three yeeres after the persecution by him begun Howeuer the Councell of Millain of Sirmium c. was the then visible Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I hope they wil not say that it was the true Church of God For though almost all the Bishops and most Christians throughout the Romane Empire did subscribe vnto these Councels yet was not the true Church of God during these three yeeres inuisible but more remarkably visible in some few which did contradict the then visible Church content to suffer exile or other martyrdome in maintenance of the Holy Catholike faith which is the life and soule of the Church of God In few ages after wherein worse beasts then Valens was were chiefe Gouernours of the visible Church that is after the succession of Romish Bishops was growne vp vnto a perfect beast according to the measure of Antichrist the true Church of God was remarkeably visible in such as that visible Church did condemne for heretikes Instances to this purpose are plentifull in vnpartiall Writers And when the doctrine of Antichrist was come to his full growth as in the Councell of Trent although the whole bodie of Germany besides Chemnitius and some few others although the whole visible Church of France besides Caluin and some such had subscribed vnto that Councell yet the true Church of God had beene visible in France and Germanie in these worthies Enough there was in their writings against that Councell to condemne all such as followed it that is the visible or representatiue Church of Rome of palpable Antichristian heresie Yet when we say that the true Church of God was visible in these men in their writings or in Iohn Hus c. wee doe not tye our selues to embrace what soeuer they wrote for truth Wee may say of the true visible Church or of the truth by which we become visible members of the true Catholike Church as one said of Truth philosophicall That it could not be sound intire in the writings of any one Sect of Philosophers in the writings of all of them it might This aduantage we haue of all the Philosophers that we haue a surer and more perfect rule for examining the writings or doctrines of seuerall visible Churches than they had any for examining truths philosophicall Absolutely to assent in each particular to any writers or teachers since the first constitution of the Apostolike Church or accomplishment of the written rule of faith were to dissent from them in the maine and fundamentall point of Catholicke Faith For vnlesse there bee an vnfayned and hearty desire a spirit of watchfulnesse and of willingnesse to limit our adherence vnto whatsoeeuer other writings according to the greater or lesse evidence of their consonancy with the written rule neither Scholar nor Master nor Church visible or representatiue can be any other then equiuocall or dead members of the true Church The Catholike faith it selfe could it possibly be planted in any mans heart without the spirit or Genius to direct or informe it would quickly either putrifie or grow crooked 3 Amongst other glorious titles wherwith the same Author seekes to adorne the Church of Rome this which is the title of his fift chapter is one that the true Church cannot erre A proposition I must confesse as hard for vs to disproue if hee take it in sensu composito as it is for him to proue in sensu diuiso That no Church as it is true and whilest it is true or in respect of those points with reference to which it is denominated true can possibly erre is a truth that cannot be denied But if by the true Church he mean a visible or the visible Romish Church there neither is nor hath been any visible Church though planted by the Apostles themselues which since their times hath not either ceased to bee a visible Church or else continued for a long time as palpably erroneous and false as truely visible Whatsoeuer this Author deeme or write his Fellowes and Masters with one mouth confesse that every priuate man in their Church may erre that the Bishops assembled in Councell without the Popes direction or confirmation of their sentence may erre that the Pope himselfe vnlesse he speake ex cathedra may erre And by this confession either the Romish church is no true Church saue onely whilest the Pope speakes è Cathedra or else the whole bodie of the true Church if the Romish church be the true Church may sometimes erre For at all times else both head and members of this Church may erre In this inference I take it as granted that the Pope doth not alwaies speake ex cathedra Now if in these interims of his cathedrall silence any Bishop Priest or Iesuit shal take vpon them to instruct their Auditors out of the Pulpit or otherwise in points of faith or controuersie their poore flocke by this mans collections against vs cannot be made partakers of that true and infallible faith without which no man can be saued because their Preachers or ministers are not infallible nor to vse his words vndoubtedly fenced from all danger of errour His collections against vs are these Finally to what end doe Protestants striue so much for the Churches erring but onely to depriue themselues thereby of Church Faith and Religion For wheras neither religiō nor Church can stād without supernaturall faith nor supernaturall faith be attained without infallible certainty of the things beleeued if their Preachers their Ministers their Church be not vndoubtedly fenced frō all danger of error the Articles they beleeue haue not that inerrable warrant which is necessarie to faith Did this man may wee thinke beleeue that hee himselfe was vndoubtedly fenced from all danger of errour If he did so beleeue the Cardinalls of Rome shall doe him much wrong if they chuse him not Pope the next Election or appoint him not as coadiutor to the present Pope If it be replyed that the Romish instructers bee they Bishops or Priests cannot erre because they neither beleeue nor teach others to beleeue any points of faith but with absolute submission of their instructions to what the Pope already hath spoken or shall hereafter speake ex cathedra concerning the same points the medicine will be a great deale worse then the disease For this perswasion or resolution is altother incompatible with the first grounds of faith and is flat Apostacie from Christ as hath beene discussed at large in the second booke vpon the Creed and shall be further manifested if occasion require in the second booke of this Treatise To the former obiection the answer on our part is easie For true faith receiues its infallibilitie not from any infallibilitie in our immediate and ordinary teachers but from the infallibility of the truths themselues which they propose vnto vs out of the rule of truth and from the infallibilitie of that internall and secret Teacher without whose impressions of truths infallible in mens hearts no true faith
from the Holy Catholike Church of former times from which the Gouernors of the present visible Church haue swearued in this particular Of this case thus propounded in Thesi Athanasius his case was the Hypothesis The then Church representatiue or visible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had condemned him in one or two generall Councells for an hereticke and being so condemned he was vtterly excluded and perpetually cut off from all communion in things sacred with the visible Church or its members so long as he maintained that doctrine which it condemned Which doctrine it is certaine hee neither did nor would recant whatsoeuer the then visible Church did or might determine to the contrary 3 If either the name Catholike or the thing signified by it be to be valued for the time present by the multitude of suffragants or number of suffrages giuen ex cathedra Athanasius and his followers were no more Catholiks then Wickliffe and Hus with their followers in their times were For one Bishop that did maintaine or fauour Athanasius doctrine there were more then forty did oppugne it And yet he boldly pronounceth that the faith professed by him was the onely true Catholike faith without which no man could be saued which whosoeuer did not keepe holy and vndefiled was to perish euerlastingly Suppose not ten in all the Christian world besides had resolutely imbraced the same faith which Athanasius did so much magnifie or suppose all were they more or few which did imbrace or professe it had beene with him condemned for heretikes and vtterly cut off from all communion with the visible Church all either banished into seuerall Hands or shut vp into seuerall prisons all this notwithstanding they had still remained the onely true visible members of the Holy catholike Church which these times afforded And for this reason were they to bee accounted the onely true visible members of the Holy Catholike Church because they onely were contented rather to be cut off from the present visible church then to communicate with it in such doctrines or opinions as either contradict or defile the chatholike primitiue faith 4 That which some Romanists in this point reply to wit that Iulius then Bishop of Rome did not consent to Athanasius his condemnation but entertained him in his exile may for ought I know or at this present haue to say against it bee as true in part as it is impertinent Sure I am that the Bishop of Rome did not so resolutely and manfully oppose the Arian faction or the then erring visible Church as Athanasius did That confession of the catholike faith which the Church of Rome her selfe retaineth in her Lyturgy as a Trophie of the victory which the catholike faith in the issue obtained ouer the potent Arian heresie was neither conceiued published nor commended to the Christian world by the Bishop of Rome but by the exiled Athanasius This worthy Bishop saw almost all the Prelates in the world besides for the present to bee set against him How these or their successors or such as liued after him would be affected he knew not in respect of the truth of his doctrine hee cared not as being confident that his doctrine was truly catholike and authenticke without the ratification or proposall of the then Bishop of Rome or his successors or of any visible church succeeding he knew Christs Apostles and their immediate successors had imbraced it For such as liued with him or were to come after him at their perills be it if they imbrace it not Though not ten of that age or any age after him were to be saued yet of these few not one as he protests could otherwise bee saued then by beleeuing as he did and as former Saints of God had done If the then Bishop of Rome did receiue Athanasius in the name of an Orthodox or Catholike and bid God speed vnto his labours all that can hence be inferred is this That Athanasius was to the Bishop of Rome a visible member of the holy catholike Church and the Bishop of Rome a visible member of the same church to Athanasius But neither of them not both of them the then visible church nor any members of it As many as after this time became true members of the holy catholike Church became not such by holding vnion with the then visible Church but by adherence to that catholike faith which Athanasius and other visible members of the holy catholike Church then taught The holy catholike militant Church hath continued one and the same since its Foundation not by continuation of one and the same visible Church but by continuation of one and the same catholike Apostolike faith throughout al ages which faith hath been sometimes maintained but oftē oppugned by churches visible or represētatiue 5 It is one thing to say the Holy catholike Church hath beene in all ages visible another thing to say the visible Church hath beene in all ages catholike We may and ought to grant that in euery age since the Apostles time there haue beene many not onely true but visible members of the one holy catholike Church that is such as were able out of Scriptures to make demonstration vnto the observant that their doctrine was orthodoxall consonant to the orthodoxall faith doctrine of the primitiue Church howsoeuer contradicted ecclipsed by the present visible churches wherin they liued till Luther Christian Princes by Gods appointment vnited the visible members of the Holy catholike Church into visible Churches A pregnant instance of the former distinction wee haue gathered to our hands in that famous Dialogue between Constantius the Emperor and Liberius then Bishop of Rome The Emperor hauing as the Romanists since haue done mispictured the regiment of Christs body or Church by the regiment of common weales wherin Lawes are made by the whole consent or by the consent of the greater part of the body politike presseth Liberius with this argument Doth so great a part of the world reside in thee Liberius that thou alone darest vndertake the defence of this impious man Athanasius to the disturbance of the peace of the Empire and of the world Hereto Liberius answers Be it so as you say that I alone defend Athanasius yet the cause of faith shall hereby suffer no detriment for the times heretofore haue beene wherein three onely were found that durst resist the Kings command To this reply Eusebius the Eunuch reioynes Do you Liberius make the Emperor another Nebucodonozer I do not so but thou Eusebius deales no lesse vniustly than Nebucodonozer did in thus condemning a man who hath not had a iudiciall tryall 6 So long as Liberius stood to this confession he was a visible member of the Catholike Church But when he sought to purchase the Emperours sauour by subscription to Athanasius his condemnation and communion with the Arians although hee might by this dealing regaine his former dignities and become a principall member of the then visible Church
of this case they would not conclude the cause specially before a Iudge not acquainted with the mystery of the Creation For he that hath a wife and a wife hath a wife and shee that hath a husband and a husband hath a husband But if that precept of our Sauiour Whosoeuer putteth away his wife vnlesse it bee for adulterie and marieth another committeth adultery and hee that marieth her being so put away committeth adultery were once produced any Heathen Ciuilian might giue this absolute and infallible sentence If yee Christians will admit this Law for true and iust or for a rule of conscience then Polygamy certainly is a naturall part of Adultery and hee that hath a wife and marieth another is to bee punished as an Adulterer For what is the reason why he that putteth away his wife though by legall diuorce and marieth another commits adultery with the second or why he that marieth the first being so put away is likewise an Adulterer Is not the reason because the bond of matrimonie betwixt the husband and the first wife according to this your Christian law is not dissolued by a legall sentence of diuorce extra casum adulterij vnlesse in case of adultery Yet as a sentence of diuorce gotten vpon suspicion of adultery or subornation or vpon other causes which humane Lawes and Gods Law vnto the Iew did permit cannot by the Evangelicall Law altogether dissolue the bond of matrimony so out of all question it doth rather loosen or weaken it than corroborate or knit it faster Wherefore if hee that hauing gotten a sentence of diuorce by formall course of Law against his wife become guilty of Adultery in the Court of conscience and by the Euangelicall Law if hee marry another then much more shall he be an Adulterer who hauing a wife whose chastity was neuer called in question against whom no sentence of Law hath beene obtained if he shall presume to marry another Thus farre an Heathen by light of naturall reason without the assistance of Gods Spirit may goe in this and many other controuersies amongst Christians 3 Were not most Recusants throughout this Kingdome worse affected I will not say towards vs and our Religion but towards truth it selfe euen towards the light of the Gospell than any ciuill Heathen either are or can be they might as clearly discerne the vsurped authority of the Romish Church ouer their faith and ouer Scriptures the rule of faith to be as true a branch of Apostasie from Christ as Polygamy is of Adultery and that it doth more euidently dissolue the bonds of matrimony betwixt Christ and his Spouse the Church than Polygamy or adulterie doth the bond of matrimonie betwixt man and wife First they make the Scriptures as was said before not onely an imperfect rule in respect of its quantity but this defect being in their opinion supplyed by associating vnwritten Traditions vnto it in the second place they make both Scriptures and vnwritten Traditions to bee an vnsufficient rule in respect of their quality For it is their doctrine that we cannot know which be Canonicall Scriptures which are not which be authenticke traditions which not but by relying vpon the authority of the visible Church Againe admitting the Church could determine which were Authenticke Traditions which were not and that no Traditions should hereafter be receiued besides those which shee had determined yet if any controuersie should arise concerning the meaning of those Scriptures which she hath determined to be Canonicall or concerning the meaning limitation or vse of these Traditions which shee hath acknowledged to be authentike no priuate man may take vpon him absolutely to beleeue this or that to be the meaning of either but with submission of his iudgment to the Churches sentence And this as I haue elswhere shewed at large is not onely to make the authority of the Church to bee aboue the authority of the Scriptures but vtterly to nullifie the authority of the Scriptures saue onely so farre as they may serue as a stale or footstoole to support or hold vp the authority of the Church or Pope So that the last resolution of the Romanists beliefe as out of their owne comparisons of the Scriptures to colours and the authority of the Church vnto the light by which colours become visible to vs as is elsewhere demonstrated must be this That he absolutely beleeues onely the infallible authority of the Church concerning the truth of Scriptures and their true meaning their truth or meaning he neither absolutely nor infallibly beleeues So that if he beleeue any diuine truth it is onely ex accidenti that is in as much as the Church doth not erre in that point of faith which she proposeth vnto him howbeit to beleeue that which is true vpon no better motiue or condition then this is much worse then the ignorance of truth or meer vnbeliefe of the same truth How many seuerall diuine truths or articles of faith soeuer he thus beleeueth hee can be no true Catholike because he beleeues no diuine truth but as it is mixt with hellish antichristian falshood If wee shall proue that this supposed infallibilitie of the Romish Church doth in diuers points induce not onely heresie but infidelity and that infidelity of a worse sort then can be incident to any Heathen I hope our intended conclusion will bee sufficiently euicted that whosoeuer holds this absolute infallibility of the present visible Romish Church whatsoeuer he holds besides can bee no Catholike To giue you an instance for proofe of this 4 If one being a Christian shall steale hee doth commit a grieuous sinne yet a sinne of one kinde or species that is theft he doth not thereby cease to be a Christian he doth not thereby become an Infidell or Antichristian The like wee may say of fornication adultery murder incest or the like all which are grieuous sinnes and without repentance exclude men from the Kingdome of Heauen Yet can wee not say that they make a man an Infidell though worthy to be cast out of the Church vntill hee giue full proofe of his humble submission and hearty repentance for his fact But if any man that hath beene baptized and made a partaker of the word which in many points hee beleeues shall by couetousnesse malice intemperancie or the like haue so farre corrupted the feeds of Christianity or Law of God written in his heart as he shall thinke that which indeed and truth is theft fornication adultery murder or incest to be no sinne he is by the generall verdict of the Schooles not onely an hereticke but an Infidell Now Infidelitie is of two sorts either infidelitas purae negationis priuatiue infidelity such as is in the Heathen which haue not knowne God or his Lawes as hauing no commerce with his people or infidelitas prauae dispositionis depraued infidelity of which there bee more degrees as first it may bee in the Heathen to whom the truth of the
had deliuered this sentence ex cathedra It is expedient for vs that one man die for the people and that the whole nation perish not Iohn 11. ver 49. And vpon his authority or warrant they aduentured to put the Lord of glory to death Had not this false Apostaticall Priest beene in vero sacerdotio a chiefe officer in the house of God neither could so cleer a truth as he vttered haue beene inuerted to such a pernitious end as it was spoken by him apprehended by others nor could hee haue conceiued or vttered so cleare a truth of himselfe as S. Iohn instructs vs he did This he spake not of himselfe but being high Priest that same yeer he prophesied that Iesus should die for the Nation Ioh. 11.51 Other Acts of his priesthood tooke their validity from his office not from his person this speculatiue truth tooke its poysonous operation from his person not from his office although he could not haue borne so bitter enmity vnto Christ vnlesse he had beene in that office Now albeit we grant that Caiaphas did prophesie by vertue of his place or Priestly office yet no Romanists as I hope will deny that Caiaphas in the preposterous application of his propheticall sentence might well brooke the name of Antichrist at the least that hee was a type or shadow of the Antichrist to come who was to sit as Caiaphas did in the Temple of God or if so they will haue it in S. Peters chaire that hee may wrest diuine truths authoritatiuely to as wicked ends as Caiaphas did 5 But may it not hence bee inferred that as the Sanedrin was the onely visible Church which God had here on earth so the Romish Church from which Luther did separate himselfe was the onely true visible Church of Christ at the time of his separation This may be granted de facto but not de iure For there was an expresse Law of God that there should be no more visible Churches then one before our Sauiours death and resurrection after which there were to bee as many visible Churches de iure as there were seuerall independent Soueraignties I haue heard indeed of some French Catholikes as they would bee accounted which vse this as an argument whether intended by them ad homines to delude the obiecter onely or ad rem to the matter it selfe I know not But this argument they vse to proue that their Church as opposed to Reformed Churches is the true Church because the Pope is Antichrist Antichrist as the Apostle teacheth is to sit in the Temple of God and the Temple of God no question is the true Church whence seeing hee sits in their Church they inferre that theirs is the true Church not ours But as in most other arguments concerning the Church so in this they cozen themselues with the fallacy à dicto secundùm quid ad dictum simpliciter First both letter of Scripture and analogie of faith doe teach that Antichrist is to sit as Caiaphas did in a true Church yea to be a chiefe Officer of some Church otherwise he could not be a principal Rebell or notorious Traitor against Christ But in that he was to be such a rebell and such a Traitor it is not conceiuable that the Church which wholly submits herselfe to him as to her head should bee the true Church much lesse the onely Church of Christ The former argument will hold thus farre The Pope is Antichrist ergo the Church of Rome is a true Church secundùm quid that is in opposition to the Synagogue of Iewes of Turkes or other professed Infidels But if we speake absolutely or compare it with Churches truly Christian it is no true Church of Christ but the Synagogue of Satan Or as he said of his sordid Hosts entertainment that there was so much fire as a man could not haue truly said in strict propriety of logicke phrase there was no fire that is there was so much as if hee had beene bound by couenant of Lease neuer to haue suffered the fire to goe out hee might haue saued his lease from forfeiture and yet there was no fire but a mocke-fire to the entertaining of a stranger so much as was a greater eyesore to him that had sought comfort or refreshing from it then if there had been none at all In like manner there is so much of the true Church in the present Romish visible Church as a man cannot say it is no Church at all so much true doctrine in it as sufficeth to support the title of Antichrist and to make it the very seat of all abominations or impieties more then natural For as the mingling of the Traditions of men with Moses doctrine did make the leuen of Pharises to be so malignant and distastfull to God and all good men so is it the mixture or making vp of the doctrine of Christ and of Deuills in one and the same Liturgy which makes Antichristianisme in graine And as elswhere is obserued the Idolatry of the Romish Church is so much worse then the Idolatry of the Heathens by how much that Churches generall beliefe of one God of the glorious Trinity and of the redemption of mankind is better then the Heathens beliefe or knowledge of the same points 6 But when it is said that Antichrist is to sit in the Temple of God it is not meant onely that hee should sit in the present visible Church but that he should be an vsurper of that chaire which sometimes had beene the seat of Gods Saints and bee an intruder into that Church which had beene Holy and Catholike before his intrusion and which still retaines the rootes and stemmes of Catholike faith into which it shall be his and his followers continual care to ingraffe the doctrine of Deuills and to exercise their spirituall whoredomes in the Oratories of God CHAP. XIX Whether our Forefathers in separating themselues or suffering themselues to be separated from the Romish Church did any otherwise then Gods Prophets or our Sauiours Disciples had their case and opportunity beene the same would haue done 1 BVt here againe the Author of the Antidote or the blinde Guide of faith will obiect That neither the Prophets of old nor our Sauiours Disciples before his death did separate themselues from the present visible Church If not to beleeue as the Church visible and representatiue for the time present did if not to communicate with her in matters of fact or practice were to bee separated from the present visible Church as this Authors words elsewhere imply the Prophets out of all question did either separate themselues or suffer themselues to be separated from the visible Church wherein they liued Ezekiel and Daniel would neuer haue consented to the Priests and Rulers in their persecutions of Ieremie as a false Prophet or Traytor Our Sauiours Disciples before his death stood excommunicated by the visible Church of the Iewes they were as farre from communicating with