I ans 1. So will the Pope and the best and wisest man on earth in some part because while we are here we know but in part 2. Their error is their sin But doth it follow that they may not see at all for fear of missing their way Must they put out their eyes and be led by the Pope for fear of erring Must they not know or labor to know for fear of mistaking Will any Master take this well of his servant to put out his eyes or do nothing for fear of doing his work amiss Or refuse to go his journey lest he miss the way Then we must not judge of the Popes Laws neither and consequently not judge them to be true for fear of erring in our judgement When you prove that the Church of Rome is the true Church would you not have the people judge of your proof for fear of erring This is even to make beasts of Christians 3. What are Teachers for but to guide them and help them to understand If you are afraid lest they should erre be the more diligent in instructing them But this is the difference between the work of a Popish Teacher and ours They make it their work to put out mens eyes that they may have the loading of them because they are troubled with an imperfection in their sight and therefore will erre if those imperfect eyes be left in their heads we make it our work by all means we can use to cure their eye sight that they may be able to see themselves in the mean time advising them while their eyes are under cure not wholly to trust to them but to use the helpe of others to shew them the way and to tell them of dangers The Protestant will set his Childe to School that he may learn to know that which through childishness he knows not But according to the Popish way we should forbid them all books or learning lest they misunderstand them and let them never know any thing lest they know amiss The next step is to send them to Bedlam The Apostle would have men have their senses exercised to discern Good
Papal infallibility can be proved and so to forsake both Popery and Christianity Then it seems no man can know the Popes infallibility but upon the authority of Gods word which cannot it self be known till that infallibility be known It must be Gods Grant written or unwritten that must prove their infallibility But that word or Grant written or unwritten cannot be known to be of God till we first know their Authority to judge and infallibility in judging It evidently follows therefore according to them that neither one nor the other can be known because no one of them can be known till the other be first known But 2 If we could know the Scripture to be Gods Word before we know their infallibility in judging yet we cannot know the true sence of that Scripture as they confidently tell us first Well then I am one that doubt of the Popes infallibility and demand his proof Bellarmine turns me to Luk. 22. I have prayed that thy faith fail not I must know how I shall be sure that this is the meaning of that Scripture which is so little apparent to an ordinary eye He hath nothing to tell me but that the Church saith so And how shall I know that the Church is in the right Why because it cannot erre And how shall I know that Why by this Text. And so they are amazed in another Circle past recovery For they expresly and frequently tell us that the Scripture is no good evidence but when it is rightly expounded and that no exposition is right but that which is given by the infallible judgement of the Church and so the Popes infallibility cannot be known till the true meaning of Texts be known that prove it and the true meaning of those Texts cannot be known till their infallible judgement be first known What follows therefore but that neither of them can be known The true product of Popery This is the usual success of false arguing for a good cause to overthrow both the cause and argument so do the Papists as much as in them lyes overthrow both Christs Doctrine and their own 3. But let us examine the particular proofs from Scripture that they bring His first proof lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 3. is from Luk. 22. Simon Simon Satan hath desired c. but I have prayed for thee that thy faith faile not and when thou art converted strengthen thy brethren Doth this Text say that the Pope of Rome is infallible Yes if you will take Bellarmines word And first he tells us that among themselves there are three several expositions given of this Text and it is but one of the three that will serve their turn Good still And how shall we know that this one which Bellarmine hit on is the right Let any impartial man peruse his reasons and make his best of them For indeed there is no reason in them But on the contrary I shall presume to tell them why I suppose that this Text doth not talk of the Popes infallibility 1. Because here is never a word either of the Pope or of Rome or of Infallibility 2. Because the thing here promised is expresly restrained to one individual person Simon 3. The thing here promised was about Peters personal Faith and not about infallibility in judging For 1. In that respect that Satan desired to sift Peter in that respect Christ promised the not failing of his Faith But it was in respect of his personal Faith and not his Cathedral judgement that Satan is here said to desire to sift him Therefore c. 2. It is expresly said to be his Faith that should not fail But his Faith is not his tongue or Cathedral sentence words be not Faith 4. It is not all degree of infallibility or not failing that Christ prayeth for to Simon but he onely prayeth that his Faith may not be overcome foreseeing that it would shake and that he would deny him So that this is no promise of perfect Infallibility to Peter himself as appeared by the issue 5. Peter himself was to be converted from some failing Therefore he was not exempted from it And the case here in hand is such as that conversion had respect to Therefore it was not that he should not fail in Cathedral Determinations for he was not converted from such Bellarmine here most immodestly would intimate that the text speaks not of Peters conversion from any sin but of his turning to his brethren to speak to them as if it were When thou turnest thee to speak to thy Brethren strengthen them Nothing but the Popes infallibility or the gross fallibility of common reason could make a learned man think that this is the sence of the Text. 6. The Papists pretend that here is somewhat promised to Peter which the rest of the Apostles were not partakers of But that is not so For if it were as it was that he should not Apostatize the same was given to them all except Judas If it had been that he should be infallible in teaching the Church so were the rest too as well as he The reason therefore of mentioning Peter in particular was because Christ foresaw the temptations and lamentable fall of Peter in denying Christ with cursing and oathes from which he had need of a special conversion that God might not forsake him and give him up to a totall failing of his Faith 7. Two things saith Bellarmine are here obtained for Peter The one is that he himself should never lose the faith nor fall as to his faith The second is that he as Pope should never teach any thing contrary to faith or that none should ever be found in his seat that should so do Of which priviledges saith he perhaps the first did not descend to his successors but doubtless the last did But note here what a pass this learned Cardinal hath brought his great cause to 1. The text speaks but of one thing and not of two Faith is one thing and Cathedral determination is another Doth Christ mean both when he names but one Expresly it is onely the first priviledge that he promiseth Peter and saith not a word of the later It was his Heart and not his tongue that was the seat of faith and that Christ establisheth which is also evident by the issue for sure his tongue failed by speaking against the faith when he curst and swore that he knew not the man 2. Bellarmine confesseth that this priviledge that his own faith should not fail extendeth not perhaps to the Popes so that for all this their faith may fail If so 1. Then the onely priviledge mentioned in the Text extendeth not to them For it speaks of no more The text promiseth them nothing to the Pope but what it never promised to Peter 2. And if it did promise both priviledges to Peter that neither Faith nor tongue should fail how can Bellarmine prove that one part belongeth to the Pope when he confesseth the
other doth not The Text speaks but to the same person and not in one half to one and in the other half to others I may well argue therefore in this manner To whomsoever Christ here promiseth that his faith shall not fail to him onely doth he speak in this text But he promiseth onely to Peter here that his faith should not fail therefore it is onely Peter and not the Popes that he speaks of The Major is clear according to the intelligible sence of the words and Bellarmine hath not yet proved a mystical sence The Minor is confessed by himself Lastly Bellarmine saith de verbo dei li. 3. c. 3. that Onely out of the litteral sence of Scripture effectual arguments are to be fetched But this great argument of his for the Popes infallibility is not fetcht out of the literal sence of Scripture therefore by his own confession it is uneffectual and unjust The second Text which he cites to this use is Mat. 16. On this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it A double argument he would fetch from hence One from the Name Rocke the other from the nature of a Foundation which both imply firmeness Ans 1. Note that here is in the Text not one word of the Pope of the Church of Rome more then any other or of infallibility 2. How doth he prove that by the Rocke is not meant Peters Faith or that Doctrine which he confessed but Peter himself 3 If he had proved it are not all the Prophets and Apostles as well as Peter called the foundation Eph. 2.20 So that here is no more promised to him then what was elswhere promised and given to the rest Onely his present confession occasioned the promise to be made expresly and particular at that time to him 4. As the rest of the Apostles were the Foundation on which we are built and yet their successors are not so So though Peter were the Foundation it followeth not that all or any of his successors are so The third text which Bellarmine citeth is Joh. last Feed my Sheep Where note again 1. That here is not a word of the Pope or Rome or infallibility 2. Did not Christ bid the rest of the Apostles Feed as well as Peter Sure Mat. 28. He bid them all Go teach all Nations baptizing them and teaching them to observe all things whatever he commanded them And what could Peter do more in Feeding Yea thirdly Are not all Pastors though inferior to Apostles bound to Feed the Sheep of Christ and yet it follows not thence that they are infallible 4. Bellarmine would next prove this from The High Priests wearing the Urim and Thummim Exod. 28. When he first confesseth that it is not agreed among Jews or Christians what these are And yet it will serve him for a proof 2. The Priests were not infallible for all their Urim and Thummim therefore no more is the Pope They judged Christ not to be the Messiah and therefore crucified him They lived and died Infidels and hardened the people in the same Infidelity for which they were broken off and unchurched 3. And whereas he argueth that the High Priest was infallible because the people were to go to him for resolution of difficulties and obey them Deut. 17. I must say that Bellarmine had some fault in his eyes that caused him to overlook the Judge and name onely the High Priest God sendeth them to the Judge who was the chief Magistrate in those dayes as well as to the High Priest as any man that will read the text may see If therefore the one of them be infallible because of this why is not the other so too But perhaps they will make the Pope to be the successor both of the Magistrate and Priest and so to be the universal Emperor as well as the universal Bishop and use both his swords that so this promise may belong onely to him For he will hardly grant every King or Judge to be infallible 4. By this rule the rest of the Priests also should be infallible For the people were also to receive the Law at their mouthes 5. When was there ever one Priest in any age so impudent at Bellarmine and his faction are to plead for or pretend an infallibility in themselves Let them name one Priest or person if they can that ever had such a conceit of themselves except it were Gods Prophets in the matters of their Prophecy 6. What if the Jews High Priest had been infallible What 's that to the Pope of Rome any more then to another man Hath he indeed yet proved himself successor of the Jews High Priest Except as a corrupter of the Law and a persecutor of the Church of Christ Well! you have heard all the Scripture arguments that Bellarmine had to bring for he brings no more to prove the pretended infallibility of the Pope May I not well say that it is no marvaile that they are such ill friends to Scripture who have no more Scripture that is none at all to befriend the very foundation of their cause And may I not justly recite again Bellarmines own conclusion lib. 3. de verbo Dei c. 3. and from thence shew them that their cause is built upon confessed fraud and vanity It is agreed bâ—tween us saith Bellarmine that onely out of the literal sence of Scripture effectual Arguments are fetcht But Bellarmine bringeth no one Argument for the Popes infallibility out of the literal sence of Scripture therefore he bringeth no one effectual Argument from Scripture But yet one other Argument he hath though not from Scripture and no more and that is from a double pretended experience And his first experience is That in all the other Patriarchal seats there have been Hereticks but not in that of Rome But here 1. Bellarmine must be judge or the Pope who is a party before all the Patriarchs can be thus condemned 2. And what if that were true Can he say the like of all the Bishops as well as Patriarchs If not they may as well hence prove themselves infallible as the Pope can do 3. Whether ever there were in the chair at Rome either Pope Liberius an Arrian Pope Honorius a Monothelâ—te Pope John denying the immortality of the soul with abundance more such like we shall have fitter opportunity to open anon to the shame of this experinemt of Bellarmines His second experiment is that The Pope without a Council hath condemned many Heresies which upon that very account have been taken for true Heresies by the whole Church of Christ Ans But you must first unchurch the greatest part of the Catholike Church and damne most of the Christians on earth the Greeks Armenians Abassines c. and make your own faction to be the whole Church of Christ before you will ever give us the least proof of this All the Church doth not do that which your flatterers do Nor did
the ancient Church do any such thing As other Bishops condemned Heresies as well as the Pope so many a Heresie was judged such by the faithful without any more interposition of the Pope then another Bishop Having seen thus how little their great Champion hath to say for the Popes infallibility I could willingly have look't about me into some of the rest of them to see if they can say any more but that it s known that most of them tread the same path Only I may not over pass the new way that some of them have taken up of late to prove their infallibility and to avoid their common Circle And this you may see in the Jesuites late superficial answer to Chilling worth Forsooth they tell us that when they prove the infallibility of their Church from Scripture it is but for our sakes because we confess the Authority of Scripture but not of their Church But when they go according to the true nature and order of the matter then they set the Church before the Scripture and independantly of it The reason of this Jesuite supposed to be Knot is this Because the Church is before the Scripture and because the Miracles wrought by the Apostles did first prove their own infallibility and from thence secondarily the infallibility of their Doctrine And when we are in high expectations of the proofs of the Romane infallibility by his Arguments which are Independent of Scripture and before the belief of it he tells â—s that it is by the like Aaguments as the Apostles proved their infallibility which he thus enumerateth So the Church of God by the like still continued Arguments and Notes of many great and manifest Miracles Sanctity Sufferings Victory over all sorts of enemies conversion of Infidels all which Notes are daily more and more conspicuous and convincing and shall be encreasing the longer the world shall last And withall he tells us that These Miracles c. prove them to be infallible in All things and not onely in some or else we cannot know which those some be and what to believe and what not Thus you have the sum of the new Fundamentals of the Romish faith and of the famous confutation of Chillingworth But all these Knots are easily losed without cutting yea shake them onely and they fall loose like Juglers Knots 1. We easily grant that Christ the head of the Church was before the Doctrine by himself delivered in the flesh as it containeth many things superadded to the old Testament and the doctrine of John Baptist 2. It s evident that Christ himself gathered his first Gospel-Church by preaching his Doctrine that is he drew them to be his Disciples by convincing them that he was the Messiah the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world so that this his Doctrine was before this his Church 3. We grant that the Apostles were Apostles before themselves did preach the Gospel as Apostles But it was the Gospel and preacht by Christ before they preach't it 4. We easily grant that both Apostles and Gospel were long before the writing of this Gospel which we call the holy Scriptures 5. We grant that the Apostles Miraculous works did sufficiently prove not some onely but all the Doctrine which they delivered to the Church or any part of it in the name of Christ and as his For though they confirmed onely those Doctrines which were delivered in execution of their Commission yet seeing God would not have set to this seal if they had gone beyond and against their Commission therefore it also assureth us that they kept close to it But this proved them not infallible before they received that Commission nor afterward in any point which they should deliver as their private opinion which they fathered not on the Inspiration of the Spirit The Apostles were not infallible about Christs Death Resurrection and Ascension when they understood them not The Disciples were not infallible about the Acceptableness of Infants to Christ when they forbad them to be brought Thomas was not infallible about Christs Resurrection when he believed it not Peter was not infallible when he gave Christ that Satanical councel for which he was â—antum non almost excommunicated Mat 16.22 23. Even presently after the great promise to him Nor when he denyed that he knew Christ with curses and oathes nor when he dissembled and Barnabas with him Gal. 2. 6. We maintain that the Apostles Doctrine thus sealed by Miracles and Delivered in Writing to the Churches doth carry with it an Attestation from God of its infallibility if there be never more Miracle wrought in the world For the proof of this I refer the Reader to my Determination in a Book Intitled The Vnreasonableness of Infidelity 7. It is this sealed Doctrine contained in Scripture and preached by Ministers which converteth men to Christ and maketh them Christians and therefore it is in order before the present Church and the cause of it 8. We deny and confidently deny that God hath Commissioned the Pope to do the work which he Commissioned the Apostles to do and gave them the power of Miracles to confirme that is to Attest the Works Sufferings Resurrection and words of Christ as eye or ear witnesses of them from himself and to be the first promulgators of some of his Laws to the universal Church and to deliver down an infallible sealed Scripture to all succeeding Ages and by the ordinary working of Miracles to convince the unbelieving world Let him shew his Commission for this Apostleship if he would be believed 9. We as confidently deny that the Pope is a Prophet or is inspired by the Holy Ghost as the Prophets and Apostles were that so they might infallibly deliver us Christs doctrine 10. And they cannot expect that we should believe till we have some proof of it that the Pope or the Church of Rome hath the Power of working Miracles or are endowed with a spirit of Miracles or that they can convince those that deny the Scriptures by their own Miracles that they are the true Church or that ever they confirmed those points by Miracles which is now called Popery Thus much to let the Jesuite know where we differ from him And now to the point We call for his proofs which he here mentioneth to us in general names Non esse non apparere are to us all one Give us sufficient proof of your sealing the Doctrine of Popery by Miracles or the Popes Infallibility by Miracles as the Apostles did the Scriptures and their preaching and then you shall carry the cause and we profess that we will rejoycingly pass into your Tents and proclaim you Prophets or Apostles of Christ But when we live among you and so did our Fathers before us and hear you prate and boast of Miracles when we cannot see that ever you did so much as make a dead flea alive again nor cannot see the least Miracle from you if we would
ride or go as far as our horse or legs can carry us to see it what can we take you for but the most shameless sort of cheaters If you could accuse us of negligence as if we might see your Miracles if we would but travail for it or of unbelief as if we denyed that which we have evidence of we might bear the blame but there 's no such thing I profess as weak as I am I would go many a hundred miles to see such Miracles as you boast of if I had sufficient ground of expectation that I might not lose my labor And I would read over any Volumes that I were able to find suciffient Testimony of them But where is this testimony Knot refers us to Brierly and others to such like reciters of their Fables And when all is done there are three sorts of Miracles that they speak of 1. The Miracles of the Apostles and first Churches mention in Scripture and these are against Popery so that we may well say that the doctrine which contradicteth Popery is confirmed by Miracles in that the Scripture is so confirmed 2. The Miracles of the following Churches till six hundred These were comparatively few and less certain and fabulous mixtures in many of the reports of them But whatever they were they were no confirmation of the Popes Infallibility or universal Episcopacy or Jurisdiction which neither the Instruments of those Miracles nor any man else on earth as far as can be proved did then believe And whereas there were some Ceremonious fopperies that were then used which the Papists do yet use and would perswade us that these Miracles were confirmations of them we deny it and profess the nullity of their pretended proofs They say If they be not infallible in all things how can we believe them in any thing I answ Because that 1. Their Miracles are expressed Attestations to some thing that is to Christianity but not to all things that they may think Nor could they ever work a Miracle to confirm such private opinions 2. And the substance of Christianity which their Miracles do attest were more unquestionable before attested by Scripture and former Miracles whereas the errors which they introduced are contradicted by Scripture and the Miracles that attested it And whereas they would make the Apostles case to be like that of the Fathers It is very much different For though the Apostles Miracles were attestations to all their doctrine as well as to some part that was because they were Officers Commissioned by Christ to that work to deliver his doctrine first to the world as inspired infallible men and to seal it to posterity for future certainty But the Fathers had no such work in Commission but onely to preach the doctrine thus sealed and delivered them by the Apostles and therefore their Miracles were to another more private and restrained use according to their Commissions and work that is to convert those persons to the faith that knew of them by a subservient attestation so that it could oblige none to believe them in other things much less in their mistakes 3. The third sort of Miracles are those of later times contained in their Legends And seriously would the Jesuites perswade us that these are of equal authority with the Miracles mentioned in Scripture or any whit like them I have given you a taste of some of them in the former Disputation more you may see of their ridiculous vanity in Doctor Franc. Whites Defence of his Brother pag. 147.148 We must believe Baronius that Saint Fulbeck suck't our Ladyes brests And Antonine that Saint Dominick walk't in the rain and was not wet and his Books lying all night in the river were taken out dry and without hurt That the same Fryer spyed the Devil sitting in the Church like a Sparrow and calling him to him deplumed him and so put him to a great reproach And that he made the Divel hold him the candle in his bare fingers till they were burnt that a leacherous Priest by kissing his hand was cured of incontinency That Saint Bernard by blessing their Ale and giving it some lewd persons to drink caused Gods Grace to enter into them That he made an old Grandame of above fourscore years old to give suck to the Infant when the mother was dead That he killed Flyes by Excommunication and excommunicated the Divel and thereby disabled him from lying with women That Saint Francis turned a Capon into a Fish and water into wine made the Rock send forth water and Anchors to swimme Preacheth to Birds and Beasts to praise God till they were so attentive to his doctrine that they would let him touch them and would not depart till he gave them leave and had blessed them with the sign of the Cross converted a cade Lamb by preaching to him so that he would frequent the Church of his own accord and kneel before the Altar of our Lady at the Elevation of the Host By which example Surius calleth on the Hereticks to learn to worship the Blessed Virgin and to adore the Sacrament Also that he caused Swallows Grashoppers and a wild Falcon to joyn with him in the Praises of God Abundance more of the like more foppish and too many to be here meddled with their Legends are full of And these are their proofs of their true Church and infallibility by which they may be known by them that believe not the Scripture I think indeed that these proofs are well said to be Independent of Scripture for the less a man believes the Scripture the more he is like to believe these But by what certain or probable Testimony shall we know that ever such things were done What! must we needs believe every doting Fryer that gives us but his bare word and that many a year if not age after these Miracles are supposed to be wrought Must we believe them that so shamefully contradict one another Math. Paris saith that Saint Francis was branded with his five wounds fifteen dayes before he dyed But Bonaventure Vincentius and Surius say he had them two years before he dyed Nay must we belive as the very foundation of our Faith that which the Papists themselves believe not How commonly do they among themselves deride these stories as pious fraudes and some of them soundly chide the Authors I will at this time cite but the words of one and that is no Babe even Melch. Canus whom Bellarmine referreth us to so oft Lib. 11. cap. 6. pag. mihi 33.34 Quidam enim corum aut veritatis amore inducti aut ingenuâ— pudoris c. That is Some of them the Heathen Historians either induced with the love of Truth or in ingenuous modesty did so far abhor a lye that perhaps we should be now ashamed that some heathen Historians were truer then ours I speak rather with grief then in reproach the Lives of the Philosophers are much more severely that is truely
written by Laertius than the Lives of the Saints are by Christians and Suetonius did far more incorruptly and more entirely set forth the affairs of the Romane Caesars then Catholikes have set forth I say not the affairs of Emperors but of Martyrs Virgins and confessors For they But ours do for the most part either follow their own affections or else of set purpose forge so many things that indeed I am not onely ashamed of them but also aweary of them For I know that these have brought to the Church of Christ small profit but much disprofit I spare mens names because It is certain that they who write Church History feignedly and deceitfully cannot be good and sincere men and that their whole Narration is invented either for lucre or for error whereof one is filthy and the other pernicious The complaint of Ludovicus is most just of some feigned Histories in the Church He doth indeed prudently and gravely reprove them that take it to be a matter of piety to forge lyes for Religion A thing that is very pernicious and no whit necessary For we are wont not to believe a Lyar even when he tells truth They therefore who by false and lying writings would stir up the minds of mortal men to worship the Saints these seem to me to have done nothing else then to make men deny belief to truths because of falshoods To what purpose is it to pretend the name of History to fictions and fables As if the holy men of God did need our Lyes But while some do too much indulge their own affections and write those things which the writers mind and not the Truth doth dictate they make us such Saints sometime as the Saints themselves would not be if they could Can any man believe that Saint Francis was used to take the Lice on him again which he had shak't off him The Writer thought this was part of the mans holiness but so do not I who know that the holy man was pleased with poverty but not with filthyness And how ridiculous is this that the Divel raging on a time against our father Dominicke was constrained by this Saint to hold the candle so long in his hands till it did not onely trouble him but incredibly pain him Such examples cannot be numbred but in these few most of the rest may be understood which have darkened the histories of the most famous Saints They do therefore exceedingly wrong the Church of Christ who think they do not well set forth the excellent deeds of the Saints unless they adorn them with feigned Revelations and Miracles Wherein the impudency of men hath neither spared the Holy Virgin nor the Lord Christ Of late years when I was at the Council of Trent I heard by some that Aloysius Lippomannus was healing this disease by writing a history of the Lives of the Saints in a constant and grave speech But I could never yet see this nor any other which I could allow of all those that have come into my hands So far for Melch. Canus And do their own most Learned and Judicious Writers cry out of Lyes and Histories so much more false then the Heathens and impudent forgeries and say that they never saw any of these Histories which they could allow of and yet must we needs make these the Foundation of our Faith instead of the sealed Word of God What a Religion have the Papists that is built on such a foundation Yea of the reports of some of the late Writers that were next before Popery I will add a few more words of Canus ib. li. 11. pag. 337. Cicero thought Demosthenes nodded somtime and Horace thought so of Homer himself For though they were excellent yet but men And the same perhaps may I say justly and truly of Beda and Gregory One of them in his History of the English the other in his Dialogues do write certain Miracles talk't of and believed by the vulgar which the criticks of this age will judge to be uncertain I should have more approved those Histories if their authors had according to the aforesaid rule to severity of judgement joyned more care in their choice And how he lets fly at the lyes of Antonius and Valvacen The next page shews And page 338.339 how he censures Eusebius himself But I must forbear more such citations lest I weary the Reader It is now long since Doctor John White told them of their Cajetans words who saith It cannot be known infallibly that the Miracles upon which the Church groundeth the Canonization of Saints are true And their Antoninus Florent saith of the visions of Bernard and Brigit about the Virgin Maries conception They are fantastick visions and mens dreams And their Claudius Espeucaeus saith No stable is so full of dung as the Legends are full of fables Yea very fictions are in their portesses And Gerson All these the Church receives and permiteth them to be read not as certainly true but more attending to what might be in pious recogitation then to what indeed was done And Doctor White then made a challenge to them that we will admit of all those Miracles which are reported by such men as some of their own Writers do openly Note for Lyars Which challenge the Popish Replyer had no mind it seems to take up But though it belong to the Romanists to prove their Miracles which prove their Infallibility without Scripture and not to us to prove the Negative yet I shall try to shame their confidence by a few pertinent Questions when it shall appear how little they have to say in answer to them Q. 1. And first I desire to know of them whether the Miracles that prove their infallibility without Scripture are wrought by the Present Church or by the Church of former ages onely If by the present why cannot we see them Why are we still sent to Saint Brigit or Saint Francis or Saint Somebody that is long ago dead and gone We thought once we had had one neer us here I mean the Boy of Bilson who did wondrous things in favor of the Papists but in the Issue by the industry of Bishop Morton he was proved to be a counterfeit and confessed himself trained up by the Papists for the cheat But if it onely the Generations that are dead and gone that wrought Miracles then I would further aske 1. Doth it not seem then that your Church is Apostate in that it hath lost the gift of Miracles which you suppose so necessary And how will the Gifts of your predecessors prove your present infallibility any more then the Gifts of the predecessors of the Greek Bishops will prove their infallibility that now are 2. If past Miracles may serve without present then what need any more than the old Miracles of the Apostles And then why are not all the Apostles successors infallible as well as the Pope Seeing all the Apostles had the gift of Miracles
and many thousand more Therefore those past Miracles should prove all Bishops infallible that succeeded them 2. Quest I desire also to know whether it be your Pope himself that Works these Miracles or some other persons And if others whether it be onely some of your Church or all If it be the Pope himself why then have we more murthers then Miracles charged on your Popes by your own historians and why will not his holiness do some Miracles in charity to poor Hereticks Why do you boast no more of you Popes Miracles One I confess we read of in the Golden Legend that Pope Leo the first by the means of a woman kissing his hand was so vehemently tempted with lust that he was fain to cut his hand off but the Virgin Mary having compassion on him joyned his hand to his body again But this is no foundation of our faith But it s plain that it is Saint Becket and Saint Brigit and Saint Katharine that you send us to for Miracles and not to the Pope And then I would further know whether one mans Miracles will prove another man infallible unless they were wrought in confirmation of the assertion of that other mans infallibility It should rather prove Saint Brigit and Saint Katharine infallible that are said to have the Revelations and Miracles then the Pope that had none Would it prove the Patriarch of Constantinople infallible if any one that is under his Government should work a Miracle Or are you sure that there is no Miracle wrought among the Grecians Abassines or Armenians Moreover if you are All Miracle Workers why can we never see one nor have certain proof of one But if it be but some very few of you as good as none how will that prove the infallibility of your whole Church When the Apostles wrought Miracles that proved their own infallibility but that proved not the infallibility of all in the Church nor of every teacher in it nor of the greater number of them 3. Quest If your Pope and Church be proved infallible by such Miracles as the Apostles were doth it not follow then that all your Popes are inspired persons or Prophets as the Apostles were by which the gift of infallibility was conveyed to them 4. Quest Yea will it not follow that all your Church are inspired Prophets if all your Church be thus infallible But you cannot expect that we should too easily believe these If you have Apostolick infallibility grounded on the like Miracles then must you not be each one dis-junctly infallible as the Apostles were and not onely altogether 5. Quest And is it not plain then that all your dictates are Gods word if you have the same seal and inspiration as the Apostles had And so your Pope at least if not each one of you must make us new Revelations or new Scripture And is not this hainous arrogancy thus to equal your selves with Prophets and Apostles when you are none They could but be infallible and so you say is the Pope They could but seal their doctrine by Miracles and so you say doth your Church 6. Quest Will you grant that we are all infallible here in England if we can prove any Miracles done among us and by us 7. Quest Is it not absolutely necessary to the validity of the Testimony of a Miracle that it be not controled by some greater Miracle or evidence Otherwise the Magicians in Egypt and â—imon Magus might have gone away with better reputation But your pretended Miracles are conâ—rolled by far greater and surer and therefore of no force For yours are to confirm a doctrine contrary to the Scripture which was confirmed by many surer Miracles This we are still ready to prove though here we take it for certain but you use to decline that tâ—yal 8. Quest Is not every Priest infallible and every Church that hath the Eucharist according to your doctrine For sure Transubstantiation is a Miracle I do not think you will deny it And a Priest even in deadly sin may be an instrument of this Miracle if your Church be infallible Is there then no Eucharist among the Abassines Greeks or any that subject not to you Or are they all infallible And if Miracles be as common as Transubstantiation the priviledge proved by them must be as common So much to Master Knots first proof of his Infallibility without Scripture His second Independent proof is Sanctity But Sir 1. Are all Saints infallible Sure you dare not say so 2. Will the Sanctity of one man as Saint Francis or Saint Dominicke prove the infallibility of the Pope that hath no Sanctity By what means Rather if Saints be infallible a Murdering Simoniacal Drunken Fornicating Pope as yours confess many of them were are not like to be infallible especially Saint Brigit cannot make the Pope infallible by that Sanctity that would not make or prove her self infallible 3. Who must be judge of your Sanctity and ours Your selves no doubt For my part if my salvation lay wholly upon the passing of a righteous censure between us in this point I must needs profess that even in England where the Papists should be of their best sort because it is not the common way of the Nation but a discountenanc't way and where they are but few yet I have known so few of them that have not been common Swearers Cursers Drunkards Whoremongers or the like and yet fewer that ever manifested any serious minding of God and the life to come or any experience of the work of Sanctification on their hearts and who shewed any more holiness than what say in certain ceremonies words gestures or other formalities and on the contrary I know so many Protestants of heavenly hearts as far as I can judge and obedient lives that there is no comparison in my most impartial judgement between Papists and Protestants in matter of holiness If this therefore be the proof of infallibility sure God will excuse me if I take England to be as infallible as Rome because he requires me not to put out my eyes nor to say the Swan is black and the Crow white because the Pope shall say so before me And yet we still disclaim all pretences to such infallibility The third mark that Knot brings is their Sufferings But 1. Sure the Pope suffers but little in this life but in the next let him look to himself How then do other mens sufferings prove him infallible 2. Do not the poor Greek Churches and other Christians under the Turks suffer more then the Romanists 3. Do they not make us suffer incomparably more then they Is it not impudence almost inhumane after the murder of so many thousands of the Albigenses Waldenses Bohemians after the Massacres in France Savoy Ireland the burnings in England the Powder-Plot after their bloody inquisition of so long continuance and the rest of this kind to tell the remnant of their surviving neighbors that their sufferings prove them
or feel any difference to give them the least cause of doubting I am sure I have the judgement of thousands and millions on my side which in a matter of sense among sound men is certainly enough And if the Papists are so mad as to tell me that it is otherwise with their senses and will seriously profess that their eyes and taste c. do not take these for Bread and Wine but perceive that they are not I will take them for shameless lyars or madmen and I suppose no man in his senses will blame me for so doing Well I its paâ—â— doubt that all our senses tell us its Bread and Wine as confidently as they tell us any thing is such And it is certain that the Pope and his Council tell us it is not Bread and Wine If our eyes be infallible that read it and our ears that hear it from their own mouthes then this is sure enough and too sure I know they will not deny it I would they would we should then be somewhat neerer a reconciliation What now can be said to avoid the conclusion is past my understanding save onely that it is possible that some of them may come in with some alluding distinction to see if they can blind mens sense and reason and so perhaps they 'l tell them that 1. sense is infallible on supposition of the right constitution of the medium but else not or 2. that sense judgeth but of accidents and not of substances and the accidents of Bread and Wine are here or 3. that sense is infallible in common cases where substances and accidents are not separated as here they be To which if such stuff deserve an answer I reply 1. What medium is here questionable or questioned by you but the accidents themselves which you say are the objects Sure the aire is clear and perspicuous the distance is not too neer or too far off our eyes and taste are sound 2. I think senses judge of substances with their accidents The eye sees substantiam coloratam and the hand feeleth the substantiam qualem quantam and not onely qualitatem quantitatem substantiae But let that controversie go how it will I am sure the substance is objectum sâ—nsus per accidens though not per se or that the intellect infallibly judgeth of substance by the help of the senses apprehension Otherwise all the forementioned absurdities will follow and still the Pope and Church will be fallible For then the Apostles and others that saw Christs Miracles could be sure onely of the accidents and not of the substance Then no man is certain whether it was Christ himself that lived on earth that was crucified and rose again or onely the accidents of Christ And then no man knows whether there be a Pope at Rome or onely the accidents of a Pope and so of the rest 3. And to the third part of the answer I reply That if sense be infallible when substances and accidents are inseparable then it is alwayes infallible For the accident separated from the subject doth perish Moreover how shall we know whether substances and accidents are separated or not If we be sure of that by sense then sense is still infallible so far if not then sense is fallible because it knows not when it apprehendeth any more then naked accidents But indeed it s a contradiction to talk of accidents that are not subjecti alicujus accidentia Obj. Sense is infallible suppose the right temper of the Organs object Medium till God tell us the contrary but then it is fallible But in the point of Transubstantiation God hath told us the contrary to what common sense apprehendeth Therefore here sence is deceived Answ 1. Sense must in order be first known to be infallible before you can tell any thing that God hath said or wrote of its fallibility or infallibility or else you cannot tell but your eyes in reading or your ears in hearing those words of his did deceive you 2. Sense and Reason are the judging faculties which God hath given to mankind for the discerning of their objects It is not therefore to be imagined that God doth turn the great Deceiver of the world and by supernatural light contradict the Light of Nature even the apprehensions of the sound and general sense of the world Gods supernatural Revalations presupposes his Natural ones and are additions thereto but do not contradict them for then God should contradict himself when both are his Revelations God cannot lye saith the Apostle And what were it for God to lye or say truth but onely to make a deceitful or not deceitful discovery of his mind and will or the effects to us Indeed there may through our imperfection be a deceit of the senses when the Organs are distempered and the medium or object are not conveniently disposed and every such distance impediment or other ill disposure is not as Gods voice to tell us the thing as what to our imperfect sense it seems But if the common senses of men that are sound and not hindred by any such impediments shall yet be all deceived meerly by a contradicting ordinance of God then it would seem that God gave man contradictory lights and guides And their objection seems to be as bad as if they should say so of Gods word That it is alway true except where God tells us the contrary but if it might be false at any time how can you tell that that very word is true which you pretend doth tell you of the falshood of another word so say I here If sense be not alwayes infallible where it hath its requisite assistance then how can you tell that your senses are infallible when you are reading Hoc est corpus meum This is my body which you think contradicteth the infallibility of sense For 2. Is the infallibility of sense a thing that is known by nature or by supernatural Light Not by supernatural Light unless consequentially where doth Scripture or your Tradition say that sense is sometime infallibe and sometime fallible supposit is requisitis And nature tells you no more of the infallibility of any other acts of sence or Receptions then of those same which you pronounce to be fallible 3. We challenge you and all the world to prove that ever God hath revealed in Scripture that the common sences of men are deceived about their proper objects the requisites in Nature supposed Or that ever he made any ordinances for the deluding or contradicting the sences of his Church Or ever said any such thing Cannot Christ say Hoc est corpus meum This is my Body but he must needs proclaim a delusion of the sences of all men that take it to be Bread Then when God saith Hoc est faedus meum This is my Covenant Gen. 17.10 He must proclaim all mens sences deceived because sence faith it was but Circumcision and Bellarmine will confess it was but the sign of
a Covenant Then when Paul saith This Rock was Christ it must proclaim that all the Israelites sences were deceived that thought it to be a true Rock when a Papist will confess that the meaning is This Rock represented or signified Christ As if among many Images you should say This is Peter and this John and this Paul this were plainly to say This signifieth Peter or representeth him c. and doth not proclaim that deceit of sence Bellarmine cannot deny but that it is called in 1 Cor. 10. 11. Bread and the Cup six times over as after the consecration and here his shifting answer is that things are said to be in Scripture what they seem to be as the brazen Serpent is called a Serpent and so here he pleadeth a Trope Good still The Scripture calls it Bread six times neer together after the consecration and it calls it Christs Body once when his living body sate by Now the Question is which of these speeches are Tropical And we must believe Bellarmine that the text which calls it six times Bread must needs be Tropical and that which calls it once Christs Body must needs be understood without a Trope And this is all the evidence they can bring that God hath proclaimed mens sences to be fallible Nay all that we need for our cause is but to take est for significat which is so common that one would think there should not such unnatural absurdities be admitted to avoid it as overthrow our humanity When we plead that Christ had a true body and that a true body may be seen and felt because Christ bids them Luk. 24. See and feel for a spirit hath not flesh and bones c. Bellarmine answereth that Sence is infallible in positives and therefore thence we may say This is a body because I see it self but not in Negatives and therefore we cannot say This is not a body because I see it not And what need we more then that which is here granted By his own confession then we may conclude that This is Bread and Wine because we see feel smell taste it Yet no doubt we may also argue that it is not a natural body because it is not visible or sensible So much for this second Argument which I may thus with full advantage enforce If sence be either fallible or infallible the Pope is fallible But sence is either fallible or infallible Therefore If sense be fallible the Pope is fallible and all his Church for their sences and the Apostles and their followers were fallible If sence be infallible the Pope and his Council are fallible because the common sences of all sound men take that for Bread and Wine which they expresly say as de fide to be believed is not either Bread or Wine Argu. 3. If the Pope and his pretended General Councils have erred already then are they not infallible But the Pope and his pretended General Councils have erred already Therefore they are not infallible As the first Argument was taken from the no proof of his infallibility and the second from the common senses of mankind so the third is taken from certain experience which is a medium so evident that their vain words and subtil evasions have the less force to elude or obscure it Of the validity of the consequence there is no question can be made He that hath erred is not infallible All the doubt therefore is of the Antecedent which hath by unquestionable evidence of History been put out of doubt by our Writers long ago I shall produce some few instances of many There are no less than fourty Popes whom Bellarmine himself takes notice of as charged with error or heresie for whom he frameth such poor excuses that I should think any impartial Reader might receive satisfaction enough from Bellarmine that the Pope is too fallible Yea that even judicially and in fundamentals he may err Did not Pope Liberius erre judicially when he subscribed to the Arrians confession in the Council of Sirmium Libenti animo suscepi in nullo contradicens which the Fathers condemn of Heresie and to the Councils condemnation of Athanasius as Athanasius himself and many more witness Did not Pope Vigilius err judicially when he condemned the Decree of the General Council for condemning dead Hereticks And when Pope Pelagius and Gregory the first and Adrian the first did all approve of the same Sure one party of these Popes erred unless contradictoryes may be true Yea when Pope Vigilius did afterward revoke his own constitution sure he erred either in making or revoking it And so did Pope Paschalis when they gave God thanks in open Council that they heard the Pope with his own mouth revok those grants which said they contained Heresie which he himself had before made to the Emperor Though Cajetans excuse be true that it was no Heresie yet either the making or revoking was an error What will they invent at last to hide the nakedness of Pope Honorius who in two several General Councils was condemned for a Monothelite Heretick which he judicially perswaded Sergius to when he sought his judgement Stapleton and many more of them confess the full certainty of the Councils condemning him of Heresie but forsooth they say the Council did mistake the case It seems then either a Pope may be a Heretick or a General Council err Moreover will any Papists deny that Pope Stephen six and Sergius erred when they judicially decreed that those should be ordained again that were ordained by Pope Formâ—sus And of Pope Celestines error Alphonsus a Castro faith that he himself saw it in the ancient Decretals as his Definition and therefore that it cannot be said that he erred as a private man and not as Pope What can they say of Pope John twenty two who denyed the immortality of the soul and was admonished of his heresie by the Doctors of Paris as not onely Pope Adrian the sixth Joh. Gerson Alphons a Castro and others witness but Bellarmine himself confesseth also But he excuseth him because that opinion was not there defined against and therefore was no heresie See here 1. Whether the Papists do not make themselves a new Faith and Religion when they please and that is a point of Faith with them one year that was none the year before so that the novelty and the mutability of their Religion is thus by themselves confessed 2. See here that a point declared in Scripture and held by the former Church is no point of Faith with them unless it be declared by a Pope or General Council 3. See here what men Bellarmine would make all the former Popes to have been that had determined whether the soul were immortal or not 4. Chamier truely noteth that Bellarmine himself forgetfully contradicteth himself and tells us elswhere that Innocent the third the ninteeneth Pope before John twenty two had taught the contrary in express words I shall
speaks against his own heart which cannot be proved nor soundly imagined 2. The infallible dictates of the Pope while he erreth in mind should be all either unreasonable acts as being the words of one that knoweth not what he saith or interpretatively lies For when a man speaks contrary to his judgement if his words be true in themselves yet they are interpretatively lys because he so takes them and intendeth them as falshoods to deceive others For instance If Pope John the 23. that was deposed by a General Council upon Articles exhibited against him for denying the Resurrection and the Life to come should with his tongue have taught the Resurrection and the Life to come this had been as lying to him though the thing it self be most true And we must have a promise that the Pope of Rome and his Clergy among all the Lyars in the whole world shall be the onely infallible Lyars A happy generation of Lyars sure But where is that promise 3. It was for the error of the tongue as well as of the mind that the Clergy desposed Liberius Felix and that the Councils of Pisa Constance and Basil deposed the other Popes above mentioned For 1. they could not know their minds but by their words 2. They charged them with the errors of their tongues as well as mindes Argu. 10. If Popes be infallible in the matters which they understand not then it must be by Enthusiasm or prophetical inspiration But all Popes are ignorant of many Divine Truths and some more notoriously ignorant and yet neither All nor Any of them for ought is ever proved were Prophets or divinely inspired therefore they are not infallible For the Major its plain that as no erring man must speak against his own mind if he be infallible so an ignorant man in those points must 1. either have his ignorance cured suddainly by prophetical inspiration or else 2. must speak as in an extasie without or beside his own mind there being no other way imaginable And as for the Minor I prove both parts of it 1. That Popes are ignorant of many Divine truths I prove thus 1. They that are ignorant of many truths revealed in the Scriptures are ignorant of many Divine truths For Scripture being Gods word all that is therein revealed is Divine truth But Popes have been ignorant of many things revealed in Scripture therefore I need not sure stand to prove the Minor for they confess it themselves And if the Pope understood all the Scripture he were sure the most damnable sinner in the world for not revealing his knowledge to others 2. Yea some of them have been so notoriously ignorant and unlearned that their own Alphonsus a Castro saith advers hares li. 1. c. 4. that It is certain some Popes be so unlearned that they do not understand the Grammar And sure if they that understand not any Hebrew or Greek which are the languages in which the Scripture is written no nor the Latin Grammar should understand all the Bible and erre in nothing it must needs be by a Miracle and by Prophetical inspiration 2. But that all Popes be not inspired Prophets nor illuminated by Miracles I will leave to be judged by the Papists themselves Read Platina Stella yea or Baronius himself or if they have any other that is a more notorious Parasite to them and let them be judges Argu. 11. If the Pope and his Council be infallible then it is either in All things that God hath revealed in the Scripture or are necessary to be known or but in some If he be infallible in all things necessary to be known believed or decided then will it follow 1. That the Pope is the most cruelly wicked man on earth and the greatest enemy to the truth and Church that will suffer the Church to lye in so much ignorance and contention and will not reveal the truth to reconcile and enlighten them Why doth he not write an infallible commentary on all the Bible to perfect our knowledge and end all our quarrels And why doth he not write an infallible summary of all his superadded traditions Hath not Christ told him that no man lighteth a candle to put it under a Bushel but where it may be seen of all 2. Why doth not one Pope reveal that which they think fit to reveal but leave it to successors one after another to do it by degrees Dare they say that there is any point of faith revealed in Scripture and necessary to this age to know which was not meet to be revealed by the Pope to the last or former age 3. Why do so many of themselves yea their General Councils so much contradict their Popes in many things if he be infallible in all things And all of them confess that either a Pope or a Council may erre But if it be but some things that the Pope is infallible in then how shall we be sure which be those some Can we know before he discloseth them or onely after I suppose they will say It is in all those things which he determineth or declareth But if that be the rule to know the extent of his infallibility by then I Every Pope beginneth to be infallible when he beginneth to Determine or declare and not before 2. And then every Pope increaseth in his infallibility as he increaseth his Decretals or Canons 3. And then one Pope is much more infallible then others who have made more decrees then others 4. And then some Popes were never infallible who never made any decrees or determinations or expositions at all so that their cause is lost if their actual discoveries be the Rule of the extent of their infallibility And yet I cannot imagine what else they can say that may have any appearance of consisting with their interest For it is either a Positive or a Negative infallibility which they mean and ascribe to their Church If a Positive then 1. All the foresaid absurdities unavoidably follow whether they say that they can infallibly teach us all things and will not or but some But if it be a Negative infallibility which they maintain viz. that the Church shall never teach any false doctrine Or the Pope shall never deceive us by obtruding any error though withall he may possibly teach us but part of the truth yea the necessary truth yea perhaps teach us none at all I say if this be their meaning then every infant or bird or beast hath as glorious a priviledge as the Pope of Rome For every infant and bruit is so infallible that we are certain they will not deceive the Church by teaching any error Perhaps they 'l say that the Pope is positively infallible as a sufficient Teacher of the Church in all things de fide at that time or necessary to salvation and negatively infallible in all the rest which are not de fide or necessary To which I answer 1. Either such points are de fide and
successors For they must succeed him in the cause if they will succeed him in the effects Argu. 17. If the Catholike Church be infallible then the Pope and the Church of Rome are not infallible But the Papists say the Catholike Church is infallible therefore according to their own doctrine it must follow that the Pope and Church of Rome are not infallible The argument being ad hominem and the Antecedent their own all the doubt is of the consequence which I prove thus either it is the real or representative body which they must call the Catholike Church But both these are against the Popes infallibility Therefore 1. For the real no man can possibly know all their minds nor ever expect that they should in this life be all of a minde therefore it is the Major part that we must have respect to as its usual in all such Bodies or Assemblies Now the greater part of the Catholike Church on earth is and hath been against the Popes infallibility That it is so now is well known seeing all the Greeks Abassin Armenian Reformed and other Churches are far more then the Papists 2. And that it hath been so formerly the Papists themselves confess I will note at this time but one of the most learned and sober of them Melch. Canus Loc. Theol. li. 6. cap. 7. fol. mihi 201. Pugnatum est siquidem vehementer non a Graecis solum sed ab aliis plerisque totius orbis apiscopis ut Romanâ— Ecclesiae privilegium labefactaretur Atque habebant pro se illi quidem Imperatorum arma Majorem Ecclesiarum numerum nunquam tamen efficere potuerunt ut unius Romani Pontificis potestatem abrogarent That is Not only the Greeks but almost all the rest of the Bishops of the whole world have vehemently fought to destroy the priviledge of the Church of Rome And indeed they had on their side both the Armes of Emperors and the Greater number of Churches and yet they could never prevail to abrogate the Power of one Pope of Rome Mark here that it is only success that he pleadeth but confesseth that most of the Bishops of the whole world and the greater number of Churches besides the Arms of Emperors were against the Romane priviledges as they call them the Popes power So that by this you may see the conscience and modesty of these men that not onely call themselves the whole Church as if all other besides them were some inconsiderable parcels but also would make the simple people believe that before Luthers time there were scarce any that denyed their pretended power we may see from themselves then where our Chruch was before Luther so far as Christians opposing the Romish usurpations are our Church even most of the Churches and Bishops of the whole world by the Papists own confession And therefore this may stop their mouthes that use to call out to us for a catalogue of their names would they have the names of Most of the Bishops and Churches in the whole world 2. And then for the Representative Church if there be such a thing it must be a General Council And I have shewed before that many such as themselves call General Councils have contradicted the Pope deposed and condemned him This Bellarmine Canus and the rest of them do confess and therefore I need not say more to prove it Argu. 18. That General Councils may erre is proved fully both by the errors that they have committed and by their contradicting one another It s too well known that the Arrians had as General Councils as most ever the Orthodoxe have had Bellarmine and Canus give more instances of erring Councils then can be answered by the contrary minded Pope Adrian and the second Council of Nice by him confirmed decree for adoration of Images And the Council of Frankford determined the contrary against the said Council of Nice though the Popes Legates contradicted them So did the Council of Paris anno 825. who examined judged and reprehended the Council of Nice and and Pope Adrians confirmation and defence of it and therefore Bellarmine saith They judged the judge of the whole world Their words are recited by Bellarmine Append. de Imag. c. 3. Baronius anno 825. n. 5. It s commonly known how Nazianzene complained that He never yet saw a Council have a good end but things were made worse by it and not better And Hierom in Epist ad Galat. saith That is the doctrine of the Holy Ghost which is delivered in the Canonical Scriptures against which if Councils determine any thing I account it wicked Instances of the errors of Councils we have too many The Council of Neocesarea confirmed by Leo the fourth and by the first of Nice as saith the Council of Florence sess 7. condemned second marriages contrary to Scripture 1 Cor. 7. Though Bellarmine vainely excuseth them by plaine forcing their words The fourth Council at Carthage forbad Bishops to read the Gentiles Books which yet the Apostle makes use of and the Church hath ever since allowed The Council of Toletane 1. Ordain that he whâ— instead of a wife hath a Concubine shall not be kept from the Communion which Bellarmine also falsly excuseth The sixth General Council at Constantinople hath many errors which Bellarmine confesseth and layeth the cause on this that they had not the Popes authority Whereas Pope Adrian approved them and the seventh Council judged them genuine Adrian saith Se sextam synodum cum omnibus canonibus recipere he receiveth the sixt Synod with all its Canons and confesseth it to be Divine The Council at Constance decreed that a General Council is above the Pope and the Council at the Laterane under Julius 2. and Leo 10. decree that the Pope is above a General Council Sess 11. The Council of Calcedone abrogated the Acts of the second Council of Ephesus and decreed the contrary The Council of Trent is notoriously erroneous and contradicteth the Council of Laodicea and Carthag 3. about the Canon of Scripture The number of their contradictions and errors is too great for me here to recite Many of our writers against the Papists give you large Catalogues and full proof of them See Doctor Sutline li. 2. de Concil cap. 1. What Gregor Nazianz. And â—ierome say of them I toucht before Hilary li. de Synodis exclaimeth against the errors and blasphemies of the Councils of Syrmium and Ancyra Augustine saith li. 3 cont Maximni c. 14. Nec ego Nicenum nec tu debes Ariminense taâ—quam praejudicaturus profere concilium nec ego hujus authoritate nec tu illius detinenis He saith also lib. 2. de Baptis Concilia plenaria priora a posterioribus emendari That is Former Councils that were full have been mended by later Bellarmines deceitful shifting answers to these testimonies are not worth the repeating Isidore saith Quotiescunque in gestis Conciliorum discors stâ—tentia invenitur illius
concilii sententia magis tenentur cujus antiquior pâ—tior est authoritas That is As oft as we find in the acts of Councils disagreeing judgements let us hold the judgement of that Council which hath the more Ancient and the greater authority But the confession of the adversaries here may spare us more labour who acknowledge that a General Council though rightly Congregated and though the Popes Legates concur may yet erre in the faith if so be that the Pope doth not approve or confirme their Decrees So that when they say that All the Church cannot err and therefore a General Council cannot erre their own meaning is that one man cannot erre but All the Church viz. a General Council without him may erre Argu. 19. The infallibility of the Pope or Romane Church was never acknowledged by the Ancient Churches or Fathers for six hundred years after Christ Therefore it is not now to be received The Antecedent is so fully proved by our Writers and so easily discernable by those that read the writtings of those times that there needs not any more to be said That which I shall produce to this pupose shall be anon to prove the following point and this together In the mean time I refer them to Bishop Jewell Chamâ—er Bishop Vsher Doctor White who with many more have fully proved this Argu. 20. If the Pope be not the Authorized judge of Scripture nor our faith to be resolved into his judgement or the judgement of his Church then is he not the Infallible judge of Scripture and of controversies about matters of faith For he that is no judge can be no infallible judge nor doth he need infallibility to qualifie him for a work which he was never called to nor doth at all belong to him It is not the Pope as a private Doctor or as the Bishop of a particular Church which is made by them the subject of infallibility but the Pope as the supposed head of the Catholike Church authorized to interpret Scripture and to judge of all controversies of faith into whose judgement at least with his Clergy our faith they think must be resolved If therefore we can prove the nullity of the subject we do thereby prove the nullity of the Adjunct And this leads us up to the third Question which we have now to deal with Quest 3. Whether our faith must be resolved into the infallibility of the Romane pretended Authoritative judgement Or whether the Popes Authority and infallibility be the thing first to be known and thence the truth of Scripture or Christian Religion to be received as upon his judgement But because this is not the principal point intended in this dispute and because there is enough said to it in the beginning on the by and because I have said yet more for explication of the whole matter in the Preface to the later Editions of The Saints Rest I shall therefore say but little to it now reserving a fuller handling it if necessary to a fitter season Only I shall here adde a few more Reasons to prove that the Pope or Romane Church have no such Authority to be judge of Scripture or controversies to all the rest of the Churches on earth and then I shall adde a few words to prove that we must believe in Christ and receive his doctrine before we believe in the Pope and receive his pretended authority and judgement that is without it Arg. 1. If the Pope or his consistory must be the universal Governor and Judge to all the Chrian world then must the greatest part of the Christistian world be ungoverned and have no recourse to their Judge But the consequent will be denyed by themselves therefore we have reason to deny the Antecedent The proof of the consequence is most obvious and certain from the Popes natural incapacity and insufficiency for such a work and so of his consistory It is naturally impossible that the Pope should perform the works of this Government to all the Christian world therefore the consequence is good He cannot make known his determinations to all If all men through the Christian world that have such doubts to be resolved as his Holiness supposeth belong to him properly to resolve should have recourse to him for resolution O how much would the wayes to Rome be beaten and frequented What a concurse would be about his Holiness doors What time would he have to resolve those millions of men If any differences or difficulties arise in Aethiopia or at the Antipodes before they go or send to Rome for Resolution and receive an answer the persons are like to be in another world where they will have a more infallible resolution And if they live to see the return of their messengers they must take it on the trust of their words that this is indeed his Holinesses resolution Hence it is that de facto there is so few people on earth even of the Papists themselves that are really goverened or resolved by the Pope himself nor know what he is or what is his minde but all is done by his Missionaryes or Delegates And if the Pope can delegate his power to others and make so many others also infallible then infallibility is not proper to himself and then why may not the rest of the Bishops of the Church be as infallible who are sent by Christ as these are that are sent by him Argu. 2. If the Pope be such an universal Governor and Judge then all Popes must needs be damned for utter neglect of the works of their office For sure when the wel-fare of the whole Church doth so much depend on the office of the head it cannot but be damnable in him to be a neglecter of the works of that office to the far greatest part of the Church on earth But he must unavoidably neglect I mean omit that work which it iâ— impossible for him to perform Therefore What I have further to say against the resolving of our faith into his judgement shall be contained in these few Questions following Quest 1. Doth he not contradict the very definition of a Pope that tells us that we must first believe him to be an infallible Pope before we can believe the Doctrine of Christ For a Romane Pope is supposed to be the Vicar of Christ the successor of Saint Peter the head of the Church And can he be thus known by a man that knoweth not or believeth not that there is a Christ who is the Saviour and principal head and who is supposed to send him Quest 2. And doth it not contradict the definition of a Church to say that we must believe the Church before we can believe the doctrine of Christ For what is a Church but a society of Christians that is men professing the Christian Faith And how can they know that such men are Christians or profess that faith before they know what that faith is And how can they know that they are to
be credited as Christians before they believe that Christianity it self is of credit Q 3. Is there any man breathing that can bring sufficient Arguments to prove 1. That there is a Church of Christ 2. And that this Church is infallible 3. And that the Pope and Papists are this Church before their hearers have received or believed the word of God If they can why have they not faln closer to work in this necessary point when they know how much it would do to the determination of the whole If they pretend such Antecedent proof by miracles as the Apostles proved the Doctrine by I have shewed the vanity of this pretence against Knot before and we must still desire them if it be miracles that is their first witness to let us see or have certaine proofe of those Miracles We protest to all the world that we are heartily willing to see them and know of them if they be true but though we have lived in the midst of Papists all our lives yet could we never to this day see any such matter from them nor hear so much as of any probable proofs of any And would they have us in a matter of salvation to believe every prâ—ting boaster that will tell us of Miracles and shew us no such thing nor any proof of them Quest 4. Whether those that do not go this most absurd way of proving their Church infallible to an infidel that yet believeth not Gods word and so by means antecedent to the belief of Scripture must not unavoidably confess that Gods word must be first believed before the Popes or Churches infallibility or authority and consequently our faith dependeth not in them nor is resolved into them or else they are inextricably insnared in the Popish circle and contradictingly do make two primo credenda the Church or Pope the first to be believed and yet the word of God is first to be believed And do not Holden Vane Knot and others of them see this who therefore shun the circle and use not the old shifts of Becanus and others to blind the eyes of those that see them in it Whether I wrong them H. Holden himself an Englishman and Doctor of Paris shall be judge who thus commendeth his own new devised Foundation or resolution of the faith in his Divini fid analys li. 1. c. 9 pag. 180. Ex quibus patet haâ—â— Christianae fidei analysim haud inâ—idore in labyrinthum vulgarem circulare perfugium quo solent Theologi passim involvi qui fidei Resolutionem juxta communem parum attente examinatam opiniâ—â—â—â— conferuunt as effingunt Quarenti namque undâ— noverint scripturam esse revelatum Dei verbum Respondent ex universae consentientis Ecclesiae assertione Quibus si iterum fiet interrogatis unde sciverint unanimeus hanc Ecclesiae Catholicae assertionem esse ab errore liberam seu infallibilem Respondent ex revelatâ— Dei verbo Adeo ut non audentes fidem Divinam in certitudine evidentia naturali fundare in circulum hunc inevitabiliter illabuntur in orbem turpissime saltantes fidem quam ipsa prima ratio format efficit rationis experem reddunt voluntque homines rationales mentis ac judicii partioipes in fidei assensu certiores esse quam vel ratio postulat vel approbat Hasitant quippe Theologi quidam asseverare agnoscere quod omnia argumenta etiam firmissima omnesque rationes item evidentissimae quibus universam fidei Divinae Catholicae traditionem solidam erroris immunem infallibilem esse demonstramus adeo veritatem hanc evincant ut nulla prorsue subsit aberrationis facultas Ideoque â—pinantuâ— Christianorum aâ—imos adhuc ita vacillantes fluctuantes derelictos esse ut privatum aliquem singularem instinctum pernecessarium autument quo omni fidei Christianae assensui certitudo infallibilitas divina at ajunt attribuatur Nos antem levibuâ— hisce voluntariis opinationibus fidei divinae Religionis Christianae certitudinem soliditatem inniti aut fundari nequaquam judicamus That is in English From hence its evident that this resolution of the Christian faith doth not fall into the common Labyrinth and circular shift in which Divines are commonly wont to be involved who do frame and fashion the resolution of faith according to the common and unheedfully examined opinion For when they are asked how they know then Scripture to be the revealed word of God they answer By the assertion of the universal consenting Church And if they be again asked how they know that this unanimous assertion of the Catholike Church is free from error or infallible They answer By the revealed word of God so that not daring to found divine faith in natural certaintainty and evidence they unavidably slide into this circle most filthily dancing in a ring or round the faith which the first reason formeth and effecteth they make void of Reason and would have reasonable men who have understanding and judgment to be more certain in the assent of faith then reason doth either require or allow For some Divines c. Here you see a Learned Papist confessing that the Papists are commonly entangled in this circle and filthily dance in a round and would make our faith an unreasonable thing Let Knot note this that would make Chillingworth a Socinian and an Infidel for making faith a reasanable act And let the common sort of Papists note this that deny faith to have any evidence And let it be considered according to this mans judgement on what foundation the generality of Papists do build their faith and what a faith it is that hath such a foundation Yea and let it be considered whether the wiser sort of Papists begin not to change the very foundation of their Faith And how neer they begin to draw to the Reformed Churches in the Resolution of their Faith For this same Doctor doth well disprove the infallibility of the Pope pag. 179. Saying Owne quidem Episcopi Apostolorum successores sunt Apostolos vere adeâ— confirmatos in gratia fuisse ut infallibiles omnino seu in doctrina Christiana tradenda ab omni erroris periculo immunes fuerint agnoscit universa Ecclesia Nunquid ergo omnes Episcopi ab errore liberi Omnibus quidem Apostolis revelata fuisse secreta Caelestia iissque ut nec decipi nec hallucinari possent divina extraordinaria via donatum esse certissime tenemus Nunâ— quid ergo vel summo Pontifici vel caeteris Episcopis haec sunt divinitus concessa privilegia That is All Bishops are the Apostles successors And that the Apostles were so confirmed in grace that they were altogether infallible or free from all danger of error in delivering the Christian doctrine this the universal Church acknowledgeth But are all Bishops therefore free from error We certainly hold that to all the Apostles the heavenly secrets were revealed and that by a Divine and
extraordinary way it was given to them that they could not be deceived or erre But are these priviledges therefore granted to the Pope or to other Bishops And what is the infallibility that this Doctor resolveth his Faith into Let it be observed whether it be neerer the Miracles of Knot or to the universal Tradition of Chillingworth Pag. 174 175. He hath these words Statuendum 20. juxta superius stabilita principia Ecclesia soliditatem in fide seu in fidei divinae Catholicae in haerendi certitudinem infallibilitatem non in privilegio aliquo aut sedi Romanae Deo authore concesso aut S. Petri successori Pontifici Romano divinitus impartilo c. Sed universae Catholicae traditioni Ecclesia speciali Dei providentia Christi Domini promissis fulcitae praecipue tribuendam esse postea Deinde Catholicae universae traditionis rationem omnibus ommino fidei divinae dogmatibus pernecessariam esse Traditioniis vero medium seu testimonium adeâ— publicum universale apartum esse debere ut sensibus ipsis externis fidelibus omnibus Christianis oporteat constare That is The Churches infallibility and certainty of faith Is not in any privilege either granted by God as the Author to the See of of Rome or bestowed from God on the Pope of Rome as Saint Peters successor but it s chiefly to be attributed to the tradition of the universal and Catholicke Church upheld by the special providence of God and the promises of Christ And the account of this Catholike and universal Tradition is most necessary to all points of divine faith And the means or Testimony of this Tradition must be so publike universal and open that it must be manifest to all Christians to their very outward senses I confess this Doctor allows us pretty fair quarter in comparison of many others of his party If they will but give us such Open publike universal certain Tradition which must be known to the very outward senses of every Christian we shall be very ready to comply with them in receiving such a Testimony But if all the Romish Traditions had been such they would be known to all Christians as well as to the Pope and not lock't up in his Cabinet and our selves should sure have known them before now if we be Christians Quest 5. To proceed I am very desirous to know whether it be upon the credit of the present Church Pope or Council or of those former that are dead and gone that we must receive our faith and the Scriptures Or upon both If it be on the credit of any former Church then would I know of which age whether of the neerest or the middle or of the first and remotest age that is from the Apostles and the Church in their dayes If from the last age then 1. How know we their Testimony If it be by their writings Canons or Decrees why cannot other men who are much wiser and better understand these as well as the Pope And why do they not refer us to those writings but to their own determinations If it be by the Fathers telling the children what hath formerly been believed then why cannot I tell what my Father told me without the Pope and better then the Pope that never knew him 2. And then it must be known upon whose credit the former ages did receive that faith and Scripture which they deliver down to us Doubtless they will say from their predecessors and they again from their predecessors and so up to the Apostles And why then may not we take it immediately on the credit of the Apostles as well as the first ages did supposing that we have the mediation of a sure hand to deliver to us their writings without meditation of the like inspired prophetical persons or of any priviledged infallible judge of the faith And if it be on this Testimony of former ages that we must receive the Scripture as the word of God I shall then proceed further to demand Quest 6. Why may not the Greeks Abassines Protestants c. that acknowledge not the Popes authority or infallibility receive the Scripture as the word of God as well as the Papists Do they think that none else in the world but they can tell what was the judgement of the former Church What records or Tradition have they which all the rest of the world is ignorant of Or dare they say if they have the face of Christians that none of all the Christians on earth but Papists onely have any sufficient evidence that the Scripture was written by the Apostles and delivered from them and that this is it which is now in the Church Can no man indeed but a Papists know the Scripture to be the word of God upon justifiable grounds But if it be on the credit of the present Church or both that we must take the Scripture to be Gods word then I shall further desire to be informed Quest 7. What is it which they call the present Church Is it 1. The whole number of the faithful 2. Or a major vote or part 3. Or the Bishops or Presbyters in whole or part 4. Or a Council chosen from among them 5. Or the Pope If the first Quest 8 Do they not then make all Christians infallible as well as the Pope And so they are in sensu composito in the essentials of Christianity and the whole Church shall never deny those essentials but 1. whole particular Churches may and 2. the whole Church may erre some smaller errors against the revealed will of God the Apostle telleth us that we know but in part and as in many things we offend all so in many things we err all And moreover if this be their sense Quest 9. Will it not then follow that the Pope cannot be proved infallible because it is most certain that All the Church doth not take him to be infallible no nor the greatest part of Christians in the world Yea if they will take none for Christians but Papists yet it will hence follow that there is no certainty that either Pope or Council are infallible For the French take a Pope to be fallible and the Italians and others take a General Council to be fallible and therefore the whole Popish Church being not agreed of it we cannot be sure that either of them is infallible And moreover on this ground I demand Quest 10. How shall we know in very many cases at least either which is the judgement of the whole Church or of the major part What opportunity have we to take the account Or can no poor Christian believe the word of God that cannot take an account of this through the world The same Question also I would put if they take all or most of the Pastors for this Church Quest 11. But if they take a General Council for the Church I would first know How we shall be sure that ever there hath at least these
thousand years been ever a true General Council in the world The Popish Doctors as Doctor Holden de Resolut fid li. 1. cap. 9. pag. 156. say that It must arise to that degree of universality that there may not be any suspicion of conspiracies and combined factions that so every prudent man may be able heartily to say that the Assemblies are truely General And is it so when there are none but the sworn obliged vassals of the Pope of Rome and the Greeks Ethiopians Protestants c. and most of the Church are absent and when it is a known combination to promote their own espoused cause Quest 12. And then is the whole foundation of Divine faith extinct and lost when there is no General Council It may be we may have no General Council of a hundred or six hundred or a thousand years together Have we no Church then Or no certainty of Scripture or of the faith If they say that we are certain by the determinations of former Councils then they speak of the Church that is past and gone of which I moved the doubts before And the Canons of these we can read and understand as well as the Pope But when we appeal to former Councils and Ages they would hold us to the present Church and that must be their own and so be sure to be judges in their own cause Q. 13 I would know also whether it were by the judgment of a General Council that the first Churches believed the Scripture to be Gods word Did not the Church of Rome believe the Epistle to the Romanes and the Church of Corinth believe the Epistle to the Corinthians and so the rest to be the word of God as soon as they received them by an undoubted messenger from Paul Or did they stay till they had the judgement of a General Council or of all the Churches Indeed they made use of the intervening humane but certain testimony of him that was the messenger or bearer of the Epistle to know that it was the writing of Paul indeed and so we still maintain the necessity of a credible humane Testimony that these writings came from the Apostles hands But Tychicus or Trophimus or Timothy or Onesâ—mus were not a General Council nor the whole Church And doubtless those Epistles that were written to each particular Church were received by all the rest of the Churches upon the credit of that particular Church as having received it from an Apostle and not that the particular received it from the universal How did the universal Church know that those Epistles were written by Paul to Titus Timothy Philemon to the Ephesians c. but on the report of the persons and Church to whom they were written or else of those particular persons or Churches to whom the Apostle did communicate a copy of them Quest 14. And how did all the Church know the Scripture to be Gods word before the Council of Nice when there had been no General Council to â—etermine the business Quest 15. Dare a Papist undertake to justifie at Gods judgement all that part of the unbelieving world for not taking the Scripture for the word of God who have seen or heard it and had all other â—estimonies of it but never knew of the Testimony of the Pope or a General Council Shall none of â—hese perish for this unbelief Quest 16. And if it be the Pope that they call â—he Church and take it to be this infallible judge â— then demand How knows the Pope that the Scripture is Gods word or that the Christian Faith is â—rue The like also I ask of a Council How doth that Council know it themselves from whom we must know it Either the Pope and Council must believe it because they first believe themselves and so take it on their own words or else on the words of some others â—f the former then they Believe it because they Believe â—t then they are the original of their own belief and believe themselves first and then would have all the world to believe them And this is not onely to be â—o arrogant as to be the God of themselves and the Church but also so impudent and unreasonable as to believe themselves without reason and to expect that all others should do so too But if it be not from themselves that the Pope and Council believe the Scriptures from whom then is it not from any others of the present Church doubtless therfore it must be from the former Church And if so 1. Have not we the same means to know that the former Church believed the Scriptures as the Pope hath and therefore may believe it without recourse to him and as infallibly as he 2. And then it seems that acccording to their doctrine the Pope and his Council receive not their faith or the Scriptures on the same ground as all the rest of the Church must do so that the Church must have a twofold foundation of her faith whereof one is necessary only to one part and not to the other that is All the rest of the Church must believe the Scripture to be Gods word because the presenâ— Pope or Council saith so having first believed the infallibility but the Pope and Council themselveâ— need not any such ground of their faith And this distinction is not made between the Laity and the Clergy in general But even the Clergy themselves out of Council or who never were of the Council which sure is more then a hundred for one must thuâ— differ from the Pope and Council in the foundation of their Faith This is another taste of the famous Romane unity Paul saith there is One Faith bâ—â— if two divided Foundations or Reasons of Belieâ— do make two Beliefs surely the Church of Rome hatâ— two Quest 17. Do you believe that the Lord Jesâ— Christ understood the doctrine of your Papal Authority and infallibility when he so chid his Apostles foâ— striving who should be greatest and telleth them so expresly that the Kings of the Gentiles exercise Authority over them and are called Gracious Lords but with you it shall not be so And when he sets before them a little child and telleth them that he that will be greatest among them must be as that child that is that humility is the thing that they must strive to be great or excell in and so to serve one another in love Also when he commandeth them to call no man on earth Father or Master that is of their Faith Did ever Christ direct the world to go to the Church of Rome to know whether he be the Christ or whether the Scripture be his word or not Quest 18. Where is the Faith of the Church when the Pope is dead and when there are three or four at a time and when there is an interruption by Schisme thirty years together as it is known there hath been Hath not the Church then lost her faith by losing the foundation of it Or
whether then must poor Pagans have recourse to know that Scripture is the Word of God If Infallibility survive in other Pastors then it seemes it is not the Pope onely that is infallible but others as well as he And was not the Churches Faith resolved into the Infallibility of a Woman in Pope Joanes dayes I know the shifts of Bellarmine and Onuphrius to make the world believe that the Story of Pope Joane is but a Fable Florimondus Remondus is common on this subject But the case is out of question thus farre that we have neer fifty of their own Writers especially old Historians that give us the History of this Pope Joane as Platina in vit Joh. 8. Sabellicus Enead l. 1. Antoninus Archbishop of Florence part 2. li. 16. Chalcondyla li. 6. Marianus Scotus Martinus Polonus Fasciculus Temporum Nauclerus Volaterane Textor Caryon Sigebertus Gemblacensis Mat. Palmerius Massaeus c. And I marvaile why the Papists should be so industrious in refelling it as if their cause lay more on this then other things If a Conjurer a common Whoremonger a Murderer a Simonist a Heretick may be the infallible judge of the faith why may not a woman Hath Christ laid more on the Sex then on all these specially if she had but kept her self honest I should have thought Joane had been better then John the 22. or 23. and many another that yet was of the more worthy gender Quest 19. And further I would know If the City of Rome were consumed with fire or the Pope-dome removed from that Sea which Bellarmine confesseth it is not impossile to be done where then were the infallible head of the Church and what were become of the Romish faith If they say that this can never be and that Christs promise implyeth the preservation of the City of Rome I answer 1. It will be long before they will give us any proof of that 2. Their own writers confess the contrary 3. Let the end determine it But if they say that infallibility is not tyed to the place but to the Person who shall be Peters successor I answer we thought hitherto that to be Peters successor and to be the Bishop of Rome had been all one with them If another man that is no Bishop of Rome may be Peters successor then how shall we know who have succeeded him all this while Why not the Bishop of Alexandria Hierusalem Ephesus or other place as well as the Pope specially why not the Patriarch of Antioch who is said to be the eldest son of Saint Peter as inheriting his first chaire I doubt if Rome were extinct and the Bishop of Mentz or Cullen or Vienna or Rhemes or Paris or any other should pretend to be the infallible head of the Church not only the old Patriarchs but their neighbor Bishops would much contradict it and the world would be at a great loss to find the Popish faith or infallible head Quest 20. Lastly I will appeal to the conscience of any Papist that hath any conscience left and hath read the Fathers or History of the first Ages of the Church whether the rest of the Bishops and Curches in those times did believe the Scripture upon the credit of the infallibility of the Pope or the Romane Church Did the rest of the Apostles receive the Gospel on the credit of Peter or were they sent by him or did they receive their authority from him Do they find that ever the Apostles or any following Bishops of the Church did take such a course to bring men to the faith as first to teach them that the Romane Pope or Clergy were infallible and therefore to perswade them to believe the Scriptures or Christian faith because they say its true Is it possible that any learned Papists can seriously believe that this was the ancient way of believing Do they think in good sadness that the world was converted to Christianity by this means Sure it is scarce possible that they should be so far distracted by their prejudice and faction Do they read in Clemens Rom. or Alexandrin in Ignatius Justin Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Cyprian or any other of those times that the preachers that went abroad the world to perswade men to Christianity did ever use this Popish Medium or go this way to work Did they first preach the Pope and Romane Church before they preach't Christ or Scripture Did they first preach men into a belief of the Romane infallibility and then bring them to Christ or to believe the Scripture upon the credit of that O that these men would but shew us in what history we may find the reports of this way of preaching Or tell us what parts of the world were converted by this argument How many and large Orations Apologies and other discourses do we find in the Fathers writings for the Christian Faith to convince the unbelieving world in Clem Alexand. Tertullian Origen Athenagoras Tatianus Minutius Faelix Arnobius Lactantius Greg Nazianz. Nissen Athanasius Basil Eusebius Cyril Alexandr Augustine and many others And can any man of brains imagin that if the infallibility â—ea or but the authority of the Romane Pope or Church must needs be known before we can believe the Scripture or the Christian faith and that it must be received upon the credit of that Church that all these Fathers and others defenders and propagators of the Faith would have quite forgotten and left out this great and necessary point What! Would all the preachers and defenders of the faith overlook and omit the very foundation into which all mens faith must be resolved Undoubtedly if this had been then thought to be true which the Papists now teach we should have had the first part and a great if not the greatest part of all thoâ—e Apologies and discourses laid out in the proof of the Romane infallibility What man will go to evince a whole systeme of doctrines to be true and quite forget that medium by which onely it is first to be proved Would not this have found one place at least if not the chief among Eusebius his Preparations or Demonstrations Where was there ever in all Antiquity found such an Argument as this to convince an unbeliever Whatsoever the Pope and Church of Rome determineth is true But they do determine that Scripture is the word of God or that Christianity is the right Religion therefore this is true Nay further consider If this kind of arguing had been then used may not any man see that hath not renounced his wits that the Heathens would have sorely stuck at the Major proposition and that it would have met with so many objections and contradictions from them that surely we should have found some of them remembred to posterity Did Julian never stick at this very principle of the faith the Romane infallibility who stuck at so many things in the faith it self Or have Cyril Alexandr and others quite forgot to mention these among the rest
and therefore took him not to be infallible and he parallell's him with the Ancient Hereticks Marcion Apelles Valentinus Basilides as bringing in error under pretence of Tradition as they did And saith And for them that are at Rome they do not in all things observe those things which were delivered from the beginning and do in vain pretend the Authority of the Apostles as may be seen in that about Easter and about many other Divine mysteries there are some diversities with them and they do not equally observe all things as at Hierusalem they are observed As also in many other Provinces many things are varyed according to the diversity of places and names and yet no breach of the Churches unity and peace for this Which now Stephen hath dared to do breaking the peace with us which his ancestors kept in love and honor and moreover defaming Peter and Paul as if he had this Tradition from them And in this I have just indignation at the open and manifest foolishness of Stephen that he that thus boasteth of the place of his Bishopricke and contendeth that he holdeth the succession of Peter upon whom the foundations of the Church are laid doth bring in many other Rocks and maketh new buildings of many Churches while by his authority he defendeth that there is Baptisme And as to the confutation of Custome which they seem to oppose to truth who is so vain as to prefer custom before truth Or that seeing the light will not forsake the darkness Except that when Christ that is the truth was come the most ancient custom would have in any thing helpt the Jews that leaving the new way of truth they remained in Antiquity Which you Africans may say against Stephen that having knowledge of the truth you have forsaken the error of custome But we do both joyn custome to truth and to the custome of the Romanes we oppose custome but of the truth from the beginning holding that which from Christ and his Apostles was delivered to us Nor can we remember any beginning of this Yea thou art worse then all the hereticks See then how ignorantly thou darest to reprehend them who strive for the truth against a lye For who should more justly be angry with the other he that defendeth Gods enemies or he that consenteth But that it is manifest that the ignorant are haughty and angry while for want of judgement and speech they easily turn to indignation so that of no man more then of thee doth Gods Scripture say An haughty man breedeth strife and an angry man heapeth up sins Prov. 29.22 For what strifes and dissenssions hast thou made through the Churches of the whole world And how great a sin hast thou heaped on thy self when thou hast cut off thy self from so many flocks For thou hast cut off thy self deceive not thy self For he is truely the schismatick who maketh himself an apostate from the communion of Ecclesiastical unity For while thou thinkest to suspend all from thy communion thou dost onely suspend thy self from the communion of all Can there be one Body and one spirit with such a a man whose soul perhaps is not one so slippery and mutable and uncertain is it And yet is not Stephen ashamed to patronize such against the Church and for the defence of hereticks to divide the brother hood and also to call Cyprian a false Christ and false Apostle and a deceitful worker who being conscious that all these were in himself did by prevention object all that to another by a lye which himself deservedly ought to hear So far Firmilianus The question is not whether Stephen of Rome or the Eastern Bishops were in the right but whether these passages do not sufficiently declare that they had then no conceits of the Popes infallibility and that when he excommunicated other Churches they took it but as an excommunicating of himself and therefore plainly called him a Schismatick In the Council of Carthage 87. Bishops decreed expresly against the sentence of the Bishop of Rome And Cyprian in Council speaks thus Let every man speak his judgement judging no man nor removing any man from the right of communion that thinks otherwise For none of us takes himself to be a Bishop of Bishops or by a tyrannical fear doth compell his Colleagues to obey seeing every Bishop hath by licence free choice of his own liberty and power and can neither be judged of another nor can judge another But let us all expect the judgement of our Lord Jesus Christ who onely and solely hath power to set us over his Church in Government and to judge of our actions If this be not as plain as need be spoken against the Papal usurpation I know not what can be accounted plain Yea Cyprian and the Council say the like to the Pope himself These things dear brother we speak to thy conscience for the common honor and for simple love But we know that some men will not lay down that which they have once drunk in nor easily change their purpose but saving the bond of Peace and concord among Collegues will retain some things of their own which are once grown into use among them Wherein we do neither use violence nor give Laws to any seeing that every Ruler or Bishop hath the free arbitration of his own will in the administration of the Church as one that must give account of his doings to the Lord. If this be not plain still against Papal and all Archiepiscopal government of Bishops I know not how a man should speak plain The Council of Carthage saith Gratian Dist 99 saith Even the Pope of Rome must not be called the universal Bishop Gregory called the great Bishop of Rome but a few years before Boniface claimed the universal Episcopacy wrote thus against John of Constantinople who would have had some such title None of my predecessors would use this prophane word viz. Universal Bishop because if one will call himself universal Patriarch the name of Patriarch is stoln from others But far be it from a Christian soul that any should falsly ascribe to himself that whereby he diminisheth any thing from the honor of his Brethren To consent to that unjust speech is no other thing then to fall from the faith One thing we owe to the unity of the faith and another to suppress pride And I say boldly that he who calleth himself universal Pastor or desireth so to be called surpasseth the Antichrist in pride So Epist 188. l. 6. He saith I have said that he cannot have place with us if he corrected not the vanity of that supersticious and ambitious word which hath been invented by the first Apostate And to speak nothing of the injury done to your honor if a Bishop be called universal that universal once falling the universal Church must also fall Here it is especially to be noted that this very reason by which Gregory condemneth universal Episcopacy
elswhere Quia nolo humanis documentis c. Because I will not have the holy Church to be demonstrated by humane documents but by Gods Oracles For if the holy Scriptures have placed the Church in Africa alone and in a few places of Rome c. then whatsoever may be brought out of other papers the Church is onely with the Donatists Si autem c But if the Church of Christ is placed by the Divine and most certain testimonies of the Canonical Scriptures in all Natitions then what ever they bring and whence ever they recite it who say Lo here is Christ or lo there let us rather if we be his sheep hear the voice of our Shepherd saying Believe them not For those parcels are not found in many Nations where that Church is but it which is every where is found even where they are therefore let us seek it in the holy Canonical Scriptures And thus he goes on and proves at large by the Scriptures the true Church fitting all as meet to the present schisme of the Papists almost as if he had seen and named it Cap. 18. Begins thus Because therefore the holy Church is manifestly known in the Scriptures c. Remotis ergo omnibus c. Laying aside therefore all such matters let them demonstrate their Church if they can not in the speeches and rumors of the Africans not in the Councils of their Bishops not in the writings of any disputers not in signes and fallacious Miracles because we are prepared and cautioned against such things by the word of God but in the writings of the Law in the predictions of the prophets in the Psalms in the words of our Pastor himself in the preachings and labors of the Evangelists that is in all the Canonical authorityes of the sacred Books Next he shews that it must not be out of Parables Allegories or such Scriptures that make no more for one side then the other what then doth he tell them that it is all such and send them to Rome to know the sence no but it is the plain Scripture of which he produceth abundance that must tell us which is the true Church And he thus begins the 19 Chap. Omissis ergo c. Letting pass therefore the snares of delayes let him shew their Church c. and so shew it as not to say It s true because I say it or because my collegue said it or these collegues of mine or those Bishops or Clerks or our Layity or therefore its true because these or those wonders were done by Donatus or Pontius or any other or because men pray and are heard at the Memories or shrines of ours that are dead or because such or such things happen there or because that brother of ours or that sister of ours saw such a sight waking or had such a dreaming vision sleeping Away with these either fictions of lying men or wonders of deceiving spirits For either the things that are said are not true or if any wonders are done by hereticks we must the more beware seeing the Lord when he told us there would come deceivers who by doing certain signs would deceive if it were possible even the elect addeth Lo I have foretold you And if any be heard praying at the Memories of hereticks it is not for the desert of the place but the desert of his desire that he receiveth good or evil No man can have Christ for his head that is not in his Body which is the Church which Church we must know as we do Christ himself in the sacred Canonical Scriptures and not to inquire into the various rumors of men and their opinions and deeds and sayings and sights But let them shew me whether they have the Church no way but by the Canonical books of the divine Scriptuers Because neither do we therefore say that they ought to believe us that we are in the Church of Christ because that Church which we hold is commended by Optatus Melevitanus or by Ambrose of Millan or innumerable other Bishops of our communion or because it is predicated or praised by the Councils of our Collegues or because through the whole world in the holy places which are frequented by our communion so great marvailes of hearings or healings are done here some are named What ever things of this sort are done in the Catholike Church are therefore to be approved because they are done in the Catholike Church but it is not therefore manifested to be the Catholike Church because these things are done in it This he testifieth is written in the Law and the Prophets and Psalms this we have commended by his own mouth These are the documents of our cause these are its foundations these its upholders or confirmers We read in the Acts of the Apostles of some Believers that they daily search't the Scriptures whether those things were so What Scriptures but the Canonical of the Law and prophets Hereto are added the Gospels the Epistles of the Apostles the Acts of the Apostles and the Revelation of John Search all these and produce somewhat manifest which will demonstrate that the Church either remaineth in Africke alone or is to be from Africk so that it may be fulfilled which the Lord saith This Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world c. But bring somewhat that needeth nor an interpreter that you may not be convinced that it speaks of another matter and that you strive to turn it to your own sence Chap. 25. The question is not dark in which they may deceive you You see the Church is every where diffused and increaseth to the harvest This whole Book of Austin is written as if it had been purposed as a confutation of the Papists that will have the Church to contain onely the Romane faction and exclude all the rest of the world and will try the Scripture by the Church and not the Church by the Scripture but fly to I know not what visions and pretended miracles to prove their Church which Austin professeth are not a proof no not of the true Church though there be much more then there to boast of so that the Papists cannot here say that Austin thus dealeth with the Donatists because they denyed the Church of Rome and believed the Scripture he expresly enough preventeth all such expositions of his words August con Cresconium li. 2. cap. 33. p. 177. Saith Ego hujus Epistolae c. I am not bound by the authority of this Epistle of Cyprians ad Jubai because I take not Ciprians Epistles be Canonical but by the Canonical I consider them and that in them which agreeth to the authority of the Divine Scriptures I accept with his praise but that which disagreeth I refuse with his peace And so if thou hadst recited those things which he wrote to Jubajan out of some Canonical book of the Apostles or Prophets I should have had
nothing at all to gain-say But now seeing what thou recitest is not Canonical by that liberty to which the Lord hath called us I refuse it c. And he compareth it to Peters compelling the Gentiles to Judaize Gal. 2. shewing that even Peter should have been so refused in error The words of Austin in Epist 19. ad Hieron are commonly cited I have learned to give onely to those writings which are now called Canonical this reverence and honor as that I dare say that none of them erred in writing but others I so read that how holy and learned soever they be I do not therefore think it true because they so judged but because they perswade me either by those Canonical books or by probable reason that they say true As commonly cited is that li. 3. Cont. Maximin Arrian c. 14. pag. mihi 306. Sed nunc nec ego c. But now neither ought I as fore-judging or for prejudice to bring forth the Nicene Council nor thou the Council of Ariminum I am not bound by the authority of this noâ— thou of that Let matter contend with matter causâ— with cause reason with reason by the authoritie of the Scriptures which are witnesses not proper to either of us but common to both It were too long to recite the fourtieth part which Augustine hath to this purpose He that would seâ— more let him read his Epist 112. de Morib Ecclesâ— Cathol c. 7. Epist 111. Contr. Faustum li. 11. c. 5 de Trintat li. 3. c. The words of Optatus lib. 5. advers Parmen arâ— frequently cited by our writers which are thuâ— Quaerendi sunt judices c. We must seek judges Iâ— Christians they cannot be admitted on either side because by siding the truth is hindred We must seek a judge abroad or without If a Pagan he cannot know the Christians secrets If a Jew he is an enemy to the Christian Baptism On earth there can no judgment of this matter be found We must seek a Judge from heaven But wherefore should we go knock at heaven when we have it here in the Gospel A Testament I say because here we may well compare earthly things to heavenly is such as that a man that hath many sons doth command them all himself as long as the father is present there is then no need of a Testament So Christ as long as he was present on earth though yet he be not wanting or absent commanded the Apostles whatever was needful for the time But as a father when he feeleth himself neer to death fearing lest after his death the Btethren should unpeaceably quarrel doth before witness put his Will out of his dying brest into writings which may endure And if there shall rise any contention among the Brethren they go not to the Grave but seek the Testament and he that resteth in the Grave doth silently speak by the writings The Living Lord whose the Testament is is in heaven Let his will therefore be sought in the Gospel as in a Testament The Author of the imperfect work on Mat. commonly imputed to Chrysostome Homil. 49. saith At this time since heresie hath possessed these Churches there can be no proof of true Christianity nor any other refuge of Christians that would know the truth of Belief but the Divine Scriptures For before it was declared by many means which was the Church of Christ and which was Gentilism But now it is by no way known to them that would know which is the true Church of Christ but only by the Scriptures How therefore should he that would know which is the true Church of Christ come to know it but onely by the Scriptures One would think this were plain enough if the Papists were not the Judges of the meaning of all writings as well as the holy Scriptures which condemne their cause Junilius ad Primasium â— part divin legis li. 2. qu. 29 Saith Vnde probamus libros c. How do we prove that the Books of our Religion are written by Divine inspiration Many wayes of which the first is the truth Scripturâ— it self then the order of things the agreement oâ— precepts the manner of speech without affectation or compasses and the purity of words Therâ— is added also the quality of the writers and preachers that meer men could not have delivered such Divine things and vile men such high things and uneloquent men such subtile things unless they were filled with the Holy Ghost And the force oâ— the preaching of it which it had when it was preached though by a few contemned men Hereto is added the witness of the contrary party as the Sybils or Philosophers the expulsion of adversaries the utility of the consequents the event which by acceptations and figures and predictions were foretold and lastly the Miracles which were continually wrought till the Scripture it self was received by the Nations of which this sufficeth for the next Miracle that it is known to be received by all Saith Chamier citing this passage Here are arguments enough to prove the authority of Scripture internal and external but no mention of the Churches antecedent judgement to determine it The same may be said of Eusebius Anstia and the rest that prove the Scripture and Christian Religion Hieromes words are frequently cited on Math. 23. Hoc quia de Scripturis c. This is as easily contemned as proved because it hath not authority from the Scriptures And on Isaiah 8. He saith Side aliquo dubitatis c. If you doubt of any thing know what is written If you would know the things that are doubtful rather give up your selves to the law and to the testimonies of the Scriptures And on the 86. Psalm He saith Quamvis sanctus aliquis c. Though there be some Saint after the Apostles never so eloquent yet he hath not authority And Epist ad Rustic Since covetousness entered into the Church as into the Empire the Law is perished from the Priests and the vision from the Prophets And the same Hierome Epist ad Evagr. fol. 150. Edit Basil per Froben 1516. Tomo 3. pag. 329. Edict Basil 1536. Tomo 2. Saith thus Quid â—uim facit excepta ordinatione Episcopus quod presbyter non faciat Nec altera Romana urbis Ecclesia altera totius orbis existimanda est Et Gallia Britannia Africa Persis Oriens Judia omnes Barbarae nationes unum Christum adâ—rant unam observant regulam veritatis Si Authoritâ—â— quaritur Orbis major est Vrbe Vbicunque fuerit Episcopus sive Romae sive Fugubii sive Constantinopoli sive Rhegii sive Alexandriae sive Tanis ejusdem meriti ejusdem est sacerdotii Potentia divitiarum paupertatis humilitas vel sublimiorem vel inferiorem Episcopum non facit Caeteram omnes Apostolorum successores sunt Sed dicis Quomodo Romae ad testimonium Diaconi
presbyter ordinatur Quid mihi profers unius urbis consuttudinem Quid paucitatem de qua ortum est supercilium in leges Eccesiae vindicas That is For what doth a Bishop except ordination which a Presbyter may not do Nor is the Church of the Romane City to be esteemed one and the Church of the whole world another Both France and Brittaine and Africk and Persia and the East and Jndia and all the Barbarous Nations do worship one Christ and observe one Rule of truth If you seek for Authority the worlds is greater than the Cities of Rome Wherever there is a Bishop whether at Rome or at Eugubium or at Constantinople or at Rhegium at Alexandria or at Tanis of the same Merit he is also of the same Priesthood The Power of riches and the lowness of poverty make not a Bishop high-eror lower But they are all the Apostles successors But you say How is it that at Rome a Presbyter is ordained on the testimony of a Deacon What tell you me of the custome of one City why do you defend a few of which superciliousness is arisen against the Laws of the Church It may be the Papists by their supereminent power of interpreting all Church writers can put such a sence on these words of Hierom as shall consist with that which he purposly doth oppose But I think an impartial man can hardly believe that when he wrote these words he was acquainted with Romes claim of universal jurisdiction and infallibility Nay when it is the scope of much of the former part of this Epistle to prove the equality of Bishops and Presbyters in the beginning and that at that time they differed in no power but that of ordaining when yet he saith the Presbyters of Alexandria did long make their own Bishops how then could Hierome believe the Popes universal jurisdiction Could he think that the Bishop of Rome had that power over the Church which he thought not any Bishop to have over the Presbyters of any one Church Greg. Nazianzene saith of Councils If I must write the truth I am of this mind that I will flye or avoid all Councils of Bishops for I never saw a glad or happy end of any Councils or which did not rather bring an addition or increase of evils then a removal of them To this of Nazianzene Bellarmine answereth that Gregory meant that in his time no Council could be wholly lawful for he lived between the first and second general Council where he had seen many Councils which because of the great number of Hereticks had a bad end And he names five of them Answ 1. But by what Authority doth Bellarmine confine Gregories words to some Councils which he speaks in general of all that he had seen or might do resolving to avoid all hereafter 2. Here note that Bellarmine confesseth that Councils may erre and then where is the French Religion 3. I would fain know where was the Churches infallibility and power of judging of matters of faith in Nazianzens dayes If there were no lawful General Councils nor could be then it was not in them therefore it must be either in the people and how shall we gather the world together to consult with them or else as Bellarmine will say in the Pope alone or in the Romane Clergy with him I hear not yet that they are very forward to prove that the Romane Clergy in particular are Infallible though Bellarmine hath given us his bold conjectures of that It must needs be therefore that at that time all the Churches infallible judicial power and so the foundation of our faith must be resolved into the Pope alone and so the faith of all the world must then be resolved into the credit of the word of a single and silly man I know the Italian faction will not abhor this at any time but then they should for shame speak out and deal plainly with the world and not talke of the whole Church and all the Church when they mean but one man 4. And I would fain know of any friend of Bellarmines how far the universal Church was visible at that time when all Councils were bad and none could be lawful The visibility was not in a Council to represent the whole and the â—aity are not much noted when Councils go wrong â—o that the Church was visible onely in one man or â— few particular persons according to the Papists common reckoning who judge by the Pastors visiâ—ility Yea the Church of Rome it self was invisible â—hen and divers times when their Bishop was a Hereâ—ick If therefore they will say either that the Church was visible in one man or in the Laity of many partes opprest by the Clergy and Magistracy and they have nothing more to say then we will â—ay as much of the visibility of our Church before Luther and more too 5. It s confest here also that â—ot onely a Council but the greater number by â—ery many of the Bishops of the Church may be â—eretickes or erre in faith 6. And then the Church may lye in the smaller oppressed part and why then may not the most erre now Stapleton himself confesseth â—hat Luther was not much out of the way when he said â—here were scarce five Bishops â—o be found that turned not Arrians And Hieromeâ—aith â—aith Dialog advers Lucifer The whole world â—â—aned and wondred that it was turned Arrian â— And did the authority of the Scripture at that time â—ll quoad nos when the judge was turned heretick â—ven Liberius and the Councils And if the high Elogies of the Romane Church would prove its Authority then see what Nazianâ—ene saith of the Church of Caesarea In his 22. Epistle ad Caesarienses patris nomine scripta found among his own works Edit Paris Tom. 1. pag. 785. and also in Basils works translated by Musculus Edit Basil 1565. Tom. 2. pag. 17. Seeing every Church as being Christs body is to be watched over or looked to with greatesâ— care and diligence then specially yours which anciently was and now is and is esteemed almost oâ— nigh the mother of all Churches on which thâ— whole Christian Commonwealth doth cast their eyes even as the encompassing circle doth on the center not onely for the soundness of doctrinâ— long divulged to all but also for that conspicuouâ— grace of Concord which God hath given them What would the Papists say but that this were foâ— their supremacy if they found but this much in him for the Church of Rome And I think there is no doubt but that in thosâ— ancient times the Church was acquainted with thâ— true way of Government as well as Rome is now and therefore I would know further 8. Whether thâ— truest Government may not stand with great desolations divisions of the Church and multitudes of errors Greg. Nazianzene saith Orat. 20 pag. mihâ— 345. That when Basil seâ— upon the great work of healing the Church The holy
how much the Pope of Rome hath at this day gotten beyond the sacred observations by use and custome of subjectional obedience And Barth Caranza having mentioned this Canon in his summ Council p. 48. had no other evasion but this that among all the Greek and Latin Copies which he searched Cardinal Marcellus a Legate at the Trent Council shewed him one Latine Copy that had Metropolitane instead of Romane But is this much to the purpose Or if it were is one Latin Copy in a Cardinals hand more credible then all the rest in the world that have câ—â—e to light In the 6. Council of Carthage Auâ—elius heard it and Augustine was there and there they again determined that the Bishop of Rome should not receive the Priests or excommunicate persons that appeased to him And they give this as the Reason Quia hoc nulla patrum c. That is Because this was never derogated from the Asricke Church by any definition of our Fathers and the Nicene Decree do commit both the inferior Clergy and and the Bishops themselves to their Metropolitans For they most prudently and justly provided that all businesses should be finished in the places where they were begun and the grace of the holy Ghost will not be wanting to each province Let this equity be constantly and prudently observed by Christs Priests especially seeing every man hath leave if he be offended with the judgement of the known to appeal to a Council to his Province or to a General Council Unless there be any man that can think that God can inspire a Justice of Tryal into any one person and deny it to innumerable that are congregated in Council And whereas the Bishop of Rome would have sent his Legates into those parts to take cognisance of their affairs they answered Vt aliqui tanquam atuae sanctitatis latere ad nos mittantur nulla invenimus Patrum Synodo constitutum That is That any should be sent against as Legates from your sanctity to us is a thing which we find not constituted by any Synod of the Fathers But here Gratian hath falsified the Canon by the addition of a Save to the See of Rome where the Milevitâ—n Canon is repeated In which manner they have used too much of the Churches records Can we think that Augustine and the rest of the Bishops in these Councils did not understand what they did and purposly restrain the Romane ambition The case also which is related in Augustine between the Catholikes and the Donatists shews how far they were in those dayes from dreaming of the Romane decisive judgement The great controversie was who had the true Church the Donatists or the Catholikes And the Donatists great Arguments were that Caecilian had been ordained by Traditors and therefore his party and those that communicated with them were not the Church nor to be communicated with Mark now how the Catholikes plead this cause 1. They procure it heard by the Emperors Cognitor Marcellinus and not by the Pope 2. They never once fetch their proof that the Catholike Church was theirs from their agreement with Rome or subjection to the Pope nor once in all their mention of the Catholike Church do give the Popish description of it or fetch it from the Romane Bishop as the head but over over again they prove that their Church is the Catholike Church because it is That which beginning at Jerusalem is tranfused over all the world and frequently they give this same description of it and hence prove it out of Scripture as is apparent in Austins writings at large They never say the Catholike Church is the Romane or that which submitteth to the Pope 3. Note which is the chief thing that here I do intend that it was publikely proved in the conference that first Melchiades Bishop of Rome with other Bishops were appointed to hear the business between Donatus a nigris Casis and Caecilianus and that they absolved Caecilianus and condemned Donatus And then that the Donatists rested not here but appealed to the Emperor and the Emperor caused a certain number of Bishops to meet at Arles to hear over all the cause again and these Bishops not agreeing though they were most of them against Donatus the Emperor Constantine was fain to determine the matter himself who absolved Faelix and Caecilianus and condemned the Donatists yet giving them liberum arbitrium as it was called then or Liberty of conscience as it is called now So that the Bishop of Rome acteth but as appointed with others and his judgement is not that highest from which there is no appeal for the Bishops at Arles must judge of all again and the Emperor after them Of all this see Augustine in Brevicul Collation cum Donat. throughout specially pag 288. Edit Paris lib. ad Donatist post Collation cap. 33. pag. 245. I shall onely adde to these Testimonies foregoing the witness of some of their own party I have before shewed that one part of their Church denyeth the Popes infallibility and the other a Councils and that they are not agreed about the ultimate resolution of their faith Their Cardinal Nic. Cusanus li. de Concord Cathol c. 13. 34. maintaineth that All Bishops are equal as to the jurisdiction though not as to the execution because the executive exercise is restrained by certain positive bounds and that for the better to bring men to God which when it ceaseth the positive rights cease And he saith that in time of necessity a simple Priest may absolve even one that is excommunicated by the Pope And concludeth that the Papacy is but of Positive right and that both it and all Majority among Bishops is constituted by subjectional consent that the power of binding and losing is immediately from Christ and therefore that Priests are equal and that the distinction of Diocess and that a Bishop should be over the Presbyters are of positive right And that Christ gave no more to Peter then to the rest of the Apostles nor said more to him then to them Yea and he addeth that if the Bishop of Trevers were by the congregate Church chosen to be their President and head he should properly be more the successor of Peter then the Bishop of Rome This is plain dealing for a Cardinal That the like passages are frequent in Gerson is so well known that I need not mention them And in Cardinal de Aliaco and many other Cardinals Bishops and Schoolmen of their own the like passages are well known and so oft cited already that I shall forbear to recite them I have oft times observed how they have alledged Durandus as pleading that the last resolution of our faith is into this primo creditum that the Church is guided by the holy Ghost and that therefore we believe the Scripture to be Gods word e. g. the Gospel of Matthew rather then that of Nicodemus because the Church approveth it who is guided by the
spirit But I find that even there Durandus destroyeth the Romane cause For he immediately addeth that Hoc quod dictum est de approbatione Scripturae per Ecclesiam intelligitur solum de Ecclesia quae fuit tempore Apostolorum qui fuerunt repleti spiritu sancto nihilominus viderunt Miracula Christi audierunt ejus doctrinam ob hoc fuerunt convenientes testes omnium quae Christus fecit aut doâ—uit ut per eorum testimonium scriptura continens facta dicta Christi approbaretur That is This which is said of the approbation of the Scripture by the Church is onely meant of the Church which was in the times of the Apostles who were filled with the Holy Ghost and also saw the Miracles of Christ and heard his doctrine and therefore were fit witnesses of all that Christ did or taught that by their testimony the Scripture containing the deeds and words of Christ might be approved This he proveth from Scripture and concludeth that the Gospels which that Church approved cannot now be rejected because there is not the like cause and that Immo tenens contrarium haereticus est cujuscunque status aut conditionis existat Yea he that holdeth the contrary is a heretick of what state or condition soever he be Not excepting the Pope himself Is this liker the doctrine of Papists or of Protestants Yea one word to Master Knot and those of his that will resolve their faith into the Miracles of the present Rome Church If those Miracles which they glory in be indeed regardable then the Church of Rome is not infallible for the author of those Miracles do witness them to be fallible The old Saint Austin and the rest of his time and before whose testimonies about Miracles they bring in as I have sufficiently proved are against their usurped jurisdiction and infallibility Their Saint Maud saith that the Romane Church shall ere long Apostatize from the faith totally and openly which did obscurely Apostatize of a long time before Their Saint Elizabeth saith That Christ the head of the Church cryeth out but his members are dead that the Apostolike seat is possessed with pride and the flocks go astray The supposed Prophet Abbat Joachim saith There is yet another figtree withered by the curse of prevarication the Latin Church or the Ship of Peter whose temporal leaves are made covers to excuse sin with which both Adam the Pope and Eve the subjects of the Church do cover the dishonesty of their lives and miserably hide themselves in the wood of Ecclesiastical Glory But I will trouble my self and the Reader with no more of this work fearing that I have trespassed in doing more than needs in so plain a case already I will therefore shut up all that I have to say from humane Testimony with the words of Chrysostom or whoever else is the author of the imperfect work on Math. and his own certain expressions elsewhere In the Imperfect Comment Edit Commel an 1617. in Math. 20. Hom. 35. pag. 900.901 it is said as followeth Fructum humilitatis terrestris posuit primatum caelestem primatus terrestris fructum posuit confusionem caelestem Quicunque ergo defiderat primatum caelestem sequatur humilitatem terrestrem quicunque autem desiderat primatum in terra inveniet confusionem in caelo ut jam inter servos Christi â—on sit de primatu certamen That is He hath made the Celestial primacy to be the fruit of terrestrial humility and the fruit of earthly Primacy he hath appointed to be Celestial confusion Whosoever therefore desireth Celestial primacy let him follow terrestrial humility but whosoever desireth Primacy on earth shall find confusion in heaven That so a mong the servants of Christ there may be no strife for Primacy And afterward he addeth Primatum autem Ecclesiasticum concupiscere neque ratio est neque causa quia neque justum est neque utile Quis enim sapiens ultro se subjicere festinar servituti labori dolori quod majus est periculo tali ut det rationem pro omni Ecclesia apud justum judicem nisi forte qui nec credit judicium Dei nec times uti abutens primatu suo Ecclesiastico seculariter convertat eum in secularem That is But to desire an Ecclesiastical Primacy there is neither reason nor cause because it is neither just nor profitable For what wise man will voluntarily hasten to subject himself to servitude labor grief and which is more to such a danger as to be accountable to the righteous judge for all the Church unless it be one that perhaps doth neither believe the judgement of God nor feareth it that abusing secularly his Ecclesiastical primacy he may turn it into a secular One would think this should be plain enough against the Papal usurpation If they tell me that this is none of Chrysostomes works but some hereticks I answer When they have use for it they can magnifie it Let their Sixtus Senensis words be weighed which are printed before this book especially what he saith of some ancient Copies which have the errors onely in the Margin written by some Arrian hand and withall that it is very observable that the errors are so intermixed that yet you may take them out and not maim any of the sence but leave the rest entire yea they seem as parenthentical or superfluous and then conjecture whether yet it may not be Crysostomes But whos 's so ever it is it is ancient and commonly much commended But let that go which way it will as long as in the undoubted works of Crysostome there is over and over again the like In his Homil. 66. alias 67. in Mat. 20. pag. 577. he saith They that seek Primacy are a disgrace to themselves not knowing that by this means they shall thrust themselves into the lowest state The like he hath in Homil. on Math. 18. I shall now leave it to the consideration of the impartial by this smal taste of the judgement of former tmes whether the Romane infallibility and universal government were a thing known to the Church of Christ of old or yielded as soon as ambitiously sought And whether this be a sit ground for us to build our faith upon or resolve it into And if any would see more of the resistancy of their usurpations even when it was at the highest he may read in Mich. Goldastus a multitude of Volumes that will give him further information or in Bishop Vsher de Success stat Eccles he may find enough in narrower room The last part of this disputation should consist of an answer to the Popish Arguments for their cause but I can find so little in any of their writings that 's worthy to be taken notice of more then what is answered before that I shall not need to stand long upon this They tell us that if our Church be not infallible then people
the creation to this day and we must now begin to feign a Necessity of their infallibility Let it be sufficient that God and the extraordinarily inspired Prophets and Apostles are infallible and that we have Teachers that can infallibly prove to us what he requireth of us in his words in points of Necessity to our everlasting happiness And for themselves pretending to infallibility makes them not nor procureth them infallible whereas their voluminous errors and the wicked practices grounded thereupon and their frequent self-contradictions and mutations do proclaim aloud to the world that they are both deceivable deceived and deceivers while the holy Scriptures whose sufficiency they deny is by themselves confessed to be of infallible verity We are resolved therefore by the grace of God in a business of such moment as the everlasting saving or losing of our souls to venture and bottom all our Hopes on that word of God whose infallibility they confess then on the wordâ— of men who pretend to infallibility and notoriously declare the vainty of those pretences Some more of the Sence of Antiquity in the main Controversie between us and the Papists to declare further who it is that is of the New Religion CYrill Hierosol Cateches 4. Sect. de spiritu sancto pag. Edit Paris 1631. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. e. For concerning Divine things and the holy mysteries of faith nothing no not the smallest thing ought to be delivered without the Divine Scriptures nor to be brought forth by simple probability nor by a train of words Nay do not simply believe me my self when I speak of these things to thee unless thou receive a demonstration of the things which I speak from the Divine Scriptures For the very safety of our faith resteth not on the elegancy of speech but on the proof of Divine Scriptures And pag. 36. Sect de Sacra Script he telleth you what Scriptures he meaneth earnestly disswading from the Apocryphal books and numbering the same onely which we own as Canonical save that he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and omitteth the Epist to Hebrews and the Apocalypse And Cateches 17. pag. 192. he saith And we now also ingeniously confess that we will not use humane reasonings but will only commemorate those things which are in the holy Scriptures for this is most safe as Saint Paul 1. Cor. 2.4 And Cateches 18. pag. 220 221 222. See how he describeth the Catholike Church without the least intimation of the Romane description August Cont. literas Petiliani li. 3. cap. 6. pag. Edit Paris 127. col 1. Proinde sive de Christo sive de ejus Ecclesia sive de quacunque alia re quae pertinet ad fidem utramque nostram non dicam nos nequaquam comparandi ei qui dixit Licet si nos sed omnino quod secutus adjecit Si Angelus de caelo vobis annunciaverit preterquam quod in Scripturis legalibus Evangelicis accepistis anathema sit Hac vobiscum cum omnibus quos Christo lucrati cupimus actitantes atque inter caetera sanctam Ecclesiam quam in Dei lieris promissam legimus sicut promissa est in omnibus gâ—ntibus reddi cernimus praedicantes ab iis quos ad ejus pacificum gremium attrahi cupimus pro actione gratiarum flammas meruinnus odiorum That is Moreover whether it be of Christ or of his Church or of any other thing which pertaineth to our faith and life I say not if we who are not to be compared to him who said Though we but that which he next added If an Angel from heaven shall preach to you any other thing then that which you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospel let him be accursed While we deal thus with you and with all men whom we desire to win to Christ and among other things do preach the holy Church which we find promised in Gods Scriptures and which we see to be placed in all Nations as was promised we have deserved or procured the flames of hatred from those whom we desire to draw into its pacifike bosome in stead of thanks And he proceedeth as if it were we that so long before had bid the Prophets and Apostles that they should not put in their books any Testimonies by which the faction or party of Donatus is proved to be the Church of Christ The Epistle ad Demetriadem commonly reckoned the 142. among Augustines cap. 9. saith Scito itaque in Scripturis divinis per quas solas potes plenam Dei intelligere voluntatem c. By the Divine Scriptures alone thou maist understand the full will of God I know the Lovaine Doctors put this Epistle in the Appendix and conjecture it to be of Pelagius but 1. it shews the doctrine of that age 2. Never did Austin contradict it but oft say the like August de peccat Merit Remiss li. 2. cap. 36. pag. mihi 304. saith Talis populus ut praedixi eruditus in Regno caelorum per duo testamenta vetus novum non declinans in dextram superba presumtione justitiae neque in sinistram secuva delectatione peccati in terram illius promissionis intrabit postea Vbi enim de re obscurissima disputatur non adjuvantibus Divinarum Scripturarum certis clarisque documentis cohibere se debâ—t humana presumptio nihil faciens in partem alteram declinando So that in Austius judgement the old and new Testament teach us enough to salvation and in the difficult points we must not so much as incline to either side without the Scriptures it being presumption to speak when they are silent And in his 49. Tract on John he saith Evangelista testatur multa Dominum Christum dixisse fecisse quae non scripta sunt electa sunt autem quae scriberentur quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur i. e. The Evangelist testifieth that the Lord Christ spoke and did many things that are not written but those were chosen to be written which seemed sufficient for the salvation of Believers And li. de Nat. Grat c. 26. he saith to the Pelagians Solis Canonicis debeo sine â—ulla recusatione consensum That is I owe a consent without any refusal to the Canonical Scriptures alone An hundred more such sayings might be cited out of Augustine Hierom on the first Ch. of Hag. fol mihi 102. speaking of the use of Hereticks saith Sed alia quae absque authoritate testimoniis Scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolica sponte reperiunt atque confingunt percutit gladius Dei i. e. But other things which without the Authority and Testimonies of Scripture they do of their own accord find out and feign as of Apostolical tradition the sword of God will cut down And he instanceth in the fastings and other austerities of the Tatiani which he saith they suffer causlesly The same Hierom against Helvidius saith Vt haec quae
may change any thing that God appointeth about Sacraments except the substance And it were well if they would have left that unchanged The Council of Constance took the cup from the Laity Licet in primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub utraque specie Though in the primitive Church this Sacrament was received of the faithful under both kinds So that they confess they contradict the Primitive Church Bellarmine plainly saith li. 4. de Pontif. c. 5. Si Papa erraret in praecipiendo vitia vel prohibendo virtutes teneretur Ecclesia credere vitia esse bona virtutes malas nisi vellet contra conscientiam peccare That is If the Pope should erre in commanding vices and forbidding virtues the Church were bound to believe that vices are good and vertues bad unless they would sin against conscience And against Barelay cap. 31. he saith In bono sensu dedit Christus Petro Potestatem faciendi de peccato non peccatum de non peccato peccatum That is In a good sense Christ hath given power to Peter to make sin no sin and no sin to be sin compare this doctrine with the Fathers The Glasse in Can. Lector Dist 34. saith Papa dispensat contra Apostolum The Pope dispenseth against the Apostle Innocent 3. Decret de conces prebend tit 8. c. proposuit saith Secundum plenitudinem potestatis de jure supra jus possumus dispensare According to the fullness of our power we can dispense with the Law above Law And the Glosse addeth For the Pope dispenseth against the Apostle and against the old Testament as also in vows and oaths And another Gloss saith The Pope dispenseth with the Gospel in interpreting it More such Glosses you may find if not yet more gross and impious which I 'le not stand to recite Gregory de Valentia Tom. 4. disp 6. qu. 8. p. 5. § 10. saith Et certe quaedam posterioribus tempâ—ribus rectius constituta esse in Ecclesia quam initio se haberent That is And certainly some things are more rightly constituted in the Church in the latter times then they were in the beginning Andradius Defens Concil Trident. lib. 2. pag. mihi 236. saith Vnde etiam liquet minime eos errasse qui dicunt Romanos Pontifices posse nonnunquam in legibus dispensare a Paulo primisque quatuor Conciliis ad Ecclesiam exornandam moresque componendos pro temporum necessitate edictis qualis est illa quae interdicit ut digamos creari ne liceat Episcopos i. e. Whence it appeareth that they did not erre who say that the Pope of Rome may sometime dispense with Lawes made by Paul and the four first Councils for the necessity of the times to the adoring of the Church and the composing of manners such as is that which forbiddeth those to be made Bishops who are the husbands of two wives Cardinal Perron against King James li. 2. Obser 3. â— 3. p. 674. hath a Chapter purposely Of the Authority of the Church to alter matters contained in the Scriptures And pag. 1109. 1115. he saith that When in the form of the Sacraments some great inconvenicies are met withal the Church may therein dispense and alter And that the Lords words Drink yee all of it were a precept not immutable nor in dispensable for the Church hath judged that there may be a dispensation for â—t Bâ—ovius Observ on C. 24. constit Apost saith Ecclesia Romana quae Apostolica utens potestate singula pro conditione temporum in melius mutat i.e. The Church of Rome using Apostolical power doth according to the condition of times change all things for the better Cardinal Tolet saith Cum certum sit non omnia qâ—ae Apostoli instituerunt jure Divino esse instituta i. e. It is certain that all things which the Apostles instituted were not instituted by Divine right And the Council of Trent hath shewed its usurpation of power above Scripture in dispensing with the degrees of Marriage in Lev. 18. 20. adding to what God hath prohibited and relaxing what God hath restrained and that To Great Princes and for a publike cause When they make it sin to other men These and many more of their gross sayings and usurpations against Scripture and above it they have been long ago told of by Jewell Reignolds Whittakers Molinaeus and others and how sleight their evasions are the considerate and impartial may discern I have therefore recited thus much of their words here that you may compare them with the Ancients and then see who are the Changlings and Novelists and who they be that keep to the old Church and Religion And among other ancient Writers I would desire you besides all the forecited to compare the Popish frame with the Directions of Vicentius Lirinensis which he giveth us for the discovery of Truth and avoiding heresie in his book Contr. Haeres Which I the rather mention because I admire that the Papists should be so immodest as to boast so much of him as if he were on their side The sum of his advice to avoid heresie is this 10 Fidem munire Divinae legis authoritate 20 Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione To fortifie our faith 1. By the Authority of Gods Law 2. By the Tradition of the Catholike Church This way he saith he was himself directed to by all the holy Learned men that he enquired of Saepa magno studio summa attentioae perquirens a quamplurimis sanctitate doctrina praestantibus viris quonam modo possem certa quadam quasi generali ac regulari via Catholicae fidei veritatem ab haereticae pravitatis falsitate discernere hujusmodi semper responsum ab omnibus fere retuli cap. 1. Edit Colon. a. 1613 pag. 617. Edit Perionii Lugd. 1572. So that we are given to understand by this passage 1. That this was no private opinion of Vincentius but the common way that was then taken by Holy learned men to discern Truth from Heresie 2. And note well that he doth not once in all the book direct us to the Determination much less to the Inâ—allible determination of the Pope or the Romane Church as the way to discern Truth from Heresie And can any man of common reason that is willing to know the truth imagine that there is the least probability that Vincentius should silence this Romish decision in a Treatise written purposely and onely on that subject and wherein he undertaketh to give us the full and certain direction to avoid Heresies if the Church had then been of the Romanists opinion O intolerably forgetful negligent delusory man that would not give us one word of that which is now the foundation of all and into which our faith must be ultimately resolved What never a word to tell us that whatsoever the Pope or Clergy of Rome are for or against may be known accordingly to be true or false because he is the infallible Head
Church li. 3. Cap 7. Of the several points of difference between us and our adversaries wherein some in the Church erred but not the whole Church FOr neither did that Church wherein our Fathers lived and dyed â— hold that Canon of Scripture which the Romanists now urge nor that in sufficiency they now charge it with nor corruption of the Originals nor necessity of following the vulgar Translation nor the Heresies touching mans creation brought into the Church by certain barbarous Schoolmen as that there are three different estates of men the first of pure nature without addition of Grace or sin and two other the one of Grace the other of Sin That all those evils that are found in the nature of man since his fall as Ignorance Concupiscence Contrariety between the better and meaner faculties of the Soul difficulty to do well and proneness to do evil were all natural the conditions of pure nature that is of nature as considered in it self it would come forth from God That these evils are not sinful nor had their beginnings from sin that they were the consequents of nature in the state of creation but restrained by addition of supernatural Grace without which the integrity of nature was full and perfect That men in the state of pure nature that is as they might have been created of God in the integrity of Nature without addition of Grace and in the estate of Original sin differ no otherwise but as they that never had and they that have lost rich and precious cloathing so that Original sin is but the loss of that without which natures integrity may stand That no evils are brought in by the fall but nature left to her self to feel that which was before but not felt nor discerned while the addition of Grace bettered nature None of these errors touching the estate of mans creation were the Doctrines of the Church but the private fancies and conceits of men So likewise touching Original Sin there were that taught that it is not inherent in each particular man born of Adam but that Adams personal sin is imputed onely That the propagation of sin is not general Mary being conceived without Original sin That the punishment of it is not any sensible smart or positive evil but privative onely and that therefore there is a third place neither Hell nor Heaven named Limbus Puerorum which is a place whereas some think they who are condâ—mned thither though they be excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven and all possibility of ever coming thither yet are in a state of natural happiness and do enjoy the sweet content of Eternal Life These Pelagian Heresies were taught in the Church of God but they were not the Doctrines of the Chuâ—ch being condemned rejected and refuted as contrary to the Christian Verity by many worthy members and guides of the Church who as they never received these parts of false Doctrine So likewise the Church wherein they lived neither know nor approved that distinction and difference of venial and mortal sins which the Romanists now Teach nor power of nature to do the works of the Law according to the substance of the things commanded though not according to the intention of the Law-giver to love God above all and to do actiâ—â—s morally good or not sinful without concurrence of special Grace nor election and reprobation depending on the foresight of something in us positive or privative nor merit of congruence and condignity nor works of supererogation nor counsels of perfection as they now teach nor justification by perfection of inherent qualities nor uncertainty of Grace nor seven Sacraments properly so named nor local presence nor Transubstantiation nor â—rall manducation of the body of Christ nor real sacrificing of it for the quick and the dead nor remission of sins after this Life nor tormenting of the souls of men dying in the state of Salvation in a part of Hell hundreds of years by Divels in corporal fire out of which prayer should deliver â—hem nor that the Saints hear our Prayers â—ow or are acquainted with our particular wants nor the gross idolatry in those times committed and intollerable abuses found in the number fashion and worship of their images nor their absolution as now they define it nor treasure of the Church growing out of the superstuity of Saints merits not rewardable in themselves to be disposed by the Pope for the supply of other mens wants to release them out of Purgatory by way of indulgence nor the infallibility of the Popes judgement and plenitude of his power such and so great that he may depâ—sâ— Princes and dispose of their Crowns and digrâ—â—ieâ— and that whatsoever he doth he may not be broughâ— into order or deposed by authority of the whole world in a general Council Those are the errors which we condemne and our adversaries maintain and defend these we are all assured were not the Doctrines of that Church wherein our Fathers lived and dyed though we do not deny but they were taught by some in that Church All these we offer to prove to be error in matter of our Christian faith and that seeing we could have peace no longer with our adversaries but by approving these impieties we had just cause to divide our selves from them or to speak more properly to suffer our selves to be accursed anathematized and rejected by them rather then to subscribe to so many errors and heresies contrary to the Christian and Catholike verity WHereas the Papists have little else to say to us but onely to call still for a Catalogue of Professors to prove the successive visibility of our Church we require of them first an answer to those Writings that have been extant so long on this subject especially Bishop Vsher de successione Statu Eccles and his answer to the Jesuits challenge Defended by Master Sing and Master Puttock Doctor Fields Treat of the Church especially the Appendix to the third part Simon Birkbecks Protestants evidence Doctor Whites Way to the true Church Abbot against Hill Illiricus his Catalogues testium veritatis Mornays two Treatises of the Church and the Mystery of iniquity to say nothing of that of the Mass Johan Lidii Waldens Nicol. Vignier Ecclesiast Histor. And the confessions of your own Writers Your after Pope Aenaeas Sylvius Histor Bohem. and that commonly cited passage of your inquisitor Rainnerius which I will adjoyn Rainerius contr Waldens cap 4. Inter omnes sectas que adhuc sunt fuerunt non est perniciosior Ecclesiae quam ea Leonistarum idque tribus de causis 1. Quia est diuturnior aliqui enim dicunt quod duravit a tempore Silvestri alii a tempore Apostolorum 2. Quia est generalior fere enim nulla terra est in qua haec secta non sit 3. Quia cum omnes aliae sectae immanitate Blasphemiarum in Deum audientibus horrorem inducant haec scilicet Leonistarum magna habet speciem pietatis eo
and therefore to be called upon to pray for us 12. That the Saints after death do obtain whatsoever they desire of God because they deserved it in this life 13. That their merits do profit us for salvation 14. That the Saints are helpers and coworkers of our salvation 15. That the faithful living are ruled and governed by the Spirits of blessed men 16. That the Saints are to be Canonized by the Pope and being Canonized to be worshiped 17. Therefore we must fly to the Saints in our misery § 16. Of the Church 1. THat the holy Catholike Church that we believe is visible 2. And alwayes is visible 3. That it depends not on Gods election nor on true faith and Charity that one belongs to this Church But even wicked and reprobate men are members of the Catholike Church 4. That the Catholike Church is no other than the Roman or that which the Roman Pope is over 5. That the Catholike Church and the Pope of Rome are the same terms 6. Neither are there any Catholicks but those of the Romish Church 7. That he is a Catholike who believes all that the Roman Church delivers whether it be written in the Bible or not 8. That there is no salvation out of the Roman Church 9. That the notes of universality antiquity unity and succession in the Apostles doctrine do agree unto it 10. That the sincere preaching of the Gospel and lawful administration of the Sacraments are not a certain note of the Church 11. To acknowledge the Roman Pope and to be under him as the Vicar of Christ the onely Pastor the head of the whole Church is a note of the true Church 12. That the particular Roman Church is the Mother Mistris and Lady of all Churches yea the Mother of Faith 13. That the Roman Church did obtain the primacy from our Lord and Saviour himself 14. That the Roman Church hath power of judging all neither is it lawful for any to judge her judgment 15. That the Roman Church hath authority to deliver doctrines of faith without or beside the Scriptures 16. That the Roman Church cannot erre in faith much less fail 17. That the Roman Church cannot erre in interpreting Scripture §. 17. Of the Roman Church The Head viz. The Pope The Members 1. THat the Roman Pope is the head foundation husband Monarch of the whole universal Church the universal Bishop or the Bishop of the whole world 2. That the Roman Pope is the rock upon whom the Church is built 3. The names which are given to Christ in the Scriptures from whence it appears he is above the Church all of them are given to the Pope Vnto this Antichristian throne he ascends by a gradation of most impudent lies such as these 4. That the universal Church cannot consist unless there be one in it as a visible head with chief power 5. Therefore the external regiment of the universal Church is Monarchical 6. That the Monarchy of the Church was instituted in Peter 7. That Peter in proper speech was Bishop of Rome and remained Bishop there untill death 8. That the Pope succeded Peter in the Ecclesiastical Monarchy 9. Neither do they give the Monarchy of Ecclesiastical power but of temporal also to the Pope 10 Neither do they make the Pope Christs General Vicar on earth but Gods also 11. They give a certain omnipotency to him 12. They give him power of deposing Kings and Emperors and absolving their subjects from the oath of fidelity 13. Moreover without shame they defend that the Pope teaching from his chair cannot erre 14. That his words when he teacheth from his chair are in a sort the word of God 15. That the Pope cannot erre even in those things which belong to good manners or in the commands of morality as well as in matters of Faith 16. We must piously believe that as the Pope cannot erre as Pope so as a private person he cannot be a heretick 17. That the chief authority of interpreting Scripture is in him 18. That the Pope is the chief judge in controversies of Religion 19. We must appeal from all Churches to him 20. They give him authority to dispense with humane and Divine Laws 21. They give him power of absolving men not onely from sin but from punishments censures laws vows and oaths 22. Also of delivering men from Pâ—rgatory 23. Of Canonizing Saints and giving them honors that they may be prayed to in the Publike Prayers of the Church that Churches and Altars may be built for their honor that Masses and Canonical hours be offered publikely for their honor and feast-dayes be câ—lebrated That their Pictures be drawn with a certain splendor that their Reliques be put into precious boxes and publikely honored 24. We must believe that the Pope who sometime puts Murderers Traitors King-killers and other Capital offenders into the Calendar of Saints and Martyrs never errs in the Canonizing of Saints § 18. The Members of the Church are considered either as Congregated in Councils or Severally 1. THe office of convocating General Councils properly belongs to the Pope 2 That in no case a true and perfect Council can be called without the Popes authority no not if it be necessary for the Church and yet the Pope will not or cannot call one nor if the Pope be a heretick And therefore that a Council held without the Popes Authority is an unlawful meeting or Conventicle not a Council 3. That 't is the proper office of the Pope that by himself or his Legates he be president of the universal Council and as the supreme judge do moderate all 4. That the decree of a General Council made without the consent of the Pope or his Legate is unlawful 5. That the Power of confirming or rejecting General Councils is in the Pope of Rome neither are the Councils authentical unless they be confirmed by the Pope 6. That the distinction of lawful and unlawful Councils does depend upon his onely will 7. That the sentence of a General Council in a matter of faith is the last judgement of the Church from which it cannot appeal yet that we may appeal from a General Council to the Pope 8. That the Pope can neither be judged nor punished by a Council or by any mortals 9. That the Pope cannot submit himself to the coactive judgement of Councils 10. That the Pope is absolutely over the universal Church and above a General Council so that he can acknowledge no judgement above him 11. We must believe with Catholike faith that General Councils confirmed by the Pope cannot erre neither in faith nor manners 12. That particular Councils approved by the Pope cannot erre 13. That the power of the Pope and Council together is not greater then the Popes alone Turrecrem l. 3. c. 41. § 19. Of the Members by themselves 1. THat to make a member of the Catholike Church there is not required grace or
That it is Ecclesia vel quacunque re alia that Austin speaks 2. That its cum omnibus and therefore not an Argument onely for such as deny the Church and right grounds 3. So do we procure the flames of Popish hatred ☞ 4. So may wâ— say As if we had bid the Apostles put nothing in the Bible to prove the Romane Catholike Church Andradius Defen l. 2. Vainly replyeth that this is spoken onely to those Hereticks that plead only Tradition and reject Scriptures 1. That 's plainly false for Tatianus did not so 2. He speaks of all such traditions therefore of the Popish * That is Savingly Constantinus Magnus See Andrad Tâ—ef l. 2. fol. 110 c Where are the rest of his cavils Salvianus Massil de Provid li. 3. pag. mihi 62. The sum of Vincentius Lirinensis adv Heres * That is before they corrupt antient Writers or grow so old as to pretend to antiquity themselves Because many of these Errors are delivered onely by particular Doctors and all be not of a mind as to the sence and some of the words may admit a tolerable and Orthodox meaning I thought meet to adde these Animadversions to acquaint you in what sence we reject them What I pass by without Animadversion I leave upon them as it is here charged and also suppose the difference to lie plain a 1. That is as the Authenticke sign of Gods will For we all confess that Christ and his Apostles are the foundation of faith as the Authorized chief revealers and God himself onely as the principal efficient and Christ the Mediator as the first corner stone of the matter revealed and the Catholike Church as the keeper or subject in quo of true Belief for the Law is written 〈◊〉 the hearts of its members and it is the Pillar and ground or foundation of truth 3. This erorr is one of the fundamentals of the Romish Fabrike 6. When yet it is most clearly proved by many especially Blondel in a just volume that abundance of them are forgeries and Dalaeus proves it particularly of the Clementines 7. At least quoad nos So that they never know when their faith is at its full stature 8. By this you may conjecture from whence the Quakeâ—s have their doctrine of the light within us 9. It is the voice of the Law giver and the Law is the Rule of life and of judgement 10. We confess as Peter saith of Pauls Epistles that there are somethings in them hard to be understood which the ignorant pervert as they do the other Scriptures to their own destruction But we maintaine that they have so much light as sufficeth to their ends that is to be the Rule of our faith and life 11. This is one of their greatest errors 15. The last clause that the Popes authority is greater then the Churches the French do not hold And so they are divided in their foundation 16. They yield that the Doctrine is elder then the Church and we yield that the Church is elder then â—â—â—ings But we affirme that the doctrine as fetcht from these writings is now before the present Church in order of nature as the cause of it at least as to the generality of members 17. The Negative is their master error but the Affirmative Proposition is not denyed of us as to every kind of dependance but of some special sorts of which I have spoken in the Pref. to the Saints Rest Part. 2. Edit 2. c. 18. The height of Romish arrogancy 20. And yet I would that vulgar Translation might but be allowed to be the deciding â—â—le for there is eâ—â—ugh in it against them 21. This error is an accusation of the Wisdom of God and contrary to express Scripture and destructive to the progress of knowledge and godliness and such as the experience of gracious souls should provoke them to detest and had they but this â—ne they could never expect that the Catholike Church should unite upon their principles 1. As concupiscence is taken improperly for the corrupted sensitive appetite so it was of God But as it signifieth the appetite distempered or corrupted or the corruption of the will inclining it to evil it is not of God 2. See Rada's first controversie 3. A posse mori and a posse non mori were not then Natural But a non posse mori or an actual non mori were to be the reward of obedience and is now given by Christ And a non posse non mori or an actual death are the fruits of sin 4 5. I would they would prove this Tradition to be Apostolical 1. In this they no more agree among themselves then with us 2. Saith Davenant the point of Predetermination is a controversie between the Dominicans and Jesuites which Protestants have no mind to trouble themselves with But they that do are not of a mind in it no more then they 4. God doth not cause sin even when it is a punishment but onely permitteth it But by such a permission as proceedeth from a punishing intention And so he justly withholdeth his grace and giveth men over to the power of the devil their own lusts 2. The body is not to be mortified by self-murder but the corrupt inclinations and actions of the sensitive appetite are to be mortifyed and all its motions subjected to holy Reason And this is called in Scripture the mortifying of the flesh and our corruption would never be called in Scripture so often The flesh and the body if it were not that the fleshly appetite is much of the seat of it and the pleasing of that appetite and imagination much of the end that I say not the whole 4. Sins are called voluntary either because they are in the Will or from the will In the first sence the vicious habits of the will are voluntary in the second the ellicite and imperate acts Also they are voluntary directly and formally as are the wills owne acts and habits or participative as are the acts and habites of all the imperate faculties And there is nothing sin but what is voluntary in one of these senses nor any further then voluntary 5. Neither they nor we are agreed about the quiddity of original sin 8. Metaphors are not usually the fittest terms to state controversies in We have vicious habits and the abscence of Rectifying habits call this what you will Free will is either Physical and that all men have as they are men or moral which is 1. To be free from a legal restraint from good and this all have or to be free from vicious Habits and this onely the sanctified have and that but in part 9. It is the most noble controversie among the Schoolemen and Thomists and the greatest part seem rather to erre on the other extream and the Scotists that hold this to rectifie them do giâ— such explications of their doctrine as are well worth our study as you may see in Rada's first controversie
10. Mans will is the Ruler of it self under God and it s fully free from that necessity which is contrary to its natural essential Liberty 11 It is a willful servant onely 12. The matter of their works is oft good but because their end and manner is alwayes wrong therefore they sin in all for bonum est ex causis integris 13. The will is free and not free in several sences 1. It is not free from Gods Government 2. Nor from its natural inclination to good in general and therefore cannot will evil as evil For these were but slavery 3. Nor is it free from the moral force of a darke and erring judgment 4. Nor from temptations 5. Nor from its own vicious disposition till grace free it But it s free 1. From any natural determination to evil or to unknown good in particular 2. And free from coaction or violence 3. And from a physical efficient immediate exterior Determiner in ordinary natural or sinful actions 4. And its free from sinful habites in that measure as it is sanctified 14. No question but the will is potentia activa naturalis or hath such an active power which is imployed in spirituals when it is inclined by a habit thereto but till then will not act spiritually not because the natural faculty is absent but because the inclination without which it will not act is absent 15. No doubt but under the common grace of Christ an unregenerate man may do that which he shall be more disposed to conversion by then also he would have been as our practical Divines all teach and we are fain daily to preach it to our people or else we shall make but ill work with them 16. Many by congruous merit do mean no more then the foresaid aptitude comparative to others 17. This also some Protestants hold But no wicked man ever did his best 18. There is a common grace whose efficacy is laid on the will as Adams was And a special which shall infallibly bow and change the will 19. A self-contradiction to deserve pardon 20. Some sin is but consequentially against love and other sin directly but all is against Gods Laws 21. Who ever denyeth that sin may be done away without Christs blood doth know little of sin or Christ 22. Mortal sin 1. As to merit is all sin 2. As to signification symptomatically it is all sin inconsistent with regeneration 3. Effectually it is all that eventually kills which is in several degrees and sorts 26. O unmerciful men that will dig so many pits then to entrap poor souls in mortal sin 27 28. Many of the ancients also were of this mind of which see my Treat against infidelity Part. 3. 2. Of this see the writings between Dr. Hammond and Mr. Jeanes many Schoolmen say otherwise 6 7. Saints on earth must intercede under Christ for others especially Pastors whose office it is And we may pray them to pray for us But not the Saints departed 10. All Pastors of the Church do hold their office in a subordination to Christs Prophetical Office And many a Prophet there hath been under Christ But none that hath the Office of being the universal infallible Teacher of the Church as the Pope would be 11. All Christians are Priests to God to offer up spiritual sacrifice metaphorically so called And Pastors offer up Christ Representatively Commemoratively and Sacramentally but not really The name Priest is not worth contending about 15. No doubt but Christ merited the glorifying of his own humane nature But that was but consequential to his meriting for us 16. Some of them prosess that by merit they mean but Rewardableness by promise which we maintain 1. It s no Covenant of works in Pauls sence or as Moses Law was But humane Actions are its condition And as all the Ancients use to call it the new Law so it s justly seeing Christ is the King of the Church and it hath the nature of a Law But the promise is the chief part and the moral precepts prescribe no other obedience then they did before in nature But Positives are added 3. In this they have some new friends among our selves 4. So say some Anabaptists 5. I would we could see this in the fruits and proof But de opere operato they are not themselves agreed of the sence 7. His real intention is necessary to make it a lawful administration as to himself but not to others but his seeming intention and their own seeming intention is necessary to the external being of the Sacrament that it be no nullity And the receivers real intention is necessary to the effects and well being of it to himself 8. It is not the name of a Sacrament that we contend about but the nature and definition 9. They know not what to make of this Character themselves many Schoolmen make it to be but a Relation And we confess that Baptism Ordination c. do fix us in a Relation to God 10. They that think it their duty to serve God by such inventions will easily be drawn to think too well of their invented works 1. By nature all are Satans captives which exorcism will not deliver us from 2. This error in case of Necessity some ancients and Councils held 3. Some of them except those that have the toâ—um baptismi none can be saved without the thing signified in Baptism but they may without the sign 4. There is a ground work laid for the pardon of future sins but no actual pardon of them 6. If the Pope were the head of the Church we must needs be baptized into him 7. How comes it then to appear in all as 〈◊〉 as they come to age 8. What goes with iâ— in mâ—st before they come to age 9. In many things they agree and in many they differ more then all confess Of which see Zanchy oft and fully 10. So the Antients thought and I think it the safest way 11 12. There 's no end of humane inventions when once men depart from the Scripture sufficiency and give way to their own self conceitedness and arrogancy 38. This the antient Church used and I should not refuse it either way 1. The word Sacrament is not fit matter for much contention 2. There is some difference in the terminus a quo and ad quem as the Law differeth but not such as to make one a Sacrament and the other none Publike profession of Repentance for open scandalous sins is a needful duty sinfully neglected by us as it is brought to a Sacrament and ceremony with them 3. This is a certain truth but that freewill is enabled and moved by Gods grace 4. Many of them by merit mean but that ex pacto it is the qualification of these to whom God hath promised Salvation 5 6 7 c. In flying from their invented way of Confession we have lamentably wronged the souls of men by disusing so much as Christ hath made our duty and
where that is cuâ—ed and I think far better without it then with â—t By all this therefore it evidently appeareth that a Papists do most vainly charge us with novelty 〈◊〉 call for a Catalogue â— the professors of our Râ—ligion when the noâ—ty is theirs and theâ—selves do yet profess â— Religion though to â— they have added thâ— corrupting Leprosâ—â— Though we cannot â—â—der take to prove that thâ— Church was perfect nor never will be till it coâ— to heaven yet we have oft proved that it was maâ— Ages without their Popery and are ready to undeâ—take the further proof Of which the next Dispâ—â—tion shall give you a tast There is a Railing Pamphlet extant called â— brief confutation of certain absurd heretical 〈◊〉 damnable doctrines delivered by Master James Ushâ—â— in a Sermon preached before King James at Wansteâ— Jun. 20. 1624. The Author calls himself Paulâ— Veridicus Its printed at St Omers 1627. Because take the same way against the Romanists as this Reverend Bishop of Armagh taketh and hath led me iâ— that Sermon I think my self the more obliged 〈◊〉 consider of what is said against it The first onset of this Mr Maledious pag. 9.10 11 Is against our assertion that we are of the same Reâ—gion and Church as the Grecians Aegyptians Christians Aethiopians c. and that all these are not â— be damned as Hereticks and unchurched because they â—re not subjects of the Pope To this 1. He conâ—â—sseth that even the Greeks themselves are not subâ—ect to the Pope and that they soon departed â—om the seeming union made in the Councel of â—â—lorence about the year 1439. 2. He confesseth â—at their doctrine about the Procession of the Holy â—host a patre per silium and not a patre filioque was â—ch that when they had explicated it they were â—und to believe very Orthodoxly and Catholikely in â—e same matter and for such were admitted â— He affirmeth that he findeth not that in any subâ—â—antial point they do dissent from the Romane â—atholike Church excepting the matter of Primacy Let us first observe the consequences of this much â— From hence it followeth that the Greek Churches â—e guilty of no Heresie but non subjection to the â—ope of Rome 2. And that therefore indeed they â—re no Hereticks 3. And therefore it is not of neâ—essity to the being of a Church or Catholike Chriâ—ian to be subject to the Pope And that the Pope â—r Romane Church is not to enter the definition of â—he Catholike Church for as the Greeks may be Caâ—holikes without subjection to Rome so may others â— And therefore they are no General Councels â—here all those Churches are absent as at Trent Constance c. And that its a false excuse of Bellarâ—ine and the rest to say that the Greeks and the rest â—re Hereticks or Schismaticks 5. And therefore it â—eclareth to all the world both that the Popish deâ—gne and Religion is carnal and selfish to exalt â—hemselves above the whole Church of God and â—lso that they are more then barbarously tyranniâ—al censorious and most extreamly schismatiâ—al that will presume to cut off from Christ and the Church the greatest part of the Christiâ—â— in the world even those that themselves confess â— be in all other things Orthodoxe and that meâ—â— because they will not be the Popes subjects â— now proceed to the next The substance of his Answer consisteth of tâ—â— gross untruths in a publike matter of fact wherâ— many millions of men are able at the first hearing â— prove him a bold false witness making falshood â— prop of his ill cause The first untruth which â— layeth down is that the Grecians do claim that â—â—preamacy to their own Patriarke of Constantinople which they deny the Pope and therefore if it be hâ— it is as bad in them as the Papists and so they are â— Protestants To which I say it is not true whatever any private or particular man may say its weâ— known that it s not true of their Church in commâ—â— nor found in any of their Church confessions â— utterly and ordinarily disclaimed by them Thougâ— John of Constantinople did claim the title of Universal Bishop because of the Emperors residence there yet did he not get it much less to be the Universal Governor and yet much less is it now claimed whâ— the Christian Empire is removed To be Episcâ—pâ— prima sedis is as much as is desired by the Patriarcâ— himself which yet he is content to leave and taâ—â— the second place though neither of them concerâ—eth an Universal Episcopacy Can they read such books â— Nilus Archbishop of Thessalonica de primatu Paâ— Parham and many other of the Greeks and yet belieâ—â— themselves in these fictions Why do we read or hear nothing from the Patriache of Constantinople inâ—iting and perswading us all to submit to his Governâ—ent as we and all the Christian world almost have â—een solicited by the Popes Emissaries to submit our â—elves to him A short Reply may serve to such â—mmodest false assertions as this nicknamed Veriâ—ieus maketh the chiefest part of his confutaâ—ion The second untruth which constituteth this part of â—is answer is that The Grecians Moscovites and Egyptians do in one only point dissent from Rome and â—n no point at all agree with the Protestants sin quanâ—um such and dissent from their Catholike Church This one great falshood containeth two not small ones in it and each of those two contain abundance more 1. That all these Churches differ from you in no one point but the Popes supreamacy is a falshood beyond all modesty For besides the supremacy they believe not your pretended Infallibility nor do they pretend to the like of their own They believe not your Purgatory they own not your pardons for easing the pains of Purgatory nor prayers for the dead to that end nor the application of the treasury of the Saints Merits to that end or for satisfaction to the Justice of God They own not your Transubstantiation They have the Scripture in their known languages They worship God in their Liturgies in their known languages the Moscovites in the Moscovian tongue the Georgians in the Iberick the Arabians in the Arabick and so the Carmanians Slavonians Greeks in theirs They administer the Eucharist in both kinds and detest your Sacrilegious withholding of the cup They reject your confirmation so do they your extreme Unction They admit Priests to live with their wives which were married before ordination They reject tâ—e Religious use of graven Images or Statues They teach that the holy Scriptures are a sufficient and perfect rule of faith they believe that they should not be lockt up from the people They maintain that God is to be worshiped in understanding and they aâ—hor your praying by Beads and tale They think not to wash away sin or drive away the devil by holy water They take not Traditions to be one part of Gods Word necessary to supply the defects