have nothing to do with the causes of men in their Provinces nor receive any such to communion as they did excommunicate yea Saint Cyprian and a company of Bishops with him did dye out of the communion of the Church of Rome Bell. l. 2. de Conc. c. 5. for any thing appear to the contrary yet they were true Bishops and their Churches true Churches Yea further supposing Communion had then been necessary it is not so now the corruption of your Church being greater then it was in Cyprians time so that Gods command doth take place with us 1 Tim. 6.3 5. 2 Cor. 6.14 15 c. Apoc. 18.4 and the example of the Apostles Acts 19.8.9 3. Protestants have Communion with the Catholique Church viz. that Church which hath ever since our Saviour maintained the Doctrine of the Gospel our fellowship is with the Apostles and primitive Churches whose Doctrine we receive and profess yea so far as there is any remainder of true Doctrine amongst you so far we have communion with you also 4. You deliver two palpable Lyes 1. That we glory to have our p wer from the Popiâ—h Church We look upon it not as our honor but as their misery who could not otherwise receive their power We account it our honour and glory in it that we are out of your Bethaven and that we have the ordinances of God within our selves 2. Lye that we confesse you to be a true Church We deny the Church of Rome to be a sound member of the true and Catholique Church We say you were once Bethel now Bethaven Rome was once a faithfull City but now become an harlot Her name is given her by God and acknowledged by us as belonging to her Apoc. 17.5 Mistery Babylon the great the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth 3ly You answer Pro estants derivation from Catholiques is not prooâ— for a personal succession of Bishops and Pastors agreeing in all points with Protâ—stants which ought to be the scope and aim of that derivation iâ— being not required of Protestants to deduce a succession from Christ and h s Apostleâ— of men meerely sent but withal professing the Doctrine maintained in the Church of England Reply 1. I thought personal succession had been the main with you it being proper to the true Church onely as Doctrine you say is not But I see now succession of Doctrine is the more principall succession So unstable are men maintaining errors 2. In derivation of succession it s not necessary that those we derive from agree in all points with us If it were I know where your succession from Peter would be you not being able to name one Bishop that for above 1000 years after Christ did agree in all points with you Sometimes the Bishops and Pastors of the Church who have the power of ordination may be corrupt holding some errors which the ordained may be free from either altogether or in some measure or if not when they are ordained yet afterwards Now what rational man can question the calling of those who are thus ordained 3. We can shew a derivation of succession though not without some interruption of Bishops from Christ and his Apostles professing the main points of the Doctrine of the Church of England I deny not but there might be differences in lesser points but these could not nullifie our claim to them nor make that they should not be called Protestants Your rule therefore is not a very good one that Doctrine being in Nature much like unto number the least addition or Diminution altering its kind and grounding a new denomination But supposing it good and true we may thence unanswerably infer that your Religion is not the same with the Religion of the Apostles or Primitive Christians nor yet with those who lived but a little while ago your Church making frequent additions to former Doctrines 4ly You answer Protestants could not be mingled amongst Catholiques inasmuch as there is no agreement betwixt the Temple of God and Idols no concord with Christ and Belial 2 Cor. 6. The Ark of God and Dagon may not stand together 1 King 5. c Rep. 1. It s one thing to be amongst wicked men another thing to approve of them A good man may be in a corrupt Church in regard of presence who notwithstanding approves not of it When Israel was most corrupt and overspread with idolatry yet there were seven thousand that bowed not the knee to Baal Rom. 11.4 When our Saviour came the Jewish Church was very corrupt yet there were some few in it who groaning under the evils of it waited for the consolation of Israel The Prophet Isaiah speaks of a remnant that were left in the midst of a corrupt Church Isay 1.9 Yet none of these did approve of the corruptions but rather mourned for them Ezek. 9.4 If God had not his people in Babylon to what end doth he say come out of her my people Apoc. 18.4 God had a people in Babilon a people like corne among chaffe good fish amongst bad ones These till God gave an opportunity of delivering themselves did dwell with the daughter of Babilon Zech. 2.7 They had external communion but wanted inward affection to her they had no concord nor agreement with her in her grosser errors But you say It were a strange example if the Church should receive into her company lyers and innovators this would leave a stain upon her reputation make her sinceritie be suspected hâ—r Doctrine contemned and despised but she who is all fair Cant. 6. without spot or wrinkle Eph. 5. is free from any such guilt Rep. 1. It s no strange thing that a true Church may have in it those who are erroneous It was thus with Rome Corinth Galatia Philippi and the Churches of Asia Rev. 2.14 15 20. There is no Church can claim exemption The Popish Church hath had those in it whom you call lyers and innovators and upon that score have come into your expurgatory judices 2. You assert that of the Church of Rome which never any but Novatus and his followers did attribute to the visible Church viz. to be all faire without spot or wrinkle a priviledge belonging to the Church as triumphant or but imperfectly agreeing to the true members only of the visible Church in this World and herein you shew your self to be none of that society of Christians who generally maintained professed that their commission and power was to preach and inculcate that the Church of God militant was not without mixture of bad p. 81. 2. You take that for granted which we constantly deny that your Romish Synagogue is the true Church and all fair and without spot or wrinkle c. and that Protestants are lyers and innovators which you are yet to prove 3. Yet granting both these for Argument sake I affirm that maintainers of false Doctrine may be in the Church without all that danger you talke of while they lye
New Testament See Rom. 1.19 20. 2 Tim. 3.15 16.17 John 17.3 3. Your Conformity of Faith to the Church in a Popish sence is a novel phrase not used by the first Christians nor the Apostles of Christ in any of their writings nor did they ever bid men beleeve as the Church beleeved though that was of greater authority then the present Church is but still called their faith to the Word of God contrary to which if Paul or any other Apostles yea or Angels from Heaven did preach the people were to reject them and no doubt if Paul had preached such stuff as now Popish Sermons are filled with traditions and new decrees ungrounded on Gods Word the Beraeans had rejected him and his praying It was for want of this Conformity of Faith to the Word of God that our Saviour upbraids the two Disciples that travelled to Emaus Luk. 24.25 He saith not O flow of heart to beleeve all that the Church beleeves this as I said was no Scripture language nor known to primitive Christians but to beleeve all that the Prophets have spoken And that he may lead them to this Conformity of Faith he expounds not the Decrees and Constitutions of Scribes and Pharisees who sat in Moses Chair whereof there were many but 't is said Beginning at Moses and all the Prophets he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself vers 27. Sir I beleeve you are so dutiful a son to the Church that had you been in Christs stead you would rather have told them of Popes decretal Epistles then of Prophets writings of Traditions rather then Scripture if such things then had had a being But 4. Why could not you say a Conformity of Faith to the Truth revealed as well as a Conformity of Faith to the Church revealing the Truth The Truth revealed not the Church revealing it is the Rule of Faith as I shall shew hereafter 1. You might have done well once for all to have told us what you mean by The Church for the word is diversly attributed even by those who in general agree that it is only the Roman Church as you seem by your Epistle to the Reader to understand it 2. You urge Scripture to prove your Assertion viz. three Texts Mat. 28.19 Luke 10.16 Mat. 16. The two first do not so much as mention the word Church the last mentions the word but proves not the thing you bring it for 1. Mat. 28. Going teach ye all Nations Ans I wonder in what word the proof lies I suppose it 's not in Going and I dare say Teaching proves it not for then every Teacher should be a Rule of Faith besides the Apostles were not to teach men to hang their faith upon themselves or others whether of the Roman or any other Church but they were commanded to teach men to do whatsoever Christ had commanded vers 10. amongst which this was the principal work to believe on him whom God had sent Joh. 6.29 viz. Jesus Christ to whom they were brought by the Apostles preaching as living stones to be built upon a foundation 2. Luke 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me Ans I suppose this Text is brought to explain the other which had need of a Commentary to make it speak your language But 1. This is spoken primarily and absolutely of the Apostles who were Christs mouth in delivering the Scriptures and therefore infallibly inspired by the Holy Ghost that they could not err in what they delivered to us That which Moses was to the Jews in delivering the Law the same were the Apostles to us in delivering the Gospel So that he that heareth the Apostles heareth Christ because it was the word of Christ which they did speak and this way we hear the Apostles speak yet whilest wâ— read or hear the Scriptures which they pen'd but what is this to the present Roman Church and her unwritten Traditions 2. As it 's understood of ordinary Ministers in the Church it can only be understood conditionally He that heareth you while your doctrine agreeth with the Word of God heareth me so that faith is not a conformity to any Teachers or their doctrine but so far as their doctrine is agreeable with the Scriptures which indeed are the Rule both of their preaching and our beleeving Consonantly hereunto the Apostle saith If any man teach otherwise and consent not to wholesom words even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ he is proud from such withdraw thy self 1 Tim. 6.3 c. The Scribes and Pharisees who were the Church in a Popish sence were to be heard but it was whilest they sate in Moses Chair that is whilest they preached not their own traditions and phancies but Moses doctrine Arias Montanus saith Elucid in Mat. 23. Christ bids them do what the Scribes and Pharisees commanded Ex praescripto legis id est ex Cathedrâ Mosis So Origen Origen apud Lyran. Super Cathedram c. isie sermo de me est qui bona dâ—ceo contraria gero 3. The Text speaks not of the Church for particular Ministers in the Church are not the Church Now your Rhemists expound it of them in these words It is all one to despise Christ RheÌ„ Annot. on the Text. and to despise his Priests and Ministers in the Catholique Church to refuse his doctrine and theirs And indeed it must be understood of those who labour in the Word and Doctrine not of non-preaching Popes and Prelates 3. Mat. 16. you would say Mat. 18.17 which you read thus He that heareth not the Church let him be as an Heathen and a Publican Not to say any thing of your false quotation or reading a fault common throughout your Book Protestants may take notice what great cause we have to put these men into our bosoms as they expect whilest they profess we are no better then Heathens or Publicans though I am sure their usage from us hath shewed us Christians But to the Text How little it makes for your purpose the Context words themselves will shew It speaks not of Conformity of Faith to the Church but of obedience of the offending party to the admonition of the Pastors of the Church Thus Lyranus Si non aud Eccles pr ceptum praelatos contemnendo Lyr. in loc You might as well say that faith is a conformity to our selves because it 's said If he neglect to hear thee vers 15. or to two or three witnesses because it 's said If he neglect to hear them vers 17. whereby is implied that he ought to hear them Hence it might well follow that faith ought rather to be resolved upon a neighbor that is a private man then upon the Church because the offended party is first to be heard before the Church And then Sir who is guilty of the Private spirit that you anon talk of Sure your selves and not the Protestants In stead of these misapplied Scriptures for you I shall give you
Pastors should be visible after they are dead for a visibility of them whilst they live would be to no purpose it not providing the the Church of means to defend aâ—d make good her right in case of opposition c. Answ 1. For men to be visible after death is something accidentall and withall strange unless to a popish ear or a necromancers eye but supposing charitably that you mean that their names should be visible I say 2. There is no necessity for evidencing a true Church that the names of all preceding Bishops and Pastors thereof should be mentioned It s sufficient that it be shewed that their Doctrine had its rise from Christ and that the Apostles professed and preached it Thus we shew the truth of our Church against your Antichristian Temple It s a truth subscribed to by all that the Doctrine which had its rise from Christ and was professed by the Apostles had professors of it in all ages and these must needs be true Pastors though without exact succession Your self formerly did confess that it is required of Protestants to deduce a succession from Christ and his Apostles not of men meerly sent but withall professing the Doctrine maintained in the Church of England though now forgetting what you had before said you affirm that if Bishops and Pastors be found succeeding each other without intermission its euident they are true and Catholique but this I have confuted before 3. Your reason with its comparisons annexed to it do not prove your assertion you say It not providing the Church of means to defend and make good her right in case of opposition the question of the Churches right is to be decided not unlike that of two great men laying claim to a principality by vertue of some pretended descent from a certain Prince Answ 1. It is unlike if by discent you mean a series of personal succession without interruption For the Churches right is not decided that way Scribes and Pharisees might have lineal descent from Aaron yet be theeves and robbers John 10.8 The Churches planted since the Apostles days could not have this lineal discent from Christ and his Apostles yea the Churches planted by the Apostles might have their Hiatus Yet both these later be true Churches of Christ You seem to grant pag. 56 that the Bishops and Pastors of some particular Churches cannot be named in a constant succession How then will you prove the truth of those Churches for it cannot be proved by this means you plead for 2. Supposing them like yet it s not the un-interruptednesse of succession for which they lay claim to the principality for it may have been in the hands of usurpers but discent together with the qualifications required in him who is to inherit which are found in one but not in the other thus it may be said of the Church whose discent from Christ together with her qualifications viz. investure with true Doctrine and right administration of Sacraments according to the will of Jesus Christ doth entitle her to the inheritance of truth 2. Or to a river whether it hath its off-spring from such an hill or mountain the surest way is to trace the river up to the head Answ 1. It may be probably known by other means than this viz. by compareing the water of the mountain with this in the river by the ascent of the water of the rivers c. 2. Tracing it is not always a sure way it may be mingled with other waters as have not their rise from that mountain it may run through a dead sea and then you may be at a losse whilst you seek an uninterrupted derivation of it from its head Yet 3. I grant that when the head is near and there is no mixture of impure and different waters your course is very good thus the fathers who lived within a few years after Christ and before heretiques came into Bishopricks and Pastoral Churches did make use of derivation of succession But the case is otherwise with us we living many hundreds of years after them and there having been heretical Bishops in the Church Lastly You say The truth of Doctrine is discernable much after the same manner if it be found to have no way varied but to have kept its own from Christ and the Apostles doubtless its Orthodox if not most certainly its new and false Answ 1. The former part is most true but not the later that Doctrine is true which though it have been varied in particular Churches yet at present is the same with the Apostles Doctrine 2. Granted is true what will become of your present Church and its Doctrine which you confesse is not the same with Christs and his Apostles Doctrine certainly it will follow that your new articles of communion in one Kinde prayer in an unknown tongue c. are new and false The rest of your answer is but a piece of railing rhetorick not worthy a reply SHAPE V. THe fift Shape is this That Church is true and Catholique which professeth the Apostles Doctrine clearly delivered in Scripture but the Protestant Church doth so therefore c. You answer 1. True Doctrine is no mark of a true Church it being often to be seen among schismaticks who for want of communion cannot make a true Church Reply 1. The profession of the Apostles Doctrine delivered in Scripture is a mark of the true Church as not agreeing to any other which I prove by these arguments drawn from your own assertions 1. True Doctrine is the Churches inseperable mate p. 40. But it could not be her inseperable mate if it could be seperated from her and brought into society with a schismatical Church 2. Christ hath entrusted his Church with trueth and ordained her keeper and preserver of it and what comes upon any other score than upon the Churches account and credit is to be reputed Apocryphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of belief p. 13. Therefore whatsoever Doctrines are out of the true Church are not truths For that which is beleeved by men out of the Church comes not upon the Churches account and therefore with you is Apocriphal 3. True Doctrine is Her the Churches Doctrine p. 51. Therefore cannot agree to others 4. There is no agreement betwixt the Temple of God and idols no concord with Christ and Belial You urge these words to prove that professors of error cannot be in the Church and it will as strongly prove that professors of truth cannot be out of the Church where then is your truth agreeing to a schismatical Church 5. Doctrine being in nature much like unto number the least addition or diminution altereth its kind and groundeth a new denomination p. 50. Now you cannot name any number of schismaticks that did not either adde to or diminish something of the Doctrine which the Apostles taught in Scripture hence 't is that both Augustine and Hierom tell us that there is no schisme which doth not
as well as Rome and it s your task to prove not onely that the Pope but Bishops and Pastors of the Church have a personall succession from the Apostles But 2. Rome is not now able to shew a personall and doctrinall succession from Christ and his Apostles though I grant that in the time of the first Fathers of the Church she was able as were also the Churches of Smyrna Ephesus of Asia the Churches in Germany in Spain in France Iren. adv haeres l. 1. c. 3. in the East Countreyes in Egypt in Lybia in the middle of the world as Irenaeus reckons them but she is now unable unable to shew either succession of persons or doctrine as I shall demonstrate by these following particulars 1. As to personal succession though she have a bed-role of names of Popes yet 1. She cannot affirm that none of her Popes came in by Simony Nay the contrary is evident by the testimony of Platina the Popes Library keeper Platin. in Bened. 4. et ser 30. Now I find her constitutions the one made by Julius the second made Anno 1505. which nullifies such Popes Election declaring him to be no Pope and that no one ought to account him Pope and further that without any further declararation he be devested of all his dignities and that it be lawful for any one to refuse obedience to his commands and the other constitution declares him excommunicate as Antichrist and an invader and destroyer of Christianity See both of these in Azorius's Morals Azo instuor p. 2. l. 4. c. 5. The like decree was made by Nicholas 2. In the Lateran Council mentioned by Caranza wherein such a one is declared to be a thief and one that may be thrust out of the Chair by any one that hath power 2. She cannot affirm that none of her Popes have come in by force and fraud Nay it s evident that many of her Popes came in this way I shall only give you the testimony of Caranza for many of them he tells us that Christopher 1. And Boniface 7. got the Popedome malis artibus by fraud and cousinage others of them have come in by force Damasus the third got the Popedom by force with out the Clergy or peoples consent Sylvester the third saith he was no true Pope but thrust in by popular tumult Clement 2. was created Pope by the compulsion of Henery the Third Iohn 13. took himself the Popedom through the assistance of his Father Leo the 8. was ordained by the Clergy but Otho the Emperour forced them to it after he had ejected Boniface Saint Iohn 18. did usurp the Chair whilest Gregory the fifth lived So common was this way of coming to the Popedom that the Author tells us that course became so common that any ambitious person would usurp the Chair Baronius acknowledgeth that men were thrust into Peters Seat by their potent Harlots false Popes c. Now that Decree of Pope Nicholas the second An. 912. meets with such as these for able entry nullifies the Popes right according to the former constitutions and makes him Antichrist 3. She is not able to affirm that all her Popes have been free from heresie I have shewed the contrary yet the constitution of Julius takes hold of Heretiques as of simoniacal Popes 4. She cannot shew that all her Popes have been Males before the Porphyry Chair there was no trial of the Popes humanity and that was occasioned by an Harlot gotten into the Popeal Seat Yet it s asserted and that truly that a woman is not capable of pontifical power and dignity 5. She cannot shew the order of her Popes It s not known where to place Clemens and for Boniface 6. Caranza saith its a great controversie amongst writers at what time he sate in Peters Chair Now this is inconsistent with the evident demonstration of Popeish succession 6. She cannot say but there have been great Chasma's wherein there have been no Popes There have been Vacancies not only for Months but years through the contentions of Cardinals or some other cause 7. She cannot deny but there have been many Popes at the same time and each had their parties joyning with them Caranza confesseth that about the time of Alexander the Third there was a Schism in the Church for almost twenty years There was three others at the same time with him viz. John 24. Benedict 4. Greg. 12 all three deposed by the Council of Constance This may suffice to allay the Popeish brag of personal succession and therefore I come to the next particular viz. Doctrinal succession 2. Then as to Doctrinal succession Rome is not able to shew Doctrinal succession from Christ and his Apostles There are two things concern her to prove as to this 1. That her present Doctrine is the same that the Apostles taught 2. That she hath held this in every age since the Apostles until now both which are too difficult for Popish heads Let any man reade but the Articles of Faith in that Epistle of Paul to the Romans and there will appear a vast difference betwixt the Apostle and them he taught justification by faith without the deeds of the Law Rom. 3.20.28 impossibility of perfect personall obedience c. 8. 3. 3. 9. and 7. 14. 15. That concupiscence is a sin in the regenerate c. 7. 7. 8. that sufferings of Saints are not meritorious c. 8. 18. That Prayer is onely to be made to the object of Faith which is God c. 10. 4. That the Roman Church may err and be broken off as the Jews are c. 11. 10. 21. 22. That every Roman ought to be subject to the civill Magistrate rendring honour tribute c. c. 13. 1. That the Scriptures are written for our learning c. 15. 4. Lastly that Religion consists not in difference of meats and drink c. 14. 17. nor of days ' Verse 5. 6. Again let Papists shew us so much as one Father that beleeved and propounded the late Articles of Pius's Creed as necessary to be beleeved in every age and then we shall beleeve succession of Doctrine till then we shall suspend our faith or belief of it 5. Your last part is without the least interruption c. this is manifestly overthrown by what I have already said and therefore I shall refer it to the judgment of Christians as sufficient to overthrow this first Argument 2. Argument That company composeth and maketh up the truh Catholique Church which doth acknowledge and imbrace a power generally claimed and a Doctrine generally professed by the Apostles and Christians ever since when any opposition was first made but the said Company acknowledgeth and embraceth a power generally claimed and a Doctrine generally professed by the Apostles and Christians ever since when any opposition was first made therefore that Company composeth and maketh up the true Cathâ—lique Church Answ 1. To your Major 1. It s obscure and doubtful what you mean by Power as distinct from the
profession of Doctrine In your next words you call it Apostolical power which may extend to jurisdiction as well as to Order to Government as well as Doctrine but in the confirmation of your assumption you only though frequently express it by a power to preach and inculcate the truth which is no more then profession of true Doctrine against errors and thus it must be understood if the Argument be good 2. Your felf overthrow the truth of this proposition 1. In saying Apostolicall power and doctrine where Communion is not wanting are sure evidences of the true Catholick Church whereby you declare then your enumeration of particulars in the proposition is unsufficient and may be where the true Church is not viz. where communion is wanting and this is more necessary with you than any thing you express 2. Whereas in the former Chapter we asserted the profession of true doctrine to be a mark of the true Church you vehemently opposed it as an error how comes it then to be a truth in this Chapter Is it a truth or no truth a Popish truth and a Protestant error 3. These marks or rather this mark may agree to particular Churches and have rather agreed to any particular Church than the now Roman Yea they may agree to particular Christians of other Churches as to Chrysostome Bishop of Constantinople Athanasus Bishop of Alexandria Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem whom you mention and were distinct Patriarchs from the Bishop or Patriarch of Rome yea every private Christian hath a power from Christ to embrace true Doctrine and to make profession of it and to contend earnestly for it against all false doctrine Answ 2. To your minor I deny it to be true your proof of I shall mainly examine The second Proposition say you I clear by instances in and from the Apostles down to Luther Zuinglius and Calvin and those of such points as Catholicks and Protestants mainly differ in Parturiunt montes c. Who would not here expect some great matter from this Doctor yet who ever examines his instances shall finde nothing but a heap of lies and fopperies For my discovery hereof I shall shew particularly what this man undertakes and how he swerves from his undertaking 1. He undertakes things 1. To produce a Catalogue of such points wherein Catholicks and Protestants mainly differ So that to bring instances of such doctrines as Protestants disclaim as well as Papists is to lie grosly and to befool the Reader 2. To produce the generallity or universall company of Christians as appears by those words Christians generally maintained so often repeated in the following instances 3. To produce this company professing c. when any opposition was first made whereby is implied that when the Protestant supposed errors did arise in severall ages these Authors and Councels did then arise and oppose them 4. To bring in the testimony of Roman Catholicks for he proves that the Roman Church is Catholick because of their constant opposition of Heresies in all ages since Christ 2. The frothiness of his undertaking appears in his swerving from it which comes not to be delivered 1. As for his instance of such points c. who that read his Profession but would expect a Catologue of Protestant errors from the Apostles down to Calvin but behold a Catalogue of such Doctrines as Protestants and Papists comply in the opposition of Here are fifteen instances of which the six first together with the eighth tenth eleaventh and twelfth as he delivers it fourteen and part of the fifteenth we utterly disclaim as none of the doctrine of the Protestant Churches but a dead bastard which the whore of Rome hath laid at our side insteed of our own living child which this author hath carefully hid from the eyes of his followers making shew onely of hâ—s own deformed bastard But lest I should seem to affirm rather then prove Our disowning of them I shall take a little liberty to demonstrate what is the judgement of the Protestant Churches in those points that this Author mentions as errors only first I will advertise the reader of a jugling feat of this Romish artist 't is this when he brings in Fathers or Councels in opposition to some errors he turns them from opposing those erors to assert some doctrines not directly contrary to those errors but rather to the true doctrine of Protestants as S. 2. in opposition to S. Magus opening Heaven to Faith unaccompanied with good works he brings in the Apostles and Austin asserting that good works are Absolutely necessary to salvation Sect. 3. in opposition to Eunomius attributing Justification to a simple act of faith he brings in Irenaeus and Austin affirming that Faith alone doth not justifie Sect. 4. Whereas Florinus blasphemed God to be the Author of sin he brings in Tertullian Origen and the Trent Councell asserting that God doth no more but permit as if God could do no more about sin but he must be the Author of it Having premised this I come to his instances 1. Instance Simon Magus took upon him to open Heaven to Faith unaccompanied with good works Ans Is this the doctrine of Protestants or do they open Heaven to Faith accompanied with good works Do not all Protestants require that the Faith which justifies be an active or operative Faith and proclaim other Faith dead read concerning the necessitie of works the English Confession Non tamen dicimus c. Yet we say not that men may live dissolutely as if it were sufficient for a Christian onâ—ly to be dipt and to believe and nothing else expected from him true Faith is living and cannot be idle Read the Articles of the Church of England especially Act. 12. Albeit that good works which are the fruits of Faith and follow after Justification cannot put away our sins and endure the severitie of Gods judgement yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith c. Again Act. 17. They which are predestinated they walk religiously in good works c. To all this the reverend Assembly of Divines consent saying Good works are the fruit and evidences of a true and lively Faith that believers are created thereto that having their fruit in holiness they may have the end Confess of Faith c. 16. Sect. 2. eternall life If you say Protestants hold they are not absolutely necessary I answer this was not the error of Simon Magus nor is the contrary opinion the professed Doctrine of the Church of Rome as appears to any that reads the Councel of Trent Session 6. or of her children see the Rhemists on Lu. 23.43 2. Inst Eunomius attributed to a simple act of faith virtue and efficacie to cleanse and wash a-away whatsoever ordure and spots of sins Tolet. in c. 3. ad Rom. This is no Protestant doctrine We fully consent to the speech of the Jesuite Tolet. Advertendum est c.
he will gather strength by observing that the above named Luther Zuinglius Calvin c. But few days or months before their opposition held as the rest of Christians did in alâ— points with the said Company and that neither they nor any of them have left to posterity the least mention of any number of men in being before their opposition with whom to joyn and side to make good the same c. Ans 1. How this strengthens your proof I see not Should the Jews have objected against our Saviours and the Apostles Converts that their Jewish Doctrine was generally received and preached yea and that these Converts as Paul c. but a few days or months before their opposition held as other Jews did Would this think you make for them that they were the true Church The Gentiles the greatest part of the World profest against Christ and his truth and those who were called out of them to receive the truth did but a little before comply with the Gentiles against Christ Must this therefore strengthen the Gentiles cause against the truth It may be your self and others who have apostalized from the true religion but a few months before your opposition held as the rest of true Orthodox Christians did yet this will not even in your conceit advance your cause 2. It s questionable whether Luther Zuinglius and Calvin did hold with you in all points and that but a few days or months before their publique opposition of you The Speech of Alphonsus à Castro seems to import the contrary when he tells us that a great company seemed to wait for Luther and joyned with him as soon as he appeared I cannot think but that Luther was against the sale of indulgencies longer then a few weeks or months before his opposition 3. It s a gross lye that there is not left the least mention of any number of men in being before their opposition with whom to joyn and side I have fully shewed the contrary to this and therefore remitting the Reader to what I have formerly said I come to his next Argument Arg. 3. That Company composeth and maketh up the Catholick Church which is acknowledged even by their adversaries to be Apostolical but the above mentioned Company is acknowledged even by their adversaries to be Apostolical therefore that Company composeth and maketh up the Catholick Church The first Proposition say you is evident forasmuch as Apostolical in a right and genuine sence signifieth to believe as the Apostles believed which is to be Catholick Arg. 1. It seems now that profession of Apostolical Doctrine is a convincing argument to prove a Company to be the Catholick Church But Sir why did you not approve of this argument when we brought it for the Protestant Church Or how could you without blushing tell us That true Doctrine which is none other then Apostolical doctrin they being reciprocal is no mark of a true Church it being often found among Schismaticks who for want of Communion cannot make a true Church pag. 60. If Protestants can prove they believe those doctrines the Apostles believed will you acknowledge them the true Apostolical and Catholick Church We desire no more but that leaving humane constitutions and traditions you would examine our Doctrines by Scripture the true Epitome of Apostolical Doctrines and if we consent not hereunto proclaim us Hereticks 2. Your Explication of the word Apostolical is good and it evidently shews that Personal Succession is inferiour to Doctrinal in denominating a Church Apostolical and Catholick and that the Protestants supposed want of Personal uninterrupted Succession is no hinderance to their being the Catholick Church All which doth extreamly weaken your former doctrines 3. I deny your Minor Proposition and come to examine your proof of it You say It appears no less clear in several Protestant Writers who expresly account that the Apostles first planted the Christian Faith in England that the same was retained by Bishops and Pastors from the first Plantati n to S. Austine that in substance it differed not from that which S. Austine brought in that S. Austine was sent by Gregory the Great Bishop of Rome to convert the Saxons in England to the Roman Faith that the Roman Church in Gregory tâ—e Greats time was the same it is at this present c. All which you reduce to this Syllogism S. Austins Church and Doctrine were Apostolical S. Austins Church Doctrine were the same with the now Roman therefore the Roman Church and Doctrine are Apostolical I answer 1. By S. Austins Church I suppose you mean the Roman Church in S. Austins time as when you say The Roman Church in Gregory the Great 's â—ime was the same it is at this present Hereupon I particularly answer Gregory 1. To your Major That the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the time of Austin and Gregory was the same with the Doctrine of the Apostles 1. The Apostle tells us That even in his time the mystery of iniquity did begin to work and succeeding Ages discover its progress Most Ages did contribute some materials towards Rome's Temple though the nearer to the Apostles were more opposite and so more sparing in their contributions to it Hence it was that in the first five hundred years there is little to be found tending to Popery and that which is is rather in notions and terms then propositions as in most ancient Fathers we read the words Altar Sacrifice Merit c. yet it will never be proved that they used them for that which Papists now will have theÌ„ to signifie In the next age there was a greater decay of purity than before ignorance did much aboudd superstitioÌ„ attendant on it In this age did Gregory Austin live the former being sirnamed Rainold praelect de lib. Ap c. tom 1. prael 39. p. 365 Sixt. Senen bill Stae l. 5. Au. 137 F. Hier. Porter in the life of S. Gregory p. 266. Chronic. Carion lib. 4. p. 552 The Great indeed he was great as learned Rainolds observeâ— in comparison of those who succeeded him some of them who were before him yet was he short of apostolical purity being guilty of superstition and errour in divers points as the adjudging of children unbaptized to the torments of Hell extending Gods promise of Salvation even to Reprobates making Gods decree mutable and praying for such as are already damned as in the Case of Trojan Carion in his Chronicles attributes to him divers errours as Invocation of Saints and dedication of Temples to them a wrong perswasion of Monkish profession Works of Supererrogation Satisfactions Vows Virginity an opinion of sacrificing Christs body and blood for the dead whereunto he was moved by the report of Apparitions And besides all these he is noted as superstitious in imposition of Ceremonies and those some of them Jewish which are not fit to be imposed on the Church of Christ And as Gregory was guilty so
p. 152. An. 1531. p. 214. that he was non parum doctus not meanly learned The Epitaph this same Author mentions to be written upon Oecolampadius shews him to be a man of great learning the rest of them were men of good parts and indued with a Spirit of zeal for Gods truth besides with those gifts the present necessity did much concurre those who had the key of order neither entring in themselves nor admitting others into it who sought the advancement of Christs Kingdom 2. By meditation of others who received authority from the prime-giver thus the Protestant Bishops and Pastors after the Apostles time received their power from the hands of those whom the Apostles had before invested therewith yea if we speak of the first Protestant Bishops and Pastors they had their authority immediately from the hands of the Apostles The Waldenses who had Bishops and Pastors amongst them are supposed by some of your side to have continued from the Apostles upon this account are judged more pernicious to you than any other Sect. But to omit them Rainer de vit morib Waldens apud Vsher de aeccles Christ success stat p. 151. The first and ancients Fathers of the Church were Protestants in their Doctrines You have been often challenged to shew that the Bishops and Pastors of the Church for many hundred years after Christ were not Protestants but Papists maintaining the articles of your Late Creed It were easy to shew that those Doctrines of Protestants that you anathematize as heresies were with the ancient Fathers received truth thus were communion under both kinds prayer in a known tongue c. by your own confessions It s therefore false that the Apostles were dead and gone long before these had any being So then we have power and authority from Christ by meditation of others succeeding the Apostles But against this I have said you object thus Object By this is implyed a continuation of succession in the Protestant Bishops and Pastors ever since Christ and the Apostles it is not conceiveable any other way how power could be transmitted from one hand to another as is averred Answ 1. Here is not implyed a continuation of succession c. if thereby you understand such succession as admits of no interruption and that in particular Churches The succession of Pastors in particular Churches may cease through the violence and tyranny of enemies yet the violence being over there may be a reestablishments of the Ministry and that in succession to the former though the means of the new establishment be only the peoples choice which in some cases is most valued 2ly What if there hath been a continuation of succession in the Protestant Bishops c You answer They must then be visible for as much as it was their parts to preach the Word of God and administer the Sacraments Rep. I grant it who ever denyed that the Pastors of the Church were visible We hold indeed that sometimes they may lie hid from their enemies but they are visible to their friends though they be not seen in the streets of Rome they are visible in the mountains and woods c. when the Church is in the wilderness her Pastors are not visible in Cities and Courts 2. But what if visible You answer If visible they may be produced they ought to be produced they may because that power is vain and fictitious that is not reducible to act Mat. 5. They ought because Bishops and Pastors in case of controversie are to give an account of their calling Luke 7. as well to settle the wavering as to bend and make supple the stifnesse of stubborn misbeleevers 1 Pet. 3. Rep. 1. They might be visible in their times yet now not producible You know what rigor hath been used against Protestant books you burnt Wicklif's works and have extinguished others You deal with us as Doctor Featly shews as if a theif should steal our purse and make away our money and then demand of us what is become of our money if we had any such summes of money in what bag and where those bags are 2. There are ofâ— our Authors who have produced Protestant Bishops and Pastors i. e. such as have maintained Protestant Doctrine in every age since the Apostles 3. Whereas you say They may because that power is vain and fictitious that is not reducible to act Math. 5. 1. Your reason is a piece of nonsence and having no relation to what it should prove the question is about the power of naming them not the actual naming them if we had granted the power and denyed the act your Say had made somewhat for you as when you say the Commandments may be kept but cannot name one that keeps them it makes against you 2. It s a tautology your word Reducible denotes power not act so that it s as if you had said that power to act is vain and fictitious that is not in power to act 3. Your quotation is impertinent so far as I know I have searched Math. 5. and I find not any thing that may make for your purpose and I 'm sure your axiom is not there Sure you mistook Matthew for Aristotle 4. It s false that there is a necessity of producing Protestant Bishops and Pastors we look more at succession of doctrine then persons and think this sufficient to denominate us the true Church for which we have Tertullian's judgment in that book you even now cite affirming That those Churches which are able to produce none of the Apostles or Apostolical men for their first planters are notwithstanding Apostolical for consent of faith and consanguinity of doctrine When our Authors bring in Catalogues of Protestant Pastors it is to stop the mouths it may be of unreasonable men that demand them of us Your reason to prove this necessity is this Bishops and Pastors in case of controversie are to give an account of their calling For 1. It 's one thing for a Pastor to give an account of his calling and another thing to give an account of his predecessors If you were a Bishop in some City and were demanded of the lawfulness of your calling were the way to give them a beadrol of your predecessors in that City This would come short of giving satisfaction for they might be lawful Shepherds and you who succeed them no better than a ravening wolfe 2ly The Text Luke 7. proves nothing for you if you point at the account our Saviour gives of his calling to Johns Messengers v. 19 20. You shall find no naming or producing of his predecessors but of his Doctrine and works Go tell John saith he what ye have seen and heard So we when you demand how we prove our selves true Pastors send you to what you hear and see our Doctrines and works conformable to the Word of God the Law of Moses and Gospel of Christ 3ly Few that have a desire after truth and regard our Doctrine