and councils are ambiguous as they were in the council of Trent and are often in the Decrees Breves and other edicts of Popes as is manifest by the writers on the Canon law and disputes about the councils and Popes meaning in which are so many ambiguities that there is scarce a point in which there are not many opposite opinions If Pappus have overcounted who reckons out of Bellarmin alone two hundred thirty seven contradictions in Popish writers yet he that reads Bellarmins controversies shall finde very few questions in which the Schoolmen and other Papists do not gainsay each other And as for their resolution into the principle I believe the Catholick church They are not agreed what the church is from whom they may have resolution whether the Pope who is with them the church virtual or a general council which is either never or very rare which they call the church representative or the uniform consent of the Fathers according to which only the profession of faith of Pope Pius the fourth requires all Papists to receive and expound the holy Scriptures and yet this uniform consent of Fathers is either a nullity it being scarce found in any point or it is impossible to be known H. T. by his words pag. 108. resolves his faith into the next precedent age and so upwards and here pag. 30. into the church and this church is pag. 70. not the whole church which yet is all one with the Catholick but a council approved by the Pope into whose authority they finally resolve their faith for though they pretend to resolve it into the Scripture yet as it is expounded by the church pag. 109 113. which is the Pope So that whatever pretence they make of resolving their faith into the church as the proponent or God as the Author in conclusion they acquiesce in what the Pope dictates by himself or with a council approved by him As for the Scriptures the Papists are not all agreed which be the Canonical Scriptures which not nor can they set down certain rules to know what are the unwritten traditions of the church which they are to admit and embrace with a like affection of piety as the written Word as the Trent council decreed sess 4. nor can they have any bottom to rest on by their principles sometimes one Pope and one council crossing another some having been condemned in general councils as hereticks nor can they tell but by information of others as Priests or Carriers of their Bulls or Breves which are many of them not only fallible but also false as some of their own have complained what the Popes determin and what fraud is used in procuring Popes Bulls or Breves sometimes is many ways testified as that the Bull of Pius the fifth wherein Queen Elizabeth was excommunicated and deprived was gotten in a fraudulent way by Morton and Webb there is no certainty from the reports of others what the Pope determins except a man hear him preach or pronounce sentence or see him write and seal he must rely on the testimony of those that may and are like enough to deceive Nor if a man see or hear the Pope decree can he be certain whether he spake from Peters chair or determine what is to be believed by the whole church out of which case they say he is fallible or give his opinion as a private Doctor So that it is most false that either Papists agree as H. T. saith or resolve themselves into one safe and most unchangeable principle or have any infallible judge of controversies or have God himself for the prime Author and his authority the formal object and motive of their faith but their faith in what they differ from us rests only on mens sayings for the most part ignorant and wicked for such have been most of the Popes for a thousand years whom they follow against the plain and confessed words of the Scripture as in their communion under one kinde worshipping of Images and ascribe to them power by their authority to declare new Scriptures and Articles of faith and make the Scripture only to be believed because of the churches determination that is the Popes which in respect of us they make of more authority than the Scripture and so make the churches not Gods authority the formal motive and object of their faith So that if unity be a note of the church of all others the Popish church can lay least claim to it and H. T. his argument may be retorted The Catholick church is one the Roman church is not one therefore the Roman church is not the Catholick church On the other side the Protestants have better unity and means of unity than Papists For however they differ in ceremonies and disciplin yet in points of faith they differ little as may appear by the harmony of their confessions which shews agreement in their churches however in explication of points private Doctors differ and they have a more sure principle and safe in owning one Master even Christ and one certain rule to know the minde of God to wit the holy Scripture which the Papists themselves make the object of faith and the translation into the English tongue makes plain in the chief points to be believed so that every ordinary man may be certain what it delivers concerning them and this translation appears to be certain in those things by comparing it even with the Papists own English translation at Rhemes and Dowâ—y which had they left out their corrupt Annotations and permitted it to be read as God requires by all sorts of persons the falshood and errors of Popish Priests would soon appear and be rejected by all that love truth SECT V. The argument of H. T. from the unity of a natural body is against him and for Protestants But H. T. adds a second argument for the unity of the Catholick church thus As a natural unity and connexion of the parts among themselves and to the head is necessary for the being and conservation of a natural body so the spiritual unity and connexion of the members amongst themselves and to the head is necessary for the being and conservation of a mystical body But the church of Christ as I have proved is a mystical body Therefore a spiritual unity and connexion of the members amongst themselves and to the head is necessary for the being and conservation of the church of Christ The Major is proved by the parity of reason which is between a natural and mystical body for as a natural body must needs dye if all it's parts by which it should subsist be torn and divided one from another so also a mystical body perishes if all it's members be divided from one another and from the head whence it hath it's spiritual life by Schism and heresie Answ THough it be that this argument is only from a similitude which doth only illustrate not prove as Logicians say truely and there
be such disparities between a natural body and a mystical as are sufficient to shew the weakness of this arguing as namely that there are no parts vital in the mystical body besides the head as the heart liver and lungs are in the natural that some parts of the head it self may be cut off as the ears and nose and yet the being though not the integrity of the body continue that there are some parts that have not life as hair and nayles as some conceive that the parts receive not life from the head but the head and the rest from the soul yet â—ith the conclusion is true and the argument with its proof many wayes against the Popish tenets I grant it and observe 1. That the unity which is proved hence is not of the universal visible church the truth of which Papists and this Author go about to demonstrate by it's unity but of the mystical For in this mystical body the unity is spiritual by faith and the members have spiritual life from the head But in the Catholick church of which the disputes are according to Bellarm. l. 3. de eccl milit c. 10 c. are many dead members secret infidels so that this argument proves not the Catholick visible by it's unity but the Catholick invisible of true believers 2. This argument is not to prove the unity of the church by subjection to the Roman Bishop by which H. T. would demonstrate the unity of the church but by the unity to that head whence the body hath it's spiritual life and motion which sure is Christ only and not the Bishop of Rome 3. This similitude if by head were meant the Pope cannot evince the purpose of this Author For there have been Schisms in the Roman church of one Pope and his party against another and yet the unity of the Catholick church in the profession of the â—ame faith continued Whence it follows that Schism doth not take away the unity of the church Catholick without heresie but only disorder distemper and disquiet it And therefore though it were granted as it is not that Protestants were Schismaticks in dividing from the See of Rome yet they might be united to the Catholick church and it 's being and conservation continued as long as the unity of faith is continued and until it be proved that Protestants have departed from the unity of faith once delivered to the Saints which he can never do in vain doth H. T. go about to prove they are not united to the Catholick church SECT VI. The universality which Matth. 28. 20. Eph. 4. 12 13. Luk. 1. 33. John 14. 15 16. for time Psal 85. 9. Isa 2. 2. Matth. 28. 20. for place is meant agrees not to the now Roman church but better to the Protestants BUt H. T. proceeds thus To be universal for time and place is nothing else but to be coexistent with all time and to be spread or diffused over all places But the church of Christ from the time he hath founded it hath been coexistent with all time and shall be to the worlds end and hath and shall be spread over all nations therefore the church of Christ is universal or Catholick for time and place The Major is proved because the definition and the thing defined are convertible The Minor is proved by Scripture for time St. Matth. 28. 20. Ephes 4. 12 13. St. John 14. 15 16. St. Luke 1. 33. For place Psal 85. 9. Isa 2. 2. St Matth. 28. 20. Answ 1. The conclusion should have been the Roman Catholick church and no other is the church of Christ and the argument thus That church which is universal for time and place and no other is the church of Christ But the Roman Catholick church and no other is universal for time and place therefore the Roman Catholick church and no other is the church of Christ But so the Major had not been true of any church existent in one age nor the Minor true of the present Roman church but it is contrary to all sense and histories which relate the occurrences of the world specially in the churches of Christ 2. As the argument is framed here by H. T. the conclusion is granted being thus understood that the church of Christ is not confined to Israel only but extended to all Nations indefinitely and aptitudinally though not definitely and actually extended to every Nation For some nations never were actually the church of Christ nor any church of Christ among them though there was no restraint by Christs command of preaching to them But if it be understood of actual coexistence with all times and all places so the Minor is not true nor the Major as I conceive the meaning of the term Catholick in the Article of the Creed I believe the holy Catholick church nor is that the definition of the church Catholick that it is actually coexistent with all time and to be spread or diffused over all places but it is termed Catholick because it is not confined to one Nation and comprehends all the believers of any Nation Jew or Gentile nor do the texts he brings prove any other universality For Matth. 28. 20. proves not such an universality as that there shall be no interval of time or particular place wherein the church shall not be existent But that Christ would be with them that preach the Gospel all dayes till the end of the world so as that they had liberty to preach the Gospel in every place and should finde his assistance while they did preach not that alwayes in each day there shall be a Church of Christ on earth much lesse that there shall be a church visible conspicuously to all in every Nation of the earth The like is the sense of Ephes 4. 12 13. which is that Christ hath given various gifts till all come to the unity of faith but this proves not there shall be a continuance of the Church on earth in every age much lesse so conspicuously visible as that it may be known to all much more lesse in every place John 14. 15 16. is yet farther from the purpose as containing a peculiar promise to the Apostles if it be meant of any Church it is the invisible of true believers not of every or any meer visible Church wherein many have not the spirit of Christ at all much lesse abiding with them for ever The text Luke 1. 33. doth not prove that there shall be in every age or time a Church on earth but that Christs dominion shall never end The texts Psal 85. 9. Isa 2. 2. are thus meant that not only the Jews but also all Nations that is all other people by faith shall be admitted to the Church of God by faith as well as Jews now this proves not that there shall be in every place on earth a Church of Christ But H. T. adds I resume the Argument and make it thus 1. That church which is not universal or
and their invocation of what sort he meant being not expressed it serves not the turn to prove his confession of the Fathers of the first five hundred years holding Popish Invocation of Saints deceased SECT VI. The Answers of H. T. to the Objections of Protestants concerning their Succession are shewed to be vain and the Apostacy of the Roman Church proved AFter the rest of his scribling H. T. under the Title of Objection solved saith thus Object In all the Ages before Luther Protestants had a Church though it were invisible Answ This is a meer Mid-summer nights Dream that a Church which is a congregation of visible men preaching baptizing and converting Nations should be extant for a thousand years and yet be all this while invisible neither to be seen or heard of in the World I reply who frames the Objection as this Authour sets it down I know not sure I am that many of the Protestants do frame it otherwise that the Protestants had Churches afore Luther who did oppose popish innovations and that these were visible though not to their Enemies nor in so conspicuous a manner as the Roman Senate or Common-wealth of Venice and this is no Mid-summer nights Dream any more than that Papists have a Church in England in communion with the See of Rome and that they have Masses Baptizing c. although it be not known to Protestants nor so conspicuous as that we know where to go to them And these Churches have been seen and known in the World partly separate from the Roman Church partly continuing within the Roman Church but yet opposing the pâ—pal usurpations and corruptions As for H. T. his Definition of a Church it is to me more like a Mid-Summer nights Dream For is the Church a congregation of visible men preaching baptizing and converting Nations Are all the visible men in the congregation which is the Church men preaching baptizing and converting Nations May not a Church be a congregation of men that convert not any Nation if themselves be converted that baptize not others if themselves be baptized that preach not if they have heard received and profess the Word preached Are not Women part of the congregation which is the Church Do they preach and baptize However it is well this Authour sets down Preaching and Baptizing as acts whereby the men who are of the congregation which is the Church are visible which is all one with the marks of the visible Church given by the Protestants to wit preaching the Word and administring the Sacraments H. T. adds Object The Church in communion with the See of Rome was the true Church till she apostatized and fell from the faith Answ If she were once the true Church she is and shall be so for ever she cannot fail as hath been proved nor erre in faith as shall be proved hereafter I reply It is true Protestants yield that the Churches in communion with the Bishops of Rome were true Churches while they held the faith of Christ entire and did not by their innovations subvert it which was in process of time done by altering of the rule of faith the Apostolical tradition of the holy Scripture into unwritten tradition the Popes determinations and canons of councils as the sense of the Scripture or the revelations of the Spirit of God and by bringing in the invocation and worship of the Virgin Mary and other Saints altering the Sacrament of the Lords Supper instituted for a commemoration of his death into a propitiatory sacrifice for quick and dead asserting transubstantiation and adoring of the bread worshipping images and reliques perverting the Gospel by bringing in the doctrines of humane satisfactions for sin power to fulfill the law justification by works and meriting eternal life instead of free remission of sins to the penitent believer only through the blood of Christ and justification by faith in Christ without the works of the law In which points that the Churches now in communion with the See of Rome have apostatized is apparent by this argument Those Churches have apostatized who have left the faith once delivered to the Saints by the Apostles of Christ But the Churches now in communion with the See of Rome have left the faith once delivered to the Saints by the Apostles of Christ therefore the Churches now in communion with the See of Rome have apostatized The Major is evident from the terms apostasie being no other thing than leaving the faith once delivered to the Saints by the Apostles of Christ The minor is manifest by comparing the doctrine of the council of Trent and Pope Pius the fourth his Creed with the Apostles writings especially the Epistle to the Romans by Paul which shews what once the church of Rome believed For instance it is said Rom. 15. 4. For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope 2 Tim. 3. 15 16 17. And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus 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 Eph. 2. 20. And are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone which plainly prove the Scriptures use for all sorts sufficiency and divinity and the needlesness of unwritten traditions to guide us to salvation Rom. 12. 5. We being many are one body in Christ and every one members one of another 1 Cor. 12. 12. For as the body is one and hath many members and all the members of that one body being many are one body so also is Christ Ver. 13. For by one spirit we are all baptized into one body whether we be Jews or Gentiles whether we be bond or free ver 27. Now ye are the body of Christ and members in particular ver 28. And God hath set some in the Church first Apostles c. Ephes 1. 22. and gave him to be head over all things to the Church which is his body which prove the Catholick Church to have extended to all believers of Jews and Gentiles and that they and not the Roman only or those that are in communion with it are that one body or Catholick Church and that there is no other head of the whole Church but Christ nor any Apostle above another and consequently the Roman Church and Pope have no supremacy over the rest of the Churches Rom. 10 14. How shall they call on him in whom they have not believed 1 Tim. 2. 5. There is one God and one Mediator between God and men the man Christ Jesus which prove they then received not the invocation of Saints nor made the Virgin Mary or any other deceased Saint Mediators between God
is not as H. T. renders it be obscured but vanish away as the words following shew which are Who had these things He that preacheth hath founded the Heaven and the Earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away Whence it is manifest that he there speaks not of the Churches visibility but permanency as the Sun Augustin lib 3. cont Parmen cap. 5. tom 7. against the Donatists saith thus Who therefore would not sit in the assembly of vanâ—â—y let him not become vain in the type of pride seeking the Conventicls separate from the unity of the just of the whole world which he cannot finde But the just are through the whole City which cannot be hid because it is seated on a Mountain that Mountain I say of Daniel in whom that stone cut out without hands grew and filled the whole earth And after There is no security of unity but in the Church declared by the promises of God which being seated as was said on a Mountain cannot be hid and therefore it is necessary that it be known to all parts of the earth By which it is manifest that in opposition to the Donatists appropriating the Church to their party he asserts it to be manifest not by its outward splendour but its extension to all parts The words l. 2. cont Petilian c. 104 are thus Ye are not in the Mountains of Sion because ye are not in the City seated on the Mountain which hath this certain sign that it cannot be hid therefore it is known to all Nations but the part of Donatus is unknown to many Nations therefore it is not that Church It is evident he spake of the Church at that time which was known or manifestly visible to all Nations not from a potent Monarchy in one City but its diffusion through all parts of the world SECT III. H. T. hath not solved the Protestants Objections against the visibility of the Church H. T. adds Objections solved Object The Church is believed therefore not seen Answ She is believed in the sense of her Doctrines and to be guided to all truths by the Holy Ghost but seen in her Pastours Government and Preaching wherefore I deny the Consequence I Reply Though Protestants deny not the Church militant to be visible in the outward Government and Preaching of the Pastors yet they deny that it is always so conspicuous as that it may be known to every Christian as an Assembly of the People of Rome or Common-wealth of Venice to which all may resort for direction Nor by this Argument do they prove that the Church militant is not visible but that the Church in the Creeds Apostolical and Nicene which is one Catholick and Apostolick as such is not visible but invisible being the Object of Faith not of Sight nevertheless the Answer takes not away the force of the Objection if it had been alleged against the visibility of the Church militant For the Church is believed not as teaching but as being it is the existence of the Church not the Doctrine of it that is believed as even the Trent Catechism expounds it now that being Catholick that is according to the Catechism consisting of all believers from Adam till now in all Nations cannot be the object of sense but of faith and therefore the Catholick Church in the Creeds is the invisible of true Believers not the meer visible now militant H. T. adds Object The Woman the Church fled into the Wilderness Apoc. 12 6. Answ But is followed and persecuted by the Dragon v. 17. therefore visible I reply this Answer is ridiculous For whereas Protestants hence prove that at some times the Church is hid from men this Authour saith It was not hid from the Dragon that is the Devil which is not in question So that it appears he had nothing to answer this Inference from the Womans flying into the Wilderness and being hid that sometimes the Church is so hidden as it were in a Wilderness that though it be yet it is not so visible or conspicuous as that men can discern it so as to repair to it howbeit the Devil knows where they lurk Yet once more H. T. Object The Church of the Predestinate is invisible Answ There is no such thing as a Church of the Predestinate Christ's Church is the congregation of all true believers as well Reprobate as predestinate There is in his Floor both Wheat and Chaff St. Matth. c. 3. and in his Field both Corn and Tares which shall grow together till the Harvest the Day of Judgement St. Matth. c. 13. The Predestinate are as visible as the Reprobate It is true indeed their Predestination is invisible and so is also these mens Reprobation I reply To salve their main Tenet of the Popes being Head of the Church of Christ who is often so wicked as that if the Church of Christ be determined to be of elect persons onely many Popes cannot be termed Members much less Heads of the Church is this audacious Assertion invented that there is no such thing as a Church of the Predestinate contrary to express Scripture which mentions the Church of the first-born written in Heaven Heb. 12. 23. and the Church elected together with Peter or those he wrote to 1 Pet. 5. 13. and saith such things of the Church in many places to wit Ephes 5. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32. Ephes 1. 22 23 c. as cannot agree to Reprobates who cannot be said to be Christ 's body his fulness to be loved sanctified whom he nourisheth intends to present without spot as he saith there of Christ's Church He that desires more proof may reade Dr. John Rainold his fourth Conclusion where he proves it fully both from Scripture and Fathers that the holy Catholick Church which we believe is the whole company of Gods elect and chosen which hath not been yet answered that I know Nor do I see how the fourth Lateran Council could mean otherwise which determined as H. T. saith here art 1. pag. 30. that the universal Church of the faithfull is one out of which no man can be saved which can be true onely of the Church of the Predestinate As for what H. T. saith here The Church of Christ is the congregation of all true believers as well Reprobate as Predestinate it supposeth true believers may be reprobate but this is false meaning it of the truth of being opposite to feigned counterfeit or in shew onely For our Lord Christ hath said John 5. 24. John 3. 15 16 18 36. that such as believe on him shall not perish come not to condemnation are passed from death to life have everlasting life Nor do the Texts Matth. 3. 12. where the Floor is not Christ's Church but the Jewish people or Matth. 13. 30. where the Field is expresly interpreted vers 38. to be the World not the Church speak to the contrary It is true The Predestinate are as visible as the Reprobate
Right belonging to him 2. That such Primacy proves not any Superiority of Power above the Apostles no more than that the senior Fellow of a College is superiour in power above the rest because he is first written in the College Book or the Fore-man in a â—ury is superiour because he is first called SECT VI. The late Popes of Rome are not Successours of Peter H. T. adds What hath been said to prove St. Peter's Primacy proves also the Primacy of his Successour the Pope of Rome Answ THe proof of a Primacy is short of the proof a Supremacy which was the thing H. T. undertook there is a Primacy of order where there is not a Supremacy of power And the ancient Churches which gave the Bishop of Rome the primacy of order afore the Patriarchs of Antioch Alexandria Jerusalem and Constantinople that is to sit in a general Council highest and to have some other Privileges yet did never acknowledge the Bishop of Rome their supreme Head but resisted this claim when it began to be usurped That Primacy which was given to the Bishop of Rome was given him chiefly because of the dignity and power of the City Peter's name was after by ambitious Popes used to serve their Design in lifting up the Roman Bishop But the Ancients did look to the eminence of the City as being the Seat of the Empire in their preferring of the Roman Bishops from whence when the Seat of the Empire was translated to Constantinople the Bishop of it was made a Patriarch equal to the Bishop of Rome and for a time contended for preheminence above him It was not at first by reason of Peter's imagined Headship or any succession to him that the Bishop of Rome was preferred before other Patriarchs but by reason of the amplitude and eminency of Rome as the third Canon of the second Constantinopolitan and the eight and twentieth of Chalcedon Councils shew As for Succession to Peter it is contrary to Scripture that the Apostles should have Successours as Apostles sith they were onely to be Apostles who were Witnesses of Christ's Resurrection which neither the Roman Bishops nor any after the Age in which the Apostles lived could be That they were either fixed Bishops of certain places or did appoint any to succeed in their Apostleship is false All Apostles were by special election of Christ those that came after were by election of men and succeeded the Apostles in preaching the Gospel but not in Apostleship nor did the Apostles make Bishops of certain places their Successours but every Pastour who preached the faith aright was their Successour and so are all Gospel Preachers at this day John Calvin at Geneva did succeed Peter more truly than Pope Aldobrandin or Barberin or Ghisi or any other of the Popes for many hundred of years Till the Popes prove themselves Preachers of the Gospel as Peter was they vainly talk of Succession to him As of late they have been they have been Successours to Simon Magus rather than to Simon Peter SECT VII The Sayings of Fathers and Councils prove not Peter's or the Popes Supremacy OF the Fathers which H. T. cites for the Popes Supremacy the first is out of Damascen a late corrupt Writer and he cites it out of Pseudo Dionysius the Areopagite's tale proved to be such by Dr. John Rainold Conf. with Hart chap. 8. divis 2. and from that place in which the contrary to what it is alleged for to wit Peter's Supremacy may be evinced in that the Authour who ever he were makes the power of binding and loosing to be given to all the Apostles There saith H. T. Peter is styled the supreme and most ancient top of Divines which though it have no credit there being too much known of the forgeries and dreams in the Writings of Damascen and that countefeit Dionysius yet were it granted that Dionysius the Arcopagite should have so written as he saith he did terming Peter the supreme and most ancient top of Divines this would not infer that he was the universal Pastour of the Church with such a power of jurisdiction as this Authour asserts he had over the whole Church even the Apostles themselves For this doth not express supremacy of power but of knowledge and asserts his eminency for understanding Theology to which me thinks H. T. should not annex the supremacy of jurisdiction and power lest that some such as Aquinas Andradius or some other challenge the Popedom which is seldom conferred on any for his eminence in Divinity but rather the most learned Divines are thought unfit for the Papacy even Cicarella relates in the Life of Sixtus the fifth that Cardinal Sirlet though he were a man of great learning was rejected as not fit to be chosen Pope such as Bellarmine Tolet Baronius are not chosen to be Popes but such crafty men as Paul the third or such stout spirits as Paul the fourth or such as are great Canonists and Politicians that know the arts of the Papacy better than the Doctrine of Christ are chosen for Popes yea men so ignorant in Divinity and so unfit to take the charge of Souls have been chosen for Popes that of all the Popes for many hundreds of years past there are but a very few who had knowledge in the Mystery of the Gospel or any measure of godliness competent for a Parish Priest Yea Bellarmine lib. de notis Eccles cap. 9. is feigned to assert that there may be members of the body of Christ who are no parts of it as a living body but onely as instruments lest otherwise the Pope being proved evil should be uncapable of being Head of the Church in that he is no member of Christ's body thereby making a dead equivocal member an univocal Head of the universal Church being conscious that without that shift the Popes would all or most of them be cashiered out of the Church of Christ as not so much as parts of Christ's body much less Heads by reason of their notorious pride luxury cruelty perfidiousness covetousness blasphemy deceit and whatsoever vice might shew them to be children of the Devil Nor do the words of Irenaeus lib. 3. advers haeres cap. 3. in the second Age in which it is said All Churches round about ought to resort to the Roman Church by reason of her more powerfull Principality and that it was the greatest and most ancient founded by Peter and Paul For whether the word convenire be to be translated resort or agree to or go together with which is somewhat uncertain it cannot be understood of all Churches round about in all parts of the World for that had been an impossible thing and contrary to the intent of Irenaeus in the same place who directs them that were in Asia to Ephesus and Smyrna for the same end but he means of the parts of the Western Empire such as Lyons was in France where he was Bishop and such parts as were nearer Rome and it
is manifest that he makes Roâ—â— no more infallible than the Church at Smyrna or Ephesus referring the Inquisitor into the tradition Apostolical to apply himself to these as well as it for information nor doth he make the resort to be to the Church of Rome always but because at that time there was a succession of men that knew the Apostles or had the Doctrine of Christ delivered from them among whom he reckons Linus as made Bishop by Peter while he lived and so no Successour to Peter but if Peter were a Bishop of Rome which Papist say but we deny there were two Bishops of Rome together yea he makes the Church of Rome to have been founded by Peter and Paul not by Peter onely by reason of which tradition though either false or uncertain he judged there was the best assurance to be had of the Apostles Doctrine about God the Creatour against Valentinus and the rather because he was acquainted with the Teachers there as he had been with Polycarpus of Smyrna who was an acquaintance of John the Evangelist for which reason he directs also to him As for the more potent Principality which Irenaus speaks of whether it be meant of the Church or the State Ecclesiastical or Civil it is uncertain if of the Civil Principality because then it was the Seat of the Empire the necessity of resort thither must be because civil affairs would enforce them to go thither upon other occasions and then they might inform themselves being there most commodiously if of Ecclesiastical Principality yet there is nothing that shews it meant of universal jurisdiction and power over all Churches but of a more powerfull Principality it had in clearing Doctrines and ordering Church-affairs in those parts by reason of the eminency of their Founders and succeeding Teachers who were in those times of great note for purity of Doctrine and constancy in the Faith for which they were Martyrs And indeed were the question now between us and any such as Valentinus or Marcion concerning the Doctrine which the Apostles taught about another God besides the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Church of Rome had such Bishops as then they had who had acquaintance with the Apostles or received their tradition from them so near to the Apostles days as the Roman Bishops did then we should also think it meet in such a point wherein we knew they were right to refer it to them to determine But in so doing we should not acknowledg a perpetual Prerogative of infallible Supremacy over all the Churches in the World annexed to that See nor did ever Irenaeus intend it who is known to have opposed Victor Bishop of Rome when he excommunicated the Asian Bishops for varying from him in the keeping of Easter as Eusebius reports Hist Eccles lib. 5. cap. 22 23 24. The words of Origen in cap. 6. Epist ad Roman waving other Exceptions against Citations out of that Commentary as being so altered by Ruffinus that we can hardly know what is Origen's what not were they as H. T. sets them down which I cannot examine now for want of the Book yet they prove not Peter's supremacy of power over the Apostles He might have the chief charge of feeding Christ 's Sheep and the Church be founded on him yet have no jurisdiction over the Apostles and the Church be founded on the other Apostles as well as on him as hath been shewed before in this Article Sect 4. As for Cyprian's words calling Peter the Head and Root of the Church cited by H. T. as in an Epist ad Julian I finde no such Epistle in Cyprian's Works but in an Epistle ad Jubianâ—m concerning Baptism of Hereticks I finde these words about the beginning of the Epistle Nos autem qui Ecclesiae unius caput radicem tenemus that is But we who hold the Head and Root of one Church c. in which Peter is not named nor do I finde any thing that should infer that by the Head and Root of one Church he means Peter but Christ whom in his Book of the Unity of the Church he makes the onely Head of his Church and having alleged immediately before one Baptism as it is Ephes 4. 5. it is likely he meant by one Head the one Lord mentioned vers 5. as after also he mentions one Faith or else the meaning is this we have remained in the unity of the Church which is one and the Head and Root of the faithfull of which several particular Churches are members and branches Nor did he call Peter the Head and Root of the Church would it be for H. T. his purpose unless he meant it in respect of universal Jurisdiction and Supremacy over the whole Church belonging to him and his Successours Bishops of Rome which is not proved and there may be another reason given of such a Title given to Peter's person onely because of his eminent confession Matth. 16. 16. and his preaching Acts 2. 10 c. And though he term the Church of Rome Peter's Chair or rather the Bishoprick of Rome or Peter's Doctrine and teaching there yet that proves not he held the Popes Supremacy but that Peter's Doctrine was then held there Yea it is certain out of his Treatise of the Unity of the Church and his Epistle to Cornelius mentioned before and his opposition to Pope Stephanus that Cyprian did account all Bishops equal and the Bishops of Africa equal in Jurisdiction to the Roman Bishop and the Pope of Rome to be but his Collegue from whom he dissents and to whom he denied Appeals and whom he reproved of ambition and pride when he sought to impose his Judgement on others contrary to what Cyprian and a whole Synod of African Bishops besides Asiaticks held and therein opposed the Bishop of Rome And therefore it is certain that Cyprian never acknowledged the Supremacy of the Pope now asserted Of those which H. T. allegeth in the fourth Age not one of them giveth Peter that Supremacy of Jurisdiction over the Apostles and Christians which the Romanists claim as belonging to the Pope over all Bishops and Churches but either a primacy of order or preheminence of gifts or zeal or esteem or use in moderating in Assemblies The words which seem to be most for it are falsly ascribed to Chrysostom For however Trapezuntius have translated them yet in the four and fiftieth Homily as it is in Eaton Print the words are not as H. T. cites them The Pastour and Head of the Church was once a poor Fisherman But on Matth. 16. 18. he hath these words And I say unto thee Thou art Peter and upon this Stone or Rock I will build my Church that is on the faith of confession or confessed There he shews that many should believe and raiseth up his minde and makes him Pastour And after on vers 19. These things he promiseth to give him to shew a Fisherman stronger than any Stone or Rock
p. 113. d. l. 1. p. 122. l. 8. r. thousand p. 124. l. 5. r. general p. 1â—5 l. 39. r. deceived p. 126. l. 18. r. of an p 135. l. 1. 12. d. het p. 140. l. 25. r. one ROMANISM Discussed OR An ANSWER to the nine First Articles of H. T. his Manual of Controversies ARTICLE I. The Church of Rome is not demonstrated to be the true Church of God by its succession SECT I. Of the Title Page of H. T. his Manual of Controversies in which is shewed to be a vain vaunt of what he hath not performed AMong the many Writings which have been dispersed for the seducing of the English People from the Protestant Doctrine and Communion to the imbracing of the Roman Tridentin opinions a Book of H. T. that is Henry Turbervile at I am told hath been instrumental thereto It is stiled as Becanus Costâ—rus and others before had done theirs A Manual of Controversies in which he pretends to have clearly demonstrated the truth of the Catholique Religion by which he means the Roman opinions branched by him into 28 Articles the truth of which he hath no otherwise demonstrated than by shewing that there is no truth in them Which will appear by considering that the two chief Points of the Roman Religion distinct from the Protestant are the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy and Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist into the very flesh and blood of Christ which he had of the blessed Virgin Now if he believe himself that he hath clearly demonstrated the truth of these by Texts of holy Scripture Councils of all Ages Fathers of the first 500 years common Sense and Experience yet there is so little said by him that carries a shew of proof of either or rather there is so much in his own Writing as gainsays it that were there not a spirit of error which doth possess men they would not believe him For that he hath not clearly demonstrated the truth of the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy over the whole Church is apparent in that he hath not demonstrated clearly Peter's Supremacy there being no Texts brought by him Art 7. to prove it but Ephes 2. 20. Matth. 16. 18. John 21. 16 17 18. Luke 22. 31. Matth. 10. 2. Mark 3. Luke 2. Acts 1. of which the very first proves that other Apostles were Foundations as well as Peter and therefore the term Peter or rock Matth. 16. 18. proves not the whole church so built on Peter as that thereby he is declared Supreme visible Head over them or over the whole church any more than other Apostles were Nor doth feeding the sheep of Christ prove any other Supremacy than was in the Elders of Ephesus commanded to do the same Acts 20. 28. and by Peter himself as a fellow-Elder with them required of them 1 Pet. 5 1 2 And confirming the brethren Luke 22. 31. is no more an argument of Peter's Supremacy than the same thing is of the Supremacy of Paul and Barnabas Acts 14. 22. The other Texts shew nothing but priority of nomination or speaking notwithstanding which H. T. p. 97. confesseth the Apostles to have been equal in their calling to the Apostlâ—ship nothing at all of supremacy and rule over the Apostles and whole church is deducible from them And for Transubstantiation or real substantial presence of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist that which he alledgeth is the words of institution Marth 26. 27 28. Mark 14. 22 24. Luke 22. 19 20. 1 Cor. 11. 24 25. which he would have it believed are spoken without trope or figure of speech saying p. 130. to whosoever shall peruse the Text Matth. 26. 27 28. there is no mention of any fâ—gure in it and yet p. 154. confesseth there is a figure in the word chalice And for the Councils of all Ages saith p. 7. that the second and third Ages produced no Councils and p. 25. he saith In this tenth Age or Century I finde no General Council nor yet Provincial in which any controversie of moment was decided And for Fathers of the first 500 years neither do any of the Fathers he cites ascribe to Peter such a supremacy over the Apostles and the whole church as the Romanists assert nor would any man imagine that Irenâ—â—us Cyprian or Augustine should intend such a supremacy to the Bishop of Rome who knows the controversies about Easter between Polycarpus and Anicetus Polycrares Irenaeus and the Asian Bishops and Pope Victor and about Rebaptization between Cyprian and Sâ—ephanus between the African Bishops about Appeals to Rome and Caâ—lestinus and other Bishops of Rome And for the point of Transubstantiation or real substantial presence of Christs flesh and blood in the Eucharist the sayings of Fathers being well viewed speak not what he would have them and Augustine's words cited by him p. 185. denying Judas to have eaten the bread which was our Lord himself must be understood as denying Transubstantiation sith he acknowledgeth he did eat the â—read of our Lord. As for common sense and experience how it should demonstrate clearly the Popes supremacy is beyond my apprehension yea against it sith Histories and Travellers tell me that the Greek and other churches to this day deny the Popes supremacy And that Christs real substantial bodily presence or transubstantiation should be demonstrated by common sense and experience is so impudent an assertion as no man can believe but he that hath tenounced common sense aud experience Nor can H. T. believe himself in that if he believe what he saith p. 203. The body of Christ in the Sacrament is not the proper object of sense p. 205. the evidence of sense is not infallible in the Sacrament which if there were no more said might satisfie an unprejudiced person that this Author doth not easily deserve belief but deals like a Mountebank that commends his Salves beyond their vertue and when p. 72. he forbids us to try by the dead letter meaning the Scripture or â—umanâ— reason it is a shrewd sign that what he said in the Title Page of his Demonstration was but a copy of his countenance no real thought of his own heart Nevertheless for the undeceiving of those who are willing to be undeceived I shall examine his Writing and shew that he hath not at all demonstrated the Roman Doctrine to be true nor answered the Protestants objections and that the true Fathers Prophets and Apostles and Teachers in the next Ages to them have not taught the now Roman opinions but the contrary SECT II. Of the Epistles before H. T. his Manual in which too much is ascribed to the Church and the Churches Authority deceitfully made the first point of his Treatise LEtting pass other things in the Epistles with the approbation and commendation of those of his own way as being no better than a kind of complement of one Papist with another of no moment but with that prejudiced party I shall onely take notice of that
but they are not meerly visible believers as some Reprobates are who profess faith which they have not But the true Church of Christ against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail Matth. 16. 18. contains onely such believers as have that faith which is true and that Election of God which with their faith are invisible and so are rightly denominated the invisible Church from that which is more excellent and the Reprobate have not ARTIC IV. One Catholick Church not the Roman The Church of Rome is not that one Catholick Church which in the Apostolick and Nicene Creeds is made the Object of Christian Faith SECT I. Unity in non-fundamentals of Faith and Discipline is not essentially presupposed to the Universality of the Church Militant H. T. to his fourth Article gives this Title The true Church demonstrated by her Unity and Universality and then saith Unity being essentially presupposed to Universality I thought it not improper to joyn these two in one Article Answ IF this Authour had meant to deal plainly he should have told us what Unity is essentially presupposed to Universality and how the true Church is demonstrated by her Unity and Universality Unity in general is so far from being essentially presupposed to Universality in general that the contrary seems more true that one is not universal Unity not consistent with Universality it being in effect as if iâ— were said One is many or all yet I deny not some unity in special may be essentially presupposed to some universality in special There are many sorts of unity which Logicians and Writers of Metaphysicks reckon up in respect of which it is certain that the true Church of Christ cannot be said to be one as it cannot be said to be one with generical or specifical unity for that is not essentially presupposed to universality of time and place but is abstracted from it But he seems to mean unity in Doctrine Discipline and Faith by the words following Universality likewise is manifold as Logicians and Writers of Metaphysicks shew as there is an universality of predication of essence and existence Now this Authour seems to mean universality of existence for time and place and his meaning is this that unity of Doctrine Discipline and Faith is essentially presupposed to universality of existence for time and place that is that Church which hath not the same Doctrine Faith and Discipline which all Churches of Christ in all times and places have had is not the true Church of Christ and that which hath is the true Church of Christ Now these Propositions I grant if meant of Doctrine and Faith in the Fundamentals but not if meant of meer outward Church-discipline or Doctrine and Faith in points not fundamental having learned from the Apostle 1 Cor. 3. 11 12 13 14. that some may build Hay and Stubble that is some errors upon the foundation Christ who yet may be saved which they could not be if they were not of the true Church of Christ or that is no true Church of Christ which consists of such In like manner the Apostle Rom. 14. 2. expresly tells us in the Church of Rome one did believe he might eat all things and another did eat herbs one esteemed one day above another others esteemed every day alike and yet God received them both and they were Gods servants v. 3 4 5. And that in Discipline there may be disagreement yea Schism and disorder is apparent from the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 1. 11 12. 51. 6. 7. 11. 17 c. 14. 26. 15. 12. who are termed the Church of God 1 Cor. 1. 2. And therefore without distinction and due limitation which this Authour omits his Position is not true But let 's view what he writes SECT II. The antiquity of H. T. his saying of the Roman Church its unity and universality is shewed Now saith H. T. that the church of Rome is both perfectly one and also universal for time and place is thus demonstrated Answ HEre again this Authour deals sophistically putting the Roman church for the true church as if they were the same and not explaining what he means by the Roman church which may eitherâ— signifie the church that is in Rome which is the expression of the Apostle Rom. 1. 7. or the Church where ever it be which holds the Roman faith And this Roman faith may be either the faith in all points which now at this day the Bishop and Priests and People dwelling at Rome hold or which the Christians at Rome held in the days of Paul and some Ages after If it be meant in this this last sense the true Church is no more the Roman church than Corinthian nor so much as the Hierosolymitan whence all churches received the faith if in the former sense the term is not according to the ancient use either in Scripture or ancient Ecclesiastick Writers though I conceive it so meant by this Authour To be perfectly one is also ambiguous it may be meant either that they have not the least disagreement in Doctrine Discipline and Faith or they hold the same Faith and Doctrine in the main or points fundamental To be universal for time and place may be either meant thus that the persons now termed the Roman church are universal for time and place But this is contrary to sense it being known by it that they were born within a certain definite time at certain definite places not in all times and every place existent or that the faith which now the Romanists hold is that which in all times and places the true church of God hath held And this we deny if it be meant of the Articles in Pope Pius the fourth his Creed and are willing to put all our controversies to this issue But H. T. looks quite awry from this as will appear by viewing his dispute which is thus SECT III. Unity under one visible bead without division in lesser points and disciplin is not proved from 1 Cor. 10. 17. Ephes 1. 22 23. John 10. 16. 1 Cor. 1. 10. Act. 4. 32. John 17. 11. and the Nicene Creed H. T. saith The argument for unity The church of Christ is one body one fold or flock of which he himself is the supreme invisible head and the Pope his deputy on earth the visible or ministerial But the Roman Catholick church and no other is this one body one sold or flock therefore the Roman Catholick church and no other is the church of Christ The Major is proved We are one bread and one body as many as participate of one bread 1 Cor. 10. 18. He hath made him Christ head over all the Church which is his body Ephes 1. 22 23. There shall be made one fold and one Pastor John 10. 16. I beseech you that you all speak one thing and that there be no Schisms among you but that ye be perfect in one sense and one judgement 1 Cor. 1. 10
The multitude of believers had one heart one soul Act. 4. 32. Christ prayed that his Disciples might be one St. John 17. 11. I believe one holy Catholick and Apostolick church The Nicene Creed Ans 1. THe thing pretended to be demonstrated by her unity was the true church after he changeth it into this that the church of Rome is both perfectly one and also universal for time and place is thus demonstrated here the conclusion is the Roman Catholick church and no other is the church of Christ By comparing of which it is apparent that this Author supposeth the true church the church of Rome and the Roman Catholick church to be synonymous or diverse names of the same thing which is supposed but not proved nor yeilded nor can be true as shall be shewed after 2. This Author pretends to demonstrate by this argument the church of Rome to be perfectly one which should have been his conclusion whereas not heeding his words he makes it the Minor 3. He puts in by a parenthesis in the Major many words which are not in the Minor though they belong to the middle term which should be the same in both premises nor is any proof brought for them here to wit that the Pope is Christs deputy on earth the visible or ministerial head of that church which is one body one fold or flock 4. That the Major might be for his purpose it should have been thus that church which is one body one fold or flock of which he himself is the supreme invisible head and the Pope his deputy on earth the visible or ministerial and no other is the church of Christ but such is the church of Rome ergo But as it is now framed it is in the second figure of all affirmatives which is against Logick rules and makes the syllogism naught as the very freshmen know But to it as it is now framed I answer If the words and the Pope his deputy on earth the visible or ministerial be left out the Major is granted in this sense that the universal church of Christ are one body by unity of one spirit and faith of the fundamentals and one flock by unity of one head and supreme Pastor But in H. T. his sense it is most false that it is one by the same faith in every point without any difference in lesser points or without any divisions in rites and disciplin and in subjection to one universal Bishop on earth as Christs deputy and the churches visible head Nor do any of the texts prove it in this sense For the first doth not express what all Christians were in respect of their state but profession and the unity is not derived from either subjection to one universal Bishop on earth or agreement in all points but from participating of one bread in the Lords Supper For it is not to be read as this Author after the vulgar translation reads it as many as participate of one bread but for we all partake of one bread it being in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in some copies of the vulgar nam omnes as in the Plantin edition by the Lovain Divines 1574. I finde it in the margin so that the meaning is this we do shew our selves one body one bread forasmuch as we all partake of one bread in the Lords Supper The next text Ephes 1. 22 23. proves only that the church is one body by unity of one head to wit Christ as H. T. rightly interprets it And the third text John 10. 16. also makes the whole church one flock as it should be read not one fold in respect of one Pastor which the very words ver 11. 14 15 16. do shew plainly to be Christ himself who gave his life for them and no other and therefore none of these texts derive the unity of the church from subjection to the Bishop of Rome as visible head or chief Pastor The next text 1 Cor. 1. 10. doth only prove that the church ought to be of one mind and one judgement without Schisms not that they are or must be if they be the true church but the text proves the contrary that they may be a true church though there be Schisms and difference of judgement among them The fifth Acts 4. 32. only proves that the church at Jerusalem once were so at which time they had also all things common which doubtless H. T. will not say must or doth agree to the whole church at all times but not that the whole church shall be so still The last John 17. 11. is a prayer of Christ that it may be so and so will be accomplished but by the words ver 21 22 23. it seems most likely not to be till they be consummate in glory or if afore yet certainly the unity cannot be meant of unity in every thing for so Peter and Paul did not agree as Gal. 2. 11 12 13 14. it appears but of such unity in communion with God and aiming at his glory as is only in the elect by vertue of Christs indwelling by his Spirit which is nothing to the unity which H. T. here requires as peculiar to the Roman church The passage of the Nicene creed proves only an unity of the church but not an unity by agreement in all points and subjection to one Catholick Bishop on earth So that H. T. after his fashion cites many texts but not one for his purpose SECT IV. It is notoriously false that the Romanists are perfectly one or have better unity or means of unity than Protestants and H. T. his argument for the truth of the Roman church from its unity proves the contrary H. T. adds The minor is made evident even to the weakest understanding by the present manifold Schisms and divisions which are now among Protestants and all other Sectaries as well in doctrine as government whereas Catholicks are perfectly one both in disciplin and doctrine all the world over even to the least Article or point of faith being all united to one supreme invisible head Christ Jesus and all subordinate to one visible and ministerial head the Pope his Vicar on earth we all resolve our selves in points of faith into one safe and most unchangeable principle I believe the holy Catholick church we look on her as the immediate and authorized proponent of all revealed verities and the infallible Judge of controversies God himself being the prime Author and his authority the formal motive and object of our faith Answ 1. The Protestants are not Sectaries nor divided from the Catholick church but from the now Roman party who are really a faction divided from the Catholick church holding a new faith never established till the Tridentin council though with an impudent face H. T. avouch a most palbable falshood of the Romanists universality and arrogates to the Roman the title of Catholick church Nor are the now divisions of Protestants in doctrine or government such as cut them
off from the unity of the Catholick church they own Christ their head and faith in him which is sufficient to save them and even by this Authors next argument enough to make them members of the Catholick church 2. The Schisms and divisions of the Papists have been and are as great as the divisions of the Protestants In former ages there were many Schisms even in the church of Rome between the several Popes at one time and the factions among the people about Popes and Emperours and other quarrels Onuphrius reckons up thirty Bellarmin himself twenty six Schisms one after another sometimes one Pope condemning what another had done and excommunicating and persecuting Emperours Antipapes and all that have adhered to them Besides the contentions about the Virgin Maries immaculate conception about the superiority of a council above the Pope about Priests marriages election of Popes investiture of Bishops have been so great and frequent and of long continuance as their own histories shew that they far exceed the Protestants divisions The divisions in this last age and some at this day to wit in and since the council of Trent between Catharinus Soto Vega Andradius about certainty of salvation Pighius and others about inherent righteousness the Spanish and other Bishops and the Papalins about the divine right of Bishops and their residence not deriving their Episcopacy from the Pope the French churches not acknowledging the Bishop of Rome above a council nor yet receiving the Trent council the two Popes Sixtus the fifth and Clement the eighth about the vulgar translation both enjoyning each of their editions and no other as the right copy to be received under penalty of a curse though one in many places contradict the other as Dr. James in his Bellum Papale shews from which no Papists have or can vindicate the two Popes the divisions in England and Ireland between the secular Priests and the Jesuits about Episcopal jurisdiction and visitations between Papists in Italy at Venice and in England about the Popes power in temporal things over Princes in France and England about the lawfulness of killing Kings excommunicated by the Pope in England and France about Jesuitical equivocation at this day between Dominicans and Jesuits Jansenists and Molâ—nists about Gods predeterminations efficacious and sufficient grace and mans freewill have been and are at this day as great or greater in respect of the things in which they differ the continuance of them the parties differing and their bitterness one to another then the Protestants divisions and therefore the brag of H. T. concerning the Popish unity that Catholicks are perfectly one both in discipline and doctrine all the world over even to the least article or point of faith is a falshood apparent to all well read scholars though the simple English Papists from whom the truth of these things is concealed are made to believe by their Priests disguises and pretences as if it were so Nor doth that which H. T. here saith salve the matter and if it did the Protestants have as good a plea for themselves notwithstanding their divisions in respect of means for unity For 1. The Papists all the world over are not so subordinate to the Pope as to acknowledge his superiority to a council but that they have and think they may appeal from the Pope to a general council which may judge the Pope an heretick and depose him yea and take away the Pope altogether if they see it necessary nor do the Jansenists acquiesce in the late Pope Innocents determination at this day nor do the Sorbonists in France acknowledge the Popes power in temporals or the Venetians the Popes power to interdict their state and meddle with their government in exempting Ecclesiasticks from their jurisdiction 2. That which he saith of the Catholick church as the immediate and authorized proponent of all revealed verities and the infallible Judge of controversies is either nonsense or false or that which Papists reject in Protestants If they mean by the Catholick church the Pope or the Pope with his Cardinals or a council it is ridiculous nonsense to call any or all of them the Catholick church which according to their own Tridentin Catechism contains all believers from Adam to this day or that shall be hereafter and according to this Author p. 59. is coexistent with all times and spread or diffused over all places or if it be understood according to good sense it is most false For the Catholick church properly so called as it is in the Creed is neither mediate nor immediate proponent of all revealed verities much less authorized thereto nor do Papists so look on them For many of the Papists go no further than the present Pope or council or their Priests who only are to most the immediate proponents but rest in their determinations and adhere to what they determine with an implicite faith and blind obedience never enquiring what all believers have held or done before them Nor is it possible they should have resolution from the Catholick church properly understood as in the Creed it is believed for it is invisible they never did together express their determination in all points of faith have varied in many nor could it be known to others of their own time if they had much less to the believers of this age Nor is the Catholick church fit to be the mediate or immediate proponent of all revealed verities nor fit for such an authority as to be infallible Judge of controversies for to say the Catholick church is such is to say the university of believers is such of whom a great part are women a great part ignorant persons altogether uncapable of such an office yea it is contrary to the Apostle Pauls resolution 1 Cor. 12. 28 29. who tells us that God hath set some in the Church first Apostles then Prophets thirdly Teachers not the church to be teachers which is all one with proponents of revealed verities but teachers in the church and these are denied to be all the church when he saith ver 29. Are all teachers And to make them infallible is contrary to the Apostle Rom. 3. 4. where he saith let God he true and every man a lyar surely then not an infallible Judge of controversies yea should this be granted it would bring all confusion into the churches of God Nor can the speech have any good sense that the Catholick church is Judge in controversies but this which Protestants indeed rightly teach that every man is to judge for himself not for others with a judgement of discerning what doctrine or points of faith he hears and receives yet requiring upon pain of damnation that they be careful in examining what they embrace which the Papists do so much inveigh against falsly as if it were a leaving every man to his private spirit though they do in this no otherwise than Papists must of necessity yeild to each man when the determinations of Popes
Christ If the term Mother Church be from hence that from it the Gospel went forth it can be meant of none but Jerusalem from whence the Gospel went into all the world not from the Roman church Nor is it true that the Roman church hath the power of headship over all the rest no not according to the Papists own opinion which is that the Bishop of Rome hath this power and that it belongs to his pastoral office now I suppose they will not say the church hath the pastoral office or that they are Pastors if they should they must make Women who are of the Church as well as Men Pastors and all the Believers who are the church Pastors as well as the Bishop aud if the church be Pastors or have power of jurisdiction who are the Sheep who are to be fed and over whom this jurisdiction is to be exercised But if they mean onely by the church universal the Pope of Rome then all that is to be enquired is who is the true Pope when enquiry is made which is the true church and when there is no Pope then there is no church and when the Pope is uncertain it is uncertain which is the church So ridiculous is the Papists talk and dispute about the church that there is no tolerable sense can be made with truth of the Roman church being catholick the mother of churches having power of Headship and Jurisdiction over all churches Nor is it true that the Pope of Rome hath either of right or in possession such power not of right as shall be shewed art 7. where it will appear that the claim to it is meerly impudent and arrogant without any colour of right nor in possession For besides the Protestant churches the Greek churches neither now nor heretofore when unquestionably orthodox were ever subject to the Romish Bishop Yet were these things granted to H. T. that the Roman church were Mother and Head is this a fit reason to term it catholick Will any call a mother of twenty children all her twenty children Will any man call Julius Caesar because Dictator of Rome or the Roman Senate because Rulers all the Roman people or all the people of that Empire H. T. his instance is frivolous Though men call the Rulers of an Army the Captain General yet not a general man or the universal Army and sutably if it were allowed that the Bishop of Rome were universal Bishop yet in no good sense could he or the Roman church be termed the universal church But this talk about the Roman catholick church is manifestly ridiculous non-sense or false H. T. adds Object You communicate not with us and many others therefore your communion is not catholick or universal Answ I grant the Antecedent but deny the Consequent For universal communion requires not communion with all particular sects or persons but onely with all true believers no A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition avoid Tit. 3. 10 11. Answ To catholick communion is requisite communion with all Christian churches though not with all particular sects And that the Protestant churches are no Hereticks is manifest from their confessions which agree with the Scripture Doctrine although Papists do clamorously term them such and destroy them as such and therein shew themselves Successours to Nero not to Peter whereas Papists are the most manifest Schismaticks and greatest Hereticks that ever were I pass on to the next Article ARTIC V. The Roman Church is neither proved to be the Catholick Church nor the highest visible Judge of Controversies nor is it proved that she is infallible both in her Propositions and Definitions of all Points of Faith nor to have power from God to oblige all men to believe her under pain of damnation but all this is a meer impudent and arrogant claim of Romanists that hath no colour of proof from Scripture or Antiquity SECT I. The deceit of H. T. is shewed in asserting an Infallibility and Judicature of Controversies in the Church which he means of the Pope H. T. entitles his fifth Article thus The churches infallibility demonstrated and saith Our Tenet is that the Roman catholick church is the highest visible Judge of controversies and that she is infallible both in her Propositions and Definitions of all points of faith having a power from God to oblige all men to believe her under pain of damnation And six pages after p. 70. he saith thus Note here for your better understanding this whole Question that when we affirm the Church is infallible in things of faith by the word Church we understand not onely the Church diffused over all the World unanimously teaching whose Doctrine of Faith we hold to be infallible but also the Church represented in a Council perfectly oecumenical that is to say called out of the whole world and approved by the Pope whose Definitions of Faith we hold to be infallible Ans WE have here a most arrogant proud claim like that of the King of Tyrus Ezek. 28. 2 3. I am God I sit in the seat of God there is no secret that they can hide from me For what is this less which is here ascribed to meer men often the worst of men than the prerogative of the Son of God surely it's more than Angels have Job 4. 18 But though this Author is bold enough in the title and tenet yet in his after note he hath such subterfuges as shew his despair of making it good and his deceitful mockage of his unwary reader For 1. He deals like a sophister that after his arguments states the question 2. He doth so shift off this infallibility from one to another that he knows not well where to fix it Fain he would fasten it on the Pope as he doth in a manner at last and Hart more plainly confesseth with Rainold ch 7. divis 7. though it behove the Pope to use the advise of his brethren and therefore I spake of Confistories Courts and Councils yet whether he follow their advise or no his decrees are true But then the arguments from Scripture and Fathers which speak of the church not of the Pope had appeared to be impertinent Therefore he doth not in plain words disclaim it's infallibility but saith When we affirm the church is infallible in things of faith by the word church we understand not only the church diffused over all the world unanimously teaching whose doctrines of faith we hold to be infallible Wherein you may perceive 1. Egregious vanity in making the Roman church Catholick 2. The Church diffused over all the world teaching 3. Teaching unanimously which are all like a sick mans dreams of a golden mountain there having never been any such thing as this in the world nor ever is likely to be 2. Egregious deceit in the terming this church infallible Judge of controversies propounding and defining points of faith having power from God to oblige all men under pain of
them later than the time of Gregory the great even in the Roman Church and were opposed more or less at least some of them by a considerable party of the Church of Christ who were far better Christians than the Popes or Roman Clergy which condemned and persecuted them as Hereticks From which crime we are able to acquit our selves other ways than H. T. saith we can chiefly by shewing the agreement of our Doctrine with the holy Scripture and first Churches after Christ's Ascension and the Orthodox Teachers in them as will appear in answer to his ninth Article It is a meer frontless impudence in him to charge us with any blasphemous evasion or excluding our selves from all possible assurance of faith or salvation and to arrogate to himself as if he had proved either The Reformation which was begun 1517. by Luther and after by Zuinglius and others continued hath been blessed by God notwithstanding the Persecutions of the Papal party and the Differences among Protestants And the Reformation sought in England since 1641. hath been blessed notwithstanding the Troubles and Differences fomented by the Popish and Prelatical parties as the Preaching of the Gospel by the Apostles and first Preachers was notwithstanding the Persecutions Heresies and Schisms that followed it Notwithstanding what H. T. or any other Romanist have said the Roman Church and Pope have not proved infallible but may be proved and have been false and heretical which is in part proved by the Objections following SECT VII The Objections from Scripture and Reason against the infallibility which H. T. ascribes to the Church are made good against his Answers H. T. saith thus Objections from Scripture and Reason solved Object All the Israelites adored the golden â—alf therefore the whole Church erred Answ Moses and the Levites did not who were many thousands Exod. 32. Numb 3. 39. therefore both those Propositions are false TO which I reply that whereas the Romanists do allege to prove an universal Bishop over the whole Church who by himself or with a Council is an infallible Judge of controversies of faith Gods ordinance of one high Priest in Israel to whose judgement all must stand Deut. 17. as Bellarmine lib. 3. de verbo Dei cap. 4. c. doeth this Argument is retorted thus If Aaron and the People of Israel were not infallible then if there were such an universal Bishop over Christians as there was over the Israelites and such a Council as the Jewish Synedrium which were to be Judge of controversies as Romanists would have yet they might be fallible sith the Jewish high Priest and Council who were to be Judge of controversies were not infallible though they were as much privileged by Papists own arguings who infer their sovereign infallible Judicature of controversies which they ascribe to the Pope and his Council from the Jewish high Priest and his Council But Aaron and the Jewish Council and Church were not infallible for Aaron and the Council and Church of the Jews did erre as is manifest by the making the golden Calf and the peoples motion and concurrence thereto Now though Moses and the Levites did not erre yet the high Priest and the People did from whose privilege and not from Moses the civil Magistrate the infallible judicature of the Pope as universal Bishop and the Roman Church Catholick is fetcht and therefore the Answer avoids not the Objection H. T. adds Object The Jews Council â—rred in condemning Christ Answ No wonder it was not perfectly oecumenical for Christ himself was then Head of the Church on earth and the highest Authority was in him not in the Jews Council and if the Jews Church could erre it doth not follow that the Church of Christ can for it was built as St. Paul saith on better Promises I reply 1. This Answer which makes that Council not perfectly oâ—cumenical and therefore no wonder it erred plainly intimates that if a Council be nor perfectly oecumenical though it would be otherwise infallible yet in that case it may erre Whence it will follow unless the Papists can prove their Councils which they say are approved by the Pope to be perfectly oecumenical that is called out of the whole World they are not infallible Now certain it is that neither the Trent nor the Lateran Councils nor those of Constance Basil Florence nor any other Council for a thousand years last past have been so called yea sometimes one party hath kept a Council in opposition to another and Pope against Pope And from the Trent Council to which they adhere not onely the Greek and Asiatick and African Churches were wholly absent but also the French for a time and the Council consisted in effect of none but Italians and the Popes Hirelings some of whom were onely titular Bishops having never been at the places whereof they carried the Titles and these by the plurality of Voices served the Popes ends but in nothing either seriously sought the truth or reformation of corruption as the History of the Council of Trent written by that intelligent man Frier Paul of Vâ—nice hath cleared to the World By which were it not that Papists are a sort of men that hood-wink themselves they might see how meer a cheat that Council was and how justly it was refused by the French Papists themselves unto this day 2 Though Christ were then Head of the Church yet he did not exercise Jurisdiction among the Jews not act but as Prophet to his Disciples he did not deny subjection to the Priests he was circumcised the eighth day as subject to the Law of Moses presented at the Temple with an Offering went up to the Feasts kept the Passover denied not the Authority of the high Priest yea directed the Leper to offer to the Priest for his cleansing as Moses bade him and John notes that the high Priest in that he was high Priest that year prophesied of Christ's death John 11. 51. which are sufficient proofs that if there were a Privilege of Infallibility in the high Priest and Council of the Jews it was not taken away by Christ's being on earth But sure then they did erre and therefore were not at all infallible in their ordinary determinations 3. It follows if the Jews Church could erre notwithstanding those passages in the Old Testament which the Papists bring for the Popes and Roman Churches infallibility from their infallibility then the Popes and Roman Churches infallibility is not well proved thence 4. St. Paul doth not say The Church of Christ was built on better Promises than the Church of the Jews but that the second Covenant was made a Law on better Promises than the first is said Heb. 8. 6. But those Promises are set down vers 10 11 12. of that Chapter of which there is none concerning any much less a greater degree of infallibility in any chief Bishop on earth oecumenical Council or Church of Christians above the Jewish high Priest and Council and therefore
the privilege of the person not the sanctity of the church 4. The sanctity of the now Roman Church is not proved by the holiness of persons in former Ages whereof many never were of Rome nor is it likely ever heard of it some of them opposed the Roman Church and some lived and died in a state of disclaiming of it and some kinde of excommunication from it and had they lived to see its pride and wickedness as now it is would no doubt have abhorred it with greatest detestation much less is it proved by the holiness of men dead one thousand or four hundred years especially when the holiness of those few is obscured by the almost universal ungodliness of their chief Bishops whom they account their visible Heads and essential parts of their Church and Clergy and Laity in Rome it self for a thousand years past which hath been so notorious as almost all their Historians and Preachers and Poets have described it so as that it may be conceived justly that Rome is and hath been a sink of all uncleanness There are verily saith Bellarm. lib. 4. de notis Eccles cap. 13. in the Catholick Church very many evil persons and some of their own Popes as Adrian the sixth have confessed by Cheregatus his Legate that abominations were committed in that holy See the infâ—â—â—ity passed from the Head to the Members from the Popes to the inferiour Prelates in so much that there hath been none that hath done good no not one Innumerable have been the complaints made by all sorts and sometimes by the Princes of the German Empire of their Grievances by the Popes and Court of Rome Nor do Travellers tell us of any Reformation considerable since the Trent Council their own Writers tell us there is no Excommunication for the common vices but onely some Penance which effects no change in the apprehension of Sir Edwin Sandys if it were not for a little formal abstinence in Lent there would be an universal Deluge of vice in Italy so that he who denieth the Roman Clergy and Church to be a most unholy and filthy People hath gotten a Whores forehead that cannot blush There are sins among Protestants but I never yet met with Writer or Traveller but would prefer London and other Protestant Towns as more free from impurity of body blasphemy cruelty treachery injustice Atheism and such other sins as are not to be named than Rome is where hath been permission of Whore-houses for Money by the Pope and the Whores and Bastards of Popes and Cardinals so notoriously domineer SECT III. The imagined holiness of Benedict Augustine Francis Dominick proves not the verity of the now Roman Church BUt let us see what H. T. saith for their Holiness St. Augustine and his fellows who converted England when they were received into Canterbury saith Hollingshead part 1. pag. 100. began to follow the trade of the Apostles exercising themselves in continual prayer fasting watching and preaching despising all worldly things and living in all points according to the Doctrine which they taught St. Francis St. Benet and St. Dominick were all eminent for sanctity of life as the Magdeburgian Centurists confes cent 13. Col. 11. 79. But I never yet heard of any Protestant Saints in the World Answ What a foolish proof is this of his Minor that the Roman Church and no other is eminent for sanctity of life because Benedict and Austin the Monk a thousand years since Francis and Dominick five hundred years ago were suâ—h in his esteem and he hath heard of no Saints among Protestants As if there might be no Saints in the Greek church though he hear of no Protestant Saints or as if the Greek church now judged schismatick might not be as well proved or rather better to be eminent for sanctity of life for the holiness of Chrysostome Basil Nazianzen Gregory Nyssen as the now Roman for the reputed holiness of Austin Benet Francis and Dominick But might there not be Protestant Saints which he hears not of Protestants are the same with Primitive Christians in their Religion or Articles of Faith and Worship and as such all the holy Apostles Martyrs Confessours which have been true Christians have been Protestant Saints as protesting against the Popish corruptions in Doctrine Discipline and Worship so all the holy men who have protested against them in all Ages have been Protestant Saints Thus Cyprian and Augustin who protested against the Popes usurpation about receiving Appeals from Africa Gregory the Great who protested against the usurpation of the Title and Power of an universal Bishop the Synod of Frankford which protested against Image-worship were Protestant Saints And for Waldus and the Waldenses that they were Protestants is manifest and Saints too their own Works shewed See Morland's History of the Evangelical Churches in Piedmont even Rainerius their Adversary being Judge And for Wickliff Reginald Peacock Robert Grosthead Richardus Armachanus and many more their Lives were so exemplary as shamed their Adversaries and yet they were Protestants more or less against Popish Errours and Abuses It is true Protestants are not canonized Saints by Popes who use to canonize for Money or other respects some ignorant superstitious persons or else active Instruments for their party but the holiness of Protestants since Luther began the Reformation hath been such as hath caused even their Enemies to ascribe much excellency to their eminent Leaders Notwithstanding Bolseâ—k's Lye of which the wiser Papists are ashamed yet Florimundus Raymundus Papyrius Massonius and others acknowledged Calvin to have been a man eminent for strictness of life and industry in his pastoral work beyond any Papist they could name Melancthon is commended even by Papists for his holy peaceable and painfull conversation in the work of the Lord. The Lives of the chief Reformers shewed them to be such as had the Spirit of God dwelling in them Hooper and Bradford in England Patrick Hammilton and George Wiseheart in Scotland were men of exemplary godliness that I name not late men such as John Fox John Dod Richard Grenham and many more whose Lives and Works shewed them to have been men of holy conversation and of much acquaintance with God whom this Scribler and such like superstitious Papists who place holiness in observance of humane inventions rather than in Gods commands obeying the Pope rather than Christ and believing the lying Legends of Friers before the true reports of godly Preachers of the Gospel having prejudice against them condemn as Hereticks Yethet they that place holiness in following the Rules of Christ and not humane traditions do judge them to have been holy and blessed men such as have had not onely a form but also the power of godliness As for what H. T. saith out of Hollingshead of Austin and his followers it speaks only what they did at the beginning but it is certain that Austin did not so persevere but that he shewed much pride towards the British Bishops and
Nor can indeed in any true sense the Pope of Rome be termed Peter's Successour For if he be his Successour he is Successour in his Work or in his Power The Work of the Apostle Peter was by preaching the Gospel to found Churches to Christ and to that end was to go to several places but the Pope of Rome succeeds not in this he neither goes up and down unless in a pompous Procession or to a worse end nor preacheth the Gospel nor founds any Churches thereby nor doth think it his business but to stay at Rome and there to live in pomp and wealth and luxury and to lord it tyrannously over the Flock of God Nor is he Successour in his power Peter had power to give the Holy Ghost Acts 8. to strike Ananias and Sapphira dead Acts 5. But the Pope cannot do these things Nor in the Government of the whole Church For this Peter onely had not nor above other Apostles but together with the rest Nor was Peter's or the Apostles power any such visible Monarchy as the Pope claims to receive Appeals from all Churches to appoint Legates to hear parties in all controversies of faith to be an infallible Judge of such controversies an infallible Expounder of the Scriptures determining what is Heresie and what of Faith calling general Councils crowning Emperours deposing Princes dispensing with Oaths Marriages of persons in near degrees otherwise prohibited impose Laws about Fasting and many other things which God never appointed Such an Headship of the whole Church as the Pope claims Peter never had Nor is any such thing proved or so much as offer'd to be proved by H. T. his Catalogue which how insufficient it is hath been alread shewed I go on to his Arguments here SECT II. From being the Foundation Matth 16. 18. and feeding the Sheep of Christ John 21. 15 16 17. neither Peter's nor Popes Supremacy is proved The first Argument saith H. T. is this The foundation hath a preheminence of firmitude and stability before the rest of the building which is founded on it and the Shepherd is Head of his Flock and above his Sheep But St. Peter next after Christ himself was the Foundation of the whole Church and Pastour of the whole Flock therefore St. Peter next after Christ had a preheminence over the whole Church and was Head of the whole Flock and above all the other Sheep of which number were the rest of the Apostles Answ THe Headship and pastoral power which H. T. would prove to be due to the Pope is not a guidance onely by teaching but a princely dominion so as that all may appeal to him none from him his sentence must be obeyed by all under pain of damnation in matters of faith and must be judged infallible and 't is likely he holds with Bellarmine lib. 4. de Rom. pont cap. 5. that if the Pope should erre by commanding vices or forbidding virtues the Church should be bound to believe vices to be good and virtues to be evil unless it would sin against conscience and if he dissent herein from Bellarmine yet in the Canon Law distinct 40. such an absolute dominion is given him that though he should draw innumerable souls with him to Hell no man must say to him Why dost thou so and some Flatterers of the Pope have given him all power in Heaven and Earth yea and more than Christ had in Purgatory also allowing no Appeal from the Pope to God as having one Consistory with God calling him our Lord God the Pope nor did I ever read or hear that any Pope hath by any Censure corrected such blasphemous Titles but they have by their commands contrary to Gods dispensing with his Laws deposing Emperours and innumerable other practises shewed that they owned such power as theirs Now sure this power was never given to Peter nor any such like power under the term of a Foundation which is for the ruine not for the establishing of the Church nor under the charge of feeding especially of anothers Sheep of whom he is no Owner or Lord. Is this to feed Christ's Sheep to do what he will with them appoint what Penance he will put what Laws he please on the Sheep to excommunicate deprive of Civil and Ecclesiastical Dignity and Office at pleasure such a Supremacy is indeed so like that which Paul foretold concerning the man of sin 2 Thess 2. 4. that he opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped so that he as God sitteth in the Temple of God shewing himself that he is God that till I meet with some more likely than the Popes to be there meant I shall take it be a part of my Creed that the Pope of Rome is the very Man of sin there meant And for this H. T. who gives such a supreme Headship to Peter and the Pope over the other Apostles so as to make him a Shepherd to rule excommunicate deprive John James Paul as his Sheep it is so monstrously false an Assertion as none but he that hath sold himself to teach Lyes would ever assert it As for his Syllogism it is most grosly naught as having four terms at least The term hath a preheminence of firmitude and stability before the rest of the building which is founded on it being different from this in the Conclusion had a preheminence over the whole Church and so likewise are these the Foundation and the Foundation of the whole Church and therefore the Major should have been the Foundation of the whole Church hath a preheminence over the whole Church the Minor thus Peter next after Christ is the Foundation of the whole Church and the Conclusion thus Peter next after Christ had a preheminence over the whole Church or else thus The Foundation hath a preheminence of firmitude and stability before the whole Church But Peter next after Christ is the Foundation therefore Peter had a preheminence of firmitude and stability before the whole Church now neither of these Conclusions had been the point to be proved but might have been granted and the Assertion not gained And in the other Metaphor the Syllogism hath the same fault For in the Major it is Head of his Flock and above his Sheep in the Minor it is Pastour of the whole Flock and in the Conclusion not Head of his Flock and above his Sheep but Head of the whole Flock and above all the other Sheep and there is added too this tail of which there is no offer of proof of which number were the rest of the Apostles Now to discover besides the fallacy in the form the deceit in the matter of this Argument it is to be considered 1. That the Metaphor of a Foundation doth not at all import Rule or Government but inchoation and support and therefore is unfit to prove that Rule and Power of Government which H. T. derives from it 2. That he that is a Shepherd is Head or Lord
of his own Sheep but a Shepherd is not Lord or Head of anothers Sheep of which he is no Owner and therefore though he is to rule and feed them yet he is not to rule them after his own will but the Owners nor is he to take the profit of the Sheep but the Owner is to have it the Shepherd is not to look but for his pay and encouragement according to the will or contract of the Owner Now the Flock of Christ were none of Peter's Sheep nor were all the Sheep of Christ universally taken to be fed by Peter for then he should feed that is rule himself who was one of the Flock and so excommunicate himself absolve himself and sith the Pope hath Peter's power if he be one of the Sheep of Christ by this Doctrine he is to rule that is to excommunicate absolve and deprive himself And for the other Metaphor of a Foundation it hath the like absurdity For if Peter be the Foundation of the whole Church and the term Foundation imports the ruling of the whole Church Peter who is a part of the Church is the Foundation of himself and the Pope of himself and sith he is the Vicar of Christ he is in stead of Christ to himself and so hath preheminence over himself and the Pope in like manner yea unless they deny the blessed Virgin Mary to have been one of Christ's Sheep they must assert Peter and after him the Pope to have been the Foundation and Shepherd of the blessed Virgin Mary to have had a power to rule excommunicate and absolve her The truth is this the pressing of a Metaphor beyond that for what it is used draweth with it many absurdities and therefore the Metaphors of Foundation and Building Shepherd and Sheep can infer no more than that use of these which the Authour of the Speech intended by them which what it is will be considered by examining the Texts brought for proof And for the Arguments if they did conclude the thing in question they should be thus framed or to this purpose He that is the Foundation or Builder of the whole Church of Christ hath supreme unerring dominion or rule of the whole Church of Christ But such was Peter and by consequence the Pope of Rome Ergo. Again He that is to feed all the Sheep of Christ hath dominion or rule as aforesaid But that was Peter and consequently the Pope of Rome is to do Ergo. In both I should deny the Major understood of the under Foundation Builder and Shepherd though it should be yielded by concession of an impossibility yet he should not have such a supreme unerring Rule thereby and I deny the Minor also and in both as they stand or should stand there are many Propositions in these and his forms expressed or implied which are apparently false As 1. That every Foundation of the Church hath preheminence of firmitude above every Building founded on it There were some as firm in the Faith as the Apostles and of the Apostles some as firm or more firm than Peter 2. That every Foundation or Builder of the Church hath rule over it 3. That the Metaphor of a Foundation or Builder do note Rule or Dominion 4. That as applied to Peter they note in him supreme unerring Rule or Dominion 5. That he that is a Shepherd is Head of his Flock 6. That he is above his Flock 7. That the person that is bid to feed Christ's Sheep is bid to feed the whole Flock of Christ universally taken 8. That the charge of feeding them is as much as have supreme dominion be a visible Monarch over them 9. That the Bishop of Rome is Peter's Successour in that charge and power which Christ committed to him over his whole Church 10. That what is said of Peter in this point is true of every Bishop of Rome be he never so unlearned and vicious All which I have distinctly noted that it may appear upon how many suppositions the Popes Supremacy hangs and yet how loose and empty of proof from Scripture or Reason the Disputes of Papists are about this which is with them a fundamental point of their Religion in so much that were it not for the heavy curse that is befallen Papists that sith they receive not the love of the truth that they might be saved they should believe Lyes that they might be damned 2 Thess 2. 10 11 12. it could not be that understanding persons among them should ever assent to the claimed Supremacy of the Pope over the whole Church upon these Reasons But let us view what is said here The Major is proved because the Foundation supporteth the rest of the Building we are built on the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Cornerstone Ephes 2. 20. and the Shepherd hath a power to govern his whole Flock Answ The Argument framed hence must be this That which supporteth the Building hath a preheminence of firmitude and stability before the rest of the Building which is founded on it But so doth every Foundation Ergo. But the Major is not true of personal Metaphorical Foundations of which we now speak not of material proper Foundations A man may be a Foundation of a Common-wealth and support it by his wisdom and example and authority and yet not have a preheminence of firmitude and stability above that Common-wealth founded on him or it and so in the founding of the Church a man that founds it may fall away and yet the Church stand firm Neither is the Minor true of every personal metaphorical Foundation he may be said to be a Foundation that is begin a Church or Common-weath who doth not after support it The Text Ephes 2. 20. proves neither of the Propositions nor do I know to what purpose it is produced except to prove Peter to have been a Foundation But then it proves not Peter alone but the rest of the Apostles and Prophets to have been Foundations and so proves no preheminence to Peter above them which is the Assertion of this Authour But to me it is doubtfull whether the Apostles are termed Foundations 1. Because this seems to be appropriated to Christ 1 Cor. 3. 11. 2. Because it is not said Ye are built on the Foundations but the Foundation and therefore seems to have this sense ye are built on that Foundation which the Apostles and Prophets have laid not which they are and so the genitives are of the efficient not of the subject and the Foundation must be that Doctrine or truth they declared of which Christ that is the Doctrine or Faith of Christ is the chief Corner-stone Nor is this against that which is Revel 21. 14. that the names of the twelve Apostles are written in the twelve Foundations of the Wall of the new Jerusalem For that may be said because they were chief workmen in the laying of the Foundation as Paul saith of himself 1 Cor. 3.
be granted and yet the supreme Headship not proved The power said Hart Conf. with Rainold chap. 1. divis 2. which we mean to the Pope by this Title of Supreme Head is that the Government of the whole Church throughout the World doth depend of him in him doth lie the power of judging and determining all Causes of Faith of ruling Councils as President and ratifying their Dâ—crees of ordering and confirming Bishops and Pastours of deciding Causes brought him by Appeals from all the coasts of the Earth of reconciling any that are excommunicate of excommunicating suspending or inflicting other Censures and Penalties on any that offend yea on Princes and Nations finally of all things of the like sort for governing of the Church even whatsoever toucheth either preaching of Doctrine or practising of Discipline in the Church of Christ Now a person may be above others in power and dignity yea the Head and Primate of them and yet not have this power The Lord Chief Justice of one of the Benches the Speaker of the Parliament Chair-man of a Committee Duke of Venice President in a Council of Bishops the Head of a College the Dean of a Cathedral may have power and dignity above other Justices of the same Bench over Counsellours in the same Council over Knights and Burgesses in the same Parliament Prelates in the same Council Fellows in the same College Canons in the same Chapter and in a sort Primates and Heads of the rest yet not such supreme Heads over the rest as the Popes claim to be Yea notwithstanding such power he may be limited so as that he cannot act without them in making any Laws or passing any Sentence binding but they may act without him and legally proceed against him So that the Conclusion might be yielded and yet the Popes Supremacy not proved The truth is the Pope claims such a vast and monstrous power in Heaven and Earth and Hell as exceeds the abilities of any meer mortal man to discharge and is as experience shews the Introduction to a world of miseries and oppresons But let us view his proof of the power of Peter which H. T. ascribes to him Tâ—e Major saith he is proved because the stronger is not confirmed by the weaker nor the less worthy to be set before the more worthy generally speaking Answ This doth not prove his Major for a person may be weaker and less worthy and yet above others in power and dignity Queen Elizabeth was a Woman and so weaker in respect of her Sex and perhaps less worthy in respect of parts than some of her great Commanders and Privy Counsellours Will H. T. say she was below them in power and dignity Many a Father and Master may be weaker and less worthy and yet superiour in power and dignity Many a Prelate is stronger in knowledge and wisdom and more worthy in respect of holy life than many Popes I will not onely say than Pope Joan and Bennet the Boy but also than Pius the second or any other of the best of their Popes and yet H. T. will not yield such Prelates to be above Popes in power and dignity Me thinks he should yield Athanasius to be stronger and of more worth than Liberius Hiâ—rom than Damasus Bernard than Eugenius and yet he would be loath to ascribe more power and dignity to them than to the Pope Nor is it true that the stronger is not confirmed by the weaker whether we mean it of moral or natural strength or weakness and confirmation Apollos was confirmed by Priscilla David by Abâ—gail Naaman by his servant Nor if by generally speaking be meant very frequently is the speech true that the more worthy is set before the less worthy I think in the Acts of the Apostles Barnabas is more often before Paul than after as Acts 11. 30. 12. 25. 13. 7. 14. 12 14. 15. 12. I am sure in the Holy Ghost's Precept Acts 13. 2. whereupon they were ordained and in the Decree of the Apostles Acts 15. 25. Barnabas is first Will H. T. say Barnabas was more worthy than Paul Me thinks a man should be ashamed to utter such frivolous toys in so weighty a matter and fear to ascribe to a sinfull man so great and immense a Dominion on such slight pretences But how doth he prove his Minor The Minor saith he is proved I have prayed for thee Peter that thy faith fail not and then being at length converted confirm thy Brethren St. Luke 22. 31. The names of the twelve Apostles are these the first Simon who is called Peter c. St. Matth. 10. 2. St. Mark 3. St. Luke 2. and Acts the 1. Answ The Text doth not say Confirm the Apostles in the faith nor do we finde that they did but that he doubted as well as they Mark 16. 14. yea there is mention of another Disciples believing the Resurrection afore Peter John 20. 8 9. yea Paul seems to have confirmed Peter in the faith when he walked not with a right foot according to the truth of the Gospel Gal. 2. 14. Acts 14. 22. Paul and Barnabas are said to confirm the souls of the Disciples and Judas and Silas did the same Acts 15. 32. So that this Act shewes no Headship in Peter nor any privilege at all much less such a supreme Headship over the Apostles as H. T. allegeth it for but a common duty of charity which not onely may but must be done by an equal or inferiour to an equal or superiour Sure if Paul had known of this as a Privilege in Peter he would not have said that he went not up to the Apostles before him nor conferred with flesh and blood Gal. 16. 17. and that Peter added nothing to him Gal. 2. 6. As for his being preferred generally before the rest it is not proved by his being named before the rest he may be named after who is preferred before as Paul is after Barnabas nor do the four Texts express a general or frequent priority of nomination three expressing but one and the same act of Christ and the Catalogue being varied in the order of the rest some Evangelists reckoning Andrew next Peter sometimes James and in like manner the order altered in some others shews that the order of nomination imported no Privilege yea sâ—metimes Peter is named after Andrew John 1. 44. who had this Privilege to bring Peter to Christ vers 41 sometimes after Paul and Aâ—ollos 1 Cor. 1. 12. 3. 22. and other Apostles 1 Cor. 9. 5. Gal. 2. 9. which shews that John and Paul understood not that any such Primacy or Prerogative was given to Peter by his nomination first as Papists assert thence for if they had they would not at any time have inverted the order And therefore however a Primacy of order may be given to Peter yet 1. There is no necessity we should yield the acknowledgement of it to be a Duty imposed much less a perpetual Privilege of
that he allegeth Eph. 2. 20. to prove that the rest of the Apostles were built on the foundation of them all though not equally when the Text doth not at all mention the Apostles being built on the Foundation but the Ephesian believers nor are the Ephesian believers said to be built on them unequally on Peter as the supreme on others after him but on them all without any difference and not onely on them but also on the Foundation of the Prophets Christ alone being the chief corner-stone SECT IX Cyprian Hierome Gregory the councils of Constantinople Chalcedon Nice are against the Popes Supremacy It is added thus by H. T. Object St. Cyprian de unit Eccles says The Apostles were equal in dignity And St. Hierome affirms the church was equally founded on them all lib. cont Jovin Answ They were equal in their calling to the Apostleship I grant in their power of Government and Jurisdiction I deny And the church was equally founded on them all before a Head was constituted I grant after a Head was constituted I deny and so do the Fathers St. Cyprian saying in the same place that Christ disposed the origen of unity beginning from one Peter And St. Hierome tells us He chose one of the Twelve that a Head being constituted the occasion of Schism might be taken away I Reply Cyprian's words in his Book de unitate Ecclesia are recited above Art 5. Sect. 6. in which he expresly saith thus Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praditi honoris potestatis sel exordium ab unitate proficiscitur ut Ecclesia una monstretur that is That verily were also all the rest of the Apostles which Peter was endued with equal allotment of honour and power but the beginning proceeds from unity that the church might be shewed to be one So that the very words are express that all the Apostles were not onely equal in their calling to the Apostleship but also in power and honour and that Peter was made a Representative of all yeâ— had no more power and honour than other Apostles and for Bishops he saith presently after Episcopatus unus est cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur that is Bishoprick is but one of which wholly or entirely a part is held by each Which words plainly shew this to be his meaning 1. That the Episcopacy or charge of looking to the Church of Christ is but one and the same in all the World even as the Church Catholick is but one and the same 2. That each Bishop hath but his part none the whole none is an universal Bishop over the whole Church 3. That each Bishop who hath his part holds it in solidum that is wholely or intirely the power and charge is as much in one as another 4. That Episcopacy was first invested in Peter for all that Episcopacy might be one and undivided and the Church one so as that no Church break from another nor any Bishop be above another As for the words of Hierome lib. 1. advers Jovin they are thus At dick super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia licet idipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claves regni coelorum accipiant ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur tamen propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur ut capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasio that is But thou sayest who arguest for Marriage upon Peter a married man the church is founded although that thing in another place is done upon all the Apostles and all receive the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens and equally upon them the strength of the church is established yet therefore among twelve one is chosen that a Head being constituted the occasion of Schism might be taken away In which words it is manifest that he makes the other Apostles equally Foundations of the Church with Peter and to have the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens and terms Peter not a Head in respect of Power or Jurisdiction over the rest but in respect of Order that for want of it no occasion of Schism might be Which to have been the minde of Hierome appears fully in his Epistle to Euagrius in which he determines that in the Scripture Bishops and Elders were the same that Peter calls himself a fellow-elder and John an Elder but after one was chosen who might be set before the rest that was done for a Remedy of Schism lest each one drawing to himself the church of Christ might break it And then he makes the Church and Bishop of Rome equal with other Churches and Bishops If saith he Authority be sought the World is greater than a City Wheresoever there is any Bishop either at Rome or at Eugubium or at Constantinople or at Rhegium or at Alexandria or at Tanis he is of the same merit and of the same Priesthood Power of riches and humility of poverty makes a Bishop neither higher nor lower But all are Successours of the Apostles Whence these things may be inferred 1. That Bishops are not above Elders originally 2. That their superiority is by positive order 3. That the Apostles were Elders 4. That all Bishops are their Successours 5. That the Bishop of Rome is not above another Bishop 6. That the Authority of Rome is less than of the World Yet further saith H. T. Object One Body with two Heads is monstrous Answ Not if one be principal and the other subordinate or ministerial onely as in our present case so Christ is the Head of the Man and the Man of the Woman 1 Cor. 11. without any monstrosity I reply to make a thousand metaphorical subordinate ministerial Heads of the Church of Christ may be without monstrosity But to make a supreme visible Head over the whole Church ascribing to him such a power as agrees to none but Christ nor can be exercised by any but Christ for the good of his body hath monstrosity in it or rather treason against Christ But such a Head is the Pope made by H. T. therefore this conceit of him and other Papists induceth monstrosity The Minor is partly shewed before and may be fully proved by instancing in the acts of power the Pope takes to him in defining what the whole Church is to believe what is the sense of Scripture receiving Appeals from all places judging causes setting up and putting down Kings and Bishops and many more wherein he arrogateth and usurpeth that power to himself which doth onely agree to Christ and can be exercised by none but him Again saith H. T. Object St. Gregory rejects the name of Universal Arch-bishop as Antichristian lib. 7. indict 2. Epist 96. Answ He rejects it as it excludes all others from being Bishops I grant as it onely signifies one to be supreme and above all others I deny and so doth he himself saying in the same Book Epist 62. if there be any crime found in
Bishops I know no Bishop but is subject to the See Apostolick And lib 4. Indict 13. Epist 32. The care and principality of the church hath been committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of the Apostles St. Peter yet is not he called Universal Apostle as if there were no other Apostles but he You see in what sense he rejects the word Universal I reply Gregory not onely rejected the Title of Universal Arch-bishop or Patriarch but also rejected it as proud wicked perverse profane blasphemous aud the Usurper of it as a Fore-runner of Antichrist and not onely as not agreeing to the Bishop of Constantinople but also as not agreeing to him or any of his Predecessours lib. 6. Epist 24. lib. 4. Epist 32. 36. None of my Predecessours consented to use this profane name of Universal Bishop none of my Predecessours ever took upon him this name of singularity neither consented to use it We the Bishops of Rome do not seek nor yet accept this glorious Title being offered unto us Nor in the sense onely as H. T. denies it due to the Pope as if it excluded all others from being Bishops but even in the sense in which the Pope now usurps it For 1. He rejects it in the sense in which John of Constantinople did affect it But he did not affect it as thereby assuming to himself to be the onely Bishop but the supreme which appears 1. In that a Synod of the Greek Bishops did agree to give it him Habita Synodo seipsum Patriarcham universalem creasset that is Holding a Synod he had created himself universal Patriarch Platina in the Life of Pope Gregory But doubtless the Synod would not give him the Title as importing him the onely Bishop for then they should have unbishopt themselves which neither he nor they did 2. Gregory when he chargeth him with his arrogating that Title to himself tells John himself lib. 4. Epist 38. that he sought this Title that he might seem to be under none and he alone before all that be endeavoured that by the appellation of universal Bishop he might put under himself all the members of Christ that he desired to be called in the World not onely the Father but also the general Father that he desired by that word of elation to put himself before Bishops and to hold them under him which shews he affected not to be accounted the onely Bishop but the supreme 3. He affected no more than what after Boniface the third of Rome obtained of Phocas as appears by the words of Platina in the Life of Boniface the third who speaks thus Boniface the third a Roman by countrey obtained from Phocas the Emperour yet with great contention that the See of blessed Peter the Apostle which is the Head of all churches should be both so called and accounted by all which place indeed the Church of Constantinople endeavoured to challenge to it sometimes evil Princes favouring and affirming that in that place should be the first See where the Head of the Empire was And Baronius Annal. Eccles at the year 606. relates the Decree of Phocas thus that the Roman Bishop alone should be called oecumenical or universal but not the Constantinopolitan And Bellarmine lib. 2. de Pontif. Rom. cap. 31. saith They would equal the See of Constantinople to the Roman and make it universal speaking of the Greeks in the business of John of Constantinople whence it may be plainly gathered that the thing which the Patriarchs of Constantinople affected was not to be accounted the onely Bishop so as that none but he should be accounted a bishop but that he should be the Head or Supreme of all Bishops by reason of the Seat of the Empire there and that this Gregory disclaimed as proud 4. That was affected by John which he and Cyriacus his Successour used for twenty years but neither of them used it so by word or deed as to exclude others from being Bishops as well as themselves for in John's own writing to them extant in the body of the Romam Greek Law he terms them fellow-servants Metropolitans and Bishops to whom he writes and others in their Writings to the Patriarch of Constantinople when they term him oecumenical Arch-bishop yet style themselves Bishops and fellow-priests but they would be accounted supreme or prime Bishops of the whole Church so as to be under none but above all 2. It is proved that Gregory rejected the Title of Universal Bishop in the sense of the supreme Bishop in that he Regist lib. 11. Epist 54. resolves thus If any man accuse a Bishop for whatsoever cause let the cause bâ— judged by his Metropolitan If any man gainsay the Metropolitan's judgement let it be referred to the Arch-bishop and Patriarch of that Diocese and let him end it according to the Canons and Laws And for what he addeth that if a Bishop have no Metropolitan nor Patriarch at all then is his cause to be heard and determined by the See Apostolick which is the Head of all Churches it is added beyond the Canons of Councils and Laws of Emperours and though it prove that he claimed a reference of causes in difference between Bishops within his Patriarchate yet not where there were other Patriarchs to which the Bishops were subject much less through the whole World And that he termeth the See of Rome the Head of all Chuches doth not prove a Supremacy of Government by any institution of Christ but a preheminence of order and some Ecclesiastical Privileges by reason of that Cities being the Seat of the Empire And hereby is understood what H. T. cites out of the seventh Book Epist 62. of Greg. Epistles Indict 2. that it is not meant of all Bishops universally but of the Bishops within that Patriarchate but this was in case of fault onely for it follows But when no fault requires it all according to reason of humility are equals So that Gregory doth not by that speech shew that he had an universal supreme Jurisdiction and power over all Churches so as that they were subject to his commands and deteminations in points of faith but that he accounted the African Churches subject to his reproof as he had a common care of the Church every where in which Gregory himself and all other Bishops and Churches are subject to any Bishop wheresoever Certainly Gregory had most absurdly argued against the arrogance of John of Constantinople calling the Title of universal Bishop new profane proud blasphemous foolish perverse and him a Fore-runner of Antichrist whosoever should use it if he had imagined it belonged to himself or any Bishop of Rome And for what H. T. allegeth that John claimed to be universal Bishop as excluding all others it is but an absurdity which Gregory pressed him with as following upon it not acknowledged by John but rather denied as when we urge men with absurdities following their tenets which they do not own and how he urgeth it
all which we may easily come to know by means of Apostolical tradition without which we can have no infallible assurance of any Point of Christian Doctrine I reply neither the Church nor her Ministers can sufficiently propose to any man for the Word of God any other than the Scripture by which we may have infallible assurance of any Point of Christian Doctrine without oral Tradition unwritten And to say that the whole Church in general and not each man in particular is obliged to know all divinely revealed verities which are necessary to the salvation of all mankinde is to speak contradictions Yet once more saith H. T. Object You dance in a vicious Circle proving the Scripture and the Churches infallibility by Apostolical tradition and tradition by the Scripture and the Churches infallibility Answ No we go on by a right Rule towards Heaven We prove indeed the Churches infallibility and the credibility of the Scriptures by Apostolical tradition but that is evident of it self and admits no other proof When we bring Scripture for either we use it onely as a secondary testimony or argument ad hominem I reply if this be so then doth H T. in his Title-page pretend demonstration of his falsly called Catholick Religion by Tents of holy Scripture in the first place onely as a secondary testimony or argument ad hominem but it is oral Apostolical tradition which he principally relies on for his demonstration as being evident of it self and admits no other proof which oral Apostolical Tradition being no other than what Popes and Councils approved by him have approved it follows that what Papists call Catholick Religion is not what the Scriptures teach but what Popes and their Councils define into which their Faith is ultimately resolved No marvel then they decline Scripture or if they use it do it onely because of Protestants importunity not because they think it is to be rested on and if so sure H. T. plays the Hypocrite in pretending to demonstrate his Religion out of Texts of holy Scripture If other Papists would stick to this which H. T. here saith we should take it as a thing confessed that Popery is not Scripture doctrine but onely unwritten Tradition and to have for its bottom foundation the Popes determination and so to be imbraced upon his credit which sure can beget no other than a humane faith and in fine doth make the Pope Lord of their Faith which is all one as to make him their Christ and that is to make him an Antichrist Therefore I conceive other Romanists will disown this resolution of H. T. and seek other ways to get out of this Circle and herein they go divers ways Dr. Holden an English man and Doctor of Paris in his Book of the Analysis of divine Faith chap. 9. rejects the common way and sticks to that of universal Tradition which by natural reason is evident and firm But when he hath urged this as far as he can this must be the evidence that what all say and was so manifestly know by so many Miracles as Christ and his Apostles wrought must be infallibly true But the being of Christ the Mossiah and his Doctrine from God as the holy Scriptures declare is avouched by all the Church and manifestly known by Miracles therefore it must be true which is no other than Chillingworth's universal Tradition confirming the truth of the Scriptures and deriving our Faith from thence which if Papists do relinquish and adhere to the Popes resolutions whether they be with Scripture or without they do expresly declare themselves Papists or Disciples of the Pope not Christians that is Disciples of Christ I conclude therefore that H. T. and such as hold with him according to the Principle he here sets down are not Believers in Christ whose Doctrine is delivered in the Scripture but in men whether Popes or Councils or the universal Church or any other who delivers to him that oral Tradition which is his Rule as being evident of it self and admits no other proof though I have shewed it to be uncertain yea not so much as probable I go on to the next Article ARTIC IX Schism and Heresie are ill charged on Protestants Protestants in not holding Communion with the Roman Church as now it is in their Worship in not subjecting themselves to the Pope as their visible Head in denying the new Articles of the Tridentin Council and Pope Pius the fourth his Bull are neither guilty of Schism nor Heresie But Papists by rejecting them for this cause and seeking to impose on them this Subjection are truly Schismaticks and in holding the Articles which now they do are Hereticks SECT I H. T. his definitions of Heresie and Schism are not right H. T. intitles his ninth Article of Schism and Heresie and begins thus Nothing intrenching more on the Rule of Faith or the Authority of the Church than Schism or Heresie we shall here briefly shew what they are and who are justly chargeable therewith Our Tenet is that not onely Heresie which is a wilfull separation from the Doctrine of the Catholick Church but also Schism which is a separation from her government is damnable and sacrilegious and that most Sectaries are guilty of both Answ I Think Infidelity doth more intrench on the Rule of Faith than Heresie and Heresie may be where there is no intrenching on the Authority of the Church in this Authour 's own sense as when a man living in communion with the Roman Church and owning the Pope or being the Pope himself is an Arian as Pope Liberius or a Monothelite as Pope Honorius And for his definition of Heresie it is in mine apprehension too obscure and imperfect For it neither shews what is the Catholick Church the separation from whose Doctrine makes Heresie nor what Doctrines of it the separation from which makes Heresie nor what separation in heart or profession or other act nor when it is wilfull when not nor how it may be known to be wilfull Nor doth this definition agree with their own Tenets who acquit many from Heresie who wilfully separate from the Doctrine of the Catholick Church as they define it to wit that which is defined by a general Council approved by a Pope As for instance The Popish French Church is acquitted from Heresie yet they hold a Council to be above the Pope contrary to the last Lateran Council approved by Pope Leo the tenth Nor is this definition at all proved by this Authour but taken as granted though it may be justly questioned And for the use of the terms Heresie and Hereticks in the Ancients it is certain that many are put in the Catalogue of Hereticks by Philastrius Epiphanius Augustin and also by other Writers elder and later and those opinions termed Heresies which were not so The like faults are in the definition of Schism in not setting down which is the Catholick Church what is her government what separation of heart or outward
an acknowledged true Member of the Catholick Church and yet no Separation from the whole And therefore this Position of H. T. will not be yielded him without better proof and demonstration that the Separation from the Church of Rome which Protestants have made cannot stand with union with the Catholick Church in Doctrine and Discipline Which sure he hath not yet proved nor is it likely he ever will but as the fashion of these Scriblers is sing over again and again their Cuckoes Song of the Catholick Roman Church and that Protestants are Hereticks and Sectaries with other Popish gibberish though the folly and frivolousness thereof hath been a thousand times demonstrated I have thus at last examined these nine Articles being moved thereto out of hope to do some souls good by recovering them out of the snare in which they are held by Satan and Romish Emissaries If they shut their eys against the light their judgement will be of themselves I shall add prayer for them that God would open their eys and if time health and other concurrences suit with my aims discover the vanity of the rest of H. T. his Manual In the mean time not as some Romanists blasphemously Praise be to the Virgin Mother in the end of their Writings but as Paul concluded his Epistle to the Romans so do I To God onely wise be glory through JESUS CHRIST for ever Amen FINIS The Contents ARTICLE I. THe Church of Rome is not demonstrated to be the true Church of God by its succession Page 1 Sect. 1. Of the Title of H. T. his Manual in which is shewed to be a vain vaunt of what he hath not performed ibid. 2. Of the Epistles prefixed in which he ascribes too much to the Church and deceitfully begins with her Authority 3 3. His Tenet of the falsity of all Churches not owning the Pope is shewed to be most absurd 4 4. The Succession required by H. T. is not necessary to the being of a true Church 7 5. None of the Texts alleged by H. T. prove a necessity to the being of a true Church of such Succession as he imagines 10 6. The Succession pretended in the Roman Church proves not the verity of the Roman Church but the contrary 11 7. The Catalogue of H. T. is defective for the proof of his pretended Succession in the Roman Church in the first three hundred years 13 8. The Catalogue of H. T. is defective for the proof of his pretended Succession in the Roman Church in the fourth and fifth Centuries of years 18 9. The defect of H. T. his Catalogue for proof of his Succession in sixth seventh eighth ninth tenth Centuries is shewed 21 10. The defect of his Catalogue in the eleventh and twelfth Ages is shewed 25 11. The defect of his Catalogue in the thirteenth and fourteenth Ages is shewed 28 12. The defect of his Catalogue in the fifteenth and sixteenth Ages is shewed 32 13. The close of H. T. is retorted 36 14. H. T. hath not solved the Protestants Objections 38 ARTICLE II. PRotestants have that Succession which is sufficient to demonstrate them to be a true Church of God 42 Sect. 1. Protestant Churches need not prove such a Succession as Papists demand ibid. 2. The Argument of H. T. against Protestants doth as well prove the nullity of the Roman Church for want of Succession as of the Protestants 44 3. Protestants have had a Succession sufficient to aver their Doctrine 47 4. The Succession in the Greek Churches may be alleged for Protestants notwithstanding the Exceptions of H. T. 51 5. The Doctrine of Romanists was not the Doctrine of the Fathers of the first five hundred years nor is acknowledged to be so by learned Protestants 53 6. The Answers of H. T. to the Objections of Protestants concerning their Succession are shewed to be vain and the Apostasie of the Roman Church is proved 56 ARTICLE III. SUch visibility of Succession as the Romanists require is not proved to be necessary to the being of a true Church 62 Sect. 1. Exteriour Consecration and Ordination of Ministers is not necessary to the being of a visible Church and what H. T. requires of Ministers preaching and administring Sacraments is most defective in the Roman Church ibid. 2. Neither Isai 2. 2. Matth. 5. 14. Psalm 18. 19 4. nor the words of Irenaeus Origen Cyprian Chrysostome Augustine prove such a Church visibility as H. T. asserts 65 3. H. T. hath not solved the Protestants Objections against the visibility of the Church as it is by H. T. asserted 66 ARTICLE IV. THe Church of Rome is not that one Catholick Church which in the Apostolick and Nicene Creeds is made the object of Christian Faith 69 1. 〈◊〉 in non-fundamentals of Faith and in Discipline is not essentially presupposed to the universality of the Church militant ibid. 2. The ambiguity of H. T. his saying of the Roman Church its unity and universality is shewed 70 3. Unity of Discipline under one visible Head and of Faith without division in lesser Points is not proved from 1 Cor. 10. 17. Ephes 1. 22 23. John 10. 16. 1 Cor. 1. 10. Acts 4. 32. John 17. 11. and the Nicene Creed necessary to the Churches being 71 4. It is notoriously false that the Romanists are perfectly one or have better unity or means of unity than Protestants and H. T. his Argument from the unity of the Church is better against than for the Roman Church 73 5. The Argument of H. T. from the unity of a natural body is against him for Protestants 77 6. The universality which Matth. 28. 20. Ephes 4. 12 13. John 14. 15 16. Luke 1. 33. for time Psalm 85. 86 9. Isai 2. 2. Matth. 28. 20. Psalm 19. 4. for place agrees not to the now Roman Church but may be better said of the Protestants 78 7. The words of Irenaeus Origen Lactantius Cyril of Jerusalem Augustine are not for the universality of H. T. by which he asserts the Catholicism of the Roman Church but against it 80 8. It is non-sense or false to term the Roman Church the Catholick Church and the shifts of H. T. to avoid this Objection are discovered 81 ARTICLE V. THe Roman Church is neither proved to be the Catholick Church nor the highest visible Judge of controversies nor is it proved that she is infallible both in her Propositions and Definitions of all Points of Faith nor to have power from God to oblige all men to obey her under Pain of Damnation but all this is a meer impudent arrogant claim of Romanists that hath no colour of proof from Scriptures or Antiquity 85 Sect. 1. The decit of H. T. in asserting an Infallibility and Judicature of controversies in the Church which he means of the Pope is shewed ibid. 2. Luke 10. 16. proves not the Roman or Catholick Churches Infallibility 87 3. Matth 18. 17. or 18. 1 John 4. 6. Mark 16. 15 16. make nothing for the claim
of the Roman Church or Popes or oecumenical Councils Infallibility 88 4. None of these Texts Matth. 28. 20. 1 Tim. 3. 15. Matth. 16. 18. John 14 26. John 16. 13. Acts 15. 28. do prove the Infallibility in Points of Faith of the Catholick or Roman Church or the Pope or a general Council approved by him 90 5. There may be good assurance of the Word of God and its meaning and of our Salvation without supposing the Churches Infallibility 93 6. Neither can the Church oblige men under Pain of Damnation to believe her Definitions of Faith nor is there any such Judicature as H. T. asserts to be ascribed to her nor do any of the Fathers words cited by H. T. say it is the words of Irenaeus Cyprian lib. 1. Epist 3. August contr Epist Fundam cap. 5. c. are shewed not to be for it but some of them plainly against it 97 7. The Objections from Scripture and Reason against the Infallibility which H. T. ascribes to the Church are made good against his Answers 106 8. The Objections of Protestants against the Churches Infallibility from Fathers and Councils are vindicated from H. T. his Answers 124 ARTICLE VI. THe Roman Church is not demonstrated to be the true Church by her sanctity and Miracles 131 Sect. 1. The Texts brought by H. T. to prove that the true Church is known by sanctity and Miracles are shewed to be impertinent ibid. 2. The sanctity of men in former Ages proves not the holiness of the present Roman Church 132 3. The imagined holiness of Benedict Augustine Francis Dominick proves not the verity of the now Roman church 134 4. The Roman church is not proved to be the true church by the holiness of its Doctrine but the contrary is true 136 5. The Devotion of the Romanists shews not the holiness of the Roman church it being for the most part will-worship and Pharisaical hypocrisie 139 6. The power of working Miracles is no certain mark of the true church 143 7. The Popish pretended Miracles prove not the truth of their church nor the Miracles related by some of the Fathers 144 8. The Objections against the proof of the verity of the Roman church from the Power of Miracles are not solved by H. T. 147 ARTICLE VII THe Pope's or Bishop of Rome's Supremacy or Headship of the whole church is not proved by H. T. 151 Sect. 1. Neither is it proved nor probable that Peter was Bishop of Rome or that he was to have a Successour ibid. 2. From being the Foundation Matth. 16. 18. and feeding the Sheep of Christ John 21. 16 17. neither Peter's nor the Pope's Supremacy is proved 152 3. The Text Matth. 16. 18. proves not any Rule or Dominion in Peter over the Apostles but a Promise of special success in his Preaching 156 4. John 21. 16 17 18. proves not Peter's Supremacy over the whole church 159 5. Peter's charge to confirm his Brethren Luke 22. 31. and his priority of nomination prove not his Supremacy 161 6. The late Popes of Rome are not Successours of Peter 164 7. The Sayings of Fathers and Councils prove not Peter's or the Popes Supremacy 165 8. The holy Scriptures John 19. 11. Acts 25. 10 11. Luke 22. 25. 1 Cor. 3. 11. overthrow the Pope's Supremacy 169 9. Cyprian Hierome Gregory the councils of Constantinople Chalcedon Nice are against the Pope's Supremacy 176 10. Of the Emperours calling Councils Pope Joan Papists killing Princes excommunicate not keeping faith with Hereticks 18◠ARTICLE VIII THe unwritten Tradition which H. T. terms Apostolical is not the true Rule of Christian Faith 187 Sect. 1. The Argument for Apostolical tradition as the Rule of Faith from the means of planting and conserving Faith at first is answered ibid. 2. Unwritten traditions are not proved to be the true Rule of Faith from the assurance thereby of the Doctrine and Books of Christ and his Apostles 190 3. The obligation of the church not to deliver any thing as a Point of Faith but what they received proves not unwritten Tradition a Rule of Faith 191 4. Counterfeits even in Points of Faith might and did come into the church under the name of Apostolick tradition without such a force as H. T. imagines necessary thereto 195 5. The Romanists can never gain their cause by referring the whole trial of Faith to the arbitrement of Scripture but will be proved by it to have revolted from Christianity 198 6. Sayings of Fathers and Councils prove not unwritten Traditions a Rule of Faith 202 7. Objections from Scripture for its sufficiency without unwritten Traditions are vindicated from H. T. his Answers 205 8. H. T. solves not the Objections from Reason for the Scriptures sufficiency without unwritten Traditions 212 ARTICLE IX PRotestants in not holding communion with the Roman church as now it is in their worship in not subjecting themselves to the Pope as their visible Head in denying the new Articles of the Tridentin Council and Pope Pius the fourth his Bull are neither guilty of Schism nor Heresie But Papists by ejecting them for this cause and seeking to impose on them this subjection are truly Schismaticks and in holding the Articles which now they do are Hereticks 220 Sect. 1. H. T. his Definitions of Schism and Heresie are not right ibid. 2. Protestants are not proved to be Sectaries by the first beginning of Reformation 221 3. The Sayings of Fathers prove not Protestants Hereticks or Schismaticks 224 4. H. T. hath not solved the Objections acquitting Protestants from Schism and Heresie and condemning Papists 226 FINIS Ecclesia Christi est quae luscipit à Christo doctrinam seu cujus fides sundatur authoritate Christi Thomas Whitsonus Bucci Tract 1. Sect. 7. Watson quodlib p. 252 260 343.