and so with much ado scapeth death I think notwithstanding the scaping of these last we may well conclude that Poison is no safe or wholesome food I come now to prove the Proposition last expressed In general 1. Popery is No way to salvation Therefore it is no safe way God hath no where prescribed it as a way to salvation therefore it is not a way to salvation 2. It is the way toward damnation and from salvation therefore it is no safe way to salvation The proof of all together shall be next fetcht from some general reasons drawn from the dangerous nature of Popery For if I should descend to every particular error I must be voluminous and do that which is sufficiently done by multitudes already Arg. 1. Those doctrines which are founded upon a Notorious falshood and resolved into it are not a safe way to Salvation But such are the doctrines which we call Popery Therefore For the Minor They are founded on and resolved into the doctrine of the Popes Infallibility or at least his Councils This the Papists do confess and maintain But that this is a Notorious falshood is evident 1. In that it is notorious that Popes have erred and judicially erred and erred in matters of faith Bellarmine is put to answer to no less then fourty instances of erring Popes and how shamefully or shamelesly he doth it any Learned man that will search the records and peruse the case may soon discover 2 It is notorious that Councils have erred I shall not now intermix my Testimonies to interrupt the plain course which I have begun but rather give you the proof of all this distinctly by it self in the next disputation 3. The Papists themselves confess this that we affirm I mean One part of them do confess that the Pope may err as the French and the other the Italians and Spaniards confess that a Council may erre One saith the Infallibility is not seated in the Pope and the other that it is not sealed in a Council particular or general of which see Bellarmine de Conciliis lib. 2. cap. 10. 11. In which last he seeks to prove that a General Council may erre 1. When they dissent from the Popes Legates 2. And when they consent with the Lâ—gates if those Legates do cross the Popes instructions 3. Yea if the Legates have no certain Instructions the Council and all they may consent in error And he proves the two former by the instance of the second Council of Ephesus and the Constantinopolitane Council in the time of Pope Nicholas the first which erred saith he because the Popes Legates followed not his instructions The third he proves by the Council of Basil Sess 2. which together with the Popes Legate did by common consent Decree that the Council is above the Pope which now saith Bellâ—rmine is judged erroneous 4. Some Popes themselves have confessed that they are not the seat or chief subject of the infallibility As Adrian the sixth who hath wrote his judgement of it that the Pope may err out of Council And in my opinion we shall do the Pope much wrong if we shall not believe him when he speaks the truth and tells us that he is fallible Did Bellarmine better know Pope Adrians understanding then the Pope knew his own Surely I must do as I would be done by and if any man should perswade me that I know that which I do not know or that I am infallible when I know my self subject to error I should confidently expect that all men would rather believe me of my self then believe another of me that speaks the contrary And so will I believe Pope Adrian that he was fallible But of this more in the next disputation where you shall have fuller proof Arg. 2. If Popery do build even the Christian Religion it self as held by them on a foundation that is utterly uncertain or else certainly false then is it no safe way to salvation For it would extirpate Christianity it self But the Antecedent is true as I shall thus prove 1. They are divided and disagreed among themselves even their greatest Learned Doctors about the very foundation of their faith as I shall further shew in the next argument They believe upon the infallible judgement of the Church and they are not agreed what that Church is 2. They build the assurance of their faith upon such a ground as none of the common people no nor any Doctors in the world can have the knowledge of therefore their faith must needs be uncertain To manifest this I shall review one leaf that I wrote heretofore on this subject in the Preface to the second Part of the Saints Rest It is the Authority of the Church they say upon which we must believe that the Scriptures are the word of God and were it not for the Churches authoritative affirmation they would not believe it saith one of them no more than Aesops Fables Now suppose they were agreed what this Church is and that we now take notice of their more common opinion that it is all the Bishops of the Church headed by the Pope or a General Council approved of and confirmed by the Pope I would fain know how the faith of any of us that live at a distance yea or of any man living can be sure and sound when all these following particulars must be first known before we can have such assurance 1. It must be known that God hath given to the Church this power of judging what is his word and what is a point of faith and what not so that that is so to us which they judge so or that we are bound by God to believe them Now which way doth God give the Church this Power Is it not by Scripture or unwritten tradition in their own judgment And by what means doth he oblige us to Believe the Church in such determinations It must be also by Scripture or unwritten Tradition by their own confession For if they fly to universal Tradition and natural obligation they give up their cause and let go their Authoritative Tradition and Obligation as from their Romanâ— Church So that a man must according to their doctrine believe that the word of God written or unwritten hath given Power to the Church to determine what is the word of God before he can believe the word of God or know it to be the word of God that is He must know and believe the word of God before he can know and believe it Here is one of the impossibâ—lities that lye at the very foundation of the Romane way of faith 2. Before men can know the Scripture to be Gods word yea or their supposed unwritten verities infallibly according to the Romane way of believing they must first know that the Church is infallible in her judgement and this also must be known by the word of God which is supposed not to be known yet it self 3. They must also know
center to no head but the King of Spaine without his express Commission manifested and the Provinces of Mexico and the adjacent parts onely shall be otherwise minded and subject themselves to the usurper who is it that causeth the Schisme in the King of Spains dominions And which partie is it that holdeth to the ancient terms of unity and which are the dividers I need not stand to make a particular application It is even so between us and the Pope with his Romanists The Church of old was centred onely in Christ and headed onely by him At last the Pope pretending Christs distance and invisibility and a Commission that he hath from Christ to be his Vicar General written in letters that none can read but himself and his party will needs become the visible head and center and whereas before those onely were the rebels that rejected Christ now all must be rebels that are not subject to the Popes And to aggravate the crime by the addition of hipocrisie all this Schisme and separation must be carryed on by a pretence of unity They make the poor simple people believe that the Pope being the Head and center there is no unity to be held but in him and that we must all be guilty of Schisme that unite not in him and that all our divisions are caused by our departing from this center of unity when it is himself that hath divided from the rest of the Christian world and would drown the infamy of it by accusing others of the same sin that he is so notoriously guilty of By which we may well see that accusing others is none of the surest signs of innocency but too common a trick to divert the suspition from themselves When the Papists that are the greatest Schismaticks on earth do make such an outcry against us as Schismaticks because we have repented of our joyning with them in their Schisme and will not confederate with them in evil against the Laws of Christ and the necessary means of the unity of his Church Arg. 7. If the faith of Papists as Papists which is it that we call Popery be a meerly uncertain changeable thing so that a man can never tell when he hath it all then is it no safe way to Salvation But the faith of Papistâ— as such is such a meerly uncertain changeable thing Therefore it is no safe way to Salvation The consequence of the Major I suppose they will grant For how can that be a safe way 1. which is uncertain 2. and changeable when the true way to salvation is one and the same and changeth not since Christ had established and sealed his Laws All the question therefore is of the Minor which I prove 1. From the Popish principles 2. From their Practices both which do plainly shew that their new Religion is a meer Weather-cock that must fit with the winde of the mutable conceits of the Pope and his Clergy Even like the Religion of the Enthusiasts that wait still for new Revelations to be superadded to the Scripture And first for their principles one is that The Scripture is not the whole word of God or sufficient rule of faith or manners but onely a part of the Word and Rule and that unwritten Traditions are the other part Yea Rushworths Dialogues Bellarmine and the rest of them ordinarily tell us that Scripture was not chiefly given to be a Rule of faith at all saith Bellarm. de verbo dei li. 4. cap. 12. Finis Scripturae pracipuus non est ut sit Regula fidei sed ut variis documentis exemplis adhortationibus nunc terrendo nunc instruendo nunc minando nunc consolando adjuvet nos in hae peregrinatione that is The chief end of Scripture is not to be a Rule of faith but that by divers documents examples adhortations sometime by affrighting sometime by instructing sometime by threatning sometime by comforting it may help us in this our peregrination It is then unwritten Traditions that are part of Gods Word and at least part of the Rule of faith And where these Traditions are to be found and what they are and how many and by what notes they may all be known either they dare not tell us for fear of bringing mens faith to a certainty from under the lock and key of the Pope or else in telling us they do but cloud the business with general terms or else disagree among themselves That the Scripture it self is delivered to us infallibly we doubt not and thereby we know the Canonical books But this may be done without another word of God The act of Delivery from the Apostles is not a new Revelation or Word of God but the natural means of conveying the word to those for whom it was intended And the object of that Act of Delivery was not another Word of God but all and onely these same Canonical Books so that I know which is the Canon among other reasons because I can prove not by another Word of God but by infallible humane Testimony such as I have of the Laws of this Land that the Bible and these particular books in it were actually delivered by the holy Writers to the Churches If God write the two Tables of stone and therein make known that they are his Laws and then Deliver these to Moses this Delivering is not a new Word of God but a necessary act for the promulgation of the Word So that if you aske an Israelite how he knows whether onely the ten Commandments and all those ten were contained in the Tables He can prove it to you by the Tables Delivered and by proving the Act of Delivery though he could bring no other word of God which told you what was in those Tables And indeed if these must needs be another Word of God besides the Delivering Acts to prove the former to be the Word of God and tell us its parts then there must also be another word to discover that second Word to be the Word of God and another to discover that and so in infinitum Our acknowledged necessary Tradition therefoâ—â— is not another materia tradita or Word of God but onely one of the actus tradendi and act of delivering the same matter or word But for the Papists that will have another part of the Rule of Divine faith they will never be able to tell us what it is and where and to let us understand when we have all Bellarmine de verbo dei non Scripto li. 4. cap. 9. layes down five Rules by which we may know the true Traditions The first is When the whole Church embraceth any thing as a point of faith which is not found in the Scriptures of God we must needs say that this was had from the tradition of the Apostles The second is When the universal Church keepeth somewhat which none could constitute but God and which is not found written we must needs say that this was delivered from Christ and
the Determination of their Church he must presently not onely believe the contrary to what he believed before but do it also without doubting though they 'l confess millions are saved that believe Christ to be the Son of God though not without doubting Well but see what unity is procured by the addition of these new Articles to their Creed The French Doctors ascribe to his holiness that the said Articles may be taken in several sences The one sence is Heretical Lutheran or Calvinian but that is a sence That the words lawfully used will not hear but onely may malignantly be fastened to them say they The other sence which is genuine and proper they Defâ—nd themselves as true and as pertaining to the Belief of the Church as the Doctrine of Augustine and as defined by the Council of Trent and the contrary Opinion of Molina and the adversaries others maintain to be Pelagian or Semipelagian See here what the Papists themselves now do implicitely charge upon the Pope That he by his express unlimited condemnation doth malignantly fasten an Heretical sence on the words which properly they will not bear or else that he contradicteth Augustine and the Council of Trent and Anathematizeth the Christian faith and maintaineth the Semipelagian Heresie of Molina And yet must we judge either their Pope to be infallible or their Church to be at such unity in faith as they would make the ignorant vulgar believe More of the like contention about his holiness Determinations you may see in Tho. Whites Appendicula ad sonum Buccinae and Franscus Macedo his Lituus Lusitanus In all which you may see that all the comfort that the poor Dominicans have left them even their hope of salvation if they be Papists indeed consisteth in this that the Pope speaks one thing and means another and that as White so merrily saith in so sad a matter The wise father of the Church was necessitated for the appeasing of contentions to grant the more turbulent party their words and the more obedient party their sence so that when the Pope hath done all that he can to determine their controversies they will still say that he determineth but the words nay he doth but grant one party their words and not the meaning and so not onely sence but bare terms must be made Articles of faith And here you may see the great force of the Papists arguing for a necessity of a living Judge to determine of the sence of Scripture because the Scripture is so ambiguous that each one will else wrest it his own way And do we not see that the Pope cannot after so many years deliberation determine five short Articles so expresly and plainly even when he doth it of purpose to decide the controversie as to make his learned Doctors understand him but that each party doth take his words to be either for or not against their opinions and hold their opinions as fast since his determination as before And so they do by Augustine Thomas and the Council of Trent each party confidently perswading the world that they were of their side And may not God have the honor of speaking as plainly as the Pope or Thomas or the Council of Trent and cannot we well be without the Decision of such a Judge as cannot speak so as to be understood by his greatest Doctors himself So that the Principles and Practices of the Romanists do assure us that their faith is unfixed growing and mutable they may be one year of one Religion and another year of another as pleasâ— the Pope A Dominican might have been saved at any time since the creation till May 31. 1653. when the Popes Determination was dated but now they must all be damned for heresie There is a new way to heaven made 1653. that never was before and for ought they know to the contrary before their Popes have done Determining there may be five hundred Articles more in their Creed So that for my part I desire not either to be shut out of heaven at the pleasure of every new Pope nor to be of so uncertain and changeable a Religion And I cannot think therefore that Popery is a safe way to salvation Arg. 8. That Doctrine which derogateth from the written Word of God and setteth the Decrees of men above it enabling them to contradict its most express institutions is no safe way to salvation But such is the Doctrine of Popery therefore it is no safe way to salvation The Major is unquestionably true among true Christians For the proof of the Minor I shall only give you three instances of the Popish Doctrine because I intend not to be too particular left I be too large The first is their affirming the Scripture both to be insufficient to discover the whole doctrine of faith as being but one part of Gods Word and Tradition the other part and also to be no Word of God at all to us till the Pope and his Clergy do authoritatively determine it so to be or that we cannot know the Scripture to be Gods word but upon the Authority of the Churches determination But of this I have spoken before and shall do more in another dispute The second instance that I give is Their changing Christs most express institution by withholding the Cup in the Lords Supper from the people and giving them but half the Sacrament I am not now disputing about the efficacy or inefficacy of one half so delivered but proving the intolerable Arrogancy of the Papists that dare set up the will of man above Gods Word and give power to the Pope to change Christs Institutions and not onely to adde but to diminish and expresly to contradict Christ and forbid what he commandeth I know they pretend that it was but to the twelve Apostles that Christ gave the Cup and not to the Laity True nor the bread neither but then if he intended that none but the Clergy have the Cup why may they not as well say so of the Bread But do not these deceivers know 1. That Christ gives this reason of his administring the Cup Drink yee All of it For this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of sins So that if this reason hold to others if his blood be shed for the sins of others as well as for the Clergie then the command extendeth to others Drink ye all of it And do they not know that Luke further intimateth this in his narration of the words of Christ This Cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you So that those whom it is shed for and we may discern to be Believers it may be applyed to 2. And do they not know that Paul delivereth the doctrine both of the Bread and Cup as from the Lord to the whole Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 11. and not onely to the Clergy Is it not all that he expresly commandeth to Examine themselves
stich his haircloth Annot. in Clemanges ex Caesario That a Parrot crying out Saint Thomas help me was delivered from a Hawke Legend de Thom Cant. That Saint Lupus did shut up the Devil in a Tankard all night Legend de Lupo That Saint Dominicke made the Devil hold him the candle till he burnt his fingers Legend de Domin vid. Melch. Can. loc Theol. That Saint Francis swallowing a Spider in a Chalice it came whole out of his thigh vid. Franscis That Fryer Andrew to correct his appetite of eating Birds at the Table by the sign of the Cross commanded them to fly away after they were roasted Seduâ—â— Francis I will not trouble you with the recital of more nor do I say that their Councils have made these Articles of faith but their Church doth indulge and make use of such lies for the beguiling of the vulgar 3. The third instance that I give is their abominable forgeries and depravations of ancient writings Feigning Decretal Epistles of their Popes and many other writings under the names of ancient Fathers and presuming to expunge alter and falsifie the true writings of the Fathers and of the better sort of their own as is proved already against them by many and I need not here recite See Doctor Featlyes aforesaid Confer Append. Which hath done us so great a mischief by making much if not most of the writings of the Ancients uncertain to us as is scarce easily expressable nor are they ever able to repaire as the late King of England told the Marquess of Worcester in the beginning of their conference See more in Doctor Willets Tetrastilon Papismi 5. Another of the principal props of Popery hath been most horrid inhumane bloodshed and cruelty How many thousands of the Waldenses and Albigenses they cruelly murdered in Savoy and France since the year One thousand one hundred and sixty How many in Bohemia How many in other Countreyes who can possibly enumerate Cesarius saith The Waldenses had infected a thousand Cityes Parsons saith That they were so numerous that they had an Army of seventy thousand men to fight for them and that they were so spred even in Germany that they could travail from Colen to Milan in Italy and every night lodge with Hosts of their own profession Yet did the Papists by fire and sword disperse destroy them from the year 1206. to 1228. they had so filled their prisons with those that they had left that the Archbishops stay it because it was impossible to defray the charge of their food or to build prisons for them as they themselves speak yet after this 1260. Morrel in his Memorials saith p. â—4 That there was above eight hundred thousand persons that made profession of the faith of the Waldenses And some of their own Popish writers say that it was so ancient that they affirmed themselves to have thus continued successively from the Apostles And yet the Papists would make men believe that Luther was the first founder of the Reformation I desire the Reader that can have it to read Mr. S. Clarks general Martyrology of the persecution of the Waldenses and Albigenses and also of the Spanish Inquisition the Bohemian and French cruelties and the Irish of late to spare me the labor of further recital The very perfidious French Massacre at once was thought in a few dayes space and a little room to murder about thirty thousand persons and this in a pretence of peace and quietness So many bloody bouts hath that Nation had that it is not like to be still unavenged The cruelty of the Inquisition in Spaine another parts will hardly here be believed The most horrid cruelty of the Papists in Ireland lately were beyond all the rest The number that they murdered in time of peace by a sudden insurrection is almost incredible In the very Province of Vlster alone about a hundred and fifty thousand were computed to be murthered But God hath gone far in avenging their blood already What should we mention such lesser matters as the burning so many in Queen Maries dayes the Powder Plot to have blown up King and Parliament with many such fruites of the Romane fury In a word I conclude that it is not like to be the cause of Christ that hath been so long upheld by such Devilish inhumane bloody means nor is it like to be true Doctrine which possesseth men with such a bloodthirsty spirit nor is it a safe way to salvation to swim thither through the blood of Saints nor is it any better then a cruel scorning of Christ when they have persecuted him to murther Christians by thousands for seeking Reformation or not yielding to the Romish errors and then to challenge us to name or shew our Reformed Church before Luther or to accuse us of Schism for separating from them These Wolves will accuse where they cannot devour Arg 12. If Popery do adde to all these abominations impenitency and uncurableness then it is certainly no safe way to Salvation But Popery doth adde to all these abominations impenitency and uncurableness Therefore it is no safe way to Salvaâ—iâ—n I do not mean that the persons are simply uncurrable but while they are Papists or go according to their fundamental principle they are utterly uncurable and impenitent For their Principle is that their Pope or Church cannot erre but is infallible And so they are bound to stand to all their Determinations right or wrong For if they should repent of any and we return from any small or great they should in so doing proclaim that they were fallible and so let go the principle of their profession So that there is no hope of repentance and amendment of any error once determined of but onely by recanting the point of their Infallibility to make way thereto If therefore repentance and amendment be of necessity to Salvation what Will become of these men that suppose themselves so infallible and how can that be a safe way to salvation that locks up the door against repentance and amendment Popery therefore is no safe way to salvation Arg. 13. That profession which plungeth men into certain perjury and engageth them to impossibilities and contradictories is no safe way to salvation But such is the profession of Popery as I shall prove even out of the Trent Oath or Confession which I recitâ—d in the beginning 1. They vow and swear that All other things delivered defined and declared by the sacred Canons and Oecumenical Councils and especially the Holy Synod of Trent they do without doubting receive and profess When as many of these Canons and Councils are contrary each to other one undoing what another did as shall hereafter be shewn and yet they swear to receive them all 2. They swear to receive them even without doubting when as they are thus contradictory and when they confess that a true faith even in the written word of God may have doubting mixt with it 3. They vow and swear
Ground of our Belief of the Christian Doctrine or of our Receiving the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God N. HAving already enquired whether the Romanists or the Reformed Churches are in the safe way to Salvation we shall now more particularly enquire whether their faith or ours be built on the surer grounds Our Belief is thus resolved we believe the Christian Doctrine to be True because the True God is the Author of it We discern that God is the Author of it both by his Intrinsicke and Extrinsicke Seals or attestations of it in that it beareth his image and superscription and is confirmed by his undoubted uncontroled Miracles and other effects which lead us to the cause The revealing containing signs or characters are the the holy Scriptures That these Books were written by the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists and were confirmed by Miracles and are uncorrupted in the main we are infallibly assured of by the evident certainty of the historical attestation and Tradition For we depend not barely on the credit of a deceivable or deceitful man such as is the Pope of Rome or of any fallible society of men but on such History as we can prove by plain reason to be infallible containing in it besides the Testimony of the Pope and all his party the same Testimony also of all the rest of the Christians in the world yea and of the very Hereticks who were enemies to much of the truth and enough also even from the mouths of Infidels to confirm us so that by this infallible history and universal Tradition we have a fuller discovery that these Books are the same that were written by the Apostles c. then we have that the Statutes of Parliaments in the Reign of King James or Queen Elizabeth are the same that they pretend to be And to a man that heareth not God himself or the Lord Jesus or the Apostles and hath not their immediate inspirations we know not how the Laws of heaven should be more fitly delivered in an ordinary rational way nor what surer other means such as we can expect who live at such a distance from the first receivers of it unless we would have God to speak to every man as he did to Moses or have Christ or Apostles still among us or unless God must make us all Prophets by his extraordinary inspirations And lastly the true meaning of this word we understand as we do the meaning of other Laws or writings having moreover the assistance of the spirit which is necessary because of the sublimity and spirituality of the matter and the necessity of the great effects upon our hearts Our Teachers by Translation and further instructions are our helpers as they must be in other things that we would learn and by the help of them without and of the spirit within we are able to understand the meaning of the words especially comparing text with text and so receive the sanctifying impress upon our hearts And thus is the Faith of the Reformed Catholike Resolved He receiveth the Bible from the hands or mouth of his Teachers and perhaps first believeth them fide humana that it is Gods Word He knoweth that this Book was written in Hebrew and Greeke by the Prophets and Apostles by Infallible Hystory or Universal Tradition He knoweth that they did it by Inspiration of the Holy Ghost by the Image of God which he findeth on it and by the uncontroled Miracles by which they sealed it He believeth it to be True because it thus proceeded from the Holy Ghost and so is the Word of God who is most True Of the Resolution of our Faith according to the Protestant Doctrine See L. du Plessis of the Church cap. 4. Translat pag. 121.122 123. and Conradus Bergius Prax. Cathol Can. p. 208.209 210. Disp 2. § 125 126. To this same sence Vid. Sibrand Lubbert Princip Christ Dogm li. 1. pag. 20 c. What the Resolution of the Romane faith is the Question which we are now to discuss doth intimate in part for it cannot be laid down in one proposition because they are of so many minds themselves Indeed we may see in this their foundation that Popery is a very maze and dungeon for the builders of this Babel are all in confusion at the laying of their first stone Yet this much they seem to be mostly agreed in That the Scripture is the word of God and part of the Rule of faith and duty but not the whole Rule nor the whole Word of God but that unwritten Traditions are the other part and the judgement of the present Church is Gods Word after a sort as they speak That the Scripture hath its Authority in it self from God the prime truth but quoad nos as to us it hath its Authority from the Church That it is the act of Tradition or the unwritten part of Gods word to tell us that the Scriptures are the word of God or a Divine Revelation And that it is the Office of the Church to judge both of this Tradition and the Scripture as also to decide all controversies in Religion and to judge which is the true sence of Scripture and that this Church must be one only visible infallible authorized thus to judge by Christ and this is onely the Romane Church Thus far the most of them seem to be agreed But when these mysteries of iniquity come to be opened they fall all to pieces For 1. Sometimes they say that the judgement of the Church is Gods word after a sort sometime that it is some middle thing between a Testimony Divine and Humane 2. And what the formal object of faith is they are not all of a mind whether it be only the Prime Truth or whether the Revelation of the Material object be any part of the formal But I confess this controversie is more verbal then real 3. And what place here to assign to the Testimony of the Church they are not agreed neither 4. Especially they are divided in the main viz. what this Church is which is the infallible Judge and into whose judgement their faith is resolved whether it be the present Church or the former Church Whether it be the Pope only at least in case of difference between him and his Council or whether it be a General Council though the Pope agree not as the French and Venetians say Yea whether it be the Clergy only or the Laity also that are this Church Nay some of them plead Universal Tradition as Holden White Vane and divers other Englishmen of late as if that were the same with the Romane Tradition or as if it were the point in controversie between us and them And ordinarily they use to tell us of All the Church and All the Christian world and to mouth it in such swelling words that the simple hearer would little think that by All the Church they meant but one man or at the
to deliver them down to posterity in the purity as they receive them and to translate them into known tongues that the people may understand them Though others also have a part in this work yet the Pastors of the Church have by Office the chiefest part 4. It belongeth to them also to be witnesses and informers of the people how themselves did receive the Faith and Scripture from their Ancestors and to shew them how it came down to our hands by certaine Infallible Tradition from Age to Age. 5. The Church guides they are both Preservers of the Scripture Witnesses of the Tradition and Teâ—chers of the truth and have such a power of judging aâ— belongeth to all these three 6. In these acts of their office they ought to be Believed and that on a threefold account 1. Because of the evidence which they shew to prove the truth of their Assertions Though strictly this is rather to be called Learning and so Knowing then Believing and is common to Teachers with any others that shew the same proofs Yet it being supposed that ordinarily they have much more Knowledge in the things which they teach then other men have therefore we may well say that it more belongeth to them to convince and more efficacy is in their Teaching because of their proofs and better entertainment is due to their Teaching 2. Such a Belief also is due to them as all men should have in their own prosession wherein they have long studyed and laid out their time and labor and wherein they are commonly known to excell other men Every man that is less studyed in Law Physicke or any other Science or Art is bound in reason to give some credit to Lawyers Physicians and others that Study and Practice those Arts. This is but a humane Faith 3. Besides this credit before mentioned which Infidells themselves may give to the Ministers of the Gospel according to their capacities there is a further credit due to them from professed believers and that is as they are officers authorized by Christ and have a promise of his assistance to the end of the world which though it make them not infallible in all matters of Faith yet doth it assure them of a more than common help of Christ if they are his servants indeed 7. There is more of this kind of Belief due to many Pastors caeteris paribus than to one and to the whole Church than to any part 8. The credit of the Church or any Pastors in witnessing to the faith dependeth on their competency for such a Testimony which consisteth in their sufficency or Ability and their fidelity which they are rationally to manifest that it may gaine credit with others 9. In things which God hath left undetermined in Scriptures and committed to the Governors of the Church to determine of they have a Decisive Power 1. For the Time or Place or the like circumstances of Gods worship they are necessary in General viz. there must be some Time Place c. but not in specie such a Time such a Place is not necessary unless it be some that God hath already made choice of Here the Church guides must Authoritatively Determine whereupon the people are obliged to obey unless in some extraordinary cases where the Determination is so perverse and contrary to the General Rules which Scripture hath given for it that it would overthrow the substance of the duty it self 2. And in case of Church censures when any man is accused to deserve Excommunication the Church Governors have a Judicial Decisive Power as to those ends though not to make a man guilty that is Innocent yet to oblige the people to avoid Communion with the person whom they Excommunicate except in such palpable mal-administration and evident contradiction of the word of God which may nullifie their sentence for even here their Power is not unlimited 10. No man or company of men much less the Pope hath a proper Decisive Judicial Power in matter of Christian faith or whether the Scripture or any part of it be the word of God or not For the opening of this understand what we mean by a Decisive Judicial Power to wit such as a Judge hath in a controverted cause where the Plaintiff and Defendant must stand to his Judgement be it right or wrong so that though the sentence be not just yet must it be Decisive and obligatory so that he hath Power to Judge in utramque partem on either side and the judgement must be valid Such a Decisive power no creature hath in these cases that we have now in hand Where let it be still remembred that it is not the name but the Thing that we contend about If they will call that a Decisive Judicial Power which is so limited to one part or side that it shall not be valid or obligatory to the subject if it erre or go on the other side concerning which all men have a judgement of Discerning granted them by God so far as they are able to Discerne they have leave and authority then we easily grant that every Pastor of the Church is thus far the Judge of Faith and Scripture That is if any man doubt whether the Scripture be the Word of God and ask a Preacher or Bishop he hath Power to say Yea but not to say No But this is no Judicial Power but a Teaching and Witnessing act For the people are bound to disobey them if they erre and therefore bound to â—ry whether they erre or not and not to follow their judgement further then it is right and sound therefore they have no deciding Judicial Power which I prove thus Arg. 1. If the Pope or any other had such a Judicial Decisive Power then might they oblige us to Believe that there is no God that Christ is not the Redeemer that Scripture is not the word of God and so they might cast Faith and Scripture out of the Church But this is false and abominable therefore the Pope hath no such Power For the consequence it is manifest supposing that the Pope should give judgement against God Christ or Scripture then men must by this Doctrine be bound to obey it and forsake God Christ and Scripture for the Pope Whereunto add a second Argument from a further absurdity Then either such as renounce God Christ and Scripture may be saved or else God bindeth men by the Pope to renounce him and the faith to their own damnation But both these consequents are false and abominable Therefore I know they will here reply that we must not suppose that the Pope can err in his judgement and therefore being infallible he will certainly make no such false Decision To which I say 1. Why then should it be said that God hath given Authority to decide in utramque partem on either side Doth God give a man Authority to do that which he hath promised him and all others that he shal never do But he will
and Evill Heb. 5.14 The Papists would not have the people to have a judgement of Discerning If they must not Discern they must be ignorant When God so much requireth and extolleth knowledge But I 'le leave this Question and pass to the next Qu. 2. Whether the Pope be Infallible in this Decisive judgement which he pretendeth to Which we deny But before I come to give the reasons of our denyal I shall further declare our judgement about the whole matter of the Churches Infallibility that the true state of the controversie may appear And 1. We easily grant that as there is an Objective certainty in all points of the Christian Faith and in the very truth so the Pope is infallible while he believeth and declareth nothing but the truth He and every man else that speaks according to Gods word is so far infallible because that word is infallible They need not thank us for this concession 2. We grant that neither the Church of Rome if a true Church nor any other particular true Church can erre in fundamentals or in points of absolute necessity to salvation in sensu composito that is while they remain a true Church they never deny the essentials of a true Church For if they once deny the essentials they do eo nomine cease to be a true Church 3. We grant that Christs universal Church shall never deny any one point of Faith essential to Christianity or absolutely necessary to Salvation For then Christ should have no true Church on earth when the whole should thus Apostatize or turn Hereticks and all the then present world should be damned 4. The Church as Reasonable sensible men are infallible in many matters of fact of which they may give us unerring reports as that This Bible was delivered as the word of God by their Ancestors as they might testifie it was delivered to them and that this Creed or sum of Faith also was thus delivered in the words now in use c. 5. There is an infallible certainty in the evidence which the former Church hath left and the present Church possessetâ— to prove that this same Scripture was written by the Apostles and Evangelists and was delivered to the first Churches and from them down to us and that multitudes of miracles were wrought for the confirmation of the Doctrine contained in them 6. An illiterate person may have an infallible certainty that all points necessary to salvation are expressed in certain translations of Scripture and that so far and much further they are truely translated and that such things there are in that Book as the Readers affirm there to be though himself cannot read them For all this is infallibly discovered by common consent and especially of adversaries When all men that are certainly able to judge and are honest and impartial affirm it without doubt and those that would gladly contradict it as being by their interests carryed thereto yet cannot do it or at least not with any considerable pretence This gives men as infallible a proof as the common testimony of men doth that there is such a City as Rome or Paris which we never saw 7. And we further grant all that Teaching and Witnessing power to the Church officers which was expressed under the last Question and all that dueness of Belief and obedience to them which was there asserted So much for our Concessions But we deny 1. That either the Pope of Rome or a General Council are naturally or supernaturally priviledged from all error in matters of Gods revealed will or that they are priviledged from the danger or possibility of teaching these their errors to others even to the Church 2. We deny that the Pope or the Romane Clergy are secured from the danger of Apostasie or Heresie They may fall so far as to deny the Fundamentals or Essentials of Christianity though the Universal Church shall never so fall away We shall first speak of the Popes Infallibility and afterward of a General Council that we may speak to the several parties among the divided Papists herein And against the Popes Infallibility we thus argue Argu. 1 They that lay claim to this Infallibility do give us no proof of their claim Therefore they cannot expect that we should believe them The proof lyeth on the pretenders who give us no proof If they can prove it it must be either by his natural perfection or some supernatural endowment by which the Pope must be more Infallible then other men The former they pretend not to and no wonder The later they do pretend to But if God supernaturally have ascertained all Popes of an Infallibility in matters of Faith then he hath done this either by his written Word or by unwritten Tradition or both by which it must to us be proved But he hath done it neither by his written Word nor by unwritten Tradition For Tradition they must shew it us either in certain monuments of the Church which are in stead of writing but that they cannot do or else in the mindes of all the members of the Church For that which concerneth all their Salvation must be delivered to all But this they cannot shew Nay we shew them the contrary that is the greatest part of the present Church on earth denying any such Tradition and the most approved Writers of the former Ages telling us the contrary and all taking the Pope as fallible so that they cannot give us one line of any one Father or Council for many hundred years after Christ that ever had such a conceit as theirs And if they will pretend to a private Tradition which none but themselves have received and are entrusted with and so make themselves the absolute Judges of their own cause and give us no proof but their own words we will believe them as fast as we can but we must desire them not to be too hasty with us And for the written Word they cannot thence prove a grant of their infallibility 1. Because they tell us that we cannot know the Scripture to be the Word of God but by their infallible judgement Therefore we must know their judgement to be infallible first and therefore it is first to be known some other way and not by Scripture Indeed here they have long tired themselves in their Circle which some of them would hide by vain words if they could but Holden and others of them are forced to confess it and that they have no way out but by retiring to the universal testimony or tradition as an infallible evidence in stead of the Authoritative judgement or infallibility or private Tradition of the Church of Rome They tell us that we cannot know the Scripture to be the Word of God but by the infallible judgement of their Church And that is in the Issue of the Pope And when we call for the proof of that infallibility they refer us to the Scripture So that this is plainly to say that neither Scripture nor
extraordinary way it was given to them that they could not be deceived or erre But are these priviledges therefore granted to the Pope or to other Bishops And what is the infallibility that this Doctor resolveth his Faith into Let it be observed whether it be neerer the Miracles of Knot or to the universal Tradition of Chillingworth Pag. 174 175. He hath these words Statuendum 20. juxta superius stabilita principia Ecclesia soliditatem in fide seu in fidei divinae Catholicae in haerendi certitudinem infallibilitatem non in privilegio aliquo aut sedi Romanae Deo authore concesso aut S. Petri successori Pontifici Romano divinitus impartilo c. Sed universae Catholicae traditioni Ecclesia speciali Dei providentia Christi Domini promissis fulcitae praecipue tribuendam esse postea Deinde Catholicae universae traditionis rationem omnibus ommino fidei divinae dogmatibus pernecessariam esse Traditioniis vero medium seu testimonium adeâ— publicum universale apartum esse debere ut sensibus ipsis externis fidelibus omnibus Christianis oporteat constare That is The Churches infallibility and certainty of faith Is not in any privilege either granted by God as the Author to the See of of Rome or bestowed from God on the Pope of Rome as Saint Peters successor but it s chiefly to be attributed to the tradition of the universal and Catholicke Church upheld by the special providence of God and the promises of Christ And the account of this Catholike and universal Tradition is most necessary to all points of divine faith And the means or Testimony of this Tradition must be so publike universal and open that it must be manifest to all Christians to their very outward senses I confess this Doctor allows us pretty fair quarter in comparison of many others of his party If they will but give us such Open publike universal certain Tradition which must be known to the very outward senses of every Christian we shall be very ready to comply with them in receiving such a Testimony But if all the Romish Traditions had been such they would be known to all Christians as well as to the Pope and not lock't up in his Cabinet and our selves should sure have known them before now if we be Christians Quest 5. To proceed I am very desirous to know whether it be upon the credit of the present Church Pope or Council or of those former that are dead and gone that we must receive our faith and the Scriptures Or upon both If it be on the credit of any former Church then would I know of which age whether of the neerest or the middle or of the first and remotest age that is from the Apostles and the Church in their dayes If from the last age then 1. How know we their Testimony If it be by their writings Canons or Decrees why cannot other men who are much wiser and better understand these as well as the Pope And why do they not refer us to those writings but to their own determinations If it be by the Fathers telling the children what hath formerly been believed then why cannot I tell what my Father told me without the Pope and better then the Pope that never knew him 2. And then it must be known upon whose credit the former ages did receive that faith and Scripture which they deliver down to us Doubtless they will say from their predecessors and they again from their predecessors and so up to the Apostles And why then may not we take it immediately on the credit of the Apostles as well as the first ages did supposing that we have the mediation of a sure hand to deliver to us their writings without meditation of the like inspired prophetical persons or of any priviledged infallible judge of the faith And if it be on this Testimony of former ages that we must receive the Scripture as the word of God I shall then proceed further to demand Quest 6. Why may not the Greeks Abassines Protestants c. that acknowledge not the Popes authority or infallibility receive the Scripture as the word of God as well as the Papists Do they think that none else in the world but they can tell what was the judgement of the former Church What records or Tradition have they which all the rest of the world is ignorant of Or dare they say if they have the face of Christians that none of all the Christians on earth but Papists onely have any sufficient evidence that the Scripture was written by the Apostles and delivered from them and that this is it which is now in the Church Can no man indeed but a Papists know the Scripture to be the word of God upon justifiable grounds But if it be on the credit of the present Church or both that we must take the Scripture to be Gods word then I shall further desire to be informed Quest 7. What is it which they call the present Church Is it 1. The whole number of the faithful 2. Or a major vote or part 3. Or the Bishops or Presbyters in whole or part 4. Or a Council chosen from among them 5. Or the Pope If the first Quest 8 Do they not then make all Christians infallible as well as the Pope And so they are in sensu composito in the essentials of Christianity and the whole Church shall never deny those essentials but 1. whole particular Churches may and 2. the whole Church may erre some smaller errors against the revealed will of God the Apostle telleth us that we know but in part and as in many things we offend all so in many things we err all And moreover if this be their sense Quest 9. Will it not then follow that the Pope cannot be proved infallible because it is most certain that All the Church doth not take him to be infallible no nor the greatest part of Christians in the world Yea if they will take none for Christians but Papists yet it will hence follow that there is no certainty that either Pope or Council are infallible For the French take a Pope to be fallible and the Italians and others take a General Council to be fallible and therefore the whole Popish Church being not agreed of it we cannot be sure that either of them is infallible And moreover on this ground I demand Quest 10. How shall we know in very many cases at least either which is the judgement of the whole Church or of the major part What opportunity have we to take the account Or can no poor Christian believe the word of God that cannot take an account of this through the world The same Question also I would put if they take all or most of the Pastors for this Church Quest 11. But if they take a General Council for the Church I would first know How we shall be sure that ever there hath at least these
thousand years been ever a true General Council in the world The Popish Doctors as Doctor Holden de Resolut fid li. 1. cap. 9. pag. 156. say that It must arise to that degree of universality that there may not be any suspicion of conspiracies and combined factions that so every prudent man may be able heartily to say that the Assemblies are truely General And is it so when there are none but the sworn obliged vassals of the Pope of Rome and the Greeks Ethiopians Protestants c. and most of the Church are absent and when it is a known combination to promote their own espoused cause Quest 12. And then is the whole foundation of Divine faith extinct and lost when there is no General Council It may be we may have no General Council of a hundred or six hundred or a thousand years together Have we no Church then Or no certainty of Scripture or of the faith If they say that we are certain by the determinations of former Councils then they speak of the Church that is past and gone of which I moved the doubts before And the Canons of these we can read and understand as well as the Pope But when we appeal to former Councils and Ages they would hold us to the present Church and that must be their own and so be sure to be judges in their own cause Q. 13 I would know also whether it were by the judgment of a General Council that the first Churches believed the Scripture to be Gods word Did not the Church of Rome believe the Epistle to the Romanes and the Church of Corinth believe the Epistle to the Corinthians and so the rest to be the word of God as soon as they received them by an undoubted messenger from Paul Or did they stay till they had the judgement of a General Council or of all the Churches Indeed they made use of the intervening humane but certain testimony of him that was the messenger or bearer of the Epistle to know that it was the writing of Paul indeed and so we still maintain the necessity of a credible humane Testimony that these writings came from the Apostles hands But Tychicus or Trophimus or Timothy or Onesâ—mus were not a General Council nor the whole Church And doubtless those Epistles that were written to each particular Church were received by all the rest of the Churches upon the credit of that particular Church as having received it from an Apostle and not that the particular received it from the universal How did the universal Church know that those Epistles were written by Paul to Titus Timothy Philemon to the Ephesians c. but on the report of the persons and Church to whom they were written or else of those particular persons or Churches to whom the Apostle did communicate a copy of them Quest 14. And how did all the Church know the Scripture to be Gods word before the Council of Nice when there had been no General Council to â—etermine the business Quest 15. Dare a Papist undertake to justifie at Gods judgement all that part of the unbelieving world for not taking the Scripture for the word of God who have seen or heard it and had all other â—estimonies of it but never knew of the Testimony of the Pope or a General Council Shall none of â—hese perish for this unbelief Quest 16. And if it be the Pope that they call â—he Church and take it to be this infallible judge â— then demand How knows the Pope that the Scripture is Gods word or that the Christian Faith is â—rue The like also I ask of a Council How doth that Council know it themselves from whom we must know it Either the Pope and Council must believe it because they first believe themselves and so take it on their own words or else on the words of some others â—f the former then they Believe it because they Believe â—t then they are the original of their own belief and believe themselves first and then would have all the world to believe them And this is not onely to be â—o arrogant as to be the God of themselves and the Church but also so impudent and unreasonable as to believe themselves without reason and to expect that all others should do so too But if it be not from themselves that the Pope and Council believe the Scriptures from whom then is it not from any others of the present Church doubtless therfore it must be from the former Church And if so 1. Have not we the same means to know that the former Church believed the Scriptures as the Pope hath and therefore may believe it without recourse to him and as infallibly as he 2. And then it seems that acccording to their doctrine the Pope and his Council receive not their faith or the Scriptures on the same ground as all the rest of the Church must do so that the Church must have a twofold foundation of her faith whereof one is necessary only to one part and not to the other that is All the rest of the Church must believe the Scripture to be Gods word because the presenâ— Pope or Council saith so having first believed the infallibility but the Pope and Council themselveâ— need not any such ground of their faith And this distinction is not made between the Laity and the Clergy in general But even the Clergy themselves out of Council or who never were of the Council which sure is more then a hundred for one must thuâ— differ from the Pope and Council in the foundation of their Faith This is another taste of the famous Romane unity Paul saith there is One Faith bâ—â— if two divided Foundations or Reasons of Belieâ— do make two Beliefs surely the Church of Rome hatâ— two Quest 17. Do you believe that the Lord Jesâ— Christ understood the doctrine of your Papal Authority and infallibility when he so chid his Apostles foâ— striving who should be greatest and telleth them so expresly that the Kings of the Gentiles exercise Authority over them and are called Gracious Lords but with you it shall not be so And when he sets before them a little child and telleth them that he that will be greatest among them must be as that child that is that humility is the thing that they must strive to be great or excell in and so to serve one another in love Also when he commandeth them to call no man on earth Father or Master that is of their Faith Did ever Christ direct the world to go to the Church of Rome to know whether he be the Christ or whether the Scripture be his word or not Quest 18. Where is the Faith of the Church when the Pope is dead and when there are three or four at a time and when there is an interruption by Schisme thirty years together as it is known there hath been Hath not the Church then lost her faith by losing the foundation of it Or
whether then must poor Pagans have recourse to know that Scripture is the Word of God If Infallibility survive in other Pastors then it seemes it is not the Pope onely that is infallible but others as well as he And was not the Churches Faith resolved into the Infallibility of a Woman in Pope Joanes dayes I know the shifts of Bellarmine and Onuphrius to make the world believe that the Story of Pope Joane is but a Fable Florimondus Remondus is common on this subject But the case is out of question thus farre that we have neer fifty of their own Writers especially old Historians that give us the History of this Pope Joane as Platina in vit Joh. 8. Sabellicus Enead l. 1. Antoninus Archbishop of Florence part 2. li. 16. Chalcondyla li. 6. Marianus Scotus Martinus Polonus Fasciculus Temporum Nauclerus Volaterane Textor Caryon Sigebertus Gemblacensis Mat. Palmerius Massaeus c. And I marvaile why the Papists should be so industrious in refelling it as if their cause lay more on this then other things If a Conjurer a common Whoremonger a Murderer a Simonist a Heretick may be the infallible judge of the faith why may not a woman Hath Christ laid more on the Sex then on all these specially if she had but kept her self honest I should have thought Joane had been better then John the 22. or 23. and many another that yet was of the more worthy gender Quest 19. And further I would know If the City of Rome were consumed with fire or the Pope-dome removed from that Sea which Bellarmine confesseth it is not impossile to be done where then were the infallible head of the Church and what were become of the Romish faith If they say that this can never be and that Christs promise implyeth the preservation of the City of Rome I answer 1. It will be long before they will give us any proof of that 2. Their own writers confess the contrary 3. Let the end determine it But if they say that infallibility is not tyed to the place but to the Person who shall be Peters successor I answer we thought hitherto that to be Peters successor and to be the Bishop of Rome had been all one with them If another man that is no Bishop of Rome may be Peters successor then how shall we know who have succeeded him all this while Why not the Bishop of Alexandria Hierusalem Ephesus or other place as well as the Pope specially why not the Patriarch of Antioch who is said to be the eldest son of Saint Peter as inheriting his first chaire I doubt if Rome were extinct and the Bishop of Mentz or Cullen or Vienna or Rhemes or Paris or any other should pretend to be the infallible head of the Church not only the old Patriarchs but their neighbor Bishops would much contradict it and the world would be at a great loss to find the Popish faith or infallible head Quest 20. Lastly I will appeal to the conscience of any Papist that hath any conscience left and hath read the Fathers or History of the first Ages of the Church whether the rest of the Bishops and Curches in those times did believe the Scripture upon the credit of the infallibility of the Pope or the Romane Church Did the rest of the Apostles receive the Gospel on the credit of Peter or were they sent by him or did they receive their authority from him Do they find that ever the Apostles or any following Bishops of the Church did take such a course to bring men to the faith as first to teach them that the Romane Pope or Clergy were infallible and therefore to perswade them to believe the Scriptures or Christian faith because they say its true Is it possible that any learned Papists can seriously believe that this was the ancient way of believing Do they think in good sadness that the world was converted to Christianity by this means Sure it is scarce possible that they should be so far distracted by their prejudice and faction Do they read in Clemens Rom. or Alexandrin in Ignatius Justin Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Cyprian or any other of those times that the preachers that went abroad the world to perswade men to Christianity did ever use this Popish Medium or go this way to work Did they first preach the Pope and Romane Church before they preach't Christ or Scripture Did they first preach men into a belief of the Romane infallibility and then bring them to Christ or to believe the Scripture upon the credit of that O that these men would but shew us in what history we may find the reports of this way of preaching Or tell us what parts of the world were converted by this argument How many and large Orations Apologies and other discourses do we find in the Fathers writings for the Christian Faith to convince the unbelieving world in Clem Alexand. Tertullian Origen Athenagoras Tatianus Minutius Faelix Arnobius Lactantius Greg Nazianz. Nissen Athanasius Basil Eusebius Cyril Alexandr Augustine and many others And can any man of brains imagin that if the infallibility â—ea or but the authority of the Romane Pope or Church must needs be known before we can believe the Scripture or the Christian faith and that it must be received upon the credit of that Church that all these Fathers and others defenders and propagators of the Faith would have quite forgotten and left out this great and necessary point What! Would all the preachers and defenders of the faith overlook and omit the very foundation into which all mens faith must be resolved Undoubtedly if this had been then thought to be true which the Papists now teach we should have had the first part and a great if not the greatest part of all thoâ—e Apologies and discourses laid out in the proof of the Romane infallibility What man will go to evince a whole systeme of doctrines to be true and quite forget that medium by which onely it is first to be proved Would not this have found one place at least if not the chief among Eusebius his Preparations or Demonstrations Where was there ever in all Antiquity found such an Argument as this to convince an unbeliever Whatsoever the Pope and Church of Rome determineth is true But they do determine that Scripture is the word of God or that Christianity is the right Religion therefore this is true Nay further consider If this kind of arguing had been then used may not any man see that hath not renounced his wits that the Heathens would have sorely stuck at the Major proposition and that it would have met with so many objections and contradictions from them that surely we should have found some of them remembred to posterity Did Julian never stick at this very principle of the faith the Romane infallibility who stuck at so many things in the faith it self Or have Cyril Alexandr and others quite forgot to mention these among the rest
have small reason to hear us or regard us or to trust their salvation on the doctrine which we deliver to them seeing for ought we know or they know we may but deceive them as being first our selves deceived so that this makes way to infidelity or uncertainty of the faith if the Church be not infallible This is their all the first and last for ought I can find that 's worth the repeating and of how little value this arguing is me thinks should be very easie to apprehend 1. Look back to the stating of the Question and remember how far we say the Church is fallible and how far infallible and it may suffice to confute all this 2. It s not all one to be absolutely infallible and to be actually Not-mistaken Nor to be certain of some things and to be certain of all things that ought to be known or believed Nor to be certain by such external evidence of verity and internal grace as is ordinary to the faithful and to be certain by a pretended priviledge above all the rest of the world even knowing the conclusion as such without knowing the medium We are certain that Scripture is Gods word and certain that we are certain and therefore pro tempore infallibly certain And if we should say that we are certain that no true Believer shall ever fall from this certainty we should speak more agreeably to the Protestant doctrine then to yours who say that they may fall away And we maintain that there is still an Objective certainly or Infallibility if I may use the word actively in the word of God and every sentence of it which can never fail if our faith should fail And we can manifest to our hearers such grounds of their belief as are infallible and will never deceive those that trust in them Your argument therefore most vainly supposeth that mens saith must be grounded on the word and credit of their Teachers and that therefore they can have no stronger a faith then is answerable to our credit with them But it s no such matter It is Gods Veracity and not ours that is the formal object of the hearers faith We do not desire as it seems the Papists do that they should take their faith on trust from us and believe all on our words We do but reveal to them that word of God which is the ground of faith and we prove it to be the word of God and shew them that in it which will prove it self to be so so that as long as our Reasons Proofs Evidences are infallible what necessity is there that the speaker must be infallible and that in every thing that ought to be believed Are all the Preachers of the Romish faction infallible You will say no your selves Must they not therefore be heard Or may not the doctrine which they preach beget a certain belief in the hearer You will I know with one voice say that I may and doth How then do fallible men among you by preaching bring men to an infallible faith in tantâ—m and why may it not be so with us Will you say that you preach in the name of the Pope who is infallible Why but how do your hearers know that Must they take it on the preachers word who proclaimeth himself fallible Why then may they not as well take it on our words that Christ and Scripture is infallible When we say we preach in Christs name as confidently as you say that you preach in the Popes name and so your doctrine and ours should be both uncertain if both rested on the fallible preachers word But if you will not bid your hearers take your word but will undertake to demonstrate to thtm by cogent evidence that you are sent by the Pope and that he is infallible and that you speak nothing but what he infallibly warranteth you to speak all which will be incumbent on you to prove then will we much more easily and truly prove that God is true and that Scripture is his word which is all that is incumbent on us to prove seeing an infallible word of an infallible God must be heard how fallible soever we may be so that you might easily see if you would that your task is incomparably harder then ours even as much as to prove a falshood is harder then to prove a truth How will you approve of such reasoning as your own in other cases What if ten men that have been at a fight come home and tell you which side had the better though they are all fallible may they not possibly give you such infallible proof of what they say as may make it certain What if all the Lawyers in the Land are fallible men yea and all other men in the Land and do not know all things nor all that should be known about the Lawes Doth it follow that these fallible men may not infallibly know themselves and infallibly prove to others even by certain humane testimony uncapable of deceit that this or that is indeed a statute Law of the Land made by King and Parliament Do all men hold their lands and lives by Law and so many dye at the Gallows by Law and yet is it uncertain whether they be the Laws indeed or not and all because the men that say so are not infallible and all are dead that saw them made Why but a man may be certain of many a thing that yet is not infallible in all things nor in all that he ought to know Your argument therefore is strong against your selves who resolve mens saith into humane credit but it s nothing against us who resolve it into Gods veracity and teach not men to take all upon trust from our bare words It is sufficient that God is infallible when we perswade them to believe and that we can infallibly prove to them that the Scripture is Gods word and what it containeth in the points of necessity to salvation We can without infallibility in all other matters infallibly prove to them what God requireth them to Believe and Do as Necessary to Salvation It is the infallibility of our proofs and not of our bare words that is necessary to mens belief But the Papists expect their misled flock should take their bare word and so make the faith of their followers a humane faith and to blind the business they pretend to a certain infallibility as if their sayings were Divine Men will make use of Phisicians for their bodies though they be not infallible Much more might they do it with encouragement if they could infallibly tell them the true cure of every mortal disease though there were an hundred smaller diseases that they could not cure or a hundred questions in Anatomy and about the nature of diseases which they could not resolve Why then should men conceit that the Ministry is vain that is not infallible and knoweth not all things Hath Gods Church been without infallible ordinary guides from
the creation to this day and we must now begin to feign a Necessity of their infallibility Let it be sufficient that God and the extraordinarily inspired Prophets and Apostles are infallible and that we have Teachers that can infallibly prove to us what he requireth of us in his words in points of Necessity to our everlasting happiness And for themselves pretending to infallibility makes them not nor procureth them infallible whereas their voluminous errors and the wicked practices grounded thereupon and their frequent self-contradictions and mutations do proclaim aloud to the world that they are both deceivable deceived and deceivers while the holy Scriptures whose sufficiency they deny is by themselves confessed to be of infallible verity We are resolved therefore by the grace of God in a business of such moment as the everlasting saving or losing of our souls to venture and bottom all our Hopes on that word of God whose infallibility they confess then on the wordâ— of men who pretend to infallibility and notoriously declare the vainty of those pretences Some more of the Sence of Antiquity in the main Controversie between us and the Papists to declare further who it is that is of the New Religion CYrill Hierosol Cateches 4. Sect. de spiritu sancto pag. Edit Paris 1631. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. e. For concerning Divine things and the holy mysteries of faith nothing no not the smallest thing ought to be delivered without the Divine Scriptures nor to be brought forth by simple probability nor by a train of words Nay do not simply believe me my self when I speak of these things to thee unless thou receive a demonstration of the things which I speak from the Divine Scriptures For the very safety of our faith resteth not on the elegancy of speech but on the proof of Divine Scriptures And pag. 36. Sect de Sacra Script he telleth you what Scriptures he meaneth earnestly disswading from the Apocryphal books and numbering the same onely which we own as Canonical save that he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and omitteth the Epist to Hebrews and the Apocalypse And Cateches 17. pag. 192. he saith And we now also ingeniously confess that we will not use humane reasonings but will only commemorate those things which are in the holy Scriptures for this is most safe as Saint Paul 1. Cor. 2.4 And Cateches 18. pag. 220 221 222. See how he describeth the Catholike Church without the least intimation of the Romane description August Cont. literas Petiliani li. 3. cap. 6. pag. Edit Paris 127. col 1. Proinde sive de Christo sive de ejus Ecclesia sive de quacunque alia re quae pertinet ad fidem utramque nostram non dicam nos nequaquam comparandi ei qui dixit Licet si nos sed omnino quod secutus adjecit Si Angelus de caelo vobis annunciaverit preterquam quod in Scripturis legalibus Evangelicis accepistis anathema sit Hac vobiscum cum omnibus quos Christo lucrati cupimus actitantes atque inter caetera sanctam Ecclesiam quam in Dei lieris promissam legimus sicut promissa est in omnibus gâ—ntibus reddi cernimus praedicantes ab iis quos ad ejus pacificum gremium attrahi cupimus pro actione gratiarum flammas meruinnus odiorum That is Moreover whether it be of Christ or of his Church or of any other thing which pertaineth to our faith and life I say not if we who are not to be compared to him who said Though we but that which he next added If an Angel from heaven shall preach to you any other thing then that which you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospel let him be accursed While we deal thus with you and with all men whom we desire to win to Christ and among other things do preach the holy Church which we find promised in Gods Scriptures and which we see to be placed in all Nations as was promised we have deserved or procured the flames of hatred from those whom we desire to draw into its pacifike bosome in stead of thanks And he proceedeth as if it were we that so long before had bid the Prophets and Apostles that they should not put in their books any Testimonies by which the faction or party of Donatus is proved to be the Church of Christ The Epistle ad Demetriadem commonly reckoned the 142. among Augustines cap. 9. saith Scito itaque in Scripturis divinis per quas solas potes plenam Dei intelligere voluntatem c. By the Divine Scriptures alone thou maist understand the full will of God I know the Lovaine Doctors put this Epistle in the Appendix and conjecture it to be of Pelagius but 1. it shews the doctrine of that age 2. Never did Austin contradict it but oft say the like August de peccat Merit Remiss li. 2. cap. 36. pag. mihi 304. saith Talis populus ut praedixi eruditus in Regno caelorum per duo testamenta vetus novum non declinans in dextram superba presumtione justitiae neque in sinistram secuva delectatione peccati in terram illius promissionis intrabit postea Vbi enim de re obscurissima disputatur non adjuvantibus Divinarum Scripturarum certis clarisque documentis cohibere se debâ—t humana presumptio nihil faciens in partem alteram declinando So that in Austius judgement the old and new Testament teach us enough to salvation and in the difficult points we must not so much as incline to either side without the Scriptures it being presumption to speak when they are silent And in his 49. Tract on John he saith Evangelista testatur multa Dominum Christum dixisse fecisse quae non scripta sunt electa sunt autem quae scriberentur quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur i. e. The Evangelist testifieth that the Lord Christ spoke and did many things that are not written but those were chosen to be written which seemed sufficient for the salvation of Believers And li. de Nat. Grat c. 26. he saith to the Pelagians Solis Canonicis debeo sine â—ulla recusatione consensum That is I owe a consent without any refusal to the Canonical Scriptures alone An hundred more such sayings might be cited out of Augustine Hierom on the first Ch. of Hag. fol mihi 102. speaking of the use of Hereticks saith Sed alia quae absque authoritate testimoniis Scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolica sponte reperiunt atque confingunt percutit gladius Dei i. e. But other things which without the Authority and Testimonies of Scripture they do of their own accord find out and feign as of Apostolical tradition the sword of God will cut down And he instanceth in the fastings and other austerities of the Tatiani which he saith they suffer causlesly The same Hierom against Helvidius saith Vt haec quae
quod coram omnibus juste vivant bene omnia de Deo credant omnes articules qui in symbolo continentur solummodo Romanam Ecclesiam blasphemant et Clerum That is Among all the Sects that yet are and have been there is not a more pernicious to the Church then that of the Lyonists and that for three causes 1. Because it is the more 〈◊〉 or of longer continuance for some 〈◊〉 it hath endured from the time of Silvester other from the time of the Apostles 2. Because it is more general for there is scarce any land in which this â—ect â—s not 3. Because when all other sects do by the immanity of their blasphemy bring horror into the hearers this of the Lyonists hath a great shew of godliness in that they live righteously before all men and they believe all things well concerning God and all the articles that are contained in the Creed onely they blasphem the Romane Church and the Clergy To this adde what I cited out of Canus and others before Lastly Give us some tolerable answer to all that voluminous evidence of your oppositions by Princes Prelates Divines and Lawyers which Mich. Goldastus hath collected and published on his volumes de Monarche constitut Imperial APPENDIX A Translation of Bishop Downames Catalogue of Popish Errors lib. 3. de Antichristo cap. 7. To satisfie the earnest desires of some of the unlearned who would fain know wherein the Papists differ from us that they may be the better furnished against them and may the better understand those that under other Titles carry about their doctrines BEcause I find many ignorant persons both unacquainted with the Errors of the Papists and yet very desirous to know them I have adventured to translate a larger Catalogue of them gathered by Bishop George Downame in his Book written to prove the Pope Antichrist lib. 3. cap. 7. pag. 189. c. though it cannot be expected that in such brief expressions the true point of the difference should in all lie plain before them that are unacquainted with the controversies yet because I was resolved not to give you any such Catalogue of my own gathering and knew not where to find one so large as to the number of errors and brief as to the expressions I give you this as I find it Bishop G.D. Chap. 7. A Catalogue of the Errors of the Church of Rome THe Errors of the Papists are either about the Principles of Divinity or the parts of it The principles of Theology are the Holy Scriptures Here the Papists have many errors 1. They deny the Holy Scripture which is of Divine inspiration to be the onely Rule and Foundation of Faith 2. They take certain Apocryphal Books into the Canon of the old Testament which neither the Jewish Synagogue to which the Oracles of God were committed nor yet the purer Christian Church did receive 3. They make two parts of Gods word that is the Scriptures and their own Traditions 4. They contend that the Customes and unwritten Opinions of the Church of Rome are most certain Apostolical Traditions 5. These Traditions or as they call them unwritten veritys they make equal with the Holy Scriture and receive and reverence them with equal pious affection and reverence 6. They number the Popes Decretal Epistles with the holy Scriptures 7. They say its heresie for any to say that it is not altogether in the Power of the Church or Pope to appoint Aâ—ticles of faith 8. They prefer the faith and judgement of the Church of Rome which they say is the internal Scripture written by the hand of God in heart of the Church bâ—fore the Holy Scripture 9. That the Scripture in which God himself speaketh is not the voice of a Judge but the matter of strife 10. They accuse the Scripture which is the light to our feet and giveth understanding to children of too much obscurity 11. They condemn it also of imperfection and insufficiency 12. They say that even in matters of faith and the worship of God we cannot argue Negatively from Scripture as thus It is not in the Scripture therefore it is not necessary or lawful 13. That the Scripture is not sufficient for the refuting of all heresies as if there were any heresie but what is against Scripture 14. That heresie is not so much to be defined by the Scripture authority as by the Churches determination 15. That the authority of the Catholike Church that is the Romane is greater â—en of the Scriptures â—nd the Popes authority greater then the Church 16. That the Church is ancienter than the Scripture that is then the word of God which is now written because it is ancienter then the writing of it As if it were not the same word of God which was first delivered by voice That is now then in writing 17. That the Scripture dependeth on the Catholike Church that is the Romane and not the Church on the Scripture 18. Also that the sence of the Scripture is to be sought from the See of Rome and that the Scripture is not the word of God but as it is expounded according to the sence of the Church of Rome 19. They make seven Principles of the Christian doctrine which are all grounded in the authority of the See and Pope of Rome 20. They take the vulgâ— Translation only for authentical preferring it before the originals though it is so manifestly corrupt that the Copies lately published by the Popes themselves Sixtus the fifth and Clement the eighth do in many places differ 21. That either the holy Scriptures ought not to be Translated into vulgar tongues or if it be yet it must neither be publikely read in a known tongue nor permitted to be privately read by the common people § 2. Of the Belief The Parts of Theology are 1. Of faith or things to be believed 2. Of Charity or things to be done Matters of faith are 1. Of God his works 2. Of the Church The works of God are specially 1. Of Creation and Government of the world 2. Of Redemption of mankind 1. ABout the Creation the Papists erre in saying that concupiscence was then natural to man though John saith that it is not of God 1 Jo. 2.16 and themselves sometime confess it to be evil and contrary to nature 2. In the denying that original righteousness was natural to man before the fall created after Gods Image in Righteousness and holiness 3. In affirming that mortality was natural to man before the fall which yet is not from God the author of nature 4. In placing Paradise where the waters of the flood did not reach it which yet covered all the earth and were fifteen cubits higher then the highest mouâ—taines 5. Forsooth they would have that Paradise or Eden yet untouched that it may be a pleasant habitatian to Henâ—ch and Elias
2. Either the Catholike Church is one or not If not then Popery is deceitful which maketh this its principal pretence for the usurping the Universal Headship If it be One then Popery is deceitful which is renounced by the far greater part of the Catholike Church and again renounceth them and separateth from them because they will not be subject to the Pope who never yet in his greatest height had the actual Government of half the Christian world 3. Either the Judgement of the Antient Doctors is sound or not If not then the Church of Rome is unsound that is sworn to expound the Scripture onely according to their concent If it be sound then the Church of Rome is unsound that arrogate a Uiniversal Government and Infallibility and build upon a foundation that was never allowed by the Antient Doctors as in the third Disput I have fully proved and which most Christians in the world do still reject 4. Either Reason it self is to be renounced or not If it be then none can be Papists but mad men If not then Popery must be renounced which foundeth our very faith upon impossibilities and teacheth men of necessity to believe in the Pope as the Vicar of Christ before they believe in Christ with many the like which are afterwards laid open 5. Either our five Senses and the Judgement made upon them is certain and Infallible or not If not then the Church of Rome both Pope and Council are Fallible and not at all to be tâ—â—â—â—ed For when all their Tradition is by hearing or reading they are uncertain whether ever they heard or read any such thing and we must all be uncertain whether they speak or write it And then we must not onely subscribe to Fransc Sanchez Quod nihil scitur but also say that Nihil certo creditur But if sense be certain and Infallible then the Church of Rome even Pope and Council are not onely Fallible but certainly false deceivers and deceived For the Pope and his Council tell the Church that it is not Bread and Wine which they take eat and drink in the Eucharist But the senses of all sound men do tell them that it is I see that its Bread and Wine I smell it I feel it I taste it and somewhat I hear to further my assurance And yet if Popery be not false it s no such matter One would think the dullest Reader might be quickely here resolved whether Popery be true or false Look on the consecrated Bread and Wine touch it smell it taste it and if thou canst but be sure that it is indeed Bread and Wine thou maist be as sure that Popery is a delusion And if thou canst but be sure that it is not Bread and Wine yet thou maist be sure that the Pope or his Council nor any of his Doctors are not to be believed For if other mens senses be deceitful theirs and thine are so too But these things are urged in the following Disputations It s worth the observing how much they are at odds among themselves about the Resolution of their Faith and how neer some of them come to us of late as in White 's Sonus Buccinae and Doctor H. Holden de Resol fidei and in Cressy and Vane and others may be seen And their silly followers in England think verily that theirs is the common Doctrine of that Church And how solicitous Cressy and others are to take that Infallibility out of our way as a stumbling stone which the Italians and most of them make the Foundation and chief corner-stone What a task were it to Reconcile but Bellarmine and Holden Knot and Cressy both in English White had so much wit in his Defence of Rushworths Dialogues when he wrote in English to carry on the matter as smoothly as if they had been all of a mind But when he writes in Latin How many wayes of Resolution of Faith that are unsound can he find among the Papists as different from his own Vid. de fide Theolog Tract 1. Sect. 28.29 Reader Adhere to God and the Righteousness of Christ and the Teachings of the Holy Ghost by the Holy Scriptures and a faithful Ministry in the Communion of the Saints and as a member of the Catholike Church which arising at Jerusalem is dispersed over the world containing all that are Christians renounce not right Reason or thy senses and live according to the light which is vouchsafed thee and then thou shalt be safe from Popery and all other pernicious damning errors Marc. 10. 1656 7. R.B. To the Literate Romanists that will read this Book Men and Brethren A Writing that so much concerneth your cause I think should tender you some account of its publication especially when I know that not onely the divulging but the holding of the Doctrine contained therein is so hainous a matter in your eyes that if I were in your power the suspicion of it might bring me to the Rack and the Strappado and the confession of it would expose me to the flames I have many times considered that you could never sure endure to torment men in your Inquisition and consume them to ashes and so industriously to embroyle the Nations of the earth in blood and miseries to work them to your minds and set up your own way if you did not think it right and think them exceeding bad whom you thus destroy I find that my own heart would serve me to use Toads and Serpents and destroying Vermine half as bad as you do Protestants that is to put them to death though not to torment them so long but for gentler and more harmeless creatures I could not do it without a great reluctancy of my nature I must needs therefore by your works bear you record that you have a zeal for God but so had some before you that guided it not by knowledge Rom. 10.2 And I suppose your way is undoubtedly right in your own eyes or else you durst never prosecute it with such violence And yet one that was once as zealous in his way and shut up the Saints in prison and received authority from the high Priests to put them to death and compelled them to blaspheam did afterward call all this but madness Acts 26.9 10 11. But methinks I find my self obliged when I see men differ from me with such height of confidence to give them some Reason of my differing thoughts And yet it is no great matter of success that I can expect from this account To make any addition or alteration in your belief I have no great reason to expect while you read my words with this prejudice that they are damnable heresie and depend upon him whom you suppose infallible for the fashioning of your Faith And if I should say that I expect satisfaction from you with any great hope I should but dissemble For I have not been negligent in reading such writings of your own as might acquaint me both with
it not For the will it self is under a Law which puts it upon duty and not onely restrains it from sinful volition or nolition And therefore if the will do but suspend its act in whole or in part and thereby let the commanded faculties miscarry I shall yet believe that this is forbidden and a proper sin What if you have a charge of the souls of your flock and you sleep while they are misled Or if you were a Physician and had charge of your patients lives and you fall asleep till they are past recovery are you no sinner and do you not go against the Law Yes you are a murderer For though the thing be not voluntary quoad actum voluntatis it is morally or imputatively voluntary propter omissionem actus If Wolverhampton Papists be fed with such doctrine as this they may well be many but they are unlikely to be good Inconsiderateness which I took for one of the most destroying sins it seems is a notable preservative from sin For be sure you deliberate not and you break no Law of God what ever you do And if there be no Law against Lying except the lyes of the higher strain that are by H.T. excepted no wonder then if Papists be Lyars And can you think it any injury to you if from hence I interptet not onely many of your Historical writings such as the Image of both Churches c. but also much of the jugâ—ing that is in England at this day If you put your selves in the Garbe of Quakers Enthusiasts Anabaptists c. and pretend that you are of their opinions and deny your selves to be what you are as long as you think that these lies are pious and rather honor God then greatly dishonor him and rather do good to others by promoting the Catholike cause then notably injure them can any man say that 's of your opinion that they are against the Law of God And why call you that a venial sin which is against no Law when sin is a transgression of the Law and where there â—s no Law there is no transgression 1 Ioh. 3.4 Rom. 4.15 And why say you â—hat veniam meretur when yet you say that â—aenam aeternam non meretur How can there â—e venia sine merito vel debito paenae What â—eed you any pardon of that which was never â—eserved by you And what need you ask forgiveness of these sins or be beholden to God â—or it if the punishment to be forgiven were never due Will you beg the remission of a debt which is no debt Aquinas makes venial and mortal sin to differ as Reparabile irreparabile because from an inward principle the one may be repaired but the other not without infused supernatural grace But is it ever the less sin because it is reparabile Nay what needs it reparation if it be not a transgression But what is this Reparation that he speaks of Is it the remission of the guilt and punishment No sure for eternal punishment he saith it deserveth not and internal principles do not sure forgive the punishment of sin Can we forgive our selves What is it then Is it the removing of the blot No properly peccatum veniale non inducit maculam as before said Is it that venial sin is easier conquered and forsaken then mortal No sure For Aquinas tells us that a man may live for a little while without venial sin but not long but without mortal sin they may easily live till death What this reparation then is I do not certainly know But whatever it is methinks it should suppose a proper sin and not onely Analogical an a desert of eternal punishment to be remitted And here I must adde that another thinâ— that lately hath much disaffected me to youâ— profession is to see by what actual fraud and jugling it is propagated Do you think I see not the game that you are now playing in the darke in England in the persons of Seekers Behmenists Paracelsians Origenists Quakers and Anabaptists I must confess I naturally abhor collusions and dissimulation in the matters of God If your way were of God it needed not such devices to uphold it nor would it suit so well with works of darkness If you have the truth produce it naked and deal plainly and play above board For my part I do not fear being cheated out of my Religion by any thing but seeming force of Argument for I mean to know what I receive before I take it and to taste and chew it before I let it down but the blind incautelous multitude and half witted giddy persons and discontented licentious half studyed Gentlemen may possibly be caught by such chaffe as this Another of your dissimulations which increaseth my dissatisfaction is Your pretending â—o the ignorant people that you are all of a mind and there are no divisions among you â—nd making our divisions the great Argument â—o raise â—n odium against our doctrine calling us Schismaticks Hereticks and the like When â—ndeed no one thing doth so much turn away my heart from you as your abominable Schism Do we not know of the multitudes of Opinions among you mentioned by Bellarmine and other of your Writers If you call me out to any more of this work I mean the next time to present to the world a Catalogue of your Divisions among your selves that it may appear how notable your unity is If the Jesuites are to be believed what a silly sottish generation are your secular Priests If your Priests are to be believed what a seditious hypocritical cheating packe are the Jesuites I speak not the words of your Protestant adversaries but of those of your own Church Do I not know what Guiliel de Sancto Amore and many another say of your own Church Do you think I never read Watsons Quodlibets and the many pretty stories of the Jesuites exploits there mentioned by him I do not think that you suffer many of your own followers to read these books that are written against one another by your selves But the great division among you that quite overthrows your cause in my esteem is that between the French and Italian in your very foundation which all your faith is resolved into You have no belief of Scripture nor in Christ no hope of heaven you differ not from Turkes and Infidels but onely upon the credit and authority of your Church And this Church musâ— be infallible or else your faith is fallible Aâ— least it must be of sovereign authority And when it comes to the upshot you are not agreeâ— what this Church is One saith it is the Pope with a General Council and another saith it is a General Council though the Pope dissent One saith the Pope is fallible and the other saith a Council is fallible One saith a Pope is above the Council and another saith the Council is above the Pope And now what is become of your Religion Nay is it not
parties or from any that are yet in that Church and yet take up any dividing titles or wayes therein though they withdraw not from it as they are such I am none of them and therefore disclaim when I express my Religion such private names I am no Lutheran Calvinist Arminian Papist Socinian c. but a Catholike But yet when I say I am a Reformed Catholike I purposly disclaim the Corruptions of Popery and in that word renounce their Errors as such as by the word Catholike I renounced their Schisme And so I may agree with Luther Calvin or any man in Reformation so far as they hold to the word of God so that if malicious adversaries will put the name of Sect upon the Catholike verity and call it by the name of Zuinglianisme Lutheranisme Calvinisâ—â— or the like pretending that it had its spring from these men they shall not by such unworthy means remove me from the Catholike Religion nor yet cause me to own their Corruptions because they have named the opposition of them as a Heresie Augustine would not turn Donatist because they named the Catholikes Caecilians nor would Prosper turn Pelagian because they called the Orthodoxe Predestinarians or Fatalists nor would Athanasius before them turn Arrian because they called the Orthodoxe Tritheists It is not other mens fastening upon us the name of a man or of a Sect that proves us Sectaries or that we had our Religion originally from that man Yet do we so much reverence their names that we rejoyce in their labors for the Church and bless God for them and endeavor to imitate them in their holy doctrine and lives though we make none but Christ the Lord of our Faith As for the terms of the predicate they need no great explication By salvation we mean principally Everlasting Glory in Heaven By the way to it we mean the means appointed by God for the attaining it The principal means indeed is Christ himself who is eminently called The way and no man cometh to the Father but by him But in subordination to Christ all other means are the way By a safe way we mean a way that in suo genere is sufficient to the attainment of the end so that all that sincerely are that way shall attain that end A certain means of happiness to all that faithfully use it For it must be known that no Religion or sound Doctrines will save a man that is not faithful in the reception and improvement of them A True Religion will not save him that is not True to his Religion And therefore it is no wonder if multitudes even of Protestants do perish though their Religion be the onely Religion in the world For they are not heartily of the Religion which they profess They have that doctrine which is the seal and fit enough of its own nature quantum in se to imprint the image of God upon their souls But if they keep this seal in their Chests and apply it not effectually to their hearts they may have unholy hearts and lives though they profess a holy faith and Religion and therefore may perish for all that profession yea and perish most deplorably because their profession doth aggravate their sin If a mans Religion or believed doctrines be bad in the maine the man himself must needs be bad too and therefore no man of such a Religion can be saved But if a mans Religion or professed doctrines be never so good it is possible he may be bad that doth profess them and then no Religion can save a wicked man So that of the true Religion some are saved but not all but of a bad Religion in the main no man can be good or be saved I come to the Arguments by which I prove the Affirmative that The Reformed Catholike Christian Religion commonly called Protestant is a safe way to salvation Arg. 1. That Religion which best agreeth with the word of God above all other Religions in the world is a safe yea the safest way to salvation But the Reformed Catholike Christian Religion commoâ—â—â— called Protestant doth best agree witâ— the word of God therefore it is the safest way to salvation One would think among Christians the Major should be unquestionable But here the corrupt Romanists have presumed to make a new word of God that so the determination of the case might be impossible unless we will go up to these Philistines to sharpen our weapons For they deny the holy Scripture to be the whole word of God or sufficient to be the Rule for deciding of controversies in matter of saith and tell us that unwritten Traditions are another part And those Traditions are such as are received by the whole Church as delivered down from the Apostles and that whole Church is onely the Romane party and thus do they by their own Authority undertake to damne all the rest of the Christian world and make themselves onely the Catholike Church and by this trick of wit they have got one half of Gods word into their closets and that it is his word which they say is his word And that you may know that they are no blabs or revealers of secrets they have for some hundred years kept this close as a secret to themselves yea from themselves as well as to us so that when the common Proverb takes that to be a secret which one or two knows but not when three know it yet these men have a word of God which all the Catholike Church is the keeper of and yet those that keep it know it not themselves much less can we that stand by come to the knowledge of it but we must all wait till the last Pope have breathed out his last determination before the Catholike Church that is said to keep it can come to know what is the whole word of God And so among them it is â—ome to this pass that to be judged by Gods word is to be judged by the Pope and his entrusted Subjects But if any man whatever bring us forth a Tradition and say that this is the word of God and came down from the Apostles we shall desire more then â—his word for the proof of it And when he brings us as good proof that his Tradition came from the Apostles as we shall bring him that the Scripture came from them then will we cheerfully receive his Traditions but not without sufficient proof upon the boastings of corrupted interessed men As for the Minor that our Religion is most agreeable to the Scriptures I shall now say but this to the proof of it First we take the Scriptures for the only Test or Rule of our faith and practice and we tye not our selves to any other by-rule which may force us to a misunderstanding of it It is onely the Scripture that we still profess doth contain our Religion And it is the chief part of the quarrel between us and Rome that they will not take this word
therefore â—â—ey shall have life supposing it to be a true faith â—â—at worketh by love The Jews that heard Petersâ—â—rmon â—â—rmon Act. 2. were converted and added to the â—hurch even threâ— thousand souls and put into a state of Justification by Believing that Sermon 〈◊〉 37 38 41 46 47. But the Protestants believe â— that Peter preached in that Sermon thereâ—â— they also are of the Church and justified And least the Accusing Devil or Papists shâ—â— trouble the peace of any of his people Christ 〈◊〉 protested it with his own mouth Joh. 5.24 Veâ—â—ly Verily I say unto you He that heareth my word 〈◊〉 believed on him that sent me hath everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation but is passed frâ—â— death to life Me thinks this should make any â—â—liever tremble at the thoughts of condemning thoâ— that Christ hath protested shall not be condeâ—ned Christ hath promised that all those that receive â— words and in whom his words abide shall be beloved of the Father and have everlasting life and â— heard in what they aske Joh. 14.23 15.7 Doubâ—less that which Christ himself preached was the tâ— Gospel and so far sufficient that whoever believeâ— it shall be saved Otherwise Christ could not â—aâ— converted any soul so far as to have brought theâ— into a state of Salvation by his Doctrine and theâ— Peter and the rest of the Apostles were not trâ—â— Christians by the belief of the Doctrine of Christ 〈◊〉 if the Doctrine which Christ preached be sufficieâ—â— to make true Christians and Church-members oâ— those that receive it then the Protestants are such For they believe every word that the Evangelists record of the Doctrine of Christ And if the Papiâ—â— say that there is more of his Doctrine necessary tâ— salvation which the Evangelists did not record iâ— Scripture 1. We call for their proof of it and 2. Wâ—â—â—â—ow that the Evangelists did purposely write thâ— â—â—ur Gospels or Histories of Christ of purpose to acâ—uaint the world with his Nature Birth Life doctrine â—eath and Resurrection c. Luke professeth that he â—rote his Gospel upon perfect understanding of all â—â—ings from the very first which conteyneth a Declaâ—â—tion of those things which are most surely believed â—mong us even as they were delivered by them that â—â—om the beginning were eye Witnesses and Ministers â—f the Word Luk. 1.1 2 3 4. And he tells us Act. â— 1 2. that he wrote his Gospel of all things that â—esus began both to do and teach untill the day in â—hich he was taken up It would therefore have â—een an exceeding blemish to the Evangelists that â—rote of set purpose both the History of Christs â—ife and Doctrine if they had left out any part of it â—hat was of necessity to salvation Protestants thereâ—ore that believe all the Gospel do believe so much â—s may bring them safely to salvation If Christ himâ—elf be not a sufficient Teacher nor the Gospel it self a â—ufficient Doctrine of Life Then whither shall we go to seek it Then Peter himself was not the Rock â—or a true Christian by Christs Teaching And then â—he Pope could not derive that from Peter which he â—ad not But Peter himself thought and taught oâ—herwise He saith Lord whether shall we go we know that thou hast the words of Eternal Life For my part I will take Peters counsel and go to Christ for the words of Eternal Life which are purposely recorded by four Evangelists in the Gospel Let who will go to the Pope for another Gospel to supply the supposed defects of this for I will not In Act. 22. 26. and other places Paul preacheth so much of the Gospel as might have made true Believers and all that the Protestants receive The Church of Rome when Paul wrote his Epistle to them were a true Church Rom. 1.7 and all the Doctrine that Paul writeth to them we do believe Paul telleth the Elders of Ephesus Act. 20.27 that he had not shunned to declare to them the whole councel of God and this is summed up in Repentance toward God and Faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ vers 21. And whatsoever Paul hath written to these Ephesians or any other Churches or persons we believe But what should we talk any more with such an arrogant unreasonable sort of men that dare maintaine that the belief of all the Holy Scripture is not large enough to salvation Atheists and Infidels say of the Scripture that it is too big to be all true And Papists say that it is not big enough to bring a man to heaven that believeth and obeyeth it Shall the Holy Ghost endite a Volume as big as the Bible and when he hath done shall any pretending to be Christians perswade the world that he that believeth all this shall be damned if he believe not the closet Traditions which the Romane Bishop pretendeth to be the keeper of Nay see the strange contradictions of this giddy fiction They lock up this Scripture it self from the common people in an unknown tongue They damne the translating of it as the root of all Heresies and burn men to ashes for using the Bible when they cannot keep it unknown any longer they translate it themselves as far as they can to their own advantage and put it forth with their perverting Annotations and yet when they have all done they condemne any that read it without a special licence from their Ordinary which in England and France they sometime grant to avoid suspicions but in Spaine Italy c. too few if any at all And when they have written voluminously to prove that the Scriptures are not necessary to the people for salvation and that Ignorance is the mother of devotion they come back again and dispute against the Protestants that the whole Scripture is not sufficient to salvation and he that believes but the Scriptures is not in a safe way to salvation It seems then that the Popes Canons are more necessary then the Scripture For a man may be saved without the knowledge of Scripture but not without the knowledge of the Canons of the Pope Yes that he may too if some of them mistake not if they will but implicitely believe that the Church of Rome is the Catholike Church and that the Pope is the infallible soveraign of the Christian world and believe some Articles of the Creed upon his credit he may be saved without either Scripture or Canons so he be but ready to believe and obey whatever shall be offered to him by the Pope for the time to come Moreover Christ and his Apostles do frequently promise Remission and salvation to all that truely Repent that love God in Christ that mortifie the flesh c. but all this do the Protestants and their Religion teacheth them to do it Paul concludeth that There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus that walk not after the flesh but after the spirit Rom. 8.11 But the Protestants are in
points of order of â— necessity to salvation this doth not make them â—â— us to be of two Religions or wayes of Salvation as long as they do not introduce any dangerous â— destructive points under that pretence Obj. But the Church still held those things as â—â—cessary to Salvation which you deny Ans Wâ— deny that to be true Some of the points in differâ—â—â— are novelties of your own which the ancient Churâ—â— did never hold the rest are such as they never â— such a stress as mens salvation upon To conclude Let it be considered whether thâ— Argument may not damne your selves which I tâ— against you Thus. The true safe Religion hath 〈◊〉 a visible Church professing it from Christs time â— â—â—w But the Religion of the Romanists as comâ—â—ehending all points of their faith or made by them be necessary to salvation hath not had any visible â—â—urch professing it of many hundred years after â—â—rist Therefore it is not the true Religion nor a â—â—e way to salvation The Minor I shall undertake â—â—re seasonably to make good And our Divines â—â—e done it already No doubt but common reason and justice requirâ—â— that you that call to us so earnestly for a Cataâ—â—gue of the Professors of our Religion in all Ages â—â—uld be as much obliged your selves to give us a â—â—â—alogue of yours yea and to give it first because 〈◊〉 are the first in pleading the necessity of it Unâ—â—â—take this task therefore and perform it well and â—u shall carry the whole cause Give us a Cataâ—ue of any besides impeached Hereticks that did â—n your main points of Popery for many hundred â—â—rs after Christ and we will give you a full acâ—â—nt of such as contradicted those conceits and beâ—â—â—ed as we do and let both be compared together â— let the most satisfaction and the fullest evidence â—â—â—ry it You make a meer empty noise among the â—â—gar of Antiquity and Universality and call for â—roof of the perpetual or continued visibility of â— Church as if in this you had the advantage â— the ballance did turn on your side When as â—â—ough we know that there is no such necessity of â— proof in this as you pretend yet we know your â—dvantage here to be so great that if you will â— be perswaded to this way of tryal it will be to the â—â—â—er shame and confusion of your cause What 's the â—â—tter else that you still appeal to the latter or preâ—â—t Church and that is only to the Romane and that 's onely to your selves If we do but invite you to tryal by Scripture and the Fathers and Records the three first ages you presently scorn the moâ— and fall upon the Fathers with accusations as if thâ— had not understood or believed all that was necessaâ—â— to salvation or to the being of a Christian or Church for you say they did not meddle with thâ— controversies and so you call us down to the laâ— or present times as having equal authority with â— first To which we say 1. That the silence of â— first times concerning these matters if there wâ— no more as yet there is is sufficient to prove tâ— they were not then taken for any necessary points faith For Though our Records of the secâ— Age be very short yet both they and mâ— more those of the third and fourth Ages containe such purposely undertaken explicationâ— the Christian faith that we cannot imagine sucâ— multitude of necessary points would have been oâ—ted 2. And though the Pastors of the present â— have equal Authority in Ruling their Congregatioâ— with those of the second yet they cannot give â— sure an account what was the doctrine and pracâ— of the former Ages nor any way prove it to us â— by producing such records The Papists themselves are so far from denyâ— that the Ancient Fathers and Churches did hold â— Positive part of our Religion that they hold it theâ—selves For they themselves profess to believe â—â— book of holy Scripture that we do They say â— believe the Creed called the Apostles and the â—cene and Constantinopolitane Creed and that of â—â—thanasius and so do we still taking the holy Scâ—pture onely for our Rule so that their own tongâ— â—ust confess the Antiquity and Universality and â—ccession of our Religion For this is ours But all that they have to obâ—ject is this That we â—n name no Churches or Fathers that held our Negatives To which I say 1. The Negatives at least for the most part of them if not all are â—e meer consequences of the Affirmatives and Posiâ—ves and implyed or plainly included in them For â—xample when our Religion saith Thou shalt worâ—ip the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve â—is includeth the Negative Thou shalt â—ot worship or serve Saints Angels or â—ny other save only by a service and honour duely â—bservient to the service and worship of God and â—herefore that we give not Divine worship to the â—onsecrated host or the Virgin Mary or to any â—ther meer creature Our Religion teacheth us to â—o all things to edifying 1 Cor. 14.26 This includâ—th the negatives that we must not worship God in â—n unknown tongue or unedifying manner bleating â—nd bellowing out our prayers in hideous or ridicuâ—ous tones Our Religion maketh it the Ministerial Commission to teach the Nations and Baptize Mat. 28.19 20. This includeth the Negative that women or lay men should not so teach that is as Commissioned officers nor baptize This affirmative Peter was sent to Disâ—iple Nations includeth this Negative Peter was not sent to be the fixed Bishop of Rome and there â—o reside This affirmative The Apostles are the Foundation of the Church includeth this negative â— Peter alone is not the Foundation of the Church This Affirmative It is bread and wine which we take â—nd eat and drink in the Eucharist containeth or implyeth the Negative that It is not Christs flesh and blood which the bread and wine is transubstantiatâ—â— into I might thus instance in many more Our Nâ—gatives are contained or implyâ—â— in our Affirmatives which yoâ— hold or confess your selves 2. I answer further that we have express negatives also both in Scriptures and Fathers in the main points of difference between us and the Papists We have a plain Thou shalt not make to thy self any Graven Image c. Thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them c. We have a plaine Iâ— the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding that I might teach others also theâ— ten thousand words in a tongue unknown 1 Cor. 14.19 We have a plain See thou do it not for I am thy fellow servant Rev. 22.9 And so of the chief differences through the rest 3. If we had but this one point proved that the holy Scripture is a sufficient Rule of Faith it fully warranteth all our Negatives wherein we differ from the Papists For to Believe all that is in Scripture and
that this is sufficient will surely warrant as to exclude their additions And we have oft proved that the first ages did maintain the Scripture sufficiency This one answer doth fully justifie us against this câ—vil of the Papists The Ancient Church and Fathers believed the Scripture and the sufficiency of that Scripture as containing all points of faith And so do we And so all Popish faith is excluded Though we â—onfess many Ceremonies and points of order â—ere then admitted as from the Church 4. Negatives became necessary to be expresly asâ—erted by occasion of Heresies And therefore who â—an wonder if many of them are never mentioned till â—hose heresies did call them out When there was â—o man so impudent as to say that The Pope of â—ome is the Universal Bishop and Governor of the whole Church or that God must be worshipped in â—n unknown tongue or that Images must be worâ—hipped who could expect that the Church should have occasion in words to express it as a part of their faith that The Pope is not the universal Bishop not infallible c. and so of the rest If Popery had risen sooner it had sooner been contradicted 5. There may be an hundred Negatives made necessary hereafter by heresies which it is not necessary now to put into our Creed or confessions because they are not yet sufficiently contained or implyed in the contrary Affirmatives If Hereticks arise that say that man hath seven souls that the soul returns to be Gods Essence and was so eternally that there are fourteen Sacraments that Infants must take Orders with a hundred the like then it might be necessary for us expresly to deny these and shall they then tell us that our Religion is new and theirs old because we cannot prove that any did before deny theirs So what if we could not prove that any before had said The Pope is not the Universal Governor that is because there was none so shamless for six hundred years as to say he was Whose Religion then is proved new by this ours or theirs But I shall say somewhat more to this anon in the end Obj. 3. That Religion which cannot be known 〈◊〉 having no certain test to discern it by can be no saâ—â— way to salvation But such is the Reformed Religion therefore c. The Minor is proved If they have any such test either it is Scripture or soâ—â— confessions of their own But neither of these therefore not Scripture For that is appealed to by many Religions and therefore can be no proper Test to discerne one of them from the rest Besides it knows not so much as the name of the Reforâ—â—â— Protestant Religion Not any confession for they have no one which they agree in but one disclaimeth what another owneth And they have none agreed on by a General Councel or by all themselves Ans 1. The Test of our Religion is the holy Scripture This we profess joyntly to be the Rule of our faith and life To this we still Appeal If we misunderstand it in any point we implicitely renounce all such eâ—rors because we explicitely in general renounce all that is contrary to the Scripture This may be the true Test of our Religion though others falsly preâ—end that theirs is more agreeable to it Many things may be tryed by the same Touchstone and weighed by the same ballance whereof some may be currant and others unfound or light May not the Law of the Land be the true Rule of our obedience to our Governors though in the Rebellious or disobedient should pretend to be Ruled by the same Laws 2. They are not all distinct Religions which the Papists call so Many appeal to the same Scriptures who agree in the maine concerning the sence and disagree onely in some inferior things These are not several Religions 3. Our confessions do shew how we understand the Scripture wherein we agree in the main as the Harmony of Confessions testifieth though in some lesser things we differ Obj. 4. They that have causlesly separated from all the Churches in the world are not of the true Religion nor in a safe way to Salvation But so have the Protestants done for they are divided both from Romane Church the Greeks Abassines Armenians and all therefore they are not in a safe way Ans It s one thing to withdraw from some corruption of a Church and another to withdraw from the Church 1. We that are now living did not withdraw from Rome or any of the rest for we were never among you or under you 2. Our Fathers withdrew not from the Church as Christian or Catholike but from the particular corruptions of the Romane faction in Doctrine Discipline and Worship rejecting their lately usurped Tyranny by which they would have still obliged them to sin against God As we are commanded to withdraw from each particular Brother that walketh disorderly so must we from a particular Church when they will be so disordered as to Tyrannize over the universal 3. The Church of Rome rejected us by a causeless excommunication who were not de jure under her power 4. We still profess our selves of the same Church with the Greeks Abassines Arminians Copties and all others on earth that hold the Scriptures and that so hold the Anticent Creeds or fundamentals of Christianity as that they do not evidently subvert it again by contradictory Errors If they hold no Errors but what may consist with a true belief of the Fundamentals in the same persons though by an unseen consequence they may contradict them we seperate not from that Church so as to disclaim it from being a true Church And therefore it s not true that we so separate from all the world but as to the Local Personal Communion or presence we dare not joyn with the truest Church in the least known sin But in that respect we cannot be said to separate from the Greeks or Abassines that we have no opportunity of Local Communion with While all men are imperfect one may see that Error which another seeth not and to separate meerly from a sin of one man or a Church is not simply to separate from the man or Church Obj. 5. That Religion which hath no unity in it self or consistency but is broken into many Sects and still running further is no safe way to salvation But such is the Protestant Religion therefore Answ We deny the Minor Our Religion is one simply one and most consistent and having one sure standing Rule not subject to changes as yours is even the word of God himself The same Rule that the first Churches had and the same Test by which the Christian Religion was known of old when the Belief of the Scripture and particularly the Ancient Creeds and the actual Communion with the true Church was the test of a Catholike the one in Doctrine the other in Communion as freeing him from Schismes We believe all the same Articles and we divide not from the
Baptisme pardoneth it by way of obsignation and solemne conveyance But what is all this to your error that Original sin is not onely remitted but quite extinct or done away out of our natures by Baptisme so that the new baptized Infant is perfectly without any Radical sin as well as without the Guilt of it 4. He saith They say that works do justifie with faith You not Repl. They say that we are not justified by the Merit of Works but by the alone Merit of Christ and so do we We deny not in every sence that we are Justified by Works and not by faith onely for in James his sence we maintain it else we should deny the Scripture The question is not therefore absolutely whether we are Justified by Works but In what sence we are and in what not We say that Christ is the onely Satisfier of Gods Justice and Meriter of Righteousness and that Faith is the onely Receiving Condition and that the Works of the Law that Paul excludeth have no hand in it and that the Works of Grace which James takes in are but conditions without which our Justification begun without them shall not be continued and of our finall Absolution or Justification in Judgement and so are but a Particular and not an Universall or Legall Righteousnesse Of which I have given a full account in my Confession 5. He saith They maintain Freewill even in the best actions You not Repl. Freewill is either 1. Natural which is but its self-determining power with spontaneity and this we deny not For who denyeth man to be man and to have the Facultatem Volendi Or it is 2. Moral and that is 1. Political when a Governor gives the subject leave to do a thing and so we maintain that God giveth our Wills Freedom to all good and to no evil Or 2. Ethical which is nothing but the right inclination and Habits of the will with the absence of the contrary Habits And so we say that the better men are the Freer that is the better are their Wills And the unconverted have not this Freewill nor the converted in perfection till they come to Glory For the Freedom is the Goodness And seeing the Will so far Free Ethically as it is Good Vertuous or Holy the Question then is Whether every mans Will be Good and Holy which I am conceited you will not dare to affirme A covetous man a drunkard â—â— ungodly man is as much or more denominated such from the habite as from the act he is most vicious that is Habitually so To say therefore that such a mans Will is Free in this Ethical sence is to say that he is habitually no covetous man no drunkard no ungodly man no sinner which being contrary to unquestionable experience me thinks should be easily deserted If you know of any thing else called Freewill besides these three before mentioned we should be glad to know it too The natural Essential Freedom viz. A spontaneous self-determining power we all confess The Political Freedome yea and obligation none denyeth The Ethical Freedome that is Vertuous or holy Inclinations in wicked men you will deny your selves where then is the difference between us and either the Greeks or you Why you 'l say perhaps that it s here That we deny the will to have that Indifferency which you affirme as to opposite objects But we are loath to sight with you in the Dark Do you mean by Indifferency an Indifferency of Natural Power or an indifferency of inclination or Habite The first we do not deny The will is a natural faculty that hath naturally no determination to One where many means are propounded but is undetermined and hath a natural Power to determine it self to either But yet you know the Wills Natural Power is exercised according to inclining Objects and Habits And you cannot expect that men who are Habitually inâ—ined earthwards should Will Heavenly things and â—â—nounce earthly things meerly because they have a â—atural Power of choosing for they want that inâ—â—ination which is called commonly the Moral â—ower And I should suppose that in regard of this â—oral Power you will not affirm your selves that he â—ath indifferentiam ad oppositum To say that a mans â—ill is indifferently inclined to Good and to Evil â— to say that the man is habitually neither good nor â—ad unless as privation of due inclinations denomiâ—ate him bad I say the more of this â—ecause I finde others of your party and â—ome that seem to disown both you and us as a late Treatise of Repentance among others can witness â—o harp so much on this string and confusedly talke â—f Freewill before they tell us what they mean and â—o perswade the world that we teach that God hath â—aid such a natural necessity on man to sin as he hath â—o eat and drink and sleep and that God might as well damne men for being hungry or sleepy as for being sinful in our sence As if there were no more faultiness in a vicious disposition of the Will it selfe then in a necessary natural inclination or Appetite of those faculties which were never made to rule themselves but to be moderated by the Will of Reason It may be these men will either deny the truth of the words of the Holy Ghost that They that are accustomed to do evil cannot learn to do well no more then a Leopard can change his spots or a Blackamore his skin or else they will think such men excusable because they are so strongly enclined to evil and so if a man habituated to Lust shall vitiate their wives or a man habituated to malice shall beat them often or maim them or kill their friends they may think that he deserveth 〈◊〉 punishment but pity because he is so bad that 〈◊〉 could not morally that is he would not 〈◊〉 it But they say we teach that mens Wills have a â—â—cessity of sinning imposed on them But we hâ—â—â— learnt that Habites do not determine the Will natâ—â—â—ally nor alway infallibly but leave it free to a â—â—tural self-determination But yet we know that 〈◊〉 ordinarily determineth it self according to predominant habits And there must be somewhat extraâ—â—dinary to procure the Will to determine it self 〈◊〉 good where it is habitually inclined to evil So much may serve to vindicate our Doctrine about Freewill And as for the cause of its captivity it belongs noâ— to this subject to speak of it but to that of Original sin where the said Doctor so notably playes his part to which we shall not now digress The next instance of the Papist is this They iâ—â— the Greeks maintain seven Sacraments you not Repl. 1. This is another very immodest untruth I wonder that men dare venture their souls upon a Religion that must be thus upheld by falshoods Your own Writers before alledged witness that the Greeks deny the very use of confirmation and extreame Unction and how then can they account them Sacraments Nor
Images They elevate not the Sacrament nor reserve it after Communion Their Priests labor but beg not The Emperor conferreth Bishopricks and Benefices They use no confirmation nor extreame unction They admit a first marriage in Bishops and Priests They eat flesh on Fridays And yet this man saith they differ not from them The second Chapter is the meer ebullition of foolish malice deserving no reply to those that do not desire to be deceived He would prove that according to these laxe principles of our charity we may agree with Jews Turkes Mahometans As if we needed a dispute to prove that these are no Christians and that the Greeks Abassines c. are But such disputes do the Papists put us upon The Bishop had concluded in his Sermon that If we should survey the several professions of Christianity that have any large spread in any part of the world and put by the points wherein they differ one from another and gather into one body the rest of the Articles wherein all generally agree we should finde so much truth in them as being joyned with holy obedience may be sufficient to bring a man to everlasting salvation neither have we cause to doubt but as many as do walk according to this rule neither overthrowing that which they have builded by superinducing any damnable heresies thereupon nor otherwise vitiating their holy faith with a leud and wicked conversation Peace shall be upon them and Mercy and upon the Israel of God And what hath the Confuter to say against this Why first he begins with the Sacraments to try whether those commonly agreed on may save And here he first tells us that Some Churches are for seven some for three and some for two â—â—d no more therefore here is no agreement Rep. 1. Leâ— the nominal differences about the word Sacrament be first laid by unless you think that word necessary to salvation and then we shall the better see what real difference remaineth 2. The two Sacraments then are confessed by all and the use of the rest which you call Sacraments This much in its own place then may save where no more is confessed 3. You vainly put in the exclusion of more for that 's none of the things that all agree on All agree that there are two Sacraments and those may save But all agree not that there is but two This man therefore seems to dote when he should gather up the common agreements according to the Bishops proposal he gathers up the disagreements or vainly pretendeth that we agree in nothing What do not you confess that Baptisme and the Lords Supper are Sacraments and do not we do so too Next he comes to the use of Baptisme and saith that The Romanes and Greeks say that there is no other use of baptisme but to wash away sin The Protestants of England and Geneva say that it is no laver of Regeneration at all but onely a seal of Gods promise made to the party baptized and that the childe unbaptized may be saved and the baptized damned Repl. 1. You make your selves much more the Greeks worse then you are Do not your own maintain that Baptism admitteth into the Church and granteth many other priviledges besides washing away sin 2. We say that to the children of promise it doth secondarily and by obsignation wash away or pardon sin by way of obsignation and solemne exhibition as the promise doth primarily as a deed of gift or legal Grant as also that in the same way it secondarily conveyeth further Grace according to the capacity of the subject and admitteth into the Church And all this is commonly confest by your selves and all Christians of the Greek or Abassine Churches c. This much alone without your additions is as much at least as is necessary to salvation to be believed concerning baptism Next he cometh to the Lords Supper and saith that one party holdeth the real presence and the other not And what of this Doth that prove the insufficiency of what all are agreed on what we hold you deny not We hold the signifying and sealing and exhibiting use of the Sacrament though we deny Transubstantiation And dare you deny these We hold that it is the commemoration of the sacrifice of Christs body and blood offered once on the Cross for the sins of the world and that it is a means of Church-communion And dare you deny these Lay by your Additions and that which we are all agreed in is enough to salvation His next instance is about Faith Because we say that Historical faith may be in Devils and Miraculous faith in the wicked and Calvin defineth justifying faith to be a firme and certain knowledge of the love of God to us c. and the Lutherans that it is an undoubted perswasion of the pardon of our sins and adoption c. and this faith is by the Councel of Trent condemned to the pit of hell therefore he concludeth that there is no saving faith common to Papists and Protestants Repl. Here again you vainly and fallaciously bring in the disagreements and over pass the agreements 1. We are agreed that all those which the Protestants call the Canonical books of Scripture are the word of God and true and particularly all the Articles of the Creed and many things more We are agreed that Christ and life is offered by the Universal promise in the Gospel to all that hear it and that all must first believe the truth of this promise and then heartily consent to the offer and accept the benefit and also believe and fear the threatning and joyn sincere love and obedience to all this This we are all agreed in And this is certainly saving to all that sincerely believe and do as they thus profess But then whether Historical faith be common or not whether assurance or strong perswasion of pardon be faith or justifying faith with other the like these we are not agreed in and without these we may be saved The next exception is only this The Bishop tells us not what be those Heresies that destroy this common faith Rep. And doth that cross his former charitable conclusion What because he undertakes not an alien task Why in general they are any thing that is so held as that the common Articles of faith cannot be held with it and that practically The sum of the next passage is this That its absurd for us to call them the true Church or say they may be saved when we have charged them with so much error and idolatry c Repl. 1. We onely say that you are a polluted part of the Church 2. If your salvation be made so difficult by your errors look you to that The Bishops conclusion of the sufficiency of the communiter credita is nevertheless sound though you destroy your selves by your corrupt additions 3. Multitudes among you believe not your Infallibility Transubstantiation and many the like errors 4. Many that behold them as opinions
or the greater part of them are true Bishops and lawfully called If as Bellarmine saith de Concil l. 2. c. 9. That the contrary be not manifest be enough then mans error can make Gods promise of Infallibility belong to those that it was never made to or else God hath promised infallibility to all that may be Popes or Bishops for ought we know and then it belongs not to the Pope and Bishops but to all that seem such 25. Yea that all those Bishops or most descend by uninterrupted succession from the Apostles which is made necessary If they plead onely the Bishop of Romes succession to warrant all the rest before the forementioned particulars be well answered it will appear that Romes succession hath been frequently interrupted 26. How shall men at a distance be sure that the Councils are indeed confirmed by the Pope 27. How shall we be sure when all is done that we have the right sence of the Canons or Decrees of such Councils when they speak as ambiguously as the Scripture and the Papists think they can have no certainty of the right sence of that without a living judge And if there be a living judge still of the sence of Councils either he is as infallible as they or not If not then he cannot make us infallibly certain by his Authoritative determination If he be then what need of a Council when he is infallible alone 28. When several Popes and Councils contradict one another how shall we know which of them to believe And this is no rare matter among them 29. When the Pope and Council contradict each other how shall the people know which is infallible 30. When both Pope and Council contradict the express Scripture must we take them for infallible and believe that Scripture only on their words These or most of these must be known by all Christians before they can believe the Articles of their Creed or that Scripture is Gods word according to the Romish grounds When as it is impossible for any man to know them as true they being either false or not evident and demonstrable So that it s now apparent that according to the Popish grounds the People can have no certainty of the truth of their Religion and that they shake the foundation of Christianity it self 2. And lastly not onely so but they build on a foundation certainly false that is the Popes infallibility or a Councils as I shall prove in the next dispute where their fallibility will be further manifested Arg. 3. If the Papists are not agreed among themselves either Clergy or Laity about the very fundamentals of their faith or matters which they make of necessity to salvation then Popery is no safe way to salvation But the Antecedent is true Therefore c. We need to go no further for the proof of the Antecedent then to what is said already They commonly maintain that we must receive our faith and the Scriptures upon the Authority of the infallible Church and they are not yet agreed among themselves nor ever like to be what that infallible Church is And the difference is not with a few inconsiderable dissenters but in their main body The Papists of France maintain that it is a General Council that is infallible and that the Pope is fallible The Italians maintain that a General Council is fallible and the Pope is infallible Some others think that both of them are fallible separated but both infallible when they concur And some think that they are both infallible though separated If the Church be the foundation and all must be received upon its infallible authority then no man can be saved that knows not which this infallible Church is either therefore the French or Italians one part or the other of them do erre in their very fundamentals when one saith This is the subject of infallibility and the other say This is it And if a Pope or General Councel differ to whom must the people hearken One part of them saith that the Pope is above the Council and others of them say the Council is above the Pope and of this mind have been General Councils themselves as the Council of Basil and Constance and of this mind Bellarmine names Cardinal Cameracensis Cardinal Cusanus Joh. Gerson Iac. Almain Card. Florentin Panormitan c. What a strange impudency then is it of these men to make the silly deluded people among us believe that they are all of one mind and it s we that are divided when as they are never likely to agree in their very principles and great fundamental Who it is that is the infallible Judge And till men know Who it is what the better are they know that such a judge there is seeing that the species existeth only in the individual and no man can believe him or apply himself to him as the infallible judge till he know that it is he indeed that is such Seeing then according to their own principles either the French Papists or the Italian and Spanish Papists must be in the way to damnation how shall we know which it is and which to joyn our selves to with any safety Were it not for weakening the Popes interest they would burn the French Papists as Hereticks as well as us Arg. 4. If Popery be a new devised way to heaven such as the Apostles never knew nor the Church after them for many a hundred year in the main parts of Popery then is it no safe way to salvation But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the consequent The consequence they will not deny that which the Apostles the Primitive Churches went in is only the safe way to heaven for there are not many safe ways But that which the Papists as Papists go in is not that which the Apostles and Primitive Church went in therefore it is not the safe way And that the Apostles and first Churches knew not Popery but it is a new Religion or new corruption of Religion appeareth by comparing the particular points with Scripture and Antiquity For Scripture which is the truest Antiquity it may give any indifferent man just cause of suspicion that the Papists do so obstinately refuse to be tryed by it which plainly shewes that they take it not to be on their side And for the Councils and Fathers for the first three hundred years or much more they ordinarily scorn us for mentioning them to this end because they say they wrote not of the points now in controversie and therefore are unfit to determine them But did not those ages take up their faith on the same grounds as we should do now And can they be all silent about the onely ground of faith If the Pope of Romes infallible authority had been the ground would they not have told us so How could they convert the infidels and confirm believers without acquainting them with the grounds of their Faith And what they took for the grounds their writings
the Apostles The third is That which is kept in the universal Church and through all times past is deservedly judged to have been instituted by the Apostles though it be such a thing as the Church might institute The fourth is When all the Doctors of the Church do with one consent teach that such a thing descended by Apostolical Tradition either Congregate in a General Councel or writing it apart in books this is to be believed to be an Apostolike Tradition The fifth Rule is this That is without doubt to be believed to descend from Apostolical Tradition which is held for such in those Churches where the succession from the Apostles is entire and continued These are Bellarmines five Rules But 1. What the particular Apostolical Traditions are which are Gods Word according to these Rules he had more wit or less honesty then to let us understand Is it because the word of God is indeed yet unknown or cannot be known or because it is not fit to make it known or because the Pope must pretend to the keeping of these hidden Laws that so the world may receive them at his mouth 2. And I would fain know whether these Rules of Bellarmines to know the unwritten word by are themselves the Word of God or not If they be are they written or unwritten and how known to be so If not then it seems we may have Rules and means which are not the word of God by which we may infallibly know which is the true word of God And then there needs no unwritten word to deliver or prove the written word 3. And why may not another Doctor by these Rules know the unwritten word as well as the Pope and another Church as well as the Romane 4. And why may not the Christian people through the world procure from some one charitable Pope through so many hundred years a Catalogue of those unwritten verities that the word of God may be once commonly known and men may know when they have all without uncertain dependencies on the Pope or travailing in vain to Rome to know 5. And for those few that Bellarmine hath instanced in viz. The perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary The Baptisme of Infants the validity of Hereticks Baptism the fast of Lent the inferior orders of the Clergy the veneration of Images To the first I say It is no Article of Divine Faith but of humane Ecclesiastical The second is proved fully out of Scripture And so is the third if you take it of such Hereticks in a larger sence as expresly exclude nothing essential to baptism but expresly include it all But for the rest Bellarmine should remember how elswhere he defendeth the Council that required the rebaptizing of those that were baptized by the Paulinists because they were Anti-trinitarians For Lent I say no more can be proved of it but onely that it is an ancient Ecclesiastical constitution And the inferior orders are apparently novelties introduced after the first age if not the second too and not mentioned in any of the first writers but the sum of Church Officers enumerated without them Much more novel is the unlawful use of Images in Churches or as immediate instruments to excite devotion in prayer and for other lawful use we deny it not 6. But principally I would intreat Bellarmine and the Pope that hereafter they would obtrude no unwritten word upon us but what is proved to be such at least by his own Rules Let us have some proof that it proceedeth from the universal Church and not their naked word without evidences And then we must intreat them to be so honest as not to unchurch the Greeks Abassines Armenians Protestants and all the Christians in the world except Romanists that so they may be the whole Catholike Church and then prove any thing to be the word of God by their own Testimony alone Nor yet to perswade us that such a Council as theirs at Trent conteined the whole Catholike Church real or representative nor yet to bring us two or three Fathers and say that those were all the Doctors of the Church More particularly I answer to his Rules in order To the first I say 1. That prove if you can that ever the whole Church embraced any thing as a point of Divine faith which is not contained in the Written Word 2. If the whole Church embrace it then it is no secret and therefore we all may know it yea and actually do know it as well as the Pope To the second Rule I say You may prove a mistaken observance of rites by the greater part of the Church but prove that the whole Church kept any thing unwritten which none could constitute but God But if they did still it must needs be known to all and therefore not controvertible or lockt up in the Popes closet Prove also that the universal Church may not erre in some lesser matters about Christs supposed constitutions To the third I say If by all times past you include the Apostles then we grant your Rule but meer Ecclesiastical Canons may be observed through all times shortly after the Apostles and yet not as Apostolical but Ecclesiastical Yet when you come to try your Traditions by this Rule I am not out of doubt that you will but disgrace them and fail your Readers just expectations To the fourth I say 1. I will believe you if you speak of all the Doctors of the Church next to the Apostles or so neer as that the danger of mistaking was not great 2. But I do not believe that you will find any of your Traditions asserted to be Gods Word by all the Doctors of the Church not neer all in any one age unless you make your faction to be all The last Rule is but a meer trick of wit to get the key into the Popes hand alone To which I say 1. A Church that hath had an interrupted succession of true Pastors from the Apostles may fall into many errors in process of time which in Tertullians and Irenaeus dayes when the memory of all the Apostles practices were so fresh they could not fall into so easily 2. Those Churches have received their unwritten verities either by writings from their predecessors or without If by writings why cannot others find it there as well as they If without it must be an uncertain and mutable means or by a means so publike still that all as well as they may know of it 3. And we undertake to prove that the succession of true Pastors of the Romish See hath been long ago and often interrupted And therefore this Rule will not serve your turns But though I have been long upon this principle of the Papists to prove the uncertainty of their faith yet the next is the chief that I intended which also proveth the mutability of it 2. The Papists ordinarily hold that as to us that is Gods Word which the Pope with his Clergy say is Gods Word
supplication and holiness within him and hath known by experience what it is to walk with God and offer him acceptable sacrifices and to receive the tokens of his acceptance and approbation Arg. 11. If Popery be maintained commonly by most wicked and abominable meanes and so by the Devil then it is no safe way to Salvation But the Antecedent is too true Therefore c. I speak not here of the meer miscarriages of some of their party but of the Pillars by which the Popes Kingdome is supported which that it is by abominable wickednesse I shalâ— give you but these few instances following 1. The very business or prize which they so much contend for is Pompe Greatness Dominion yea Tyranny in the world so that it is evidently Pride Vain-glory and Covetousness that sets them on and is the Spring of all their contests What 's the chief part of the quarrel but whether the Pope and Cardinals of one City even Rome shall be the Rulers and Masters of all the Christian world and all Princes and People obey them What unprejudiced man can be so blind as not to see that this contest is Tyrannical and that their Dominion is their Religion and their Pride is their faith and that the question is but that which one would think Christ had once sufficiently determined Who shall be the greatest Did not Christ chide his Disciples for this contest and say With you it shall not be so But the Papists having no better way to prove the Scripture a nose of Waxe and as flexible and multiform as they accuse it to be then by making it so to themselves by abusive violence and perverting it puting by the plainest words that Christ can speak and will take his Decision for no Decision when it makes against the Decisive Power of their Pope 2. And this is yet further manifest in that such a multitude of their Popes have been Whoremongers Murderers Heretickes Simoniacall buying the Popedome with money and poysoning one another to obtain the Popedome and living in it liker beasts then men Of all which I onely appeal to Platina and other of their own Writers 3. Another Pillar of Popery is most unconscionable impiety They can dispense with the vilest sins for the promoting of their Kingdom They can dispense with Oaths and with obligations of subjects to their sovereignes with leagues of Peace and amity among Princes yea they can themselves actually promote and execute the most abominable impieties that will but help them to attain their ends I will now onely instance in that which is fresh before our own eyes in England The Papists know that Anabaptists and Separatists are erroneous they know that Ranters and Quakers are abominable and yet for their own ends dare they here in England put on the vizard of Anabaptists and Quakers and with all possible subtilty and zeal and unwearyedness go up and down to seduce the people to be Anabaptists and Quakers as they did a while ago to be Seekers if not Infidels This is sufficiently known and proved not only by the Popish pretended Jew that turned Anabaptist at Hexham and was taken at Newcastle and others of them taken but by many other Testimonies some upon oath of those that have heard such confessions from their mouthes and many have known them in the Quakers Assemblies that have seen them before elswhere And all this is done by them that they divide us and break us in pieces and steal a credit to their pretended unity and Church Government and turn the hearts of the people from our Ministery and unsettle them and make them more capable and receptive of their own opinions and that they may make others abroad believe that we are all running mad And can that doctrine be of God which teacheth men to do such abominable things Or is that like to be the cause of Christ that must be thus upheld Is that person guided by the Spirit of Christ that dares draw others to the vilest blasphemies and wickedness in a dissembling garbe that so he may promote his own cause certainly Christ needeth not such hypocrisie and wickedness for the promoting of his Kingdom but it seems the Pope doth need it for â—is 4. Another of the Pillars of Popery is most gross and impudent lying Did I not know it to be true I durst not accuse them of it I will give you but these three instances following 1. They do raise and with greatest confidence propagate most shameless lies of those whom they take for their leading adversaries We read them in the open writings of Cochlaeus Bolse Staphiluâ— Thyraeus and many more What abominable stories have they of the Death of Luther Oecolampadius Bucer Calvin and others which it is very unlikely that they can be so blinded with maliâ—e as to Believe themselves What conference do we ever manage with them which they do not misreport Witness the late ridiculous passage after the conference between Fisher and Doctor Featly and Doctor White when they boasted beyond Sea of the number of Converts and in particular of two Earles and this to the Earl of Warwick himself not knowing him who was fained to be one of them and who had been a witness of their weakness And how poorly doth Weston in his Pamphlet put this off 2. The next instance I will give is their abominable lying legends by which they have befooled the people and made themselves ridiculous to the world and occasioned others to question their reports in other things I shall give you a taste of some of them as Doctor Featly hath gathered them to my hand in his Epistle to the foresaid conference yet with the Authors that report them that you may try whether they be wronged As that Saint Brigit laid her wimble and Saint Aldelme his chesible upon a Beam of the Sun which supported them vit Sanct. Brigit vit S. Aldelmi That Saint Nicolas while he lay in his cradle fasted Wednesday and Friday these dayes he would suck but once a day Festivale de Sancto Nicol That Saint Patricke caused a stoln Sheep to bleat in the belly of him that had eaten him Legend de St. Patricio That the Corps of Saint Laurence at the coming of Saint Stephensâ—ody â—ody smiled for joy and turned himself to the other side of the Sepulcher to make room for him Legend de S. Steph. That Clemens wrote a letter to Saint James seven years after he was dead Clem. Ep. ad Jac. in Ep. Pontif. That Saint Denis carryed his head in his hand three miles and rested at each place of the posts that are set between Paris and Saint Denis Breu. pictur Dionys That Saint Dunstane held the Devil fast by the nose with a pair of Tongues Leg. de Dunst That the chamber of our Lady was carryed by Angels through the air from Palestine to Loretto in Italy Hist de Nostre Dame de Lorâ—tto That our Lady helped Saint Thomas Becket to mend or
that They will never take and interpret the Holy Scriptures but according to the unaniomous consent of the Fathers When as 1. The Fathers do not unanimously consent among themselves concerning the sence of the greatest part of Scripture and so they are sworn to take it in no sence because the fathers are not unanimous 2. He that knows not the unanimous sence of the Fathers where they are unanimous is sworn hereby to take and interpret the Scripture in No sence 3. If by The Church whose sence they also swear to admit be meant the present Romane Church then that Church and the Fathers do differ in the Interpretation of many Scriptures so that in one Article they must needs be forsworn 4. Nay there are divers particulars of the Popish faith yea which in this oath they swear to which are against much more without the unanimous consent of the Fathers The Fathers never consented to this very Article that we must take and interpret the Scripture onely in the unanimous sence of the Fathers They never consented that the Bread and Wine are truely really and substantially the whole Body and Blood of Christ by Transubstantiation Nay the consent of the Fathers is against these And yet these wretches swear not to take and interpret Scripture but in the unanimous sence of the Fathers and withal swear the contrary in particulars even that they believe that which the Fathers never consented to but against Never did the Fathers consent that There are seven truely and properly Sacraments Instituted by Christ Never did the Fathers consent who lived a thousand or fourteen hundred years before that the Council of Trent did not erre or could not erre Nor That in the Mass is offered a true proper propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and dead Nor that the Eucharist may be taken under one kind and the Cup withheld nor That there is a Purgatory or the souls there holpen by the suffrages of the faithful nor that the Saints with Christ are to be prayed to Nor that Images were to be worshiped nor the power of Popish indulgencies left by Christ in the Church and the use of them wholsome Never did the Fathers consent that the Romane Church is the Mistris of all Churches or that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ over them nor that all Christians or Bishops or Pastors should swear true obedience to the Pope as Christs Vicar Let these proud deceivers shew us if they can when the Fathers or any one of the Ancients did ever take any such oath himself or perswade others to it Yea or that they have consented to any one of these Articles of the Romish faith and Trent oath What more evident to any man that hath any acquaintance with the Fathers then that these wretches do here most palpably forswear themselves Even as if they should swear to believe nothing but according to the Ancient Creed and withal swear to believe that Christ never dyed rose or ascended or that there is no resurrection or everlasting life Certainly if the very faith of Papists be contradiction and the profession of it plain perjury then Popery is not a safe way to Salvation I would here have added as the fourteenth Argument That Popery is a mixture of old condemned errors formerly called Heresies which the ancient Church hath testified against and therefore it is no safe way to Salvation And here I should have tryed their particular errors not yet mentioned or insisted on as their Doctrine of Merits and Justification thereby Satisfactions and many Semipelagian errors Image-worship with many the like But that this is beyond my present intended scope and purposed brevity and is so fully performed already by so many unanswerable Treatises of our Divines Let us next here what is said of most moment to prove Popery to be a safe way to Salvation Obj. 1. That Religion which hath been delivered down from the Apostles to this day without interruption is a safe way to Salvation For it is the same that the Apostles and all the ancient Christians were saved in But the Religion of the Church of Rome is that which hath been delivered down from the Apostles Therefore c. Ans 1. There is a change of the very subject of the question It is Popery that we are disputing of and this argument instead of Popery speaks of The Religion of the Church of Rome The Religion of the Church of Rome hath two parts First the Christian Faith Secondly their own corruptions depraving and contradicting this Faith The first as it standeth alone uncontradicted in the Religion which â—e profess The second is it that we call Popery and â—ay It is no safe way to salvation 2. And of this I deny the Minor and say that Popery is not the ancient Religion the Apostles and Primitive Church never knew it There was no such creature as a Papist known in all the world till six hundred years after the birth of Christ It was about 606. when Pope Boniface did first claim his universal Papacy and Headship and after that it was not till about one thousand years that the usurpation and Tyranny was consented to any thing generally in thâ— West And even the multitudes still dissented and some opposition was still made against it and all the Esterne Churches and the rest of the Christian world did dissent Of these things there is enough said to silence all the Papists on earth in Bishop Vsher de contin successione slatu Eccles Occident and his Answer to the Jesuites Challenge and by Bishop Jewell and Doctor Field and in many of the old Treatises against the Pope published together by Goldastus which shew us that he setled not his Kingdom without continnual opposition and contradiction We affirm that Popery is a meer novelty and challenge all the Papists in the world to prove the Antiquity of it When they have once arrogated to themselves the name of the Catholike Church and taught the people to believe as the Church believes that is to believe that all is true which the Pope and his Clergy will report of themselves it is then an easie matter for them to prove any thing to be true which makes for their turn then they may say The Fathers are for them and that they have their Papal sovereignty from St Peter when there is never a true word in it Then they may frame and forge new Decretals and cut out of the Ancient Writers thâ— which is against them and bring forth spurious writings under their names and tell the people that our Religion begun with Luther for its easie to prove any thing where themselves are the Judges and no witnesses but their own must be heard But if they dare leave that hold and come into the light its easie to evince the novelty of Popery though not of every particular error they hold Obj. 2. If the Church of Rome be a true Church then Popery is a safe way to salvation
utmost him and his factious Clergy So also they are disagreed among themselves whether the Bishops in a General Council are Judges with the Pope or onely the Popes Counsellors Yea or what a General Council is Though they all agree that it is not necessary that it be out of all the Christian world much less the Bishops of all Churches but onely some of those that adhere to the Pope of Rome yet they agree not whether it must be freely elected by all the Bishops of the Romish faction or onely so many and of such Countries as the Pope shall choose and whether the major part of the Council must concur with the Pope or the Pope and the Minor part may not serve turn 5. So also they are exceedingly disagreed about the nature and extent or pretended infallibility of the Church of the Pope in judging Some say that the Church judgeth de mediis discursive sed de conclusione per doctrinam propheticam Divinam And so these men may affirm agreeably to this principle that the Popes Definitions are part of the holy Canonical Scripture as Melchior Canus affirmeth he heard a most excellent Divine confess and citeth Gratian and Innocent also as of the same mind And thus all the most wicked Popes are made Prophets and speak by inspiration of the Holy Ghost But others of them do deny this Though yet they know not how it is that the Pope is infallible without declaring themselves Enthusiasts Also though saith Bellarm. l. 4. de Pontif. c. 2. all yield that the Pope may personally erre through Ignorance yet they are disagreed among themselves whether he may be a Hereticke Some say he may not and others that its most pious and probable to think he may not Others reject that as false and say he may And one would think it should have been out of question by long experience before this time And Bellarmine confesseth that three General Councils did believe that the Pope might be a Hereticke ubi sup c. 11. some say that when the Pope is consulted and giveth his judgement in matters of faith he cannot err though in matters of fact he may and that he is Infallible in his Courts and Councils though not as a private Doctor Others say that he cannot err when he intendeth to binde the whole Church to receive his sentence or when he teacheth the whole Church Others say that the Pope may err even defining in Council but not in errors manifest to the Church but onely in new or not manifest points Others come yet neerer the matter and tell us merrily that the Pope cannot so err in judgement about matter of Faith because when he first erreth thus he ceaseth to be Pope but this is a hard conclusion in the eyes of their brethren The like disagreements there are among them about the Infallibility of a General Council some will make it the proper seat of Infallibility and say that the Pope cannot err if he be guided by the Council else he may Others say that a Generall Council may err if it be not confirmed by the Pope yea though the Popes Legates did consent or if they do not follow the Popes instructions But that they cannot erre if they follow them or be confirmed by him So Bellarmine Canus and the late champions And if the Pope and Council differ as they have shrewdly done when Councils have deposed Popes for heresie and wickedness some say that we may more safely follow the Council then the Pope But others say the clean contrary and place the Infallibility in the Pope onely and make it his work to reclaim the Council Though they are thus all in pieces among themselves even about these their fundamentals yet is it the custome of their deceitful Writers to make the simple people believe that they are all agreed and to tell them that they have the Consent of the Universal Church and of all the Christian world and they have Universal Tradition c. that by the noise of these big words they may do that which they cannot do by argument Thus Doctor Vane their late proselite and divers others do in their writings overlooking all their own disagreements and passing on as confidently in their boasts of the Universal Consent as if they were either such Novices as understand not their own Religion or such hardened seducers as are not willing that others should understand it Here are in this our Question contained three of the greatest controversies between us and the Papists 1. Whether it belong to the Pope or Romane Church to be the Judge of Faith and Scriptures to all the world 2. Whether the Pope or his Clergy be inâ—llible in judging of matters of Faith 3. Whether our Faith must be resolved into this infallible judgement of theirs Our intent in this present Dispute is to deal most with the second yet so as it is connexed with the other two and therefore shall take them in on the by but say less to them distinctly and the rather because there is so much said already by our Divines as all the Papists on earth will never be able solidly to answer To let pass all those beyond Sea that have effectually confounded them we have Brittans enough to hold them perpetual work as Jewell Reignolds Whitaker White Field Vsher Camero Baronius Davenant Chillingworth to whom they have lately lost their cause by shewing in a vain and frivolous Reply how little they have to say against him with many more who will either remain unanswered or the answers will be worse to the adversaries cause then silence it self which we have sufficient ground already to foretell As to the first of these controversies to dispatch it in short as we distinguish between Judicium Descretionis Directionis Decisionis a Judgement of Discretion of Direction and of Decision so we knâ—w that it is onely the later that properly denominateth a Judge in the publike and ordinary sence Take our doctrine in these few Propositions 1. We say that every Christian hath a judgement of Discretion to know that the Christian Faith is true and Scripture is the word of God Or else he were no Christian or faith were not an act of judgement or Reason but a bruitish thing This therefore we confess the Pope either hath or ought to have 2. Every Pastor of the Church hath a judgement of direction that is it belongeth to him by office to be a Director of the people and to teach those the Christian Faith that yet receive it not and to confirm those in it that have received it And they ought to have abilities for the work of this office If therefore the Pope were a true Pastor Bishop or Preacher this power we should confess to be in him as in others 3. It belongeth to these Teachers also to be specially careful to preserve the sacred Scriptures from corruption and
keep him from This is to make Gods Commissions to be impious and his Grace to the Pope onely to hinder the execution of them in an impious way Who dare say openly that God hath given authority to the Pope to judge decisively and obligatorily that there is no God Christ or Scripture though he will graciously hinder him from so doing If the Papists say that they do not say so I would know then what their judicial power in these matters is Is it onely this that the Pope hath Power to judge that there is a God a Christ a word of God c. Why so have others as well he If they shall dare to say that matters of faith are not such to us that is we be not obliged to believe them till the Pope have determined them I answer What! is no Heathen or Infidel bound to Believe that there is a God a Christ a Scripture till the Pope tell him so Shall all Infidels be excused in judgement that had the Gospel preached to them by any other Christians except the Pope or others in his name Is no man on earth bound to believe in Christ that knows not the Popes mind in the matter And must men believe in the Pope before they believe in Christ And must they believe in Christ onely because the Pope bids them or because they first believe in the Pope I do not think that either the eares of Good Christians or rational Infidels will relish such doctrine And what is this Believing in the Pope that must go first Is it not to take him to be Saint Peters successor and that Saint Peter was Christs Disciple who had a promise of infallibility which is now devolved to the Pope And must this be believed before men believe in Christ We must believe what he promised and who were his servants before we believe in himself This is a ground too like the Popish superstructure But perhaps they may in time grow moderate and tell us that it is not in all points of faith but some onely that the Pope is made Judge He may not judge about Christ himself whether he be the Messiah but about his Doctrines Answ 1. By what warrant will they distinguish and claim power in one which they have not in the other 2. Is it all or some of Christs Doctrines that the Pope is Judge of If all then it seems he must judge whether he that Believeth shall be saved or not Whether we should love God or hate him Whether we should seek first Gods Kingdom or worldly vanities And whether a man should commit Murder Adultery Theft c. or not May he decide these on either part or on one only as others may do May he judge that there is no Judgement Resurrection or life Everlasting I know they dare not say it If it be but some of Christs Doctrines that the Pope is made Judge of then let them tell us which it is and give us their proofs and they shall hear more from us Let it be the smallest point they will imagine Hath God given power to the Pope to contradict him and give him the Lye If God saith It is so May the Pope say It is not so What if the Pope say that the Gospel of Mathew or Luke or John is no part of Gods word Must we believe him What if he tell as that the world was made in five days and not in six Must we believe him 2. If they yet flye to his infallibility I shall speak more to that anon though the former answer may well suffice them But to another Arg. 3. The Scripture is Gods Law The Pope is not the Judge of Gods Law therefore he is not the Judge of Scripture The Major I hope no Christian will deny The Minor is evident from the nature and use of Laws and Judgements The Law is Norma judicis in judicando the Judges Rule He is not to Judge the Law but the cause of particular persons by that Law Indeed as to the right guidance of his own act of Decisive Judging the cause of the person he hath a Judgement of discretion concerning the sence of the Law but as if he Judge upon a false exposition of the Law the party may appeal from him so which concerneth our present case he hath no power to Judge the Law it self As he cannot make a plaine text to bear a false sence or oblige the subject to believe a false sence so in a doubtful case it belongeth to the Law-givers onely to interpret their own Laws Onely a sentence of a lawful Judge grounded upon a false exposition may sometime be executed among men where justice cannot be had but no man is bound to Believe that it is true and just James tells men what it is to pretend to be a Judge of the Law in stead of doing it and leaving that to the one Law-giver Jam. 4 11 12. And if the Pope be made Judge of every controverted difficulty in Scripture then why is he so unfaithful that he hath not hitherto written us an infallible Commentary on it and why doth he not determine all the controversies about it that among his own followers remain yet undetermined of which more anon Arg. 4. If the Pope be made the Deciding Judge of Faith and Scripture then either of the plain points or onely of the controverted difficulties or of both But not of the plain points For 1. That which is evident and not under controversie needs no Judge To the ignorant there may be need of an interpreter and teacher but not of a Judge 2. Such texts of Scripture do oblige us whether the Pope Judge of them or not Therefore there is no need of his judgement that they may oblige us Who dare think that a man is not bound by the word of God to love God above all to believe the Resurrection of Christ and of us to love Christs disciples c. unless he know the judgement of the Pope Do not all Laws of the Land oblige the subject upon the bare legislation and promulgation before the Judge meddle with them If they did not first oblige us to duty there were no place for the Judge to sentence us to punishment for disobedience It is the Legislator that obligeâ—h to duty by his Law proclaimed or any way published in his name But judgement interveneth to oblige men to punishment and bring it to execution and to help them to that which by the Law is their right If therefore it be evident in the very nature of Laws and judgement that we are obliged by Gods Laws to Believe and obey them in the several particulars before any judgement of the Popes it is then but dotage to talk of a Judicial Decisive power in the Pope to oblige men to Believe those same doctrines and obey those same precepts of the word And for the dark and controverted texts 1. Those are not of that moment as that mens salvation
must lye upon the exposition of them The points absolutely necessary to salvation are plainly delivered 2. Obscurity shews the need of a Teacher but not of a Judge At least its plain that when any Teacher shall remove the obscurity those texts oblige us as well as the plainest 3. As I said If the Pope be Judge of all difficult controverted texts he is an unfaithful Judge that will not expound them to us and decide so many controversies as yet depend What good will it be to the Church to have such a Judge of difficult controverted texts of Scripture as in the consciousness of his ignorance dare not give us his judgement but hath left them undecided these fifteen hundred years This dumbe Oracle that hath eyes and sees not and a mouth but speaks not is not a fit foundation for the Churches Faith 5. Where God calleth men to Office and Power he accomplisheth or fitteth them in some measure for the performance of it but God hath not fitted all Popes no nor any to Jugde Decisively of all controverted difficultyes in Scripture and Religion Therefore he hath not made them Judges of them The Minor shall be further proved anon Many Popes have been ignorant and unlearned many Heretickes unfit to decide all such controversies and they have shewed their unfitnesse by their non performance or ill performance The great Objection of the Papists is this Obj. 1. What! Shall every one be the Judge of Scripture and take it in what sence he please shall every unlearned man or woman expound it according to their own fancies then we shall have variety of expositions Whether is it fitter for the Church or every simple fellow to be Judge Answ 1. Neither Hath God made subjects to be Judges of his Lawes by which they must live and by which they must be judged Neither they nor your Pope must be Judges of the Lawes in a proper sence but obeyers of it 2. We say not that the people should expound the Scriptures as Teachers of others unless in their own callings as to the children servants c. when they are able This we reserve to the Officers of the Church 3. Nor do we say that any people must expound Scripture according to their own fancies or mis-guided conceits but according to the true meaning of them 4. Nor should they in difficult cases which are past their understandings presume of their own wit to know the right meaning but have recourse to the Teachers that God hath set over them that so by their help they may learn the meaning of that word which they understood not 5. And if their Teachers be singular or give them just cause to suspect their skill or fidelity they have more reason to regard the Judgement of the Judicious then of the ignorant and of the whole Church then of any one or few so far as the credit or authority of men must support a learner while he is a learning 6. But what Is it indeed such a monstrous heretical conceit in the eyes of a Papist that every Christian should have a Judicium discretionis a Judgement of discerning to perceive and discern which is truth and which is falshood Good Lord whether will the heat of contention carry men Why if they must not have this discerning judgement 1. Then God doth bind them all to be fools and ignorant 2. And then Religion and the Christian Faith are the endowments of bruits that know not what they hold or do and not of Reasonable men 3. Or else they that will be Christians must have no Faith or Knowledge which is a contradiction Is not Faith an act of discretion Must not he that believeth the Resurrection and Everlasting Life believe them with his own understanding And doth he not in believing them Judge them to be True and Judge the contrary doctrine to be false 4. Why will you read or preach Scripture to the people if you would not have them receive it by a judgment of discerning would you not have their judgment discern the Truth of what God hath written or the Priest shal preach to them 5. Doubtless you will allow them a judgement of Discretion about the Popes Decrees and Canons and your own Determinations How can they believe you if they do not by judgement discern the things you say to be true And why will you not allow them the like towards God and his Word Will you say It is their duty to believe the Pope and their sin to believe God Or it s their duty to understand the Popes Laws and their sin to understand Gods Laws Why what do you say less when you yield them a judgement of discretion as to the Pope or Church and deny it in Respect to the Word of God If you say that they will misunderstand the Scripture I ans 1. So will the Pope and the best and wisest man on earth in some part because while we are here we know but in part 2. Their error is their sin But doth it follow that they may not see at all for fear of missing their way Must they put out their eyes and be led by the Pope for fear of erring Must they not know or labor to know for fear of mistaking Will any Master take this well of his servant to put out his eyes or do nothing for fear of doing his work amiss Or refuse to go his journey lest he miss the way Then we must not judge of the Popes Laws neither and consequently not judge them to be true for fear of erring in our judgement When you prove that the Church of Rome is the true Church would you not have the people judge of your proof for fear of erring This is even to make beasts of Christians 3. What are Teachers for but to guide them and help them to understand If you are afraid lest they should erre be the more diligent in instructing them But this is the difference between the work of a Popish Teacher and ours They make it their work to put out mens eyes that they may have the loading of them because they are troubled with an imperfection in their sight and therefore will erre if those imperfect eyes be left in their heads we make it our work by all means we can use to cure their eye sight that they may be able to see themselves in the mean time advising them while their eyes are under cure not wholly to trust to them but to use the helpe of others to shew them the way and to tell them of dangers The Protestant will set his Childe to School that he may learn to know that which through childishness he knows not But according to the Popish way we should forbid them all books or learning lest they misunderstand them and let them never know any thing lest they know amiss The next step is to send them to Bedlam The Apostle would have men have their senses exercised to discern Good
Papal infallibility can be proved and so to forsake both Popery and Christianity Then it seems no man can know the Popes infallibility but upon the authority of Gods word which cannot it self be known till that infallibility be known It must be Gods Grant written or unwritten that must prove their infallibility But that word or Grant written or unwritten cannot be known to be of God till we first know their Authority to judge and infallibility in judging It evidently follows therefore according to them that neither one nor the other can be known because no one of them can be known till the other be first known But 2 If we could know the Scripture to be Gods Word before we know their infallibility in judging yet we cannot know the true sence of that Scripture as they confidently tell us first Well then I am one that doubt of the Popes infallibility and demand his proof Bellarmine turns me to Luk. 22. I have prayed that thy faith fail not I must know how I shall be sure that this is the meaning of that Scripture which is so little apparent to an ordinary eye He hath nothing to tell me but that the Church saith so And how shall I know that the Church is in the right Why because it cannot erre And how shall I know that Why by this Text. And so they are amazed in another Circle past recovery For they expresly and frequently tell us that the Scripture is no good evidence but when it is rightly expounded and that no exposition is right but that which is given by the infallible judgement of the Church and so the Popes infallibility cannot be known till the true meaning of Texts be known that prove it and the true meaning of those Texts cannot be known till their infallible judgement be first known What follows therefore but that neither of them can be known The true product of Popery This is the usual success of false arguing for a good cause to overthrow both the cause and argument so do the Papists as much as in them lyes overthrow both Christs Doctrine and their own 3. But let us examine the particular proofs from Scripture that they bring His first proof lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 3. is from Luk. 22. Simon Simon Satan hath desired c. but I have prayed for thee that thy faith faile not and when thou art converted strengthen thy brethren Doth this Text say that the Pope of Rome is infallible Yes if you will take Bellarmines word And first he tells us that among themselves there are three several expositions given of this Text and it is but one of the three that will serve their turn Good still And how shall we know that this one which Bellarmine hit on is the right Let any impartial man peruse his reasons and make his best of them For indeed there is no reason in them But on the contrary I shall presume to tell them why I suppose that this Text doth not talk of the Popes infallibility 1. Because here is never a word either of the Pope or of Rome or of Infallibility 2. Because the thing here promised is expresly restrained to one individual person Simon 3. The thing here promised was about Peters personal Faith and not about infallibility in judging For 1. In that respect that Satan desired to sift Peter in that respect Christ promised the not failing of his Faith But it was in respect of his personal Faith and not his Cathedral judgement that Satan is here said to desire to sift him Therefore c. 2. It is expresly said to be his Faith that should not fail But his Faith is not his tongue or Cathedral sentence words be not Faith 4. It is not all degree of infallibility or not failing that Christ prayeth for to Simon but he onely prayeth that his Faith may not be overcome foreseeing that it would shake and that he would deny him So that this is no promise of perfect Infallibility to Peter himself as appeared by the issue 5. Peter himself was to be converted from some failing Therefore he was not exempted from it And the case here in hand is such as that conversion had respect to Therefore it was not that he should not fail in Cathedral Determinations for he was not converted from such Bellarmine here most immodestly would intimate that the text speaks not of Peters conversion from any sin but of his turning to his brethren to speak to them as if it were When thou turnest thee to speak to thy Brethren strengthen them Nothing but the Popes infallibility or the gross fallibility of common reason could make a learned man think that this is the sence of the Text. 6. The Papists pretend that here is somewhat promised to Peter which the rest of the Apostles were not partakers of But that is not so For if it were as it was that he should not Apostatize the same was given to them all except Judas If it had been that he should be infallible in teaching the Church so were the rest too as well as he The reason therefore of mentioning Peter in particular was because Christ foresaw the temptations and lamentable fall of Peter in denying Christ with cursing and oathes from which he had need of a special conversion that God might not forsake him and give him up to a totall failing of his Faith 7. Two things saith Bellarmine are here obtained for Peter The one is that he himself should never lose the faith nor fall as to his faith The second is that he as Pope should never teach any thing contrary to faith or that none should ever be found in his seat that should so do Of which priviledges saith he perhaps the first did not descend to his successors but doubtless the last did But note here what a pass this learned Cardinal hath brought his great cause to 1. The text speaks but of one thing and not of two Faith is one thing and Cathedral determination is another Doth Christ mean both when he names but one Expresly it is onely the first priviledge that he promiseth Peter and saith not a word of the later It was his Heart and not his tongue that was the seat of faith and that Christ establisheth which is also evident by the issue for sure his tongue failed by speaking against the faith when he curst and swore that he knew not the man 2. Bellarmine confesseth that this priviledge that his own faith should not fail extendeth not perhaps to the Popes so that for all this their faith may fail If so 1. Then the onely priviledge mentioned in the Text extendeth not to them For it speaks of no more The text promiseth them nothing to the Pope but what it never promised to Peter 2. And if it did promise both priviledges to Peter that neither Faith nor tongue should fail how can Bellarmine prove that one part belongeth to the Pope when he confesseth the
infallible while our sufferings prove us Heretical 4. Is it not ambition and desire of Rule that is the very cause which they contend for What 's the unreconcileable quarrel so much as that all the world will not be subject to them And yet the sufferings of these men prove them infallible If one Butcher Henry the third of France and another Henry the fourth and others would blow up the English Parliament with Gunpowder is the Pope infallible if some of these be hanged Or what if some of them have suffered from infidels Are not others as ready so to suffer as they and have suffered as much as they The next mark that he layes down is Victory over all sorts of enemies But is it over their minds or over their bodies that they mean If the first who must be judge of their victories but themselves I never heard any of them plead their cause but in my judgement they had the worst There iâ— no party but may turn divers others to their opinions Mahomet hath got far more followers in the world then Christ and Heathenism than either If Papists can turn all these why do they suffer themselves still to be confined to so small a part of the world And if it be victory over mens bodies that they mean I say the like Have not the Turkes a larger Dominion than the Pope Have they conquered the Great Turk the Great Mogol the Grand Cham of Tartary c Are we not as infallible as they on this account when we conquer them It seems then when Papists are so industrious to enlarge their Dominions to destroy their enemies by Poysoning or stabbing Kings or other means it is that they may have a further Testimony of their infallibility The last mark which the Jesuite mentioneth is the conversion of Infidels But 1 If that be a sure Mark we are infallible as well as they For we have been means of converting Infidels And so have the Greek Churches and others that disown the Popes infallibility 2. If that Argument be good then it was not only the Apostles but all that converted Infidels at the first or after preaching of the Gospel that were infallible which sure they never pretended to 3. If it will prove any body infallible it s liker to prove them so that did convert any Infidels then the Pope that onely gives them leave or order to do it 4. Let them not boast too much of their conversions till we have a better character of their new made Christians and a better report of their means of conversion then Acosta and other of their own Jesuites give us who have been eye witnesses of the case To cut men off by thousands or millions and force the rest to Baptism as cattle to watering when they have nothing of a Christian but the name and that sign and some forget the name it self this is not a conversion much to be boasted of Nor must they think that all are Christians that the King of Spain conquereth for love of their Gold and Silver Mines The Apostles did not convert Infidels by an Army but by the word and miracles but it is the King of Spaines souldiers that have been the effectual preachers to work the conversions that you have most to glory in If the Jesuit had put his proofs into well formed Arguments what stuff should we have had So much for the Answer to Chilling worth and the new Fundamentals of the Romish faith by which they can prove their Pope infallible without being beholden to Scripture for its help And I marvaile not at their contempt of Scripture-Testimony to them unless there were more or more appearance for them then there is Having considered the Papists proof of their infallibility I shall next though it be more then the cause obligeth me to say somewhat to prove the Negative and so proceed to my second Argument against them Argu. 2. If the common senses of sound men or their sensible apprehensions be infallible then the Pope with his pretended General Council is fallible But the common senses of sound men are infallible Therefore c. I know not how we should come neerer hand with a Papist nor to plainer dealing then to argue from common sense And as to the Antecedent Either sense is infallible or it is not If it be I have that I seek If not then mark what follows 1. Then no man can be sure that the Christian Religion is true For the proofs of it all vanish if sense be not infallible If you plead the Miracles of Christ and his Disciples no man was sure that he saw them If you plead the death and Resurrection and Ascension of Christ no man was sure he saw them and therefore could give no assurance of it to another All the Disciples senses and the worlds senses were or might be for ought we know deceived Nor are you sure that any writings or traditions came down to us from the Apostles For the eyes of the Readers and the ears of the hearers might be deceived 2. And then most certainly the Pope himself and all his Clergy are fallible For they cannot be sure of that which the Apostles and following Church were not sure of Nor can they be sure that in reading and hearing their eyes deceive them not And I take it for granted that the Pope and his Clergy do use their senses and by them receive these matters into their intellect Nay if sense be fallible no man in the Church of Rome can tell whether there be any such place as Rome or any such person as the Pope at all or ever was Nay what else can any man be sure of I suppose you will marvail why I bestow so many words on such a point But you see what men we have to deal with When all the quarrel between us must be issued by this point whether common sense be infallible For if it be we infallibly carry the cause Yea whether it be or be not as shall appear I come next therefore to prove the consequence and that I do thus The judgement of the Pope and his pretended General Council is directly contradictory to the apprehension or judgement of common sense therefore if common sense be infallible the Pope and his Council are fallible The consequent is unquestionable the Antecedent I prove by this known Instance Common sense takes it to be bread and Wine that remaineth after the words of consecration The Pope and his Council say it is not Bread nor Wine that remains after the words of consecration therefore the judgement of the Pope and his Council is directly contradictory to the apprehension of common sense For the first I appeal to the senses of all men that ever received the Eucharist Whether seeing feeling smelling and tasting do not as plainly take it to be Bread and Wine as they do any other Bread or Wine at their own tables and whether they can see or taste or smell
a Covenant Then when Paul saith This Rock was Christ it must proclaim that all the Israelites sences were deceived that thought it to be a true Rock when a Papist will confess that the meaning is This Rock represented or signified Christ As if among many Images you should say This is Peter and this John and this Paul this were plainly to say This signifieth Peter or representeth him c. and doth not proclaim that deceit of sence Bellarmine cannot deny but that it is called in 1 Cor. 10. 11. Bread and the Cup six times over as after the consecration and here his shifting answer is that things are said to be in Scripture what they seem to be as the brazen Serpent is called a Serpent and so here he pleadeth a Trope Good still The Scripture calls it Bread six times neer together after the consecration and it calls it Christs Body once when his living body sate by Now the Question is which of these speeches are Tropical And we must believe Bellarmine that the text which calls it six times Bread must needs be Tropical and that which calls it once Christs Body must needs be understood without a Trope And this is all the evidence they can bring that God hath proclaimed mens sences to be fallible Nay all that we need for our cause is but to take est for significat which is so common that one would think there should not such unnatural absurdities be admitted to avoid it as overthrow our humanity When we plead that Christ had a true body and that a true body may be seen and felt because Christ bids them Luk. 24. See and feel for a spirit hath not flesh and bones c. Bellarmine answereth that Sence is infallible in positives and therefore thence we may say This is a body because I see it self but not in Negatives and therefore we cannot say This is not a body because I see it not And what need we more then that which is here granted By his own confession then we may conclude that This is Bread and Wine because we see feel smell taste it Yet no doubt we may also argue that it is not a natural body because it is not visible or sensible So much for this second Argument which I may thus with full advantage enforce If sence be either fallible or infallible the Pope is fallible But sence is either fallible or infallible Therefore If sense be fallible the Pope is fallible and all his Church for their sences and the Apostles and their followers were fallible If sence be infallible the Pope and his Council are fallible because the common sences of all sound men take that for Bread and Wine which they expresly say as de fide to be believed is not either Bread or Wine Argu. 3. If the Pope and his pretended General Councils have erred already then are they not infallible But the Pope and his pretended General Councils have erred already Therefore they are not infallible As the first Argument was taken from the no proof of his infallibility and the second from the common senses of mankind so the third is taken from certain experience which is a medium so evident that their vain words and subtil evasions have the less force to elude or obscure it Of the validity of the consequence there is no question can be made He that hath erred is not infallible All the doubt therefore is of the Antecedent which hath by unquestionable evidence of History been put out of doubt by our Writers long ago I shall produce some few instances of many There are no less than fourty Popes whom Bellarmine himself takes notice of as charged with error or heresie for whom he frameth such poor excuses that I should think any impartial Reader might receive satisfaction enough from Bellarmine that the Pope is too fallible Yea that even judicially and in fundamentals he may err Did not Pope Liberius erre judicially when he subscribed to the Arrians confession in the Council of Sirmium Libenti animo suscepi in nullo contradicens which the Fathers condemn of Heresie and to the Councils condemnation of Athanasius as Athanasius himself and many more witness Did not Pope Vigilius err judicially when he condemned the Decree of the General Council for condemning dead Hereticks And when Pope Pelagius and Gregory the first and Adrian the first did all approve of the same Sure one party of these Popes erred unless contradictoryes may be true Yea when Pope Vigilius did afterward revoke his own constitution sure he erred either in making or revoking it And so did Pope Paschalis when they gave God thanks in open Council that they heard the Pope with his own mouth revok those grants which said they contained Heresie which he himself had before made to the Emperor Though Cajetans excuse be true that it was no Heresie yet either the making or revoking was an error What will they invent at last to hide the nakedness of Pope Honorius who in two several General Councils was condemned for a Monothelite Heretick which he judicially perswaded Sergius to when he sought his judgement Stapleton and many more of them confess the full certainty of the Councils condemning him of Heresie but forsooth they say the Council did mistake the case It seems then either a Pope may be a Heretick or a General Council err Moreover will any Papists deny that Pope Stephen six and Sergius erred when they judicially decreed that those should be ordained again that were ordained by Pope Formâ—sus And of Pope Celestines error Alphonsus a Castro faith that he himself saw it in the ancient Decretals as his Definition and therefore that it cannot be said that he erred as a private man and not as Pope What can they say of Pope John twenty two who denyed the immortality of the soul and was admonished of his heresie by the Doctors of Paris as not onely Pope Adrian the sixth Joh. Gerson Alphons a Castro and others witness but Bellarmine himself confesseth also But he excuseth him because that opinion was not there defined against and therefore was no heresie See here 1. Whether the Papists do not make themselves a new Faith and Religion when they please and that is a point of Faith with them one year that was none the year before so that the novelty and the mutability of their Religion is thus by themselves confessed 2. See here that a point declared in Scripture and held by the former Church is no point of Faith with them unless it be declared by a Pope or General Council 3. See here what men Bellarmine would make all the former Popes to have been that had determined whether the soul were immortal or not 4. Chamier truely noteth that Bellarmine himself forgetfully contradicteth himself and tells us elswhere that Innocent the third the ninteeneth Pope before John twenty two had taught the contrary in express words I shall
speaks against his own heart which cannot be proved nor soundly imagined 2. The infallible dictates of the Pope while he erreth in mind should be all either unreasonable acts as being the words of one that knoweth not what he saith or interpretatively lies For when a man speaks contrary to his judgement if his words be true in themselves yet they are interpretatively lys because he so takes them and intendeth them as falshoods to deceive others For instance If Pope John the 23. that was deposed by a General Council upon Articles exhibited against him for denying the Resurrection and the Life to come should with his tongue have taught the Resurrection and the Life to come this had been as lying to him though the thing it self be most true And we must have a promise that the Pope of Rome and his Clergy among all the Lyars in the whole world shall be the onely infallible Lyars A happy generation of Lyars sure But where is that promise 3. It was for the error of the tongue as well as of the mind that the Clergy desposed Liberius Felix and that the Councils of Pisa Constance and Basil deposed the other Popes above mentioned For 1. they could not know their minds but by their words 2. They charged them with the errors of their tongues as well as mindes Argu. 10. If Popes be infallible in the matters which they understand not then it must be by Enthusiasm or prophetical inspiration But all Popes are ignorant of many Divine Truths and some more notoriously ignorant and yet neither All nor Any of them for ought is ever proved were Prophets or divinely inspired therefore they are not infallible For the Major its plain that as no erring man must speak against his own mind if he be infallible so an ignorant man in those points must 1. either have his ignorance cured suddainly by prophetical inspiration or else 2. must speak as in an extasie without or beside his own mind there being no other way imaginable And as for the Minor I prove both parts of it 1. That Popes are ignorant of many Divine truths I prove thus 1. They that are ignorant of many truths revealed in the Scriptures are ignorant of many Divine truths For Scripture being Gods word all that is therein revealed is Divine truth But Popes have been ignorant of many things revealed in Scripture therefore I need not sure stand to prove the Minor for they confess it themselves And if the Pope understood all the Scripture he were sure the most damnable sinner in the world for not revealing his knowledge to others 2. Yea some of them have been so notoriously ignorant and unlearned that their own Alphonsus a Castro saith advers hares li. 1. c. 4. that It is certain some Popes be so unlearned that they do not understand the Grammar And sure if they that understand not any Hebrew or Greek which are the languages in which the Scripture is written no nor the Latin Grammar should understand all the Bible and erre in nothing it must needs be by a Miracle and by Prophetical inspiration 2. But that all Popes be not inspired Prophets nor illuminated by Miracles I will leave to be judged by the Papists themselves Read Platina Stella yea or Baronius himself or if they have any other that is a more notorious Parasite to them and let them be judges Argu. 11. If the Pope and his Council be infallible then it is either in All things that God hath revealed in the Scripture or are necessary to be known or but in some If he be infallible in all things necessary to be known believed or decided then will it follow 1. That the Pope is the most cruelly wicked man on earth and the greatest enemy to the truth and Church that will suffer the Church to lye in so much ignorance and contention and will not reveal the truth to reconcile and enlighten them Why doth he not write an infallible commentary on all the Bible to perfect our knowledge and end all our quarrels And why doth he not write an infallible summary of all his superadded traditions Hath not Christ told him that no man lighteth a candle to put it under a Bushel but where it may be seen of all 2. Why doth not one Pope reveal that which they think fit to reveal but leave it to successors one after another to do it by degrees Dare they say that there is any point of faith revealed in Scripture and necessary to this age to know which was not meet to be revealed by the Pope to the last or former age 3. Why do so many of themselves yea their General Councils so much contradict their Popes in many things if he be infallible in all things And all of them confess that either a Pope or a Council may erre But if it be but some things that the Pope is infallible in then how shall we be sure which be those some Can we know before he discloseth them or onely after I suppose they will say It is in all those things which he determineth or declareth But if that be the rule to know the extent of his infallibility by then I Every Pope beginneth to be infallible when he beginneth to Determine or declare and not before 2. And then every Pope increaseth in his infallibility as he increaseth his Decretals or Canons 3. And then one Pope is much more infallible then others who have made more decrees then others 4. And then some Popes were never infallible who never made any decrees or determinations or expositions at all so that their cause is lost if their actual discoveries be the Rule of the extent of their infallibility And yet I cannot imagine what else they can say that may have any appearance of consisting with their interest For it is either a Positive or a Negative infallibility which they mean and ascribe to their Church If a Positive then 1. All the foresaid absurdities unavoidably follow whether they say that they can infallibly teach us all things and will not or but some But if it be a Negative infallibility which they maintain viz. that the Church shall never teach any false doctrine Or the Pope shall never deceive us by obtruding any error though withall he may possibly teach us but part of the truth yea the necessary truth yea perhaps teach us none at all I say if this be their meaning then every infant or bird or beast hath as glorious a priviledge as the Pope of Rome For every infant and bruit is so infallible that we are certain they will not deceive the Church by teaching any error Perhaps they 'l say that the Pope is positively infallible as a sufficient Teacher of the Church in all things de fide at that time or necessary to salvation and negatively infallible in all the rest which are not de fide or necessary To which I answer 1. Either such points are de fide and
necessary before the Pope dedeclare them so and he therefore declares them so because they are so or else he declares them de fide and necessary before they are so that by declaring them so he may make them so If the first 1. then the Papists have lost their cause for that 's it which they deny at least quoad nos though not in se as they use to distinguish 2. And then its plain that no Pope hath been positively infallible in necessariis or all points de fide for no one hath declared all nor are they yet all say they declared by them but every Pope may still add more and who knows when we shall have all But if they take the later way then 1. They suppose that Gods word how express soever doth not make a point to be de fide and necessary till the Pope declare it so at least quoad nos and how it can be de fide and necessary any other way then quoad nos they should do well to declare For that which is credendum est ab aliquo credendum that which is to be believed must be believed by some body and that which is necessary is necessary to some one So that the Gospel shall be no Gospel with them nor the Law of God any Law though we read it and hear it a thousand times till the Pope tell us by parcels the meaning of its particular words and sentences 2. They make the Popes acts to go before their objects which is against the nature of actions while they make him to declare a point to be de fide that it may become de fide For to declare that it is so supposeth that it is so and not onely that it will or shall be so de futuro 3. And so they make all the Popes infallible Declarations Expositions and Determinations de fide to be Lyes for if he Declare a thing to be necessary before it is necessary or declare this or that to be the sence of Scripture before it is the sence of Scripture or to be de fide before it be so what is this but plaine lying But if they say that he declareth it to be de fide and necessary onely for the future and not to have been so before this Declaration then the forementioned Absurdities fall upon them And also 1. The Pope is then a Gospel-maker and the Law giver of the Church and that in spirituals and internals and consequently it is he that is the King of the Church who hath the Legislative power and without whom nothing that Christ hath said shall bind us 2. Then the Churches faith is mutable and in a continual change by new additions For the Decrees or Expositions of every Pope do make more Articles of faith then were before 3. Then the present Papists are not of the same Religion as their fore-fathers or their fore-fathers not of the same with them nor do they go to Heaven by the same way For according to their own doctrine if the present age of the Church did not believe as de fide many things more then the former ages were bound to believe they cannot be saved 4. And then it is evident unmercifulness in the Popes of Rome to make more Expositions Decrees or Determinations and so to make us of this Age so much work to do before we can get to heaven and scape damnation which our forefathers never had to do I know one of them replyeth to this that these Additions are no cruelty because they make not salvation more difficult but facilitate that which was necessary before or to that sence But 1. It seems then that somewhat was necessary and de fide before the Pope defined determined or declared them so By that time we are plainly told which those points be the Papist that undertakes and performeth it will finde himself at a sad loss 2. But is this man serious Doth he think indeed that it is not easier to believe the Apostles Creed than to believe all that is in the Councils of Trent Basil Constance Laterane with all the rest and all the Decretals both the Popes and Isidore Meccator's alias Peccator For instance before the Pope determined the other day for the Molinists against some part of the Dominican Jansenian doctrine both parties might have gone to heaven But now the poor Dominicans must change part of their doctrine or go to hell fire I demand now whether the Popes determination have not made salvation harder to many then before I appeal to all the Thomists Dominicans Jansenians whether the Pope hath facilitated their salvation by this determination I appeal to Tho. Whites friendly combate with Francisc Macedo to the late Animadversions of the French Doctors on the Popes determinations Further I adde that if all the Popes infallibility Positive be onely in points of absolute necessity to salvation then many a private Doctor nay every Christian man or woman is at present as infallible as the Pope for it implyes a contradiction to be a true Christian and not to believe all that is essential to Christianity or absolutely necessary to salvation And if it be not de praesenti in sensu composito but de futuro in sensu diviso that they mean it that is that another man may fall from the faith but the Pope cannot 1. Clean contrary we maintain and the Papists confess that no elect person shall fall quite from the faith 2. But a reprobate Pope may witness John 23. and many another So much for that Argument Argu. 12. If every Pope be infallible Positively in all matters of faith or in expounding all Scripture then all Popes are of equal understanding and fidelity in matters of faith and Scriptures For the most learned wise and pious can go no higher but to be able infallibly to interpret all Scripture and declare all Gods will concerning our faith and duty But sure all Popes are not equal None of those children or dunces that Alphonsus a Castro saith understood not the Grammar are equal to Pius 2. or Adrian the 6. Argu. 13. If every Pope be infallible then study learning consultations yea and Councils are needless for the most unlearned Pope is as infallible as the most learned and after all the study in the world consultation and advice of General Councils he can he but infallible and so say they he was before If they say still that before he was but negatively infallible I say again so is a block an infant or an ideot But that studies learning consultations and Councils are not needless I suppose all Papists will grant therefore they must grant that all Popes are not infallible Argu. 14. Notorious ungodly men that live in murder fornication incest Sodomy blasphemy c. have no promise from God nor any other assurance of infallibility but such were many Popes Therefore c. The Major I prove from many Scriptures 2 Thess 2.10 11.
concilii sententia magis tenentur cujus antiquior pâ—tior est authoritas That is As oft as we find in the acts of Councils disagreeing judgements let us hold the judgement of that Council which hath the more Ancient and the greater authority But the confession of the adversaries here may spare us more labour who acknowledge that a General Council though rightly Congregated and though the Popes Legates concur may yet erre in the faith if so be that the Pope doth not approve or confirme their Decrees So that when they say that All the Church cannot err and therefore a General Council cannot erre their own meaning is that one man cannot erre but All the Church viz. a General Council without him may erre Argu. 19. The infallibility of the Pope or Romane Church was never acknowledged by the Ancient Churches or Fathers for six hundred years after Christ Therefore it is not now to be received The Antecedent is so fully proved by our Writers and so easily discernable by those that read the writtings of those times that there needs not any more to be said That which I shall produce to this pupose shall be anon to prove the following point and this together In the mean time I refer them to Bishop Jewell Chamâ—er Bishop Vsher Doctor White who with many more have fully proved this Argu. 20. If the Pope be not the Authorized judge of Scripture nor our faith to be resolved into his judgement or the judgement of his Church then is he not the Infallible judge of Scripture and of controversies about matters of faith For he that is no judge can be no infallible judge nor doth he need infallibility to qualifie him for a work which he was never called to nor doth at all belong to him It is not the Pope as a private Doctor or as the Bishop of a particular Church which is made by them the subject of infallibility but the Pope as the supposed head of the Catholike Church authorized to interpret Scripture and to judge of all controversies of faith into whose judgement at least with his Clergy our faith they think must be resolved If therefore we can prove the nullity of the subject we do thereby prove the nullity of the Adjunct And this leads us up to the third Question which we have now to deal with Quest 3. Whether our faith must be resolved into the infallibility of the Romane pretended Authoritative judgement Or whether the Popes Authority and infallibility be the thing first to be known and thence the truth of Scripture or Christian Religion to be received as upon his judgement But because this is not the principal point intended in this dispute and because there is enough said to it in the beginning on the by and because I have said yet more for explication of the whole matter in the Preface to the later Editions of The Saints Rest I shall therefore say but little to it now reserving a fuller handling it if necessary to a fitter season Only I shall here adde a few more Reasons to prove that the Pope or Romane Church have no such Authority to be judge of Scripture or controversies to all the rest of the Churches on earth and then I shall adde a few words to prove that we must believe in Christ and receive his doctrine before we believe in the Pope and receive his pretended authority and judgement that is without it Arg. 1. If the Pope or his consistory must be the universal Governor and Judge to all the Chrian world then must the greatest part of the Christistian world be ungoverned and have no recourse to their Judge But the consequent will be denyed by themselves therefore we have reason to deny the Antecedent The proof of the consequence is most obvious and certain from the Popes natural incapacity and insufficiency for such a work and so of his consistory It is naturally impossible that the Pope should perform the works of this Government to all the Christian world therefore the consequence is good He cannot make known his determinations to all If all men through the Christian world that have such doubts to be resolved as his Holiness supposeth belong to him properly to resolve should have recourse to him for resolution O how much would the wayes to Rome be beaten and frequented What a concurse would be about his Holiness doors What time would he have to resolve those millions of men If any differences or difficulties arise in Aethiopia or at the Antipodes before they go or send to Rome for Resolution and receive an answer the persons are like to be in another world where they will have a more infallible resolution And if they live to see the return of their messengers they must take it on the trust of their words that this is indeed his Holinesses resolution Hence it is that de facto there is so few people on earth even of the Papists themselves that are really goverened or resolved by the Pope himself nor know what he is or what is his minde but all is done by his Missionaryes or Delegates And if the Pope can delegate his power to others and make so many others also infallible then infallibility is not proper to himself and then why may not the rest of the Bishops of the Church be as infallible who are sent by Christ as these are that are sent by him Argu. 2. If the Pope be such an universal Governor and Judge then all Popes must needs be damned for utter neglect of the works of their office For sure when the wel-fare of the whole Church doth so much depend on the office of the head it cannot but be damnable in him to be a neglecter of the works of that office to the far greatest part of the Church on earth But he must unavoidably neglect I mean omit that work which it iâ— impossible for him to perform Therefore What I have further to say against the resolving of our faith into his judgement shall be contained in these few Questions following Quest 1. Doth he not contradict the very definition of a Pope that tells us that we must first believe him to be an infallible Pope before we can believe the Doctrine of Christ For a Romane Pope is supposed to be the Vicar of Christ the successor of Saint Peter the head of the Church And can he be thus known by a man that knoweth not or believeth not that there is a Christ who is the Saviour and principal head and who is supposed to send him Quest 2. And doth it not contradict the definition of a Church to say that we must believe the Church before we can believe the doctrine of Christ For what is a Church but a society of Christians that is men professing the Christian Faith And how can they know that such men are Christians or profess that faith before they know what that faith is And how can they know that they are to
be credited as Christians before they believe that Christianity it self is of credit Q 3. Is there any man breathing that can bring sufficient Arguments to prove 1. That there is a Church of Christ 2. And that this Church is infallible 3. And that the Pope and Papists are this Church before their hearers have received or believed the word of God If they can why have they not faln closer to work in this necessary point when they know how much it would do to the determination of the whole If they pretend such Antecedent proof by miracles as the Apostles proved the Doctrine by I have shewed the vanity of this pretence against Knot before and we must still desire them if it be miracles that is their first witness to let us see or have certaine proofe of those Miracles We protest to all the world that we are heartily willing to see them and know of them if they be true but though we have lived in the midst of Papists all our lives yet could we never to this day see any such matter from them nor hear so much as of any probable proofs of any And would they have us in a matter of salvation to believe every prâ—ting boaster that will tell us of Miracles and shew us no such thing nor any proof of them Quest 4. Whether those that do not go this most absurd way of proving their Church infallible to an infidel that yet believeth not Gods word and so by means antecedent to the belief of Scripture must not unavoidably confess that Gods word must be first believed before the Popes or Churches infallibility or authority and consequently our faith dependeth not in them nor is resolved into them or else they are inextricably insnared in the Popish circle and contradictingly do make two primo credenda the Church or Pope the first to be believed and yet the word of God is first to be believed And do not Holden Vane Knot and others of them see this who therefore shun the circle and use not the old shifts of Becanus and others to blind the eyes of those that see them in it Whether I wrong them H. Holden himself an Englishman and Doctor of Paris shall be judge who thus commendeth his own new devised Foundation or resolution of the faith in his Divini fid analys li. 1. c. 9 pag. 180. Ex quibus patet haâ—â— Christianae fidei analysim haud inâ—idore in labyrinthum vulgarem circulare perfugium quo solent Theologi passim involvi qui fidei Resolutionem juxta communem parum attente examinatam opiniâ—â—â—â— conferuunt as effingunt Quarenti namque undâ— noverint scripturam esse revelatum Dei verbum Respondent ex universae consentientis Ecclesiae assertione Quibus si iterum fiet interrogatis unde sciverint unanimeus hanc Ecclesiae Catholicae assertionem esse ab errore liberam seu infallibilem Respondent ex revelatâ— Dei verbo Adeo ut non audentes fidem Divinam in certitudine evidentia naturali fundare in circulum hunc inevitabiliter illabuntur in orbem turpissime saltantes fidem quam ipsa prima ratio format efficit rationis experem reddunt voluntque homines rationales mentis ac judicii partioipes in fidei assensu certiores esse quam vel ratio postulat vel approbat Hasitant quippe Theologi quidam asseverare agnoscere quod omnia argumenta etiam firmissima omnesque rationes item evidentissimae quibus universam fidei Divinae Catholicae traditionem solidam erroris immunem infallibilem esse demonstramus adeo veritatem hanc evincant ut nulla prorsue subsit aberrationis facultas Ideoque â—pinantuâ— Christianorum aâ—imos adhuc ita vacillantes fluctuantes derelictos esse ut privatum aliquem singularem instinctum pernecessarium autument quo omni fidei Christianae assensui certitudo infallibilitas divina at ajunt attribuatur Nos antem levibuâ— hisce voluntariis opinationibus fidei divinae Religionis Christianae certitudinem soliditatem inniti aut fundari nequaquam judicamus That is in English From hence its evident that this resolution of the Christian faith doth not fall into the common Labyrinth and circular shift in which Divines are commonly wont to be involved who do frame and fashion the resolution of faith according to the common and unheedfully examined opinion For when they are asked how they know then Scripture to be the revealed word of God they answer By the assertion of the universal consenting Church And if they be again asked how they know that this unanimous assertion of the Catholike Church is free from error or infallible They answer By the revealed word of God so that not daring to found divine faith in natural certaintainty and evidence they unavidably slide into this circle most filthily dancing in a ring or round the faith which the first reason formeth and effecteth they make void of Reason and would have reasonable men who have understanding and judgment to be more certain in the assent of faith then reason doth either require or allow For some Divines c. Here you see a Learned Papist confessing that the Papists are commonly entangled in this circle and filthily dance in a round and would make our faith an unreasonable thing Let Knot note this that would make Chillingworth a Socinian and an Infidel for making faith a reasanable act And let the common sort of Papists note this that deny faith to have any evidence And let it be considered according to this mans judgement on what foundation the generality of Papists do build their faith and what a faith it is that hath such a foundation Yea and let it be considered whether the wiser sort of Papists begin not to change the very foundation of their Faith And how neer they begin to draw to the Reformed Churches in the Resolution of their Faith For this same Doctor doth well disprove the infallibility of the Pope pag. 179. Saying Owne quidem Episcopi Apostolorum successores sunt Apostolos vere adeâ— confirmatos in gratia fuisse ut infallibiles omnino seu in doctrina Christiana tradenda ab omni erroris periculo immunes fuerint agnoscit universa Ecclesia Nunquid ergo omnes Episcopi ab errore liberi Omnibus quidem Apostolis revelata fuisse secreta Caelestia iissque ut nec decipi nec hallucinari possent divina extraordinaria via donatum esse certissime tenemus Nunâ— quid ergo vel summo Pontifici vel caeteris Episcopis haec sunt divinitus concessa privilegia That is All Bishops are the Apostles successors And that the Apostles were so confirmed in grace that they were altogether infallible or free from all danger of error in delivering the Christian doctrine this the universal Church acknowledgeth But are all Bishops therefore free from error We certainly hold that to all the Apostles the heavenly secrets were revealed and that by a Divine and
Nation the Kingly Priesthood was so far amiss that it was distracted into six hundred opinions and errors And spoiled and wasted by the Devil If the Popes Monarchical Government was then a foot then it seemâ— that Government will no more prevent sects and errors then the worst If it were not then 1. They are now usurpers 1. And they cannot prove ouâ— way of Government to be wrong by the multitude of errors that are in the Church Basil was far from resolving his faith into the Popes infallibility when he wrot his Ascetica or at least Eustathius Sebastienus if they be his when pag. 195. Tom. 2. translat Musculi Basil he saith It is a manifest lapse of faith and apparent vice of pride either to refuse any thing which the Scripture containeth or to bring in any thing which is not written seeing Christ saith My sheep hear my voice and premiseth But another they will not follow but flye from him because they know not a strangers voice And pag. 193. he saith that sometimes he had used unwritten sayings against hereticks But never aliene from the Scripture sence c. and that now he was resolved To make use of what he had learned from Scripture and but sparingly to use the very names and words which are not literally conform to the divine Scripture though they do retain the Scripture sence The same Basil Epist 80. To. 2. p. mihi 74. renouncing the argument from custome saith Let us stand therefore to the arbitration of the Scriptures inspired from God and with whomsoever is found the opinions which are agreeable to the Divine oracles to him let the sence or sentence of truth be wholly adjudged This is Basils judgement of the judge of controversies Hilarius Pictav in his Epistle de Synodis adversus Arrianos pag. mihi 318 319. and fully sheweth his thoughts that Councilâ— have erred and that even those of the Orthodox are to be tryed by the Apostolical doctrine And lib. 2. de Trinitate pag. 16. col 2. he saith Commendat autem fidei hujus integritatem c. The integrity of this faith is commended by the Authority of the Gospel and Apostolical doctrine For this foundation standeth strong and unmoved c. And he maketh it a remedy against all Heresies And in his Commentary on Mat. Canon 8. pag. 498. he saith Igitur secundum haec Ecclesiae intra quas verbum Dei non vigilaverit naufragae sunt c. i. e. The Churches in which the word of God doth not watch are shipwrackt And most fully lib. 4. de Trinitate pag. 31. col 2. Nemini autem dubium esse oportet c. that is No man ought to doubt but that we must use Gods doctrine for the knowing of divine things For humane weakness cannot of it self attain the knowledge of heavenly things It is God himself that we must believe concerning himself and those things which he offereth to our knowledge of himself must we obey For either we must deny him as the Gentiles do if we disallow his testimonies or if he be believed to be God as he is nothing of God can be understood but as he hath witnessed of himself Let mens own opinions therefore cease or be laid by and let not mens judgements extend themselves beyond Gods constitutions For the understanding of sayings must be fetcht from the causes of the speech because the thing is not subject to the words but the words to the matter And li. 4. de Trinitate pag. 29. col 1. when he sheweth that the hereticks use to plead Scripture misunderstood he doth not send them to Rome for a judgement of the sence but still concludeth Respondendum esse existimo haereticorum perversitati omnes corum stultas ac mortiferas institutiones Evangelicis atque Apostolicis Testimoniis coarguendas That is I judge that we must answer hereticks perverseness and all their foolish and deadly institutions by the testimonies of the Gospel and of the Apostles And the same Hilary doth largly perswade to a close adhering to the Gospel and the sum of Faith called the Apostles Creed without adding or altering under any pretence of amending and sheweth the divisions and depravations that have followed since the Council of Nice would make one emendation and on their example other Councils had made and mended done and undone so oft that they had marr'd all by it and he perswadeth the Emperor to hearken to the ancient Gospel faith and not to Synods His words are in Epist vel Lib. ad Constant August pag. Edit Paris 307.308 where having shewed how he had erred in looking after Councils he saith Recognosce fidem quam c. that is Reacknowledge that Belief which thou desirest to hear from the Bishops but hearest not For they of whom it is required do write their own things and do not preach the things of God they have drawn about an endless and perpetual circle For the modesty of humane infirmity should have contained all mysteries of divine knowledge in those bounds of conscience onely which he believed in and not after a Belief confessed and sworn in Baptism in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost to doubt or innovate any thing else Under the improbable occasion of this necessity the custome is come up of writing and renewing the Belief Which after that it began rather to frame new things then to retain what was received it neither defended the old nor confirmed the new and Belief is now become rather a belief of the times than of the Gospels while it is written according to the years and not held according to the Confession of Baptism It is a most perillous and miserable thing that we have as many Beliefs as Wills and as many Doctrines as manners and that as many causes of blasphemy spring up as there are vices And when according to one God and one Lord and one Baptism there is one Belief we are faln from that Belief which is but one and while many are made they therefore begin to be that there may be none For we are on both sides conscious that since the meeting of the Council of Nice we have wrote nothing but Beliefes While there is quarrel about the words and questions about the newness and occasion about the ambiguityes and complaints about the Authors and strife about the parties and difficulty in consents and while every one begins to be an Anathema to another almost no one now is Christs For we are carryed about by an uncertain wind of Doctrine and either while we teach we trouble or while we are taught we erre And what is the change that is in the last years belief The first decreeth that the word homousion shall be silenced The next decreeth and preacheth the homousion The third doth by indulgence excuse the word usia which was simply before used by our fathers The fourth and last doth not excuse it but condemn
it and at last it s come to this that there is nothing remaineth established and inviolable with us nor with any before us And as for the likeness ' of God the Son to God the Father it is the Belief of our miserable time that he is not like in whole or but in part We are excellent judges or Arbitrators sure the seekers of the heavenly misteries who do calumniate in our professions of the faith of God we decree yearly and monethly Beliefs of God we repent of our decrees we defend them we Anathematize those that were defended we damne other mens matter in ours or they damne ours in theirs and biting one another we are consumed one of aouther A Belief is again sought for as if there were no beliefe A belief must be written as if it were not in our hearts Being already regenerated by faith we are now taught to believe As though the Regeneration were without Belief We learâ— Christ after Baptism as if Baptism could be anything without the faith oâ— Christ p. 309. Amonâ— these shipwracks of faith the heritage of our heavenly patrimony being noâ— almost profligate it is the safest way for us to retain that first and onely Evangelical Belief confessed in Baptism and understood and not to changâ— that good Belief which onely I have received and heard Not as if those things which are contained in the Council of our Fathers are to be damned as irreligiously and impiously written but because through mens rashness they are used to contradiction that for this the Gospel might safely be denyed under the name of novelty as if it were innovated that it might be mended That which is mended alwayes effecteth this that while every amendment doth displease every amendment may be condemned by a following amendment as if now whatever it be it were no amendment of an amendment but began to be a condemnation of it In this much O Emperor Constantius I admire thee as of a blessed and Religious will desiring a Belief onely according to what is written and indeed justly hastening to those very words of the onely begotten God that the brest capable of impartial solicitude may also be full of the knowledge of the words of God He that refuseth this is an Antichrist and he that counterfeiteth it is Anathema But this one thing I intreat of thee that the Council being present which now quarrels about the Belief thou wilt vouchsafe to hear me a few words of the Holy Scriptures and I may speak with thee of the words of my Lord Jesus Christ whose banished man or Priest I am O Emperor dost thou seek a Belief Hear it not out of newpapers but out of the Books of God Remember that it is not a question of Philosophy but in the doctrine of the Gospel I desire not audience so much for my self as for thee and the Churches of God For I have my Belief with my self and need none from without That which I have received I hold and I change not that which is of God But yet remember that there is no hereticke but doth falsly pretend that he speaks that in which he blasphemeth according to the Scripture Here he names Marcellus Photinus Sabellius Montaneus Manichaeus Marcion They all speak Scripture without its meaning they pretend faith without faith For the Scriptures lie not in reading but in understanding nor in prevarication but in charity Hear I pray thee what is written of Christ lest under them those things that are not written be preached Submit thy ears to those things which from these Books I shall speak lift up thy faith to God Hear that which profiteth to Belief to Unity to Eternity I will speak to thee with the honor of thy Kingdom and thy faith all things profitable to the peace of East and West under the publike knowledge under a disagreeing Council under a famous contention I will defend nothing to scandal nor that is without or besides the Gospel Here he reciteth a short creed in Scripture words especially about Christ I confess I fear I am too tedious in these long citations but I do it that the Papists may not say that we take particular words or shreds of sentences without the full sence Here I desire that it may be noted 1. That Councils may erre and differ 2. That they are so far from being the authorized judges of our belief that in Hilaryes judgement their determinations have occasioned the ruine and dangerous divisions of the Church 3. And that this is not onely true of the Arrian Councils but of the Council of Nice it self though its Belief were sound even by the novelty of terms and example for further innovating 4. That Hilary never calls the Emperor to consult with the Pope or Church of Rome as the authorized infallible judge even when he professeth to tell him all that was necessary to the peace of the whole Church East and West If it be said that this is because Hereticks believed not Romes authority or infallibility I answer It had then most neerly concerned Hilary to teach it them when he taught them all that was necessary to peace especially if that be the foundation into which the rest of our faith must be resolved 5. Lastly note that it is only the word of God and the ancient Baptismal Creed which Hilary here calls them to for Peace and healing of all the worlds division O sad case that this advice was never taken to this day O happy Church when ever it shall be taken and never till then And here because I am afraid of wearying the Reader and making these testimonies unproportionable to the brevity of the disputation I shall forbear adding those that I thought to have added yet assuring any Papist that readeth it that it is not for want of more sufficient Testimonies of the Fathers on our side For I had ready to transcribe in those few books which stand at my elbow sufficient Testimonies shorter or longer in all these following Authors in their own writings viz. Clemens Romanus Ignatius Justin Martyr Irenaeus the supposed Dionisius Areop Tertullian Origen Clemens Alexandr Athenagoras Fatianus Arnobius Athanasius Lactantius Macarius Cyril Alexand. Cyril Hierosol Synesius Epiphanius Eusebius Caesariensis Chrysostome Gregorius Thaumat Neocaesar Greg. Nyssen Basilius Seleuciae Ambrose Theodoret Damascene Isidore Hispal Gaudentius Brixianus Vincentius Lirinensis Salvianus Massil Caesarius Arelatens Alcuinus vel Albinus Beda Vigilius Joannes Maxenâ—ius Alcimus Avitus Prosper Fulgentius Oecumenius Theophylact. Bernard with many others besides all before named of whom some speak fully to the point and all the rest call us to the word of God in Scriptures for the resolution or ground of our faith and not to the authority or infallibility of the Pope of Rome I shall onely stay so long as to adde two or three of the eldest though briefest and two or three Canons of some Councils because there will seem more weight in
how much the Pope of Rome hath at this day gotten beyond the sacred observations by use and custome of subjectional obedience And Barth Caranza having mentioned this Canon in his summ Council p. 48. had no other evasion but this that among all the Greek and Latin Copies which he searched Cardinal Marcellus a Legate at the Trent Council shewed him one Latine Copy that had Metropolitane instead of Romane But is this much to the purpose Or if it were is one Latin Copy in a Cardinals hand more credible then all the rest in the world that have câ—â—e to light In the 6. Council of Carthage Auâ—elius heard it and Augustine was there and there they again determined that the Bishop of Rome should not receive the Priests or excommunicate persons that appeased to him And they give this as the Reason Quia hoc nulla patrum c. That is Because this was never derogated from the Asricke Church by any definition of our Fathers and the Nicene Decree do commit both the inferior Clergy and and the Bishops themselves to their Metropolitans For they most prudently and justly provided that all businesses should be finished in the places where they were begun and the grace of the holy Ghost will not be wanting to each province Let this equity be constantly and prudently observed by Christs Priests especially seeing every man hath leave if he be offended with the judgement of the known to appeal to a Council to his Province or to a General Council Unless there be any man that can think that God can inspire a Justice of Tryal into any one person and deny it to innumerable that are congregated in Council And whereas the Bishop of Rome would have sent his Legates into those parts to take cognisance of their affairs they answered Vt aliqui tanquam atuae sanctitatis latere ad nos mittantur nulla invenimus Patrum Synodo constitutum That is That any should be sent against as Legates from your sanctity to us is a thing which we find not constituted by any Synod of the Fathers But here Gratian hath falsified the Canon by the addition of a Save to the See of Rome where the Milevitâ—n Canon is repeated In which manner they have used too much of the Churches records Can we think that Augustine and the rest of the Bishops in these Councils did not understand what they did and purposly restrain the Romane ambition The case also which is related in Augustine between the Catholikes and the Donatists shews how far they were in those dayes from dreaming of the Romane decisive judgement The great controversie was who had the true Church the Donatists or the Catholikes And the Donatists great Arguments were that Caecilian had been ordained by Traditors and therefore his party and those that communicated with them were not the Church nor to be communicated with Mark now how the Catholikes plead this cause 1. They procure it heard by the Emperors Cognitor Marcellinus and not by the Pope 2. They never once fetch their proof that the Catholike Church was theirs from their agreement with Rome or subjection to the Pope nor once in all their mention of the Catholike Church do give the Popish description of it or fetch it from the Romane Bishop as the head but over over again they prove that their Church is the Catholike Church because it is That which beginning at Jerusalem is tranfused over all the world and frequently they give this same description of it and hence prove it out of Scripture as is apparent in Austins writings at large They never say the Catholike Church is the Romane or that which submitteth to the Pope 3. Note which is the chief thing that here I do intend that it was publikely proved in the conference that first Melchiades Bishop of Rome with other Bishops were appointed to hear the business between Donatus a nigris Casis and Caecilianus and that they absolved Caecilianus and condemned Donatus And then that the Donatists rested not here but appealed to the Emperor and the Emperor caused a certain number of Bishops to meet at Arles to hear over all the cause again and these Bishops not agreeing though they were most of them against Donatus the Emperor Constantine was fain to determine the matter himself who absolved Faelix and Caecilianus and condemned the Donatists yet giving them liberum arbitrium as it was called then or Liberty of conscience as it is called now So that the Bishop of Rome acteth but as appointed with others and his judgement is not that highest from which there is no appeal for the Bishops at Arles must judge of all again and the Emperor after them Of all this see Augustine in Brevicul Collation cum Donat. throughout specially pag 288. Edit Paris lib. ad Donatist post Collation cap. 33. pag. 245. I shall onely adde to these Testimonies foregoing the witness of some of their own party I have before shewed that one part of their Church denyeth the Popes infallibility and the other a Councils and that they are not agreed about the ultimate resolution of their faith Their Cardinal Nic. Cusanus li. de Concord Cathol c. 13. 34. maintaineth that All Bishops are equal as to the jurisdiction though not as to the execution because the executive exercise is restrained by certain positive bounds and that for the better to bring men to God which when it ceaseth the positive rights cease And he saith that in time of necessity a simple Priest may absolve even one that is excommunicated by the Pope And concludeth that the Papacy is but of Positive right and that both it and all Majority among Bishops is constituted by subjectional consent that the power of binding and losing is immediately from Christ and therefore that Priests are equal and that the distinction of Diocess and that a Bishop should be over the Presbyters are of positive right And that Christ gave no more to Peter then to the rest of the Apostles nor said more to him then to them Yea and he addeth that if the Bishop of Trevers were by the congregate Church chosen to be their President and head he should properly be more the successor of Peter then the Bishop of Rome This is plain dealing for a Cardinal That the like passages are frequent in Gerson is so well known that I need not mention them And in Cardinal de Aliaco and many other Cardinals Bishops and Schoolmen of their own the like passages are well known and so oft cited already that I shall forbear to recite them I have oft times observed how they have alledged Durandus as pleading that the last resolution of our faith is into this primo creditum that the Church is guided by the holy Ghost and that therefore we believe the Scripture to be Gods word e. g. the Gospel of Matthew rather then that of Nicodemus because the Church approveth it who is guided by the
scripta sunt non negamus ita ea quae non sunt scripta renuimus Natum Deum esse de virgine credimus quia legimus Mariam nupsisse post partum non credimus quia non legimus So then the Church in Hieromes time would believe no more by Divine Faith but what was written Chrysostome saith on the 95. Psal when any thing is spoken that is not written the very thoughts of the hearers are lame And again on the 2 Thess 3. All things are clear and sincere that are in the Divine Scriptures every thing that is necessary is therein plain The words are spoken against those that would not go to the Congregation because there was no Sermon And though Chrysostome was almost daily in preaching yet to shew them that the word read was worth their hearing he addeth this answer And he proceedeth to answer their other objections taken from the supposed obscurity of Scripture telling them they are spoken in their own tongue and plainly Orat. 3. pag. mihi 1503. And on 2 Cor. Hom. 3. he calleth the Scripture the ballance the square and rule of all things which words Bellarmine de verbo Dei l. 4. c. 11. endeavoreth to pervert in vain Theodoret Dialog 1. inter Orthodox Eranist in the beginning pag. 1. saith I would not have thee by humane reasons to enquire after the truth but seek the steps of the Apostles and Prophets and their followers And in the second Dialogue I am not so rash as to assert any thing wherein the holy Scripture is silent Cyril of Alexandria in his seventh book against Julian pag. mihi 159. saith The Divine Scripture is sufficient to make them that are exercised in it wise and most honest and to have sufficient understanding The like he hath twice or thrice over in that same Section which I will not stand to repeat lest I be tedious Ambrose having mentioned the diversity of Heresies agreeing in una perfidia giveth us this direction for cure Itaque tanquam boni gubernatores quo tutius praetermeare possimus fidei vela tendamus Scriptuarumque relegamus ordinem Amb. de fide li. 1. cap. 4. pag. 56. And many more express passages he hath as Quae in Scripturis sanctis non reperimus ea quemadmodum usurpare possemus This citation I take on trust from others that have before produced it having before mentioned more Athanasius in his Orat. against the Gentiles in the beginning saith The holy and Divinely inspired Scriptures are sufficient for all instruction of verity And afterward he addeth that the writings of the Fathers and our Teachers do help us to interpret and understand Scripture Hippolytus in Bibliothec. Patrum Tom. 3. Edit col p. 20.21 saith Vnus Deus est quem non aliunde agnoscimus quam ex sacris scripturis Quemadmodum enim siquis vellet sapientiam hujus seculi exercere non aliter hoc consequi poterit nisi dogmata Philosophorum leg at sic quicunque volumus pietatem in Deum exercere non aliunde discimus quam in scripturis Divinis i e. There is one God whom we no other way know but by the holy Scriptures For as he that will exercise the wisdom of this world cannot otherwise attain it but by reading the opinions of the Philosophers iâ— so those of us that will exercise piety towards God do no other way learn it but in the Divine Scriptures Clemens Alexandrinus Stromat li. 6. saith Without the Scripture we say nothing In the Life of Antony the Author saith The Scriptures are sufficient for our instruction Theodoret li. 1. histor c. 7 reporteth the words of Constantine the Great spoken to the Fathers in the Nicene Council after Eustathius Oration to him thus He shewed them how grievous a thing it was and how bitter when the enemies were profligate and there was none left that durst oppose them that they should strive against one another and should make mirth for their enemies and become their laughing stock specially seeing they dispute about Divine things and have the doctrine of the Holy Ghost laid down in the Scripture monuments For saith he the Books of the Evangelists and Apostles and also the Oracles of the ancient Prophets do evidently teach us what we are to hold concerning God Laying aside therefore all seditious contention let us resolve the matters that are brought into question by the Testimonies of the writings of Gods inspiration And Theodoret addeth that While he spoke these and the like things to bring them to a consent in the Apostolical doctrine all the Synod except a few Arrians obeyed and stablished concord on these terms Yet doth Andradius think to disable Constantines testimony by saying that the Arrians were pleased with these words of Constantine and Bellarmine vainly endeavoreth to lessen their esteem because Constantine was no Doctor of the Church Salvian saith Si scire vis quid tenendum sit habes literas sacras perfecta ratis est hoc tenere quod legeris i. e. You see Scripture is the only Rule of Faith with him But I will once more stop this work of citations it being so fully done already Onely desiring the Reader to lay those before produced together with these last and to compare with them 1. the Protestants judgement and then the Papists I shall lay them here by him that seeing them together he may the better judge And for the judgement of the Reformed Churches I shall say no more then what I before mentioned out of their own Polidore Virgil That they are called Evangelical because they maintain that no Law is to be received in matters of salvation but what is delivered by Christ or his Apostles And this is in the Scripture fully contained and safely delivered to us which kind of Tradition of the books of the old and new Testament as Canonical saith Molinaeus we readily receive which is so far from being an addition to Scripture that it tells us that nothing is to be added thereto Compare this with the Fathers judgment before laid down As for the Papists judgement you shall have it in their own words lest we seem to wrong them Vasquez Tom. 2. Disp 216. N. 60. saith Licet concederemus hoâ— fuisse Apostolorum praeceptum nihilâ—minus Ecclesia summus Pontifex potuerunt illud justis de causis abrogare Neque enim majâ—r fuit potestas Apostolorum quam Ecclesiae Pontificis inferendis praeceptis That is Though we should grant that this was a precept of the Apostles nevertheless the Church and the Pope might upon just causes abrogate it For the power of the Apostles was not greater then that of the Church and Pope in making precepts The Council of Trent say Sess 21. c. 1.2 that This power was alway in the Church that in dispensing the Sacraments saving the substance of them it might ordain or change things as it should judge most expedient to the profit of the receiver So that they
may change any thing that God appointeth about Sacraments except the substance And it were well if they would have left that unchanged The Council of Constance took the cup from the Laity Licet in primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub utraque specie Though in the primitive Church this Sacrament was received of the faithful under both kinds So that they confess they contradict the Primitive Church Bellarmine plainly saith li. 4. de Pontif. c. 5. Si Papa erraret in praecipiendo vitia vel prohibendo virtutes teneretur Ecclesia credere vitia esse bona virtutes malas nisi vellet contra conscientiam peccare That is If the Pope should erre in commanding vices and forbidding virtues the Church were bound to believe that vices are good and vertues bad unless they would sin against conscience And against Barelay cap. 31. he saith In bono sensu dedit Christus Petro Potestatem faciendi de peccato non peccatum de non peccato peccatum That is In a good sense Christ hath given power to Peter to make sin no sin and no sin to be sin compare this doctrine with the Fathers The Glasse in Can. Lector Dist 34. saith Papa dispensat contra Apostolum The Pope dispenseth against the Apostle Innocent 3. Decret de conces prebend tit 8. c. proposuit saith Secundum plenitudinem potestatis de jure supra jus possumus dispensare According to the fullness of our power we can dispense with the Law above Law And the Glosse addeth For the Pope dispenseth against the Apostle and against the old Testament as also in vows and oaths And another Gloss saith The Pope dispenseth with the Gospel in interpreting it More such Glosses you may find if not yet more gross and impious which I 'le not stand to recite Gregory de Valentia Tom. 4. disp 6. qu. 8. p. 5. § 10. saith Et certe quaedam posterioribus tempâ—ribus rectius constituta esse in Ecclesia quam initio se haberent That is And certainly some things are more rightly constituted in the Church in the latter times then they were in the beginning Andradius Defens Concil Trident. lib. 2. pag. mihi 236. saith Vnde etiam liquet minime eos errasse qui dicunt Romanos Pontifices posse nonnunquam in legibus dispensare a Paulo primisque quatuor Conciliis ad Ecclesiam exornandam moresque componendos pro temporum necessitate edictis qualis est illa quae interdicit ut digamos creari ne liceat Episcopos i. e. Whence it appeareth that they did not erre who say that the Pope of Rome may sometime dispense with Lawes made by Paul and the four first Councils for the necessity of the times to the adoring of the Church and the composing of manners such as is that which forbiddeth those to be made Bishops who are the husbands of two wives Cardinal Perron against King James li. 2. Obser 3. â— 3. p. 674. hath a Chapter purposely Of the Authority of the Church to alter matters contained in the Scriptures And pag. 1109. 1115. he saith that When in the form of the Sacraments some great inconvenicies are met withal the Church may therein dispense and alter And that the Lords words Drink yee all of it were a precept not immutable nor in dispensable for the Church hath judged that there may be a dispensation for â—t Bâ—ovius Observ on C. 24. constit Apost saith Ecclesia Romana quae Apostolica utens potestate singula pro conditione temporum in melius mutat i.e. The Church of Rome using Apostolical power doth according to the condition of times change all things for the better Cardinal Tolet saith Cum certum sit non omnia qâ—ae Apostoli instituerunt jure Divino esse instituta i. e. It is certain that all things which the Apostles instituted were not instituted by Divine right And the Council of Trent hath shewed its usurpation of power above Scripture in dispensing with the degrees of Marriage in Lev. 18. 20. adding to what God hath prohibited and relaxing what God hath restrained and that To Great Princes and for a publike cause When they make it sin to other men These and many more of their gross sayings and usurpations against Scripture and above it they have been long ago told of by Jewell Reignolds Whittakers Molinaeus and others and how sleight their evasions are the considerate and impartial may discern I have therefore recited thus much of their words here that you may compare them with the Ancients and then see who are the Changlings and Novelists and who they be that keep to the old Church and Religion And among other ancient Writers I would desire you besides all the forecited to compare the Popish frame with the Directions of Vicentius Lirinensis which he giveth us for the discovery of Truth and avoiding heresie in his book Contr. Haeres Which I the rather mention because I admire that the Papists should be so immodest as to boast so much of him as if he were on their side The sum of his advice to avoid heresie is this 10 Fidem munire Divinae legis authoritate 20 Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione To fortifie our faith 1. By the Authority of Gods Law 2. By the Tradition of the Catholike Church This way he saith he was himself directed to by all the holy Learned men that he enquired of Saepa magno studio summa attentioae perquirens a quamplurimis sanctitate doctrina praestantibus viris quonam modo possem certa quadam quasi generali ac regulari via Catholicae fidei veritatem ab haereticae pravitatis falsitate discernere hujusmodi semper responsum ab omnibus fere retuli cap. 1. Edit Colon. a. 1613 pag. 617. Edit Perionii Lugd. 1572. So that we are given to understand by this passage 1. That this was no private opinion of Vincentius but the common way that was then taken by Holy learned men to discern Truth from Heresie 2. And note well that he doth not once in all the book direct us to the Determination much less to the Inâ—allible determination of the Pope or the Romane Church as the way to discern Truth from Heresie And can any man of common reason that is willing to know the truth imagine that there is the least probability that Vincentius should silence this Romish decision in a Treatise written purposely and onely on that subject and wherein he undertaketh to give us the full and certain direction to avoid Heresies if the Church had then been of the Romanists opinion O intolerably forgetful negligent delusory man that would not give us one word of that which is now the foundation of all and into which our faith must be ultimately resolved What never a word to tell us that whatsoever the Pope or Clergy of Rome are for or against may be known accordingly to be true or false because he is the infallible Head
of the Church and decider of controversies 3. Observe also that Vincentius doth fully and purposely acknowledge the Scripture sufficiency and never once mention any Traditions as necessary to supply the defects of Scripture or as part of Gods word when Scripture is but the other part Not a word of such Traditions But onely of Tradition subordinate to Scripture finaliter for the true expounding of them Hear himself Cap. 2. Hic forsit an requirat aliquis cum sit perfectus scripturarum Canon sihique ad Omnia satis superque sufficiat quid opus est ut ei Ecclesiasticae intelligentiae jungatur authoritas Quia videlicet scripturam sacram pro ipsa sua altitudine non uno eodemque sensu universi accipinut And in his recapitulation Cap. 41. Diximuâ— in superioribus hanc fuisset semper est esse hodie Catholicorum consuetudinem ut fidem veram duobus his modis approbent Primum divini Canonis authoritate deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae Traditione Non quia Canon solus non sibi ad universa sufficiat sed quia verba Divina pro suo plerique arbitratu interpretantes varias opiniones errores que concipiant So that Scripture is sufficient ad omnia ad universa onely the Churches tradition that is interpretation is the safe way to avoid heresie for the understanding of it 4 Note also that the Catholike Church which Vincentius mentioneth is not the Romane Church any more then any other but the Tradition that he referreth us to is that which hath been taught or held ubique semper ab omnibus every where alwayes and by all 5 Note also that it is not any authoritative Determination of any person or persons whomsoever but universal consent that he referreth uâ—to 6. And it is not in lesser probable or controverted points but in those great necessary points which the Church hath wholly every where in all ages agreeed in 7. Note diligently that one of the cases he putteth is this cap 4. Quid si novella aliqua contagio non jam portiunculam tantum sed totam pariâ—er Ecclesiam commaculare conetur i. e. But what if any novel contagion shall not onely stain a small part of the Church but also the whole Church A presumptuous Question in the Papists sence But what saith he to it doth he say it is impossible no but Tunc item providebit ut Antiquitati inhaeteat quae prorsus jam non potest ab ulla novitatis fraude seduci i. e Then let him see that he stick to antiquity which cannot at all now be seduced by any fraud of novelty Here 1. he supposeth that the present Church may all erre 2. He makes the remedy to be an appeal to the ancient Church and not as the Papists to appeal in all cases to the present Church or Pope Costerus seeks by a citation out of Tertullian in his Annot. to detort both 8. Lastly note diligently that it is not in all cases that Vincentius leadeth us to the exposition of the Church and Fathers but onely as in the weighty use beforesaid so in case of the newness of errors when they first arise before they falsifie the Rules of the ancient faith let them be forbidden by the straights of time and before by the large spreading of the poison they endeavor to vitiate the volumes of our Ancestors But dilated and inveterate heresies are to be set upon this way because by the long tract of time they have had a long occasion of stealing truth that is Antiquity and other signs of truth And therefore as for all those Ancient prophanesses of schismes or heresies we must by no means convince them but by the onely authority of Scripture if there be need or avoid them as certainly already of old convicted and condemned by the General Councils of Catholike Priests They are his own words translated pag. 677. Edit Perionii pag. 87 88. Edit Colon. 1613. So that you see Vincentius supposeth error may infect all the Church and may grow old and so seem to be the Truth and in such cases onely Scripture must be pleaded against it unless also we can produce some ancient Council that hath condemned it This is the very case between us and the Papists Their heresies are old and far spread though not universal nor of utmost antiquity therefore between us and them the Scripture only must be pleaded Where there is no need of a judge by reason of its plainness we need not go to the Ancient Church where there is need of an Expositor we are content to deal with them on Vincentius grounds and to admit of that which ubique semper ab omnibus hath been held in point of faith if they will do the like And indeed this is our very Religion Will the Papists but dispute their cause with us on these terms we shall readily joyn issue with them and doubt not of a good success Of this see more in our Conradus Bergius Prax. Cathol divin Canonis THe Dispute which we have hitherto managed being only against Popery in the gross and two or three branches of it onely in particular I had thought to have annexed a Brief enumeration of the particular errors of the Papists that the vulgar might observe and avoid them and therein I thought to have endeavored the true stating of the differences between us both for the avoiding of error on the other extream and also that we may take out of the Papists hands the greatest of all their advantages against us which is the false-opposed opinions and unsound Arguments of such as thus erre on the other side But perceiving how it would lengthen this work beyond the intended limits and how certainly all those that so run into extreams would fall a quarrelling with me for not stating the controversies according to their fancies I have thought best for answering all my ends at cheaper rates to give you the chief of the Popish errors in the words of Doctor Feild and to that end to tranâ—â—ribe his seventh Chapter of the third Book that so the simple Reader may have some help to inâ—orm him without a commixed means to pervert him And for those that desire to see the Protestant Doctrine solidly defended and cannot have time to read many books I know not of any one that they may more profitably and safely read to that end then the said Book of Doctor Field on the Church and especially the Appendix to the third part which is but the Defence of this very Chapter proving it in particulars that the Western Church was Protestant and not Popish even in the worst times before Luthers Reformation and that the Papists were but a seducing tyrannical party in the Church endeavoring to obtrude their errors against the mind of the generality of good men In which he hath quite broken down those pretences of Vniversality and All the Church which the Papists do so fondly boast in Dr. Feild of the
were not all freely given 3. Grace making us acceptable they will not have to be the grace of God by which he loves us and makes â—s acceptable to him according to that Wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved but to be grace by way of habit remaining in us by which we love God therefore they call charity a grace making us acceptable as if by reason of its force and merit men were saved of God 4. Moreover when they divide grace into sufficient and efficacious grace they say â—ufficient grace is given to all and every man even without the Church by which they have a power to will and they can if they will believe and by believing be saved 5. If any want sufficient grace to avoid sin they â—o not truely sin neither are they guilty of sin before God 6 That in the first act of conversion the will is not passive 7. That it is in the power of mans free will to resist oâ— yeild to efficacious grace § 12. Of Justification BUt now the doctrine of Justification they utterly overthrow 1. For first they confound justification which is an act of God without us as Redemption Reconciliation Adoption with Sanctification and Inherent Righteousness and so confound not onely the Gospel with the Law but quite take away Justification it self the chief benefit we have by Christ in this life 2. They teach men to lay the cause of justification and the merit of salvation in themselves 3. They will have remission of sin to be a blotting of them out by which not only the guilt but also the irregularity it self is abolished 4. As in warming the cold is expelled by the coming of the heat so in justification sin is abolished by the infusion of righteousness 5. Neither will they understand justification in the Scripture as a Law-term to be opposed to condemnation and Sanctification to pollution 6. The Scripture teaches sanctification to be an action of God they make the second justification as they call it not Gods action but their own 7. Whereas the Scripture â—eacheth that we are justified by the grace of God intimating the inward moving cause of justification which is the free favor of God in Christ the Papists understand grace or rather graces inherent in us which yet in the Question of justification wherein the holy Ghost opposes works to grace are not more opposed to works then their first justification is to the second 8. When the Scripture teacheth that we are justified by the righteousness of God and the blood of God i. e. of Christ who is God for by his obedience and blood we are justified and he is our righteousness I say by a righteousness which is not revealed in the Law and therefore not inherent but which is revealed in the Gospel without the Law They understand a righteousness infused by God and inherent in us 9. When the Scripture teaches that we are made the righteousness of God in Christ as he is made sin for us and so that the obedience of Christ is communicated to us for justification as the disobedience of Adam for condemnation namely by imputation But they say we are justified not by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ but partly by the infusion of habitual righteousness viz. in the first justification partly by our own performance of actual righteousness or good works in the second justification 10. For they contend for a double justification the first which consists in the infused habit of charity the other in meritorious works When as the Scripture teacheth that we are justified by faith without works i. e. not-by inherent righteousness but by the righteousness of Christ apprehended â—y faith and therefore that we are not justified by faith as it is a part of inherent righteousness for so with other graces it sanctifies us nor by any other faith then that which apprehends the righteousness of Christ or by any other grace because there is no other beside faith that apprehends Christs righteousness and therefore by faith alone 11. The Papists on the contrary teach faith to justifie as it is a part of inherent righteousness 12. And not so much to justifie as to dispose us for justification by obtaining remission and deserving justification 13. For say they faith and Repentance do justifie as dispositions and meritorious causes ex congruo 14. But that charity is properly the justifying grace 15. And the form of justifying faith 16. And yet that true justifying faith may be separated from charity 17. And therefore that a man having true faith may be damned 18. Neither do they acknowledge any special faith which apprehends the righteousness of Christ but they say that is sufficient which consists in a general consent without all affiance yea even without knowledge which they call implicite faith 19 For they say faith is better defined by ignorance then knowledge 20. Neither can they indure by any means that we say faith only justifies 21. When as the Scripture plainly excludes works as causes from the act of justification though it require them in the subject or person justified as necessary fruits of justifying faith by which believers are justified that is declared to be just but they assert that we are not justified before God by faith onely but also by works as the causes of justification 22. And in this matter they make James plainly to contradict Paul 23. And they invert the disputation of Paul as if the Question he disputes were whether faith justifies without works but whether works justifie without faith 24. That men are justified by the observation of Gods and the Churches commands 25. That men deserve remission of mortal sins by repentance Almes deeds forgiving injuries converting an offending Brother and other duties of piety and charity by which we do not deny but our belief of the pardon of sin is confirmed 26. And that venial sins are purged away by the repetition of the Lords prayer by striking the brest by sprinkling of Holy Water and the Bishops blessing c. 27. That a wicked man may deserve justifying grace ex congruo and that this merit of congruity is when the sinner doth his utmost 28. They deny justificaon be to proper to the Elect. 29. That no man in this life ought certainly to determine that he is of the number of the elect 30. That every one must doubt of the remission of their sins 31. No man can be certain of his justification without a special revelation 32. That no man in this world ought to seek an infallible certainty of his salvation or justification 33. That doubting of the pardon of sin is not an infirmity but a vertue 34. For any one certainly to believe that his sins are forgiven him through Christ is abominable presumption 35. That
and therefore to be called upon to pray for us 12. That the Saints after death do obtain whatsoever they desire of God because they deserved it in this life 13. That their merits do profit us for salvation 14. That the Saints are helpers and coworkers of our salvation 15. That the faithful living are ruled and governed by the Spirits of blessed men 16. That the Saints are to be Canonized by the Pope and being Canonized to be worshiped 17. Therefore we must fly to the Saints in our misery § 16. Of the Church 1. THat the holy Catholike Church that we believe is visible 2. And alwayes is visible 3. That it depends not on Gods election nor on true faith and Charity that one belongs to this Church But even wicked and reprobate men are members of the Catholike Church 4. That the Catholike Church is no other than the Roman or that which the Roman Pope is over 5. That the Catholike Church and the Pope of Rome are the same terms 6. Neither are there any Catholicks but those of the Romish Church 7. That he is a Catholike who believes all that the Roman Church delivers whether it be written in the Bible or not 8. That there is no salvation out of the Roman Church 9. That the notes of universality antiquity unity and succession in the Apostles doctrine do agree unto it 10. That the sincere preaching of the Gospel and lawful administration of the Sacraments are not a certain note of the Church 11. To acknowledge the Roman Pope and to be under him as the Vicar of Christ the onely Pastor the head of the whole Church is a note of the true Church 12. That the particular Roman Church is the Mother Mistris and Lady of all Churches yea the Mother of Faith 13. That the Roman Church did obtain the primacy from our Lord and Saviour himself 14. That the Roman Church hath power of judging all neither is it lawful for any to judge her judgment 15. That the Roman Church hath authority to deliver doctrines of faith without or beside the Scriptures 16. That the Roman Church cannot erre in faith much less fail 17. That the Roman Church cannot erre in interpreting Scripture §. 17. Of the Roman Church The Head viz. The Pope The Members 1. THat the Roman Pope is the head foundation husband Monarch of the whole universal Church the universal Bishop or the Bishop of the whole world 2. That the Roman Pope is the rock upon whom the Church is built 3. The names which are given to Christ in the Scriptures from whence it appears he is above the Church all of them are given to the Pope Vnto this Antichristian throne he ascends by a gradation of most impudent lies such as these 4. That the universal Church cannot consist unless there be one in it as a visible head with chief power 5. Therefore the external regiment of the universal Church is Monarchical 6. That the Monarchy of the Church was instituted in Peter 7. That Peter in proper speech was Bishop of Rome and remained Bishop there untill death 8. That the Pope succeded Peter in the Ecclesiastical Monarchy 9. Neither do they give the Monarchy of Ecclesiastical power but of temporal also to the Pope 10 Neither do they make the Pope Christs General Vicar on earth but Gods also 11. They give a certain omnipotency to him 12. They give him power of deposing Kings and Emperors and absolving their subjects from the oath of fidelity 13. Moreover without shame they defend that the Pope teaching from his chair cannot erre 14. That his words when he teacheth from his chair are in a sort the word of God 15. That the Pope cannot erre even in those things which belong to good manners or in the commands of morality as well as in matters of Faith 16. We must piously believe that as the Pope cannot erre as Pope so as a private person he cannot be a heretick 17. That the chief authority of interpreting Scripture is in him 18. That the Pope is the chief judge in controversies of Religion 19. We must appeal from all Churches to him 20. They give him authority to dispense with humane and Divine Laws 21. They give him power of absolving men not onely from sin but from punishments censures laws vows and oaths 22. Also of delivering men from Pâ—rgatory 23. Of Canonizing Saints and giving them honors that they may be prayed to in the Publike Prayers of the Church that Churches and Altars may be built for their honor that Masses and Canonical hours be offered publikely for their honor and feast-dayes be câ—lebrated That their Pictures be drawn with a certain splendor that their Reliques be put into precious boxes and publikely honored 24. We must believe that the Pope who sometime puts Murderers Traitors King-killers and other Capital offenders into the Calendar of Saints and Martyrs never errs in the Canonizing of Saints § 18. The Members of the Church are considered either as Congregated in Councils or Severally 1. THe office of convocating General Councils properly belongs to the Pope 2 That in no case a true and perfect Council can be called without the Popes authority no not if it be necessary for the Church and yet the Pope will not or cannot call one nor if the Pope be a heretick And therefore that a Council held without the Popes Authority is an unlawful meeting or Conventicle not a Council 3. That 't is the proper office of the Pope that by himself or his Legates he be president of the universal Council and as the supreme judge do moderate all 4. That the decree of a General Council made without the consent of the Pope or his Legate is unlawful 5. That the Power of confirming or rejecting General Councils is in the Pope of Rome neither are the Councils authentical unless they be confirmed by the Pope 6. That the distinction of lawful and unlawful Councils does depend upon his onely will 7. That the sentence of a General Council in a matter of faith is the last judgement of the Church from which it cannot appeal yet that we may appeal from a General Council to the Pope 8. That the Pope can neither be judged nor punished by a Council or by any mortals 9. That the Pope cannot submit himself to the coactive judgement of Councils 10. That the Pope is absolutely over the universal Church and above a General Council so that he can acknowledge no judgement above him 11. We must believe with Catholike faith that General Councils confirmed by the Pope cannot erre neither in faith nor manners 12. That particular Councils approved by the Pope cannot erre 13. That the power of the Pope and Council together is not greater then the Popes alone Turrecrem l. 3. c. 41. § 19. Of the Members by themselves 1. THat to make a member of the Catholike Church there is not required grace or