part I have and still do look on the Papists as the principal Instruments in our divisions and there are these five speciall Considerations move me to it 1. The many Popish Errours instilled into and broached by such as leave the truth Who that knows Anabaptism but is acquainted with their Popish Doctrines of Free-will Justification by works Possibility of keeping the Commandements c. It was Mr Love's Observation to his people a little before his troubles that there were about twenty Popish errours broached by them Was not the Foundation of that Babel the Anabaptistical party were lately erecting if God in mercy to his Church had not broken them in pieces a popish principle viz. that Dominion is founded in grace and therefore they the Saints must rule over the wicked as any that professed the true religion and had estates would have been Is not the Quaker religion a mixture of Popery with other errors else what means those Tenets charged upon them by the Ministers of Newcastle That we are not justified by the righteousness of Christ A book called The perfect Pharisee under Monkish holiness c. which he in his own Person did fulfill without us but by inherent holyness which Christ within us inables us to perform 2. That man by his own power may stand perfect and that men may be perfectly holy in this life 3. That there is no entrance into Heaven for any not perfectly holy unless by Purgatory 4. That every man in the world hath a light within him sufficient to guide him to salvation 5. That the Scriptures are not a rule for us nor are the spirits to be tried by Scripture nor are we to study them or give any sense of them 2. The Apologies which have been of late made for Papists and Popery by the Authors of the Beacon quenched the Catholick Moderator with many other books pretendedly printed in France but really in England as the Beacon on fire undertakes to prove 3. The discovery of some Priests and Jesuits and their secret actings tending to divisions themselves going under the names of converted Jews or gifted men or such as have left Popish Seminaries out of discontent with Popish errors or Gentlemen that have been travelling and return unto us for their healths sake or friends to some private Papists whom they can accompany into the society of such as they have hopes of seducing 4. The many wandring persons strangers in the places where they come without any call or imitation gathering assemblies thrusting themselves into the company of honest but simple persons and dispersing books pretending to and holding out some Truths but not without mixture of Popish errors 5. The intolerable enmity in the sectaries of our dayes against those who most earnestly oppose Popery and according to their Covenant seek the extirpation of it Nothing hath so much been declaimed against none so much opposed as the Ministry and Ministers of Christ who have set themselves against these errors Against this evil there is a twofold remedy 1. Discoveries of true solid and fundamentall Doctrines which hath been excellently done by the reformed Churches in their Harmony of Confessions by the reverend Assembly of Divines at Westminster in their Confession of Faith and Catechismes and by many particular Divines in their summs of Divinity 2. Opposition of the enemies of the Churches peace and unity In which many have bestowed much labour to good purpose some resisting one error and some another weakning the power and stopping the progress of false teachers Though the former be more excellent as more familiar and publick in its use every one not being able to wade into Controversie yet this latter hath its profit and is also necessary and therefore the Apostle requires that a Bishop be able by sound Doctrine both to exhort and convince the gain-sayers Tit. 1.9 10 11. and his reason is For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers specially they of the Circumcision whose mouths must be stopped who subvert whole houses teaching things which they ought not for filthy lucres sake Of this nature is this book before thine eyes composed and set forth upon serious and considerate grounds The occasion offered hath an influx upon its composure the seasonableness of it as the Author conceives occasions its publishing The occasion was this a Popish Gentleman with whom I had some converse having had the loan of a Protestant Author of mine in requitall brought me this Popish Doctor as worth my reading expecting as I conceived that I should say something to it which at first I thought to do very briefly and suddenly But finding the book full of errors and the study of a reply delightfull and suitable to my studies wherein by occasion of the place and persons amongst whom Gods providence had cast me I had been most imployed next to my speciall Ministeriall duties especially supposing it might be an Antidote both to my own Congregation and others against this and such like infectious writings I proceeded to this answer which thou now seest which I conceive very seasonable in these times being moved hereunto by these reasons 1. This is the great Controversie Popery is the main errour which the Church of the New-Testament hath to oppose It s the mystery of iniquity upheld by the man of sin The Antichrist 2. It s at present least opposed of any other We abound in controversies amongst our selves whilest Papists set by unopposed taking it to use the Cheshire Ministers language as if God had set us together by the ears to make some sportfull spectacle for them to behold 3. It s most active though more prudently and with lesse noise managed then other errours The man of sin was acting in the Aposâ—les days much more now seeing his time is shorter than then it was Popish books are compiled translated printed and dispersed over the Nation Priests abound and are active amongst our people both with books and tongues and make great use of our divisions to perswade to Popery 4. It s the judgement of some learned men that Antichrist shall have a time of prevailing before his death and if so the people of God must have a time for their trying and it cannot be far off Now when this comes the question will not be whether we be Episcopal Presbyterian or Independant this and many such like differences which through meekness of spirit might be easily reconciled shall then with shame be laid aside and questions of higher concernment will be put to us as whether we believe the carnal presence in the Sacrament the Popes-Headship in the Church and the Roman Churches Headship over the world whether we believe the Scriptures or not rather the Pope to be the rule of faith whether we allow of Free-will Merit Justification by works Prayer to Saints as Mediators halfe Commuâ—ion which with other errours this Book of my Adversary endeavours to perswade you to and that with great hastiness 5.
New Testament See Rom. 1.19 20. 2 Tim. 3.15 16.17 John 17.3 3. Your Conformity of Faith to the Church in a Popish sence is a novel phrase not used by the first Christians nor the Apostles of Christ in any of their writings nor did they ever bid men beleeve as the Church beleeved though that was of greater authority then the present Church is but still called their faith to the Word of God contrary to which if Paul or any other Apostles yea or Angels from Heaven did preach the people were to reject them and no doubt if Paul had preached such stuff as now Popish Sermons are filled with traditions and new decrees ungrounded on Gods Word the Beraeans had rejected him and his praying It was for want of this Conformity of Faith to the Word of God that our Saviour upbraids the two Disciples that travelled to Emaus Luk. 24.25 He saith not O flow of heart to beleeve all that the Church beleeves this as I said was no Scripture language nor known to primitive Christians but to beleeve all that the Prophets have spoken And that he may lead them to this Conformity of Faith he expounds not the Decrees and Constitutions of Scribes and Pharisees who sat in Moses Chair whereof there were many but 't is said Beginning at Moses and all the Prophets he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself vers 27. Sir I beleeve you are so dutiful a son to the Church that had you been in Christs stead you would rather have told them of Popes decretal Epistles then of Prophets writings of Traditions rather then Scripture if such things then had had a being But 4. Why could not you say a Conformity of Faith to the Truth revealed as well as a Conformity of Faith to the Church revealing the Truth The Truth revealed not the Church revealing it is the Rule of Faith as I shall shew hereafter 1. You might have done well once for all to have told us what you mean by The Church for the word is diversly attributed even by those who in general agree that it is only the Roman Church as you seem by your Epistle to the Reader to understand it 2. You urge Scripture to prove your Assertion viz. three Texts Mat. 28.19 Luke 10.16 Mat. 16. The two first do not so much as mention the word Church the last mentions the word but proves not the thing you bring it for 1. Mat. 28. Going teach ye all Nations Ans I wonder in what word the proof lies I suppose it 's not in Going and I dare say Teaching proves it not for then every Teacher should be a Rule of Faith besides the Apostles were not to teach men to hang their faith upon themselves or others whether of the Roman or any other Church but they were commanded to teach men to do whatsoever Christ had commanded vers 10. amongst which this was the principal work to believe on him whom God had sent Joh. 6.29 viz. Jesus Christ to whom they were brought by the Apostles preaching as living stones to be built upon a foundation 2. Luke 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me Ans I suppose this Text is brought to explain the other which had need of a Commentary to make it speak your language But 1. This is spoken primarily and absolutely of the Apostles who were Christs mouth in delivering the Scriptures and therefore infallibly inspired by the Holy Ghost that they could not err in what they delivered to us That which Moses was to the Jews in delivering the Law the same were the Apostles to us in delivering the Gospel So that he that heareth the Apostles heareth Christ because it was the word of Christ which they did speak and this way we hear the Apostles speak yet whilest wâ— read or hear the Scriptures which they pen'd but what is this to the present Roman Church and her unwritten Traditions 2. As it 's understood of ordinary Ministers in the Church it can only be understood conditionally He that heareth you while your doctrine agreeth with the Word of God heareth me so that faith is not a conformity to any Teachers or their doctrine but so far as their doctrine is agreeable with the Scriptures which indeed are the Rule both of their preaching and our beleeving Consonantly hereunto the Apostle saith If any man teach otherwise and consent not to wholesom words even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ he is proud from such withdraw thy self 1 Tim. 6.3 c. The Scribes and Pharisees who were the Church in a Popish sence were to be heard but it was whilest they sate in Moses Chair that is whilest they preached not their own traditions and phancies but Moses doctrine Arias Montanus saith Elucid in Mat. 23. Christ bids them do what the Scribes and Pharisees commanded Ex praescripto legis id est ex Cathedrâ Mosis So Origen Origen apud Lyran. Super Cathedram c. isie sermo de me est qui bona dâ—ceo contraria gero 3. The Text speaks not of the Church for particular Ministers in the Church are not the Church Now your Rhemists expound it of them in these words It is all one to despise Christ RheÌ„ Annot. on the Text. and to despise his Priests and Ministers in the Catholique Church to refuse his doctrine and theirs And indeed it must be understood of those who labour in the Word and Doctrine not of non-preaching Popes and Prelates 3. Mat. 16. you would say Mat. 18.17 which you read thus He that heareth not the Church let him be as an Heathen and a Publican Not to say any thing of your false quotation or reading a fault common throughout your Book Protestants may take notice what great cause we have to put these men into our bosoms as they expect whilest they profess we are no better then Heathens or Publicans though I am sure their usage from us hath shewed us Christians But to the Text How little it makes for your purpose the Context words themselves will shew It speaks not of Conformity of Faith to the Church but of obedience of the offending party to the admonition of the Pastors of the Church Thus Lyranus Si non aud Eccles pr ceptum praelatos contemnendo Lyr. in loc You might as well say that faith is a conformity to our selves because it 's said If he neglect to hear thee vers 15. or to two or three witnesses because it 's said If he neglect to hear them vers 17. whereby is implied that he ought to hear them Hence it might well follow that faith ought rather to be resolved upon a neighbor that is a private man then upon the Church because the offended party is first to be heard before the Church And then Sir who is guilty of the Private spirit that you anon talk of Sure your selves and not the Protestants In stead of these misapplied Scriptures for you I shall give you
Durand Scotus Gabriel and Almain for concluding that the authority of the Church is the reason of our belief of the things of Faith 2. From immediate inspiration of the Spirit Thus the Apostles were immediately inspired so that in their delivering of the truth they could neither fallere nec falli neither deceive nor be deceived this is taught by the Apostles Paul and Peter 2 Tim. 3.16 2 Pet. 1.21 The later of whom perswades us to give heed to the word of God because the holy pen-men of it were inspired by the H. Ghost Again for power which you leave unexplained it may be observed that there is a twofold power in order to this effect belonging to Christ 1. Authoritative which is his designation or appointment hereunto this may be understood by that text you cite As my Father sent me c. 2. Qualitative or dispositive this is Christs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other is his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one is his power the other his authority Again this power is exercised two wayes 1. By discoveries of the truth revealed to him Thus it s said All things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you Joh. 15.15 This is his outward teaching 2. By commanding the heart to believe and consent to those truths he reveals this power is spoken of by the Psalmist in Psal 110. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power Christ doth command the soul to receive the truth by stamping upon it a divine authority Majesty and withall by his Spirit discovering to the soul this authority and Majesty so stamped upon it This way doth Christ exercise his power in bringing the soul to close with the Scriptures as the rule of its belief 2. I proceed now to your consequence He having communicated his said knowledg and power to the Apostles and in them to the succeeding Churches but she may challenge a like interest and right in respect of after-Christians Ans 1. You tell us of succeeding Churches but lest you should seem to forget your dear Mother or give other Churches liberty to claim equal priviledges with her whilst you talk of Churches you neglect construction and come in with a She may challenge 2. 'T is false that she may justly challenge a like interest and right in respect of after-Christians as to the propounding of a rule of belief to them For 1. There is no need of another rule for them the rule that Christ propounded being suited to all Christians and fully sufficient and perfect as your self confess If that Christs teaching hath the full height and perfection of a rule i. e. be a compleat and perfect rule what needs another rule or can this other rule be higher then that which hath its full height or have greater extent then that which is perfect the perfection of Christs rule shews that nothing can be added to it If you say it was perfect as for the first Christians but not for after Christians I desire to know the ground of this distinction for I am ignorant of it 2. The succeeding Church hath not communicated to her the same knowledg and power that Christ had her knowledg is not universal there hath been in every Age since your Churches Apostacy an addition of supposed truths which the former Age believed not Your Pius 4. hath added some Articles to the ancient Creeds as necessary to be believed unto Salvation which formerly were not so imposed if once thought of sure then the Church before the Trent Council either knew not the whole revealed will of God and so could not by their preaching lay an exact rule of belief or you propound a larger object then Faith will well admit Again her knowledg is not infallible as I shewed in the beginning of this Chapter the present Church of Rome hath notoriously swerved from Primitive purity in their late Articles of Pope Pius his Creed Besides this it cannot claim either of these means of infallibility which I mentioned before the same may be said of power it s not the same with Christ they want both his power and authority as I have explained them Indeed if that which the succeeding Churches preach and teach be the same that Jesus Christ and his Apostles preached and taught then it is a rule of Faith to us but thus it s not the teaching of the Church that makes it a rule but its identity with the Scriptures the marrow of Christs and the Apostles preaching Thus the assertion is true otherwise the Churches teaching without respect to Scripture is not a Rule as I have already shewed and this is my Antagonists meaning as appears by his next words All matters of Faith as well other points as Scripture are to be taken up upon her account c. 2. Consequence or rather the first consequence arising from that is in these words Whence it follows pag. 13. that all matters of belief as well other points as Scripture are to be taken up upon her account and credit Ans 1. If by other points you understand other points of Faith then are contained in Scripture you take that for granted which is notoriously false viz. that there are points of Faith which the Scriptures containe not and consequently that they are imperfect and insufficient to be a rule of Faith and this is most false For 1. Whatsoever was contained in the ancient Creeds which were rules of Faith to those Christians that used them that was all contained in Scripture and more was not imposed as necessary to be believed to Salvation I deny not but your Trent Creed contains more then Scripture even many Articles which learned men say cannot be proved but out of unwritten Traditions but as it contains more then Scripture so is it much larger then any Creed that was used before it so that either their Faith was imperfect having an imperfect foundation or yours is redundant transgresseing the bounds of a right and ancient rule 2. The Scriptures testifie their own sufficiency 2 Tim. 3.15 16. I desire you to consider these two following Texts Act 26.22 with chap. 20.27 Lyran. He had declared the whole counsel of God so far as concerned Salvation and yet preached nothing but what the Scriptures did contain Ans 2. If you mean that we are to believe that the Scriptures are the Word of God and that other fundamental points besides this The Scriptures are the word of God are the truths of God and to be believed meerly because the Church asserts it so that the Churches affirmation of them should be the formal cause of our belief of these truths as I suppose you mean this I deny For 1. The Scriptures contain in themselves arguments that may convince a true Christian that they are the Word of God Many notes are given by Protestants which to you pulling them in pieces and viewing them singly seem weak which conjunctim or all together have
much strength in them He that reads the Scriptures with a spiritually enlightened mind cannot but confess that never meer man spake like the Holy Writers and that flesh and blood revealed not those things to them which they declare but God only 2. Upon what account was this truth taken up by the first Christians for the space of three hundred years after Christ they could not take it up upon the Churches account and credit for your Authors hold that its only in the power of Oecumenical Sinods to define which are the Scriptures and for this time there was no such a Sinod called The first Sinod that I finde delivering the Canon of Scripture was that of Laodicea held about the year 364. Afterwards the third Council of Carthage both Provincial Sinods only though afterwards confirmed in a General Council 3. Upon what account or credit doth your Church take up this truth that the Scriptures are the Word of God Sure you are so great an Enemy to Spiritists that you will not think of extraordinary Revelations or Enthusiasms I hardly think that ever the Holy Ghost fell upon your Popes or Councils in fiery Tongues or that they had either visions or dreams nor do I think that you will say that your Church propoundeth the Canon of Scripture meerly upon the supposal of former practise that former Churches did allow and believe the Scriptures now received are Canonical for this is only a testimony concerning matter of fact in which 't is confessed the Pope may erre through wrong informations There may be spurious Canons foisted into former Councils like Pope Zozimus Canon of the Nicene Council whereby he maintained his Supremacy I therefore suppose that your judgment must be that your Church assisted by the Spirit doth from internal notes of Scripture conclude the divine authority thereof Hence 't is that Councils proceed by argument and reason and there is an acknowledgment of the truth before they proceed to definition or Decree Now if the Church take up Scripture upon this account that she through the assistance of Gods Spirit discerns the notes and marks of Gods Word why may not a Christian by the same assistance discover these notes and so believe that the Scriptures are Gods Word upon the same account that the Church takes up this beliefe though withal he doth and ought to reverence and highly account of the judgment of the Church or Pastors of it as that which hath a Priority and is an occasion of Christians private judgment and a confirmation of it yet as I hinted before it must not be denied that Christians have a divine light in themselves being taught of God Joh. 6.45 which is for the discovery of divine objects as natural light or reason is for the discovery of natural This Bellarmine confesseth saying Bellar. de lumine fid Conc. 1. Quemadmodum omnes homines c. As all men are indued with a certain natural light whereby they understand the first principles to be true without labour without arguments nor is there any that demands reasons and arguments when those principles are propounded So also all Christians enlightened by God with a certain divine and supernatural light do acknowledg the first principles of our Faith though difficult and exceeding reason to be most true Origen in his Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he proves the Divinity of Scriptures by divers arguments Origen lib. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cap. 1. as Protestants do hath a notable speech to this purpose Si quis cum omni judicio c. If any one doth judiciously and with that reverence that is meet consider of the Sacred Writ while he reads and diligently searcheth into it most certainly having his minde and senses affected with some divine inspiration he acknowledgeth that the word he reads is not the word of men but of God and of himselfe perceives ex semetipso sentiet that these books are written not by humane art or mortal eloquence but by the hand of God Thus I suppose it was with the first Christians of whom you cannot say that they believed the books of Scripture to be the Word of God meerly because the Apostles and others held them they were so but upon other account this overthrows your Position What I have said of the Scriptures may be said of other points of Faith that they are not taken up meerly or mainly upon the Churches credit and account but rather because God hath revealed them in his Word wherein they are therefore written that we might have a sure argument for our Faith But I come to your next inference 2 Consequence or Conclusion Whatsoever comes upon any other score is to be reputed Apocriphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of faith Magna Diana Romanorum Great is your Roman Goddess but its only with the Shrine-makers of Rome your conclusion is very high but notoriously false For 1. It s not the Churches definition that makes any book Apocriphal but the want of divine inspiration in those who wrote them so that whatsoever is not written by the Prophets or Apostles the Subjects of divine inspiration that is certainly Apocriphal whether the Church receive them or not Hence many of your learned men reject those books as Apocriphal which the Council of Trent declared to be Canonical the Apostle saith All Scripture is by divine inspiration 2 Tim. 3.16 the Scriptures of the Old Testament are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Pet. 1.19 read Luke 24.27 2. It was six hundred years after Christ before any General Council delivers the Canon of Scripture now will you say that till that time the books of Scripture were Apocriphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of Faith 3. The Spirit of God may work Faith in the Soule while it is reverently reading the Word of God without the testimony of the Church the person for the present being ignorant what the Church teacheth of particular points this is clear by the place of Origen even now mentioned Lyranus speaks of a teaching of the Spirit Lyran. in 1 Joh. 2.27 Vbi deficit humana Doctrina 4. When the Thessalonians received the Apostles Doctrine not as the word of men but as the Word of God Greg. Analus fid lib. 1. c. 15. was this Doctrine no way appertaining to the obligation of Faith Your Gregory of Valence confesseth Multa sunt c. There are many points of Christian Doctrine which of themselves can procure to themselves credit and authority Lastly the Greek Church with the reformed Churches receive all the Articles of the Apostles Creed because consonant to Gods Word not because delivered by your Roman Diana are those Articles therefore to be reputed Apocriphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of Faith Sure you cannot be so impudent as to assert it though we know Jesuitical impudency is not little For your Scriptures Sect. 2. When I see them reduced to arguments I shall
The reasons of my denial are these 1. It s the priviledg of the Word of God written or the Scripture to be the ground of Faith These things are written that ye might believe Joh. 20. ult i. e. that your Faith might have a certain foundation revelations or traditions being more uncertain and easily pretended where they have no existence or being Compare with this 2 Pet. 1.18.19 Ye have a more sure word of Prophecie that is In quo magis confirmetur auditor whereby the hearer may be more confirmed So that the word is more sure and that to us inasmuch as we are thereby more confirmed Hence it is that our Saviour sends his hearers to the Scriptures that therein they might finde what they have to believe Joh. 5.39 So doth the Prophet Isa 8.20 and Abraham in the parable Luk. 16.29 which your Lyranus comments thus upon Lyran. in Luk. 1 is 29. Habent Moysen c. they have Moyses who taught moral actions and the Prophets who delivered mysteries of Faith and these suffice to salvation therefore it follows let them hear them This was the measure of the Apostles preaching and faith Act. 26.22 Act. 17.10.11 By this the Bereans tryed the truth of the Apostles preaching and for its conformity thereto Annot. of Divines on the Text. did receive it into their belief 't is said therefore many of them believed i. e. because of the testimony of the Scriptures So that we may truly say that if the Apostles had preached any thing beside or contrary to Scripture the Bereans would not have believed their preaching and the Apostle himself would have justified them herein Gal. 1.8.9 On which Text Augustine hath this note Qui praeter greditur Aug. apud Lyran. in c. He that goes beside the rule of Faith doth not walk in the way but departs from it Neither would the Apostle himself have us found our hope on him but on that truth which he declared That which was spoken by him was better then he by whom it was spoken From whence what can be more clearly infer'd then that 1. The Word of God preached is the rule of Faith And 2. That faith is not resolved into persons preaching the truth but into the truth preached by them contrarie to both which is your minor Proposition 2. Ans Supposing it true that the Church must be the ground of Faith yet I affirme that this is not yours or any other present Church but only the Primitive Church which as I have already shewed is of greater authority then the present Church which is in a kind grounded upon the Apostolike Church or that Church which contains the Prophets Apostles c. All succeeding Churches are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets whose testimony because of their visible converse with God and Christ becomes efficax ad credendum effectual for the grounding of Faith It s observeable that whereas Abraham might have told the rich man that his Brethren had a present Church to hearken to yet he only mentions Moses and the Prophets 2. I affirm that if your Church be a foundation of Faith yet this would not be a Divine but only an humane Faith And indeed this is the very reason why your Doctors commonly held that Faith is ultimately resolved upon God himself revealing the truth as Azorius observes because Divine Faith must be resolved into a Divine testimony which the testimony of the Church is not and they prove it by divers arguments especially by foure which I have transcribed out of Azorius And though he do not altogether adhere to their opinion Ratio 1. Ecclesiae testimonium est quidem divinum sed participatione non per se sua naturâ at Dei testimonium est divinum per se suâ naturâ fides divina resolvi debet in testimonium quod sit per se non autem participatione divinum 2. Quae sunt fidei revelatione Divinâ non naturae lumine sunt patefacta at Deus est qui revelat ac pandit res fidei non ecclesia 3. In Angelis Prophetis Apostolis caeteris Librorum Cananicorum Scriptoribus fides non resolvebat in ecclesiae testimonium sed in Deum per se pro xime revelantem at fides nostra est ejusdem speciei cujus fui illa Ergo in eandem rationem credendi reducitur 4. Quamvis ecclesia sit testis non tamen Condit aliquem articulum fidei sed declarat explicat quae sunt fidei c. Azor. Instit Moral Parl. 2. l. 5. c. 24. q. 2. but allows somthing to the Church yet he acknowledges that it 's ex accidenti by accident that our Faith is resolved into the Churches authority Again 2. Many learned Papists believe and teach that it 's onely an humane Faith whereby we believe that this or the other Pope is Peters Successor and Christs Vicar on earth because it depends on this Proposition that this or the other Pope is orderly and Canonically chosen to the Popedome which is also objected against General Councils Now how can we believe a Popes Decrees for a Divine Faith when it s onely an humane Faith whereby we believe that he is Pope or Peters Successor Becanus clearly resolves That if any stay in the resolution of the Church and ascend not to the Scripture his assent who believes because of the authority of the Church is not an assent of Theological Faith but of an other inferiour order viz. that which Scotus calls an acquired Faith and saith is only conceived by the Churches testimony which indeed is nothing else but an human faith for its such a Faith whereby we believe one that may both be deceived himself and may deceive us although we believe that he will not deceive us Sot lib. 2. de Nat. grat c. 7. Hereupon Sotus acknowledgeth of him that he held the authoritie of the Church to be only humane than which what can be more contradictory to your assertion 3. Ans I grant that the testimony of the Church is an external motive to belief as is also consent of people conformitie of the things believed to natural light accomplishment of Prophecies Miracles Gods Judgments against the Enemies of Truth c. The testimonie of the woman of Samaria was an external motive to the Samaritanes belief not the formal cause of it so the preaching of Godly Ministers is a means whereby men are brought to believe yet you will not conclude that Faith is built on them and they infallible It is the Church by which as a means not for which as the formal ground we do believe Your fifth Argument is taken from the Churches composure and nature 5. Arg. p. 18. 16. in these words Look on the Churches composure and nature and her strength will appear yet more by reason she is framed and made up of men Gen. 22. dispersed and spread over the world Act. 1. who
capacity of our condition is not sufficient to denominate or render the subject it is in perfect or an exact keeper of the Law of God If a debter owe twenty pound and hath but five pound which he pays to his Creditor doth the payment of this five pound which is as much as the present capacity of his condition reacheth to denominate and render him a perfect payer of his debt I trow not and pray Sir shew the difference betwixt this and your assertion CHAP. VI. Of Religion 1. YOu assert that Religion consists in belief not humane grounded upon reason but relying on the Churches authority and the assistance of the Holy Ghost Religio est virtus perquam homines Deo debitum cultum reverentiam exhibent Aquin. 22. q. 81. 1. c. religio est quae cultum honorem Deo tribuit Azor instit mor. p. 1. l. 3. c. 26. l. 9. c. 5. p. 23. Answ 1. The proper act of Religion is to worship and bring honour to God with relation to whom only Religion is defined by your Schoolmen and others This worship is due to God only and is that whereby we give up our selves unto God as the supream Lord of all and do place our hope and that in him as Azorius defines it According to this faith is a part of divine worship an act of Religion but relating to God the supream Lord of all not to the Church which is only a servant under him or if you will an assembly of his servants and indeed its reason that faith should refer to God it being the principal act by which a creature honours God and therefore is more pressed then any other Evangelical duty and besides its requisite it have a settled object to rest upon which is Gods authority for the Churches is not always visible Abraham beleeved but his faith relied not upon the Churches authority The Blessed Virgins faith could not rest upon any authority of the Church especially at Christs death when your men affirm that the Church was in her only but even then the Word of God the material object of faith had a visible existence and the fidelity of God faiths formal object was present with her to lean upon The Scriptures you urge to prove that faith relies on the Churches authority viz. Mark 16. John 14. make nothing for you the later speaks only of the Disciples instruction by the Spirit of God The former proves that we must beleeve the Gospel the material object of faith but saith not a word of the Church it saith not he that relies upon the Churches authority shall be saved Whosoever beleeves the Gospel whether he receive it from the Church or not shall be saved I challenge you or any that dotes on the word Church to give me any Scriptures that teacheth to beleeve in or on the Church and think you not the Apostles knew how to speak as well as you 2. I have already shewed that the Churches authority is but humane in the judgment of learned Papists and that the Spirits assistance makes her not infallible nor a guide or rule of belief Your self do in effect confesse at least of the present Church For you say pag. 16. To be the guide of belief requires further ability and skill to lay open immediately to belief Gods reveled truth a prerogative belongs to the Church and no other as to whom alone revelation was made Now this ability is not in the Church she laies not open immediately Gods reveiled truth whether hereby you mean that the Church speaks to the heart the seat of faith or that she doth it not by means of the Scriptures the Church lays open divine truths by the means of Scripture Besides the Church is not the subject of revelation which you say is the foundation of this prerogative Your Logical proceeding in councels shew your want of reuelation Your consciousness hereof makes you say revelation WAS made it was but is not so now 3. Your inference hereupon is 1. Thus The Religion of sectaries is vain their b lief being grounded on some humane respect not upon the warrantable authority of the Church ibid. Answ There may be belelief gounded neither on the authority of the Church nor on humane respects Consult Azorius and he will tell you that there are Cathâ—liques who ground not their faith on the authority of the Church and yet ground it not upon humane respects The Word of God revealed unto us by the light of faith wrought in the soul by the spirit is no humane respect and this Orthodox Christians build their belief upon 2. Inference For them to deserve the name of true Christians and to be stiled of the right Religion their only way is to level at perfection that takes its rise from an absolute resignation of their wills to the will of God in order to the Church which is to become spiritually little ones Matth. 18. Answ 1. Where do you learn that this grounding our belief upon the authority of the Church is the way yea the only the way to be true Christians and of the right Religion Are not those Papists who differ from you in this point and such there are as I have shewed true Christians and of the right Religion I am sure they are Papists for the main and therefore cannot be of a wrong Religion if popery be the right 2. Who told you that that Text of Matthew was to be so expounded I have seen divers expositions of the fathers on this Text different from yours but I find not one that from it doth teach us to ground our faith on the Church as the only way to true Christianity and the right Religion 3. It s a good lesson to teach us to submit our wills to the Will of God but it doth not appear that we should ground our faith upon the Churches authority the Scriptures are altogether ignorant and destitute of expressions of such a duty CHAP. VII Of the unity of Religion JN the beginning of this Chapter you assert that True Religion is One but presently fal upon the unity of persons in this one Religion and to the means whereby they come to be united which means you propound in these words viz. Experience shews that this unity of Religion is an effect of acknowledging the Church for the rule of belief it being visible to the eye that all that square their belief to the Church are one in religion whereas they that take to themselves other rules discent and jarre c. p. 28. Asw 1. Whether those who acknowledg the Church for the rule of belief be so one in Religion as that they neither dissent nor jarre I refer it to any mans judgment who hath but ordinary insight into the writers of Popish controversies I wonder whose experience it is that finds it Or what Alseeing eye it is that discerns All acknowledgers of the Churches authority to be one in Religion Have you seen
rule of faith as such cannot be considered but as to us it being a relative tearm cannot be considered without relation to beleevers who are its correlative you might as well tell of a father considered in himself or in respect of his Child A father abstract from relation to his child is no father no more is the Word of God abstract from its respect to beleeve in a rule of Faith 2. You are extream quick and witty in distingishing betwixt Gods truth revealed and the same truth expressed I wonder what 's the difference doth not God when he reveales his truth expresse it to us revelation is nothing else but the expressing of some thing formerly unknown Spiritists say Gods truth revealed or expressed to us in Scripture is the rule of Faith and manners to beleevers 2. You say Their difference is about the exprâ—ssion These Spiritists holding that it is that of their private Spirit joyned to to that of Scipture only those Catholiques that it is that of the Châ—rch Scripture bearing witness to her truth Answ 1. If Spiritists for I use your own word and you agree about the rule of Faith both in it self and in respect of us that it is Gods revealed truth and the same truth expressed to us Why then do you entitle your Chapter The Spiritists rule of Faith as if we had one rule of Faith and you another whereas you assert that the difference is not about the rule but the expression of it You explain the difference thus Spiritists hold that the rule of Faith is Gods revealâ—d truth expressed to them by their private Spirit joyned to the expression of Scripture only Catholiques teach that it is God revealed truth expressed by the Church Scripture bearing wirness to her truth Ans 1. For your opinion I say 1. What mean you by Gods revealed truth I perceive you understand not the Word of God revealed by the Prophets and Apostles in Scripture for you seem to blame us for our expression of Scripture only and accordingly oppose the Scriptures sufficiency in your next section 2. How comes it that the Spirit of God hath no place with you in expressing the truth of God Must your Diana shoulder out the Scripture and the Spirit too The Spirit is much beholding to you for your opinion Are you not Antispiritists in this your doctrine and clearly destitute of the favourable effects of the Spirit of God 3. Hath the Scripture no use or imployment with you but to come in and bear witness that the Church is true Doth it not witness for Gods truth as much as for your Churches truth Is it not the testimony of the Lord Jesus But as the thing Church is the Pillar of Truth so the word Church is the very Pillar and Prop of Popish Errors and therefore you use it usque ad nauseam 4. Are not you like a turning mill-horse or like the wicked in the Psalms Impii nmbulant in circuitu You say the Scripture is the Rule of Faith at least partial as the Church expresseth that is expoundeth it and if you be asked how you know the Church expounds it right you answer by the Scripture which bears witnesse to the Churches truth The Scriptures bear witness to the Churches truth and the Church bears witness to the Scriptures truth But your tenet is so clear with you though most grosse and wicked that you add no confirmation of it but what ariseth from the opposition of ours as you have delivered it Therefore 2. I come to defend ours against you but first I will lay it down in other tearms 't is this we say that the rule of divine belief is the Word of God contained only in Scripture the means whereby we understand it is principaly the Spir t of God which enlightens our minds and eâ—abâ—es us by the use of those means God hath appointed us to use amongst wh ch we number the consent of learned men in former and in the present age for the findiâ—g out of the Scriptures meaâ—ing Now if this be tâ—e private Spirit you speak of we acknowledg it and own it and account what you say against it to be sinfull and foolish as will presently appear Against us 1. You affirm that this Spirit is false and spurious Answ 1. Is the Spirit of God in private persons false and spurious Or have they not this Spirit Take heed of blasphemy for you are at the brink of it The Spirit is promised to private Christians as well as to others and doth testifie as truly though not always so manifestly and fully in them as in publique persons convened in Council I could quote many particular Doctors of your Church preferring their own expositions of Scripture before the expositions of the Church and Fathers but for brevity to refer to Dr. Mortons learned Apeal lib. 9. c. 29. I will only say one thing for your self that in your expositions of Scripture so much as it is especially in your reading of it you follow neither Church nor Father nor honest Christian witness the Scriptures you bring for your impudent assertion 1. text 2. Pet. 1. No interpretation of Scripture by private Spirit Excellently read you have found private Spirit in expresse words yet let me tell you had you been put to read this Text instead of a Miserere mei before a Judg of Assise your reading would hardly have saved you from hanging 2. Text Math. 18.17 To belâ—eve the Churcâ— Admiâ—able Heâ—e is faith iâ— the Church in express tearms which none ever saw before 3. Text 2 Cor. 10. Where say you St. Paul wisheth to captivate the understanding to the obedience of faith Yet more falshood The Rhemists as well as we and all men that are in their right wit and have any thing of ingenuity read it to the Obedience of Christ I wonder you read it not to the obedi-of the Church And thus you would prove both faith and obedience due to the Church which in time might have procured you a Cardinalship 4. Text Luke 16. None can serve two Masters This reading is tolerable I will briefly now answer these Texts 1. To the first I say the words are these knowing this first that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interprâ—tation and they are spoken of the penmen of Scripture not of private Interpreters who did not use their own wills and counsels vers 21. but were inspired by the Holy Ghost The Rhemists reading shews that it belongs to the Prophets Vnderstanding this first that no prophesie of Scripture is Made by private interpretati n It 's spoken of the Composure not of the Exposition of Scripture 2. Your second Text I have formerly answered 3. Your third Text Chrysostom understands of bringing men from the estate of death and destruction into the estate of life and Salvation subjecting them to Christ Your gloss by All understanding conceives is meant all proud conceited persons who are made subject to the faith of
both to pray with him and to anoint him which is far from the ceremony of extream unction thus far Cajetan 3. Saint James's unction is no Sacrament it neither pretends to the name of Sacrament nor refers to any express institution of Jesus Christ which is the property of Evangelicall Sacraments but Popish unction assumeth to it self this name and that in a proper acception against both Scripture and antiquitie Scripture mentioning onely Christs institution of Baptisme and the Supper and antiquity when it speaks of proper Sacraments doing no more Rabanus Maurus who lived about 800 years ago acknowledgeth no more but Baptisme and the Lords Supper Hence I conclude that Protestants though opposite to Popish fopperies are not contrary to Apostolicall Doctrine 11. Inst The Bishop of Romes supremacie in spirituall matters Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my Church Feed my sheep To thee will I give the keyes of the kingdome of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven whatsoever thou shalt tie on earth shall be tied in Heaven Matth. 16. Answ 1. Why do you seperate the Popes Spirituall from his Temporall power for we deny both and they are alike expressed in Scripture but 2. The Popes Supremacy in Spirituall matters is not in plain and formall tearms here expressed for 1. Here is no mention of any Pope or his Supremacy in Spirituall matters here is mention of Peter but few of your Popes have had that name 2. What is commanded and promised to Peter is commanded and promised to him not as Bishop of Rome but as an Apostle and therefore the same is commanded and promised to other Apostles The other Apostles are foundations as well as Peter and I am sure he is not the corner stone The keyes are promised to them as well as to him John 20.22 23. the other Apostles are to feed Christs sheep as well as he yea it is the duty of all Pastors Act. 20.28 3. What reason can be given why Peters supremacy should descend upon his Successors at Rome rather then his successors at Antioch 4. If Peter had any supremacy it was in regard of Apostleship so as to be the prime Apostle and have power over the rest but Apostolike power is not derived by succession upon any The truth is Peter had no power over the rest from Christ for Christs gift of such a power would have prevented the Apostles contention about supremacy or would have answered the question better then those words wherewith Christ did answer He might easily have said why do you strive which should be greatest know you not that I have made Peter your Prince and have made him Supreme but Christ thought of no such matter Thus I have shewed that Protestants do not professe a Doctrine contrary to the Apostles and I further adde that the Apostles doctrine expressed in Scripture is fully received by them We believe all that the Apostles have taught so far as God reveals their Doctrine to us It s therefore a most false slander to say that Protestants refuse some points the Apostles beleeved p. 65. We hold the Catholique faith entire and inviolate in Athanasius's sence we fully believe all the Articles of its Creed It s true we deny divers points that Papists believe we dislike the new articles of your late Creed which Athanasius as well as we received not into his Creed nor were they believed by the Apostles But you object sect 5. It is evident they were there being the same ground to assure us thereof as of Scripture or any other point they believed and that without which under a miracle there would not be the least knowledg of the Apostles belief to wit the Churches constant tradition Answ 1. It s most evident that the points Protestants deny were not believed by the Apostles For 1. The Scriptures mention them not the writings of the Apostles approve not of communion in one kind private masse prayer in an unknown tongue imagined worship auricular confession pardons indulgences restraint of people from reading Scripture or Clergy-men from marriage Popes infallibility sumpreamacy of temporal and spiritual power purgatory prayer for the dead or to Saints departed c. 2. The ancient Creeds do not mention any of these points which they would certainly have done if the Apostles had beleeved them much lesse do they make them necessary articles of faith See Caranz de concil conc Nic. p. 51. Syrm. p. 89. Constant p. 102. Tollet p. 131. Ephes p. 151. Calced p. 181. Read the Creeds of the Apostles of the Nicen Fathers of Syrmium Constantinople Tolet. Ephesus which Caranza calls a summe of all Christian Doctrine of the Romans with divers others and you shall not find one of your new articles so much as hinted in any of them 2. The proof of your evident assertion contains divers falsities as 1. That the Scripture is known only by Tradition or humane testimony whereas it gives testimony to it self as I have before shewed 2. That without the Churches constant tradition there would not be the least knowledg of the Apostles belief For 1. God can make the enemies of his Church the publishers and propagators of his truth Thus Cajetan notes that by the Apostacy and obstinacy of the Jews we know which are the true books of the old Testament 2. The Scriptures might be preserved though there should be a general apostacy and these could testifie of the Apostles belief 2 Reg. 22.8 as that book found in the days of Josiah testified of Moses's commands and threatnings 3. Christians for a long time had not the Churches Tradition i. e. the testimony of a general Councill informing them what was the Apostles belief or which were the books of Scripture 3. Those points of yours I mentioned cannot be evidenced to be the Apostles belief by the Churches constant tradition you cannot name one Author in every age since the Apostles out of whose writings you can prove that the Apostles maintained those Doctrines which we reject much lesse are you able to tell us of any visible Church or national Councill that will affirm it Concil Const Sess 13. The Councill of Constance acknowledgeth that Christ administred the Sacrament under both kinds and that the Primitive Christians did receive it under both kinds Can we then think that the Apostles thought communion under both kinds unlawfull How then durst he so administer it Was his practise contrary to his belief This would be a great wickedness not to be imagined of an Apostle 4. We approve of the Churches tradition as a witness of what the Apostles believed but only in subserviency to Scripture which doth principally discover what was the Apostles belief if your Councills had told us that the Apostles administred not the Sacrament in both kinds or that they allowed of prayers in an unknown tongue we would not beleeve your Councills because the Scripture speaks contrary to them and
please God as if all the Saints of God who were married cannot please God or that of Harding that by Peters Sword is meant the Popes Civil Power or that of the Lawyers that by Cardines terrae 1 Sam. 2.8 are figured the Cardinals by whose Counsel the Church of Rome is governed See Willets third Pillar of Popish Doctrine yea and such as are grounded upon base and exorbitant passion as where they reject the Expositions of Fathers meerly in opposition to Protestants See Maldon in Joan. 9.62 and Bellarm. l. 1. de extr Vnct. c. 2. init both which reject a generally received Exposition because the Protestants entertain it 4. The Scripture it self rightly used and judged gives sufficient information of it's owne meaning especially in fundamental points which are plain and easie to him who useth discretion in searching of it If it were not thus to what purpose did holy Writers set Pen to Paper Yea and write not only to Bishops and Pastors but to private Christians also It were a vain thing to write so as that those they wrote to could understand nothing of their meaning besides it 's more then probable that the Apostles Preaching was of the same obscurity with their writing To this you give us this answer The Apostles did set Pen to Paper for a greater confirmation of the truth to bear witness to the sincerity and candor of the Churches teaching and preaching and not for every one to be his own carver and interpreter Repl. 1. Your answer is more for than against us for who are they that must have the truth confirmed to them and must have a witness to assure them that the Teaching and Preaching of the Church is sincere and candid are they not the People who are commanded to try the Spirits 1 Joh. 4.1 and are commended for searching the Scriptures to find whether what the Apostles Preached was the truth Act. 17.11.12 How can the Scriptures witness to them that the Pastors of the Church teach truth if they cannot understand the Witnesses language or what confirmation can we have of truth if we must not meddle with that which is the Rule and Touchstone of Truth The Apostle Peter commends Christians for giving heed to the Scriptures 2 Ep. 1.19 calling them a light shining in a dark place whereby he demonstrates their clearness and conspicuity even to private Christians giving heed thereto 2. Your words make much against your selves for they imply 1. That the truth is more confirmed by Scripture than by the Church therefore the Church as to confirmation of truth is inferiour to Scripture 2. That the Teaching and Preaching of the Church is not to be believed upon that account but because of it's consent with Scripture it receives its evidence of sincerity and candor from Scripture both which are certain truths but not agreeable to your Positions 3. That the Scriptures are to be translated into those Tongues People can understand else they cannot be assured of the truth by them nor can the Scriptures be a witness to them of the sincerity and candor of the Churches teaching and preaching Can an idiot know by Aristotles Greek works whether Expositors deal sincerely and candidly in their commenting on him or at his works a greater confirmation of Philosophicall truths to such a one than their Commentaries If you have any ingenuity you cannot affirm it 4. That the Scriptures are the rule of Faith whereby even the Churches teaching is to be tried 5. Whereas you say the Apostles did not set pen to paper For every one to be his own Carver and interpreter reply 1. The Apostles did therefore write that every one might hear Rev. 2.7.17.29 and give heed thereto 2 Pet. 1.19 and understand and beleeve John 20.31 yea and might teach them their children 2 Tim. 3.15 wtih 1.5 and others related to them Acts 18.24.26 Aquila and Priscilla instruct Apoâ—â—os in the way of the Lord which was done by interpreting Scripture to him concerning those points wherewith he was not well acquainted and yet Burgensis saith of them that they were simple persons persons of no great learning nor eminency in the Church excepting for piety 2 'T is true that the Apostles did not write with an intent that every one should wrest it as the Apostle saith some did 2 Pet. 3.16 which may be applied as well to Clergy men as private Christians but they intended an application of it to Christians particular use and that even by themselves privately and not onely publikely But you urge for this you have said It was ever held an effect of great improvidence and occasion of intollerable confusion for the people in any Common-wealth to have the freedom of construing the Law therefore wise Lawmakers to shew their care and foresight for the good and weal-publick as they caused their Laws to be written so they appointed certain select persons of integritie and abilitie to dispence the same If this be true as it is c. Resp. 1. It s most false that you say It was ever held c. Tholosanus tells you that Advocates are of little use in Poland Tholos syntag juris L. 49. c. 6. Sect. 29 Azor. inst Moral part 3. l. 13. cap. 29. dub 2. but every man is admitted to plead his own cause Himself and other Casuists when they tell who is prohibited from being Advocate do not exclude private men from pleading their own cause See Tholos and Ararius who are so far from holding it an effect of great improvidence c. that they allow it You finde the Apostle Paul pleading for himself Acts 24.12 13 18 19. and 25. and 10 11. in both which places the Apostle pleads for himself and that by Law which he interprets for himself Now he would never have done this had he thought it an effect of great improvidence or an occasion of intollerable confusion as you suggest it Advocates do not substantially but accidentally intervene in publick judicatories as Zorius speaks Sup. cap. 12. init Now that which onely accidentally intervenes may sometimes not intervene 2. The reason you give of Law-makers appointing certain select persons of integrity and ability to dispence the Laws it s an occasion of intellerable confusion c. Is not the proper reason of that appointment but rather the true and main reason is this All men are not able to understand the meaning and sence of Law though some may be able now a good Law maker doth consult the welfare of the meanest subject If some men should handle their own cause they would indanger it through their unskilfulness of Law and the subtilty of the adversaries So that the danger is not so much confusion and disorder as the prejudice of civil and particular rights every man not being able to deal with every adversary nor to understand every case in Law 3. All that you say makes onely against a publick pleading in Courts of Judicature which doth not take away private mens
liberty of interpretation absolutely but as to such times and places and there is none of us pleads for private mens interpretation of Scripture publickly 4. You confound construction of Law by right reason and by corrupt affection this latter no man that hath right reason can plead for in the behalf of any people for indeed that would bring confusion but the former cannot be denyed to any for the Law is founded upon right reason and so far as this takes place the expounding of the Law cannot be prejudicial to any Commonwealth though it be done by private persons 2. You infer If this be true as it is what an undervaluing must it be of Gods wisdome and providence to think in a Commonwealth of his own immediate establishing as the Church is he hath left indifferently to all a liberty to make what sence they will of his Law Answ 1. We allow not that the sence men give of Scripture should be after their own lusts or wills If any man give a sence contrary to the mind of God it deserves to be rejected God hath not left to any one man much lesse indifferently to all a liberty to make what sence he will of Gods Law The Pope can no more claim that liberty than the meanest Laick and therefore you either play the fool or worse to disprove a liberty which no Protestant in the World pleads for 2. Yet I say God hath not left any of his children without means in the use whereof they may attain to know what is the Will of God in his Word Rom. 12.2 Indeed God hath set certain select persons of integrity and ability to dispence his Law but this is not opposite to private study and meditation in Gods Law the very principal charecter of a blessed man Psal 1. and 119. and is not study and meditation in Gods Law in order to the interpretation of it The Saints of God have earnestly studied Gods Law Yet this was never thought to tend to bring the peace and safety of the Church into danger of shipwrack nor to be the source of jars and garboils of Seperatists as you wickedly suggest Misapplying and wresting of Scripture may have those effects you speak of but what is this to the reading and right interpretation of it Your reason for this your unsavory speech is say you clear because all men are not apt to understand alike for being for the most part of different tempers and composures they have various fancies which of necessity will beget a diversity of understanding Answ 1. You are Aesops man qui ex uno ore calidum promis frigidum in your fourth Chapter you proved the Churches infallibility by this argument viz. that it was framed up of men of several Nations different tempers and interests therefore neither could nor can meet or conspire to cheat themselves and posterity with a lye p. 15 16. But here the same argument proves the Churches fallibility the fruit of diversity of understanding 2. I say If Christians were considerable only as men of different tempers and composures as you represent them and that their different tempers and composures were the directive causes of understanding I beleeve what you say of seperatists would be true of all Christians yea of all men in the World and there would be nothing but jars and garboils in every place Yea it may as truly be said of your great Rabbies the only interpreters of Scripture for are not they of different tempers and composures and so according to your doctrine have various fancies which of necessity must beget a diversity of understanding If you answer that these have the Spirit of God to guid them in understanding I reply so have all true Christians as I have already proved I deny not but there is corruption in the best and darknesse in their understandings they but see through a glasse and that darkly and therefore may mistake a wrong exposition sometimes for a true one and thus it is not only with Luther Zuinglius Calvin whose names will survive Romes obloquy and reproach of them but with your own Doctors whose expositions are not always the same But we must believe if we will that only schismatical Protestants such as Luther Zuinglius Calvin have different understandings and expositions of Scripture for say you they made no lesse then three contrary and repugnant senses of those plain words this is my body this is my blood p. 70. Answ 1. You tell us not what these three contrary and repugnant sences are and I am perswaded they may easily be reduced to two for though Luther and Zuinglius differed about the sence of the words yet I find not that Calvin and Zuinglius did and I rather think they did not for the opinion that some appropriate to Zuinglius Bellarmine chargeth upon Calvin in these words Bellarmine saith the opinion of Calvin reverâ nihil differt a sententia Zuinglii de Ludib lib. 1. c. 1. Haeresis erat c. It was the Heresie of some that the Eucharist was onely a figure of Christs body this Heresie doth Calvin teach 2. If the words be so plain how comes it that Papists do so much differ in their Expositions of them every word almost brings variety of Popish sences If we were to learn what the Pronoun This the very first of those pain words means we might go unsatisfied away for any resolution we should have from you One tells us it signifies Nothing another The Bread presently to be transubstantiate A third an individuum vagum contained under the forms of Bread A fourth the Body of Christ And now Sir I dare be bold to say that there is less agreement amongst Popish Expositors who yet profess to follow the Church in all their Expositions then amongst Luther Zuinglius and Calvin There being but three rather two Expositions of these words given by Protestants whereas there is at least four amongst Papists of one of the words For conclusion you bring us in objecting for our selves thus Those selected Persons intrusted with the administring and dispensing of the Lawes utter by mouth what they understand and they understand no more then what their private reading and reasoning are able to inform them so that even this way men would be to seek To this you answer 1. Judges have not onely their reading and reasoning to inform and direct them but likewise the practice of former Courts from the very promulgation of the Law at which time the sence and meaning of the same was declared by the Law-makers themselves Reply 1. You unlearnedly distinguish betwixt their reading and their knowledge of the practice of former Courts as if the practice of former Courts were not known by reading whereas you cannot mention any other means thereof unless you can make out a constant unwritten Tradition from the Lawmakers themselves which hath been propogated from one to another and the particular cases of former Courts have been so various
and so many that they require strong memories to retain them 2. Law-makers are not able to comprehend all particular cases that may happen nor do they use to declare the meaning of the Law unless occasionally in some doubtfull cases for it is supposed that the Law when delivered is clear and manifest at least in the substantials of it 3. Judges do not alwayes look so far as to the Law-makers but to the practice of former Courts grounded upon right reason which is indeed the foundation of all just and good Lawes 2. You answer with respect to the Church The Church besides the Letter of Scripture which she reads assiduously with watching fasting and prayer for a right and happie understanding thereof and her own reasoning hath the help of a better and sure tradition and the assistance of the Holy Ghost Reply 1. What you mean by the Church here is hard to guess I fear your commendations will not well agree to Popes and the rest of your Ecclesiasticall Grandees their other imployments are so great and their affection to Scripture in comparison of humane Traditions so little and their devotedness to the Expositions of others so absolute that I cannot believe that they read Scripture assiduously with watching fasting Prayer and for your common people they must not take that pains about Scripture if they would so that you must either give us another definition of Church then you do page 73. or acknowledge that the Church doth not reade the Letter of Scripture assiduously with watching c. 2. What ever you speak of the Church may be as truely spoken of particular Christians they are capable of reading the Scriptures with the use of fasting watching Prayer they have reason whereby they can discern truth from errour they are also capable of using that which you call a better and surer Tradition and the assistance of the Spirit is as truely with them as with those you call Church And therefore I shall conclude with you leaving what I have said to the impartiall Reader desiring him to judge by it whether private Christians being rationall men yea men indued with Gods Spirit and thereby capable of understanding the Will of God in the Scriptures may not according to the ability given them and in their places seek for and deliver the sence of Scripture and whether this be any undervaluing of Gods Wisedome and Providence or do directly tend to absurd and extravagant impieties CHAP. XI Of the Roman Church BY the word ROMAN say you are not only comprised the inhabitants of that particular territory of Rome but likewise all Christians in the World that acknowledg the Bishop of Rome for their chief Pastor appointed by Christ to govern his flock Answ 1. It may well be doubted what acknowledgment you mean whether an acknowledgment de facto or de jure only If you mean by Roman Church are only comprised those who do actually acknowledg the Bishop of Rome for their chief Pastor you overthrow its universality It is not then Catholique for only a part of the West makes this acknowledgment The Eastern Church wholly and a great part of the Western do disclaim his supremacy and worship not the image of the beast nor receive his name in their foreheads Yea if you consult antiquity you shall find that there never was an actual acknowledgment of the Pope as chief Pastor by all Christian Churches There were other Patriarchs besides him who had their several distinct limits Azor. inst mor. p. 2. l. 3. c. 35. q. 5. viz. the Patriarchs of Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem Some of whose limits were no lesse then the Roman Patriarchs and whose power did extend to the constituting ordaining and confirming Bishops Archbishops and other Ecclesiastical officers as your Azorius testifies yea so independent was the power of each of them upon other that none of them was to meddle in anothers Patriarchat as its proved out of the Councill of Constantinople Can 2. by the learned Scultetus who also clearly explains the sixt Canon of the Councill of Nice to this purpose Scult Synlag medul Theol. Patr. p. 418. and answers the objections that Papists make against it All that Azorius gives to the Pope is this Inter Patriarchas c. Amongst the Patriarchs the Pope of Rome was chief to whom as Patriarch the Western Provinces and many Ilands in the mediterranian sea towards the West were subject Here is priority of Order but no supreamacy of power over the other Patriarches the Bishop of Rome had power over all the Cities and places about Rome as the Nicen Creed hath it but not over his fellow Patriarchs or their Cities c. His power was provincial not oecumenicall 2. If you mean that by Roman are comprised those who ought to acknowledg the Pope for their chief Pastor it will remain to be resolved who those are whether some particular part of the Christian World or the whole The former you cannot grant but overthrow universality and set Roman against Catholique which you are use to conjoyn in their predication of the Church The later we cannot admit till you can effect an impossibility in proving that in the language of the Ancients the Catholique Church was couched under the word Roman It is evident that a particular Church is sometimes by the Ancients dignified with a general and common attribute and are called Catholique Churches but I never read that the universal Church is couched under a particular appellation as a proper predicate thereof I say A proper predicate For I acknowledg that the Church in Scripture is called Sion and Jerusalem but these are only figurative expressions of it it is never called the Church of Sion or the Church of Jerusalem though it might rather be called so then the Church of Rome or the Roman Church the Scripture never takes notice of Rome when it speaks of the Catholique Church except as an enemy 2. Notwithstanding I shall suppose that you mean of them that actually submit to the Pope and thus you distinguish the Roman Church from all schismatical companies of Christians whether Protestants or others This company say you together with the said Bishop compose and make up the true Catholique Church Answer 1. The truth of this will appear by your arguments which you bring for the proof of it The arguments are these which I shall consider of in the order I finde them propounded 1. Argument That company of Christians compose and make up the true Catholique Church to which the definition of the true Catholique Church doth agree but the definition of the true Catholique Church doth agree to the above mentioned company therefore they compose and make up the true Catholique Church p. 72. 73. Answ If you speak of an exact and perfect definition wherein the definition is adequate to the thing defined agreeing fully to it and not to any thing else I subscribe to your major proposition but deny
he will gather strength by observing that the above named Luther Zuinglius Calvin c. But few days or months before their opposition held as the rest of Christians did in alâ— points with the said Company and that neither they nor any of them have left to posterity the least mention of any number of men in being before their opposition with whom to joyn and side to make good the same c. Ans 1. How this strengthens your proof I see not Should the Jews have objected against our Saviours and the Apostles Converts that their Jewish Doctrine was generally received and preached yea and that these Converts as Paul c. but a few days or months before their opposition held as other Jews did Would this think you make for them that they were the true Church The Gentiles the greatest part of the World profest against Christ and his truth and those who were called out of them to receive the truth did but a little before comply with the Gentiles against Christ Must this therefore strengthen the Gentiles cause against the truth It may be your self and others who have apostalized from the true religion but a few months before your opposition held as the rest of true Orthodox Christians did yet this will not even in your conceit advance your cause 2. It s questionable whether Luther Zuinglius and Calvin did hold with you in all points and that but a few days or months before their publique opposition of you The Speech of Alphonsus à Castro seems to import the contrary when he tells us that a great company seemed to wait for Luther and joyned with him as soon as he appeared I cannot think but that Luther was against the sale of indulgencies longer then a few weeks or months before his opposition 3. It s a gross lye that there is not left the least mention of any number of men in being before their opposition with whom to joyn and side I have fully shewed the contrary to this and therefore remitting the Reader to what I have formerly said I come to his next Argument Arg. 3. That Company composeth and maketh up the Catholick Church which is acknowledged even by their adversaries to be Apostolical but the above mentioned Company is acknowledged even by their adversaries to be Apostolical therefore that Company composeth and maketh up the Catholick Church The first Proposition say you is evident forasmuch as Apostolical in a right and genuine sence signifieth to believe as the Apostles believed which is to be Catholick Arg. 1. It seems now that profession of Apostolical Doctrine is a convincing argument to prove a Company to be the Catholick Church But Sir why did you not approve of this argument when we brought it for the Protestant Church Or how could you without blushing tell us That true Doctrine which is none other then Apostolical doctrin they being reciprocal is no mark of a true Church it being often found among Schismaticks who for want of Communion cannot make a true Church pag. 60. If Protestants can prove they believe those doctrines the Apostles believed will you acknowledge them the true Apostolical and Catholick Church We desire no more but that leaving humane constitutions and traditions you would examine our Doctrines by Scripture the true Epitome of Apostolical Doctrines and if we consent not hereunto proclaim us Hereticks 2. Your Explication of the word Apostolical is good and it evidently shews that Personal Succession is inferiour to Doctrinal in denominating a Church Apostolical and Catholick and that the Protestants supposed want of Personal uninterrupted Succession is no hinderance to their being the Catholick Church All which doth extreamly weaken your former doctrines 3. I deny your Minor Proposition and come to examine your proof of it You say It appears no less clear in several Protestant Writers who expresly account that the Apostles first planted the Christian Faith in England that the same was retained by Bishops and Pastors from the first Plantati n to S. Austine that in substance it differed not from that which S. Austine brought in that S. Austine was sent by Gregory the Great Bishop of Rome to convert the Saxons in England to the Roman Faith that the Roman Church in Gregory tâ—e Greats time was the same it is at this present c. All which you reduce to this Syllogism S. Austins Church and Doctrine were Apostolical S. Austins Church Doctrine were the same with the now Roman therefore the Roman Church and Doctrine are Apostolical I answer 1. By S. Austins Church I suppose you mean the Roman Church in S. Austins time as when you say The Roman Church in Gregory the Great 's â—ime was the same it is at this present Hereupon I particularly answer Gregory 1. To your Major That the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the time of Austin and Gregory was the same with the Doctrine of the Apostles 1. The Apostle tells us That even in his time the mystery of iniquity did begin to work and succeeding Ages discover its progress Most Ages did contribute some materials towards Rome's Temple though the nearer to the Apostles were more opposite and so more sparing in their contributions to it Hence it was that in the first five hundred years there is little to be found tending to Popery and that which is is rather in notions and terms then propositions as in most ancient Fathers we read the words Altar Sacrifice Merit c. yet it will never be proved that they used them for that which Papists now will have theÌ„ to signifie In the next age there was a greater decay of purity than before ignorance did much aboudd superstitioÌ„ attendant on it In this age did Gregory Austin live the former being sirnamed Rainold praelect de lib. Ap c. tom 1. prael 39. p. 365 Sixt. Senen bill Stae l. 5. Au. 137 F. Hier. Porter in the life of S. Gregory p. 266. Chronic. Carion lib. 4. p. 552 The Great indeed he was great as learned Rainolds observeâ— in comparison of those who succeeded him some of them who were before him yet was he short of apostolical purity being guilty of superstition and errour in divers points as the adjudging of children unbaptized to the torments of Hell extending Gods promise of Salvation even to Reprobates making Gods decree mutable and praying for such as are already damned as in the Case of Trojan Carion in his Chronicles attributes to him divers errours as Invocation of Saints and dedication of Temples to them a wrong perswasion of Monkish profession Works of Supererrogation Satisfactions Vows Virginity an opinion of sacrificing Christs body and blood for the dead whereunto he was moved by the report of Apparitions And besides all these he is noted as superstitious in imposition of Ceremonies and those some of them Jewish which are not fit to be imposed on the Church of Christ And as Gregory was guilty so
endeavour to answer them for the present I understand not what they should prove and therefore dismiss them without any answer In your third Section you go about to prove the Churches infallibility as a qualification of her for the delivery of a Rule of Faith and you urge divers Arguments which I now come to examine and answer Arg. 1. God hath endowed her with inerrability whereby to convey the truth safely and without danger of miscarrying by arming her proof against all the enemies of truth against ignorance error darkness weakness For this you urge divers Texts In these words though they seem an intention of but one argument yet there are these two viz. 1. If the Church cannot convey truth safely and without danger of miscarrying but by the gift of inerrability then Christ hath endowed her with it But she cannot convey truth safely and without danger of miscarrying but by the gift of inerrability Ergo c. 2. If Christ hath armed his Church against the enemies of truth viz. ignorance darkness error and weakness then hath he endowed her with inerrability but he hath so armed her Ergo c. To these in order Ans First to the first I answer 1. By denying the consequence of the major Proposition the reason of my denial is this Christ hath not made the Church the principal much less the only means of conveying truth safely Though yoor Pope Cardinals Jesuites Priests yea General Councils should err yet there remains a safe way of conveying truth without miscarrying that is the Scriptures 2 Pet. 1.19 Beda paraphrasing upon those words In a dark place Beda apud Lyran. hath this note In hujus saeculi nocte c. In the night of this world full of temptations vices and errors where there is hardly one to be found without error against which this light is necessary So that you see the Scriptures convey the truth safely against temptations vices errors in the judgment of this venerable Author It may be you will object that infallibility is necessary for the Church that she may safely convey these Scriptures wherein the truth is But I deny this to be true For 1. It cannot be denied but God did make use of the Jewes to preserve the Scriptures Rom. 3.2 yet by the leaven of their Doctors the Pharisees the Commandments of God were transgressed Matth. 23.5 Yea it evidenceth their errability that they mistook the sense of the Law and when Christ came Mariana tract pro edit vulgát cap. 7. p. 50. that they did generally oppose and resist him and yet I believe the Scriptures yea I had almost said the very iota's and titles of them were preserved from miscarrying Your Authors confess of the Hebrew text that there is no substantial error in it 2. The Law was by Gods providence kept safely a great while in the House of the Lord unknown to any till Hilkiah the High-Priest found it in the daies of Josiah 2 King 22.8 Now you will not ascribe infallibility to the House of the Lord. 3. You acknowledg not the Greek Church to be a true Church yet the Scriptures have been safely preserved by them whilest the error of the Chiliasts and of those who laid a necessity on Infants to receive the Eucharist remained in the Church which was for some 100. of years yet then the Scriptures were preserved from miscarrying The truth is Gods Providence is chiefly ingaged for the preservation of these books and that concurring any means that God useth may suffice though they were Turks and Heathens that had the keeping of them 2. I answer by denying your Minor and say the Church may convey the truth without the gift of inerrability bestowed on her as well as other Churches subject to errour have done Thus we confess that your Roman Church hath preserved the ancient Creeds the Commandments and Scriptures though we deny you to be sound members of the Catholike Church We admire and adore Gods providence not your inerrability had not a Divine hand overawed you I fear the Scriptures would have fared little better then the Fathers have done whose writings you have notoriously corrupted and falsified as hath beene manifested against you by our learned Writers 2. Arg. 2. To your second Argument I answer by distinction viz. a subject and particularly the Church may be armed against ignorance darkness error and weakness either in regard of hurts blows and lesser foils or in regard of total ruine or a final overthrow or if you will these may be considered either as total or only partial It 's exemption not onely from total and ruining ignorance darkness error and weakness but from inferiour degrees hereof that can prove infallibility in the subject so exempted So then if the Church be exempted from all degrees of these evils so as they cannot at all hurt her then your Argument is good but this exemption I utterly deny Christ hath only so far armed his Church whilst Militant against these that they shall not ruine or destroy her gross ignorance and obstinate error the forerunners of ruine cannot happen to the Church but lesser degrees of these may This is confessed by your own Authors of each of these 1. Ignorance Lombard saith Lomb. l. 4. dist 18. f. Deus non semper sequitur ecclesiae judicium c. God doth not alwayes concur with the judgment of the Church which judgeth somtime by stealth and ignorance 2. Darkness Ccc. Dial. p. 1. lib. 5. cap. 28. Occam saith Circa illa c. Concerning those things that are not necessary to be believed expresly it s not necessary that the Churches judgment be alwayes certain Sure uncertaintie of judgment must arise from darkness 3. Error Thus Picus saith Fieri potest c. It may be that the Vice-head may be distempered as the natural Franc Picus Theor. 23. and as this noxious humour so that may diffuse into the body unsound opinions Stapl. Relect c. 1. q. 4. Art 5. Not. 1. Stapleton confesseth That perfect holiness in regard of Doctrine is not in all times and places because great men may not only doubt but err in some points of Doctrine and yet the true Church remain with them 4. Weakness Thus Turrecrema saith Quamvìs ecclesia Turrecr sum d. Eccles 2. c. 112. c. Although the Church be supported by divine power and authority yet inasmuch as it is a Congregation of men something through humane weakness is acted by it which is not divine Thus it 's confest that the Church is not totally exempted from these enemies But because you bring Scripture to patronize your cause let us see whether it speak for you 1. Against Ignorance you urge Mat. 13. To you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdome of heaven Ans 1. I wonder your Rhemists had nothing to say for the Churches infallibilitie from this Text all that they conclude from it is this That to the Apostles and
by this means being of several Nations Ps 11. different tempers and interests Luk. 24. neither could nor can meet or conspire to cheat themselves or posteritie with a lie Which may be reduced to this Syllogism If the Church be composed of men of several Nations different tempers and interests then it 's infallible but it is so composed c. therefore infallible A. To your minor I shall onlie say that if I were not otherwayes perswaded to believe it then by your proofs of it which are to be sought like a Needle in a Bottle of Hey I should doubt of the truth of it Sure you intended your proofs for your Romish Catholiques who you know read not Scripture But what needs all this ado this sensless urging of holy Scripture to prove that the Church is composed of men men of several Nations different tempers and interests But leaving this for your bruitish admirers to ruminate on I deny the consequence of your Major Proposition which is this That society that is framed and made up of men dispersed and spread over the world c. is infallible What Schoolboy that knows what infallibilitie is would assent to this Who knows not that Herod and Pontius Pilate the Jews and Romans men of several Nations of different tempers and interests yet conspired in resisting the Gospel and crucifying of Christ Are not the Mahometans men of several Nations yea more then true Christians possess different tempers and interests yet damnable erroneous What do you think of the 72. Interpreters Oyril Caled 3. pag 99. who were sent by Eleazer the Priest to Ptolemy to translate the Hebrew Text into Greek which they did without any discrepancie eirher in sense or words though kept asunder one from another Do you think they were infallible The Arian Church was composed of men dispersed over the world of different tempers and interests yet most dangerously erroneous Yet further when our Saviour suffered some of your Doctors say the Church was only in the blessed Virgin how would this your argument have proved the Churches infallibilitie at that time Your citation of Gen. 22. and Act. 1. and Ps 11. and Luk. 24. would have been to no purpose Once more shall not the Antichristian Church having these qualifications yet damnably err 2. Tell me what you understand by different tempers and interests Is it that some are godly some wicked some promoters of Christs interest some advancers of the Devils By your tempers mean you that some are hot others cold and a third sort lukewarm And by your different interests that some promote the Popes interest others the interest of Councils against the Pope This is your Churches composure but proves no infallibilitie 3. If the verie seeming contradictions in Scripture overthrow the Protestants Argument for its Divine Authoritie from its concent and harmonie which Vane in his late books labours to prove Why do not your real differences which Bellarmine declares to the world Vane's Lost Sheep p. 16. much more conclude against your infallibility But you seem to be sensible of the insufficient of your Argument and therefore before the end of your Section you flie to Gods assisting and strengthening of the Church whereby she becomes infallible But this I have answered before and avoid repetitions CHAP. V. Of the possibility of keeping the Commandments J Cannot but wonder what your method should be in this book and how this Chapter should come in next to the former When you had spoken so much of conformity of faith to the Church which you account as the first means of supernatural happiness what rational man but would have thought but that you should have said somthing of the conformity of hope to the Lords Prayer which you laid down as a second means and not have leapt to the third in such haste I could almost think that you are secretly proving adoration of that Roman Creature the Church of Rome for in your former Chapter you have been freeing her from Error here you free her from sin for if any be free from sin it must be the Roman Church And your next Chapter is about Religion or religious worship But seeing I have begun I will continue to follow you In this chapter you weave Penelope's Web what you say in the first and second Section you clearlie unsay in the third which will therefore help me in answering your former assertions You begin with exceeding confidence wondering that any can make question of the possibilitie of keeping the Commandments But the ground of this your confidence is misapplication of Scriptures as I shal through Gods assistance make it appear in my answers to you You urge Scripture examples and arguments The Scriptures you mainly urge are these Deut. 30. and Mat. 11.21 1 Deut. 30. They are not above but very neer us in our mouths and in our hearts to do them It s the Argument of your Donatists but makes not for you to prove possibilitie of perfect obedience that which it proves is the perspicuitie of the Law as to the Jews knowledg of it Vatab. Annot in Loc. That word which you render above is by Vatablus rendred Hid non est occultum à te It s not hidden from thee As if he should say to them you have no cause to plead ignorance of the Law seeing it s not hid from you but published to you being in your mouths i. e. in ore Levitarum c. in the mouths of the Levites who are of thy people that thou mayest receive from them those precepts that concern a good lâ—fe Id. ibid. and that they may teach them thee without delay This is more confirmed by his Marginal Note Praeciditur hic c. Here is cut off from the Jews all occasion of pleading their ignorance of the Law 2. These words do mainlie intend the words of Faith Rom. 10.8 i. e. the application of Christs righteousness to us by Faith Thus Lyranus explains it saying Lyran. Ostenditur c. Here is shewed the facility of that righteousness which is by the Faith of Christ which the Apostle opposeth to righteousness by the Law Phil. 3.9 Vatablus is verie clear in this point understanding it of that righteousness which is freely bestowed on Faith his words at large are these Si de sola lege c. If this were spoken only of the Law his argument were frivolous in that the Law of God is nothing easier to be done by being before our eyes then if it were far off Moses therefore in this Chapter as in the fourth doth commend unto the people Gods special good will as appears by that place of Paul Rom. 10 8. in bringing them under his tutorage which commendation could not be taken from the naked Law Nor doth it hinder that Moses preacheth of ordering their life according to the rule of the Law for the free righteousness of Faith hath the Spirit of regeneration accompanying it therefore one is
All Papists If you have are mens judgments and thoughts visible to the eye Or did they all write their judgments and give you them that your eye might see them But I shall confute this hereafter 2. Why do you vary your phrase for first you say this unity is an effect of acknowledgiâ—g the Church for the rule of belief And then as thinking you had missed it you speak of actual squaring mens belief to the Church There is a great difference betwixt these A Papist may acknowledg the Church to be the rule of faith yet through ignorance of what the Church holds or some other cause he may not square his belief to the Church Experience tells me that many Papists in these parts acknowledg the Church to be the rule of belief yet it s hard to find one that doth not in some point or other differ from the Church I have found many that in some points dissent from her Soto and Catharinus who were both present at the Trent Council could not agree what was the Councils meaning in the points of Original sin and justification but wrote one against the other of those subjects So that though both of them might acknowledg the Church to be the rule of faith yet they could not both square their belief to the Church unlesse she be a maintainer of contrary Doctrines 4. May not experience carry it as much for the Scriptures and shew that they are the rule of faith for its most certain that all that square their belief to the Scriptures are one in Religion Thus the primitive Christians did square their belief to the Scriptures and were unanimous It s mens leaving the Scriptures and building upon their own fancies or building their faith upon changable and unstable men that makes dissentions and jarring The Word of God being always the same there cannot be dissention where is conformity to it 2. You give a reason hereof saying Of which no other reason can be given but that the Church is alwaies constant and certain other rules subject to uncertainty and change Answ 1. What mean you when you say that the Church is always constant and certain is it in regard of existence I grant it of the Catholique but deny it of your Roman Church God had a Church before there was a Roman Church and when Babylon the great is fallen there will be the Church still I know no warrant you have that your Church shall always continue there is much in Scripture to perswade the contrary Or 2. Is it in regard of holding and manifestation of the truth but this way it hath not been always constant Time was when it was Arian under Liberius and the Orthodox grievously persecuted in it time was when it administred the Lords supper to Children even for 600 years Time was when the Bible of Clemeâ—t was commanded under the danger of a curse to be received as only Authentical now Sixtus his Bible must be so received upon the same danger Time was when your twelve articles of Pope Pius's creed were not enjoyned as necessary to be believed to salvation as now they are Again Sometimes it hath happened that the Church could not would not or durst not manifest the truth Where was then its certainty The question about the efficâ—cy of grace was twice brought to the Apostolique chair forsooth and after many years disputation in regard of its subtilty it was sent away with the difficulties in determination wherewith it came thither Questions it seems must be easy or else your vertual Church cannot certainly determine them What certainty is here when subtilties can stop the Popes determinations Your decrees concerni g the virgins impeccability in the Council of Trent are dark and of no great certainty 2. It s fâ—lse that other rules are subject to uncertainty and change The Scriptures are more certain and unchangable than your Church they are called a more sure word of prophecy to which we do well that we take heâ—d But that we might think that you reverence Scriptures you say True it is that Scripture in itsel that iâ— as it is the Word of God dictatâ—d bâ— the Holâ—-Ghost is certain and infallible but to us 2 Tim. 3. to wiâ— as it is liable to this and to oth rs privâ—te interpretation it is as uncertain and â—allible as man witnesse the many contrary interprâ—tations c. Answ 1. The Scripture is not only certain in it selfe but even to us and therefore the Apostle speaking to private Christians 2 Pet. 1. saith We have also a more sure word of Prophecy whereunto ye d well that ye take heed as unto a light c. The Scripture oft declares its own plainnesse and certainty as to us Prov. 8.9 All the words of my mouth are plain to him that understandeth they are plain obvious Vatabl. and easie to be understood Psal 19.7 The testimony of the Lord is SVRE making wise the simple Psalm 1â—9 130 The en rance â—f thy Word giveth liâ—ht it giveth undâ—rstanding unâ—o the simple 2. Th u h particular men may makâ— wrâ—ng interpre ations of some placâ—s yâ—t thâ—s is when they use not that diligence and those means that they ought to use as viewing antecedent and subsequent Scriptures comparing like places considering what words are figurative what proper reading and pondering the interpretation of the learned bringing all to the rule of faith i. e. plain places wherein the articles of faith are clearly propounded Tertul. l. de veland virgin or if you will the Apostles Creed which Tertullian calls the immutable and unalterable rule of faith And your selves grant that the virtual Church may erre if she use not diligence 3. May not the same you say of Scripture be said of your Popes Decretals Councils Canons c. may not these have wrong interpretations No doubt but they may witness the difference betwixt Soto and Catharinus Certain it is that the Scriptures in points necessary to salvation are more clear than your Decrees and Canons Lastly I know not what you quote 2 Tim. 3. For I find nothing for you in that Chapter but rather against you Timothy had known the Scriptures from a child and they are said to be able to make him wise to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus Here is study of the Scriptures note of the Churches Canons Here is faith in Jesus Christ not in the Church The Scriptures as I said or ignorant of such expressions CHAP. VIII Of the Spirit of Spiritists WHen I had read this Title and compared it with the Title of your tenth Chapter I thought Spiritists and Protestants had noted two distinct kinds of persons But the matter of this and the next Chapter shew that in the language of the beast they are the same It s strange you bring not in Scripturists and Christians they are equally strange to you who glory only in the name CATHOLIQUE but why do you use these names Is it
Christ which they had before resisted 4. Your fourth text shews if it be any thing to our present purpose that the Spirit and your Roman Church are two Masters that cannot both be served and therefore it s not strange you have opposed the Spirit whilst you have stood for your Churches interest But Sir know that the Spirit of God and the true Church are not contrary Masters much lesse the Spirit of God in private persons and the same Spirit in publique Ministers The Spirit of God is in the Church and in every particular and reall member thereof revealing himself to each according to the capacity and need of every member 2. You affirm concerning the Scriptures that the Scripture is deficient which you prove by Scripture and by Reason 1. By Scripture for Scripture attesteth it in that it refers to the Church Answ 1. The Scripture never refers to the Church for the perfecting of it that so it may become a perfect Rule of Faith Azor. instit moral part 2. l. 5. c. 24. ad finem if it do shew me where for I know not 2. Your own Authors confesse that the Church cannot make an article of faith how then can she supply the Scriptures deficiency 2. You attempt to prove it by reason saying reason makes it good because it declares not all points that Christians are bound to believe which they acknowledg themselves bound to beleeve Answ 1. I could bring many testimonies to prove that Scripture is a rule your selves grant it to be a rule when you call it Canonical with exclusion of other writings now it s no rule if it be not perfect for the rule that faith requires ought to be as full and ample as the duty of faith 2. The Scripture asserts that whatsoever we are bound to beleeve as necessary to salvation to be beleeved is contained in Scripture that noted place 2 Tim. 3.15 16. makes it evident the abundant utility shews its sufficiency to instruct any to salvation that speech of Biel Quomodo anima hominis In Can. miss lect 7. f. 146. c. How can the soul of man live the life of Righteousnâ—sse and Grace unlesse it know Gods will and those things which according to it are just or unjust to be done or to be left undone to be loved or to be hated to be fear'd or to be attempted and what are to be beleeved and wâ—at to be hoped for with what ever else is necessary to our salvation all which sola docet sacra Scriptura the sacred Scripture alone tâ—acheth Indeed we grant that all things to be beleived are not expresly set down in Scripture nevertheless what is not expressed may be deduced from that which is expressed or analogically reduced thereunto But I come to your instances of points of faith which Scripture declares not 1. Instance concerning Scriptures You say they declare not that those books of Scripture which are received for Canonical are so indeed that some are Canonical other some Apocriphal that they are determinately these or others â—nsw 1. They do declare that those books which are received for Canonical by Protestants are such and the Apocryphal books are not such For 1. One part of Scriptures gives testimony of another The New Testament bears witness of those books that go under the name of Moses the Prophets and Psalms again they give testimony to the New Testament Yea the whole Scripture doth bear witness to it self that it is the Word of God haveing those intinsecal notes whereby it may be known thus it is with the book of the creatures which sets forth the wisdom power and goodness of God and is therefore a witnesse thereof Now if it be asked whence it appears that this is a witnesse it must be granted that it appears by that order which is in the Creation together with the profitablenesse and usefullnesse of all things in their places The harmony consent spiritual profit c. of Gods Word in Scripture doth evidence that it is Gods Word and sacred Scripture If it were not thus that Scripture gave testimony of it self how doth the Church it self know Scripture to be Scripture She cannot plead Enthusiasme and the humane testimony of Fathers is no sufficient ground for infallibility 2ly All things are written by the Apostles which are necessary to be beleeved by all men Bellarm. de suffis script c. 11. these are Bellarmines words but to beleeve the Scriptures to be the Scripture is necessary for all men say you therefore it must needs follow that its written by the Apostles that the Scriptures are Scriptures 3ly By way of retortion I pray Sir how do you know that this or the other is the true Church for this Bellarmine saith must be certainly known in as much as all opinions depend upon his testimonies The same way that you say the Church may be known even by it self the same way do we know the Scriptures they give evidence to themselves 4th The exact knowledg of what books are Canonical is not absolutely necessary to be beleeved I deny not but the knowledg of Gods Word is thus necessary and this may be where that knowledg is wanting It cannot rationally be denyed that Christians for some hundred years after the Apostles did know the Word of God yet wanted exact knowledg of what books were Canonical nor was the knowledg of them judged necessary to salvation 2. Instance concerning the Jewish Sabboth You say The Scripture declare not that the Jews Sabboth â—s to be neglected and laid aside and the sunday solemnized An w. The Scriptures declare both The first Col. 2.16 17. Let no man judg you in respect of the Sabboth days which are a shaddow of things to come but the body is of Christ Azorius saith the precept of the Sabboth Azor. inst tuor p. 2. l. 1. c. 1. if you consider the determinate and set time did belong to the ceremonial Law and therefore was abolished by the death of Christ Now the Scriptures are most clear and full for the abolishing of the ceremonies For the second the Scriptures expresly teach the solemnization of Sunday 1 Cor. 16. Apoc. 1. Calling it the Lords day Rhem. amot on Gal. 4.10 The Rhemists say In the Apoc. c. 1. There is plain mention of the Sunday that is our Lords day unto which the Jewes Sabboth was altered 3. Instance Concerning the Creed you say The Scriptures declare not that the Creed is authentique and truly the Apostles Answ 1. If you consider the matter of it the Scriptures declare that it is truly authentique and the Apostles for the articles thereof are Apostolique Doctrine contained in the Scriptures Every article may be proved by them 2ly If you consider the form or composure of it that the Apostles made it each one of them addding an article to it this is not necessary to be beleived being but grounded on humane fallible testimony 4. Inst Concerning things indifferent
will waver because of supposed want of succession and for stubborn mis-believers the proof of succession will not bend or make them supple they that will not believe Moses and the Prophets speaking in Scripture would not believe though one should rise from the dead Luke 16.31 But to what purpose bring you the Text 1 Pet. 3. there is nothing in it for succession in order to the bending of the minds of mis-believers unless you understand the wives being in subjection to their own husbands whereby they that obey not the Word may without the Word be won to be the wives proving their Episcopal succession But for the necessity of producing succession you urge testimonies and reasons which I shall now in order examine The testimonies are these viz. of Tertullian Bidding the Sectaries of his time let him see the beginning of their Church and unfold the order of their Bishops and Pastors Likewise Optatus lib. 2. Contr. Parmen The Origin of your chair shew ye that needs will challenge to your selves the Holy Church St. Augustine de vit credend ep contr Faust manich came not behind these in pressing the necessity of succession and derivation where he ingeniously acknowledgeth them to be of force to hold and keep him in the bosome of the Church There keepeth me said that great Saint in the Church the succession of Priests from the very sitting of St. Peter to whom our Lord after his resurrection committed the feeding of his sheep even oo this present Bishop Answ There is no necessity of producing succession for there may be true Apostolical Churches without personal locall succession as I shewed out of Tertullian and its confirmed by Azorius who gives these two only reasons why the Church is called Apostolical because it was propagated by the Apostles Azor. inst moral p. 2. l. 5. c. 21. 9. 4. and holds their faith and doctrine the former reason points out the primitive this latter succeeding Churches though without personall succession 2. There may be succession where there is no true Church as I shall shew hearafter 3. If the Fathers do demand succession of Bishops or Pastors it s in order to Doctrine which they account the main yea the foundation of the other thus doth Tertullian in the words I quoted and Gregory Nazianzen who saith that the succession of faith is the true succession for those that professe the same Doctrine of faith are partakers of the same Throne Naz. Orat. de Laud Athanas So Tertullian and Optatus the one requiring from Sectaries the beginning of their Churh the other the Origin of their Chair both which phrases refer to their agreement with the Apostles not to personal succession Fathers urged succession of Doctrine as necessary but not the succession of persons 2. It s of such as being an inconsiderable party yet excluded all others from being of the Church of God but themselves such were the Valentinians opposed by Tertullian and those whom Optatus speaks of Thus we might demand of the Romanists and say The Origin of your Church shew ye that needs will challenge to your selves the Holy Church When did you begin to be such When had your Pope his universal power as Emperor of the World c. Or 3. It s of some Churches not of all viz. 1. Of such as had begun with the Apostles not others which began long after and therefore could not shew such succession 2. Of such as were in their times not of after ages their demands extend not to us Present Churches are not so able to shew succession as those were in whose times heretical Bishops had no place in the Church as Austin shews for having reckoned up the Roman Bishops from Linus to Anastatius living then Ep. 165. he concludes that in the rank of this succession there was not one Bishop found that was a Donatist and also whilst there was a short space betwixt the Apostles and them the latest of them living within four hundred years after Christ in which time there were no expurgatory indices no â—â—opping of their mouths who wrote the truth The Fathers of the first centuries were few and not subject to Popish purgations whereas the case is now otherwise we are not much short of the 1700 years from Christ our Authors that might shew our succession abused by you Your argument therefore is not good succession must now be demanded and produced for so it was in the time of Augustine Optatus Tertullian 1300 years ago 4. They rather demand the Origin and beginnning of Churches than succession of Bishops leaving more to antiquity than to succession 2. You argue for the necessity of succession thus Derivation of succession is so proper to the true Church that it can not agree to any false as St Hierom in Micam 1. observeth assuring heretiques to have no such riches as come to men by plain inheritance from their Fathers Answ This is most untrue Bellarmine dare not affirm it that its necessarily inferd that where there is succession there is the Church to whom Mr. Hart consents Hart. confer c. 7. div 9. saying Indeed succession of Bishops in plaâ—e is no good argument unlesse it be joyned with succession of Doctrine The reason is this derivation of succession may agree to a false Church ex gr to the Church of Constantinople who reckon from Andrew the Apostle to the Bishop that sitteth now which Church notwithstanding you account unsound Stapleton pronounceth of the Greek Churches in general that they can shew a personal succession from the very Apostles yet you account them not true Churches for they are not under your Roman Pope but against him 2. Your testimony of Hierom makes nothing for you For 1. It grants that hereticks may have fathers whose children they are and what is this but succession 2. That which it denies is that they have such riches as come by spiritual inheritance i. e. divine and wholsome truth the riches of the Apostles successors It s a simple conceit to imagine that succession is the riches that men have by inheritance from their fathers their inheriting of their fathers riches is not succession but succession is the cause of their inheriting they are but poor children that have only this that they can tell you they proceed from their fathers and succeed them Such children are your Popes they can tell you who was their father grandfather and great-grrandfather and this is their riches much good may they do them Whilst Protestant Pastors have true doctrine the true riches of the Apostles To this Testimony of Hierom you add a reason to prove that derivation of succession is proper to the true Church saying Its evident in it self by reason the true Church was planted and established before any false began therefore must need be a non plus ultra a stop and bar betwixt whatsoever counterfeit Church and Christ to keep off the like continuation of succession Answ 1. If it
it is first to be regarded But you reply to this p. 67. As Scripture so what it contains would be as to belief hid and unknown but for the Churches information Answ This hath been formerly confuted Scripture gives a firmer and more convincing testimony to it self then men can give to it The efficacy of the word in the heart of him that reads and meditates in it is more powerfull to perswade him that its the Word of God then a 1000 Fathers or Popes the same may be said of the truth contained in it When the error of administring the Sacrament of the Supper was the Doctrine of the Church I appeal to any man to tell me whether the Scripture would not have manifested what was truth better then Pope Innocentius or any of his erring nephewes I 'm sure the Pope would not have informed what was truth according to Scriptures in that point and yet there were means of finding out the truth else all his Proselites had erred with him which would be dangerous to affirm It is the Scripture that declares and manifests the Church and therefore must be more mafest than the Church But you prove it thus The knowledge faith requires must be supernaturally certain and consequently an effect of the Holy Ghosts pâ—culiar assistance which is onely warranted to the Church and not to every private reading and reasoning Answ If you speak of the Holy Ghosts infallible assistance we grant the Apostles had it and therefore their knowledge was certain and their writings we ground our faith upon but this assistance is not now given to any You plead but for the Holy Ghosts peculiar assistance how this is warranted not onely to the Church but to private Christians For first Christ promiseth it to them Jer. 31.34 and assures them God will give it them if they ask Luke 11.13 2. Christ invites them to seek it Apoc. 3.18 3. The Apostle affirms that private Christians have it 1 John 2.27 The pride of Popish Prelates is intollerable they forsooth and none else have the peculiar assistance of Gods spirit to enlighten them Poore Christians must be robd of their spirituall Pastor that Popish Priests may be the onely teachers But I think your conscience struck you when you were penning this sentence and therefore to evade it in stead of saying Not to provide persons you say not to every private reading or reasoning which makes as much against your Popes and Priests as private Christians if those do ever reade and reason in private I grant that the Spirit is not given to every private person in every reading and reasoning No more as I said is he given to every or any Pope in every private reading or reasoning When the Pope speaks not ex Cathedra he 's as subject to ignorance and error as the poorest Christian and may erre by your own confession and he 's not alwayes in his chair But I dare affirm that private Christians in their serious reading of Gods Word joyned with Prayer and diligence may expect the peculiar assistance of God to lead them into the knowledge of Gods truth this is clearly promised Psal 25.9.12.14 upon our asking of him James 1.5 If any man want wisedom Spiritum illuminatorem saith the gloss Let him ask it of God c. The Psalmist prayeth that God would open his eyes that he may understand wonderfull things of Gods Law so should private Christians do through the want of spirit the Jews though they read the Scriptures they understand them not the vail is upon their eyes but it is to be done away in Christ by the Spirit of the Lord. Here is not a word of the Churches taking away this vail 2. You prove it by S. Paul S. Paul is plain Let men esteem us as the Ministers of Christ and dispensers of Gods mysteries 1 Cor. 4. Answ The words indeed are plain and easy to be understood but I know not how they make for you they do not prove that the Apostles had the peculiar assistance of Gods Spirit much less do they prove that private Christians are not capable of it All that they prove is this that the Corinthians ought not to contemn or vilifie Paul or any but account of them according to their calling as Christs servants and dispensers of divine mysteries 3. You prove it by experience saying Experience confirms no less in Seperatists who laying aside the Church and presuming upon their own readings and reasonings have vented as many absurd and extravagant impieties as they had base and exorbitant passions p. 68. A. 1. When men presume upon their readins and raesonings without having respect to the Spirit of God it 's no wonder if they err Reason is no sufficient guide in exposition of Scripture Flesh and blood reveals it not to us but the Spirit Hence it is that those Heretiques in Jude are noted by their want of the Spirit and this was the cause of their erring 2. The Church never put forth any Publike Commentary whereby the sense of Scripture might appear and therefore the Churches Exposition is a meer Chimera Suppose a Christian should desire to acquaint himself with Scripture as that which you say contains part of Gods Will but he dares not venture upon it himself and therefore desires to be guided by the Churches Exposition now he knows not where to meet with it I pray Sir could you direct him where he might find it The Fathers do not all of them alwayes agree and he finds their Expositions often rejected by your learned Doctors and somtimes they deserve not to be received Your Doctors of the Church are as different in their Expositions as can be as that Text of James some understand it of Extream Unction others deny that Extream Unction can be proved by it and for your Popes they seldome expound Scripture and when they do it their Expositions are oft irrational as that of Rom. 8.6 by Lyricus and seldom obvious In this case either the study of Scripture must be quite laid aside or else there must be some other guide thought of besides the Church which can be no other then the Spirit of God by which we are enabled to judg which is the true sense of Scripture Vid Can. loc Theol. l. 7. c. 3. Cajetan seems to approve of this when he adviseth that no man dislike a new sense of Scripture because it dissents from Ancient Fathers for God hath not confined the Exposition of Scripture to their sences but to Scripture it self Which way of finding out the sense of Scripture by comparing one place with another is done by the help of Gods Spirit principally though the advise of Pastors may come secondarily in as subservient thereunto 3. Those who have cried up the Church as some of them vented as absurd and extravagant impieties as any Schismatique What more absurd and extravagant Exposition can there be then that of Lyricus on Rom. 8. They that are married cannot
but one numericall body and the three continents are but parts of the same place 2 Nor the second for first voice or sound is no body Secondly it is a question whether it be one and the same voice that comes to thousands of ears at once or a multiplied voice or sound Magyr Physiol l. 6. c. 8. Com. ad finem see Magyrus where the contrary is asserted upon this very ground Thirdly the place of sound or its proper subject is the Aire not mens ears 3 Nor yet the third for there is not one body really in two places no more than if one man were pictured in severall frames neither of which bears any resemblance of this Phylosophy of reall bodies Fourthly you answer Should we believe onely that which we understand there would not be any belief in us of mysteries of faith they being all above the reach of humane capacity Reply 1. If knowledge or understanding were not necessary to faith why hath faith the name of knowledge given it in Scripture Isai 53.11 and John 17.3 If faith be an assent as Papists tell us then faith doeth necessarily require knowledge for we must know what is truth if we believe that it is so I confess there are some things which in some respects are not fully conceivable but for those we have an express Word of God informing us of them which is the ground of our faith but this we have not for a carnall presence in many places and therefore cannot command our belief of it Fifthly by way of answer you introduce an objection against the Polytopie of Christs body but is directly against bodily presence in any place It is taken from the strange irreverencies and absurdities which would ensue thereof as to be subject to the eating and tearing in piecs of dâ—gs cats mice and to the abuse of wicked me and miscreants to which you answer He that is of power to render a body really present in severall places at once witâ—out doubt is able to defend and keep the same from all outrages as God is pleased to do in this mystery by removing locall extension and by consequenâ—e possibility by means whereof dogs cats and mice can onely tear and destroy the accidents of bread and wine Reply first the foundation is already overthrown Secondly I believe you are not perswaded that Gods power is imployed about Christs body to keep it from irreverences if you were why is it that you dare not give the Cup to the people is not God able to prevent drops of the blood from sticking to the peoples beards or falling to the ground Why do you make an invisible body to prevent the faithfull's loathing and the profane's scorning of the Ordinance is not God able to keep the faithfull from loathing flesh and blood visibly and really appearing such as well as intellectually represented to their understandings if Gods power must support one absurdity why may it not another 3 Though you speak irrationally of tearing the species of bread and wine yet others of your fraternitie speak plainly of the body of Christ Among the penitentiall Canons in the end of the old editions of the Roman Decree Can. 39. are these words Quando muâ— corrodit aut comedit Corpus Christi c. i. e. When a mouse gnaweth or eateth the body of Christ c. he saith not the species of bread and wine but the very body of Christ And in the new Mass book t is said De defect circa Missam occurrent c. 3. Sect. 7. Si Hostia Consecrata c. If the consecrated Host vanish away by some accident as if it be carried away with the wind or by some miracle or eaten up by some beast and cannot be found then let another be consecrated I suppose your Host or Sacrifice is not the meer species of bread and wine but the body of Christ Now this Host it seemes may be blown away with the winde or be eaten of beasts sure you take calm weather and tie up your beasts when you goe in Procession Ib. c. 10. Sect. 14. What should I speak of your vomiting and against licking up the vomited Host or in case of loathing putting it up for a relique such stuff is fit for such beasts as return to their vomit or lye wallowing in the mire 2. You answer to the Objection Wicked men and miscreants offer violence to the same but not hurt or anoy the Body of Christ no more then he were of force to wrong the Godhead that surprised with a raging fit should strike at the aire with an intention to do him mischief Reply Every thing you say ads to the miracle Christ hath a body to be eaten that yet is not seen nor tasted nor passible yea is like unto God or a Spirit that cannot be hit or wounded What could Eutiches have said more Doth not this prove that Christs body is no real body but only imaginary and phantastical or if real yet it s not according to your doctrine really present Will it follow that because God or another spiritual Substance is impassible by humane force therefore a true natural body is so to It must be Popish Logick that will make this a good Consequence 3. You answer Admit these pretended inconveniences should follow that the body of Christ should be eaten and torn in pieces of dogs bats mice c. I do not conceive there could be inferr'd any other then a continuation of that ardent love of Christ which he shewed to man when he estranged himself from his Eternal Father to bear with patience and mildness hunger cold whippings spittings thorns and last of all the bitter and disgraceful death of the Cross Reply 1. This ardent Love of Christ to man cannot be from hence inferred All sufferings of Christ are not the effects of his ardent Love What Love of Christ is manifested in wicked mens crucifying to themselves afresh the Son of God Heb. 6.6 10.29 and putting him to an open shame or in their treading under foot the Son of God and accounting the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing and doing despight to the Spirit of grace What Love of Christ is manifested when his body is torn in pieces of dogs cats mâ—ce or blown away with the wind or spued out of some drunken Priests mouth and lickt up again It s a most evident truth that those sufferings of Christ only are the expressions of his love which do tend to mans redemption and salvation and without which these could not be attained Of this kind were the sufferings of Christ by the Jews and Romans in the time of his incarnation Hence are those expressions The Love of God is shed abroad in our hearts Rom. 5.5 6 7 8 Gal. 3.13 14 Isai 53.4 c. for when we were yet without strengh in due time Christ dyed for the ungodly God commendeth his love to us in that when we were yet sinners Christ dyed for
that obedience which is owing to a Master or Prince and for it the Master or Prince is pleased to promise a great reward with which the work bears no proportion this act cannot be said to be condignly meritorious of that reward no not by the promise but the Master or Prince is willing to bestow something on him and takes this occasion for it or gives it him in this way You conclude with saying Saint Paul deemed it no presumption to challenge at the hands of God a Crown of Justice for his good fighting well runing and constant keeping of the Faith 2. Tim. 4. Answ 1. Supposing this true sure you will not make it a pattern for Catholicks to whom you deny S. Pauls knowledge of their estates and good works 2. It s false that S. Paul doth challenge at Gods hands a Crown of Justice For his good fighting if your For be Propter i e. notes a proper efficient cause This excellent Preacher of Free-grace and salvation thereby unto others will not preach merits to himself and that at the point of death when the soul laies hold upon that which is the surest stay and this according to Bellarmine is the alone mercy of God 7. Objection THe seventh Objection is The Roman Church giveth the Communion under one kinde contrary to Christs institution Answ There is a great deal of difference betwixt Christs Institutions and his Commandements â—hese requiring both belief and observance those onely belief Reply 1. What may be the foundation of your distinction betwixt Institutions and Commandements I understand not Institutions so far as I am acquainted either with the signification of the word or its use are precepts whereby men are instructed and taught what is their dutie and thus they require both belief and observance When Justinian wrote books of Institutions I suppose he did not intend points for faith onely or principally but rules of practice yet he titles his Book Institutiones Juris being ignorant sure of your invented distinction When the Councell of Constance tells us of Christs Institution and Administration of the Sacrament under both kinds Pray Sir what do they mean by Institution as distinct from Administration If it be no more than Example as you express even now then those worthy Synodists tautologize in mentioning Administration and Institution both Christs Administration being the example or pattern of our Administration 2. Supposing Institution to be no more but example yet it will thus require more than belief even observance as Cyprian shews when he saith Si quâ—s de Antecessoribus nostris c. If any of our Predecessors either ignorantly or simply hath not observed and held this which the Lord by his example and authority hath taught us to do his simplicitie might be pardoned c. Christ by his example doth teach us to believe His Action is our Instruction Augustine therefore observes that examples in Scripture not sinful or of extraordinary and personal actions serve for exposition of precepts yea and contain precepts vertually in them nor is this any more then what rational men on both sides acknowledg that that which hath been inviolably observed from the beginning of the Church must be supposed to be a divine precept Now the Councel of Constance acknowledgeth our Saviors Administration of the Sacrament in both kinds the primitive Christians receiving it according to his Administration what reason then have we to doubt of divine precept 2. You further say Although Christs actions be good examples for us to imitate yet as such they impose not obligation upon imitation Christ fasted forty days and as many nights went into the desert to be tempted forbare marriage c. are all bound to doe the like none will say it Reply 1. If Christs actions be examples for us to imitate yea good examples then are we obliged to imitate them the reason is clear because the goodness of them as to our imitation doth arise from their conformity to the divine and Royal Law whereunto we are absolutely bound Nay further we are obliged by them as such to imitation The Holiness Mercy and Love of Christ are often urged as obliging us to those acts of holiness mercy and love Luke 3.36 John 13.15 1 Pet. 1.15 Gods holiness as therein he is an example to us doth oblige us to be holy yea the very examples of the Saints command our imitation there is a general precept pressing this Finally Brethren whatsoever things are true whatsoever things are honest whatsoever things are just whatsoever things are pure whatsoever things are lovely whatsoever things are of good report iâ— there be any verâ—ue and if there be any rayse think on these things And it follows Those things which ye have both learned and received and heard and seen in me do c. Philip. 3.11.4.8 9. 2. The Actions of Christ which you mention concern not this place for you spake of such Actions of Christ as you said were good examples for us to imitate but these actions are not of that nature None ever said that all Christs actions are examples or command imitation Some Actions of his belong to him as Mediatour and are so Christs that they are incommunicable to others of this nature is his paying a price to justice reconciling the world subservient whereunto was his fasting forty days and his temptation in the desert his forbearing of marriage may thus far oblige that if God bestow on us the gift of forbearance we do forbear that thereby we may more undistractedly go about the service of God we are imployed about But now for this Action of administring the Sacrament it was not his personal action he did it as a Minister and the Apostles his Ministers according to his example did so administer it as he had done before them 3. A Doctor now yours Dr. Bane lost sheep c. 22. having apostatized from the truth once received and professed by him gives us two requisits to make an institution obligatory both of them fetcht from Jesuit Fishers Answer to King James his questions 1. That the end of the institution be necessary and that it be necessary for every particular person to endeavour the attaining thereof 2. That if every particular person be bound to endeavour to attain the end of an institution that also the wâ—ole thing instituted be necessary for the attaining of that end According to these rules supposing them true the institution of the Supper under both kinds is obligatory For 1. The end of its institution is that they that partake of it may remember and shew forth the death of Christ as is evident both by the Evangelists and Apostles Now this and is necessary being both expresly commanded and also being a special means for strengthening our faith Yea further It s necessary for every particular Christian to endeavor the attaining hereof The Apostle Paul writes to the Saints and private Christians in Corinth and in them to all Christians and gives
you say the Scriptures declare not that its lawfull to eat strangled meats and blood Answ 1. The Scriptures declare that every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving 1 Tim. 4.4 And that Christians are not to be judged for their eating of any meats Col. 2.16 So it be not with the offence of our brother who is weak thus Lyra on that decree of the Apostles concerning strangled meats and blood saith Those who were newly converted from Judaisme did abhor these meats Lyran. in Acts 5.20 and therâ—fore although it was meat that lawfully might be eaten yet for their sakes the Gentiles were commanded to abstain from as a man is to abstain from that meat which is hateful to his companion but afterwards the cause ceasing through the clear discovery of the Gospel the effect ceased And this Gospel light he fetcheth from Math. 15. and 1 Tim. 4. both which are Scripture 2. It may be questioned whether it be necessary to salvation to beleeve that things strangled blood may be lawful to be eaten The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink we are not justified by meat It s weaknesse to think any meat unlawful Rom. 14.2 but not heretical the eating or refusing of meats is of that kind of things quae dubium est quo animo fiant not of those quae non possunt bono animo fiâ—ri as Augustine distinguisheth Thus much for answer to your reason and its confirmation Lastly In the close of your Chapter you bring an argument to prove that Spiritists do not make the Scriptures a rule of their belief 't is this Were Scripture the rule of their belief though it contain divers truths yet those truths meeting and becoming one in revelation they wo ld all perfectly agree not only Lutherans amo g themselves Zuinglians among themselves Calvenists among themselves but likewise Lutherans with Zuinlians c. It being the property of unitie to unite and make one all that conform to the same Answ 1. You suppose that all they who acknowledg one Rule must perfectly agree amongst themselves which is evidently false an exact walking according the same rule is not attainable by any society on this side heaven For 1. All have not the same measure of knowledg whereby they should understand exactly every point in Scripture many things are Scriptural by consequence which must be found out by argument and are hardlier understood than other things Though in some places of Scripture a Lamb may wade yet in others an Elephant may swim The Apostle saith Let us as many as be perfect be thus minded if in any thing ye be otherwise minded God shall reveal even this unto you Nevertheless whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same rule c. Phil. 3.15.16 It s a perfection an high attainment for Christians to be perfectly one Yea it s a priviledg of another life Rhem. annot on Phil. 3.15 where knowledg becomes perfect Eph. 4.13 with 1 Cor. 13. The Rhemists acknowledg this as the judgment of Saint Paul acknowledging that in this imperfection of mens science in this life everie one cannot be free from all error or think the same that another thinketh whereupon may arise difference of understanding opinion and Judgment in certa n hard matters which God hath not revealed or the Church determined and therefore that such diversity is tollerable and agreeable to our humane condition and the state of the way that we be in 2. All have not the same measure of grace and freedome from corruption and passions which prevail to draw men from a conformity to the same rule Some are of a crosse and peevish temper subject to a spirit of contradiction maintaining errors lest they should seem to be overcome by others or not to have been so sound as others are Passion had a great influx upon the differences of our first reformers nor are you free from this evil this Spirit of contradiction You reject clear expositions of Scripture because we approve of them When Augustine comparing the Jewish and Christian Sacraments saith fuerunt c. they were divers in the signs but alike in the thing signified grounding his speech upon 1 Cor. 10.3 Maldonate answers I am perswaded if Augustine had lived in our age he would have thought otherwise especially perceiving the heretical Calvinists to be of of his opinions And he further adds I rather approve my own exposition than that of Augustin because this is more contradictory to the Calvinists Mald. in Joan. 6. 2. Your selves acknowledg one Rule the Church yet cannot truly say that all Papists do perfectly agree I shall shew the contrary hereafter 3. Though Protestants differ about particular truths yet they all agree in this that whatsoever God reveals to them in Scripture they are bound to beleeve it Herein Lutherans Zuinghans and Calvenists as you name them do fully agree 4. You falsly and ignorantly suggest to your seduced followers that the Protestant Churches are full of divisions and disagreements Calvenists differing amongst themselves and from Lutherans c. Sir I pray you read the harmonious confessions of Protestant Churches and if by them you be not convinced of error in your next give us some catalogues of those divided and sub-divided differences you generally mention till then we shall suspend our belief of you Your reason in these words It being the property of unitie to unite c. is a piece of non-sence If you had mentioned Rule instead of unity it had been most true but nothing to purpose It is the property of a rule to unite and make one all that conform to it So that to the making up of this unity there must not only be an exact rule but a perfect conformity to it in them whom it doth concern which perfect conformity canot be yeelded by any living man to the Word of God because of ignorance and corruption which remain in the very best of men The conclusion of your Argument needs no answer the Premises being overthrown What you say of our doing homage to Luther Calvin and Zuinglius's fancy is simple and false You know we abhor a blind obedience and an implicite faith The books our people read ordinarily are not Luther Calvin or Zuinglius's works but the sacred Scriptures by which we examine all writings even their 's you now mention if we meet with them We look upon Luther Calvin and Zuinglius as eminent lights in the Church of God not as Gods We say not Dominus Deus noster Calvinus c. as some of you have said of your Pope We acknowledg them indued with the Spirit but not infallibly inspired as holders forth of an old light hid under a Romish bushel not as introducers of any new one as reformers not innovators We reverence them as pious men now with the Lord but neither pray to them nor keep holidays for them our homage we