the minor For proof whereof you give us a definition and then apply it to your Church that is first you suit your definition to the Roman Church and then you bring your Roman Church to the definition The definition is The true Catholick Church is a society of men linked together in the profession of one Faith in the use o◠the same Sacrament and under the government of Bishops and Pastors lawfully sent that are able to shew their personall and doctrinall succession from Christ and his Apostles without the least interruption Answ 1. It might rationally be expected from you that when you bring a definition upon the truth whereof the validity of your argument depends you should have fetcht it from some Fathers or other approved Authors and not out of your own brain It s not suitable for the seller to make himself a measure and then confine the buyer thereunto or for a subject to frame a definition of Law and according to that proceed against his neighbour as a breaker of the Law If it could be thus what man could not lay a foundation for suits yea and carry away anothers right by his new definition I challenge you or any other to shew me this definition of the Catholick Church in any of the Ancients or later Fathers either Greek or Latine till which time I might justly defer an answe◠The former part I confess is warrantable but desinit in piscem mulier formosa Supernè But you seem to say you prove it in every part of it by Scripture I shall therefore first examine whether it be in Scripture and then whether it such as it is be a pliable to the Roman Church 1. Say you A societie of men and he gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists others Pastors and Doctors A most necessary part of the definition you did well not to commit the poof of the Churches manhood because none denies it 2. Linked together under the government of Bishops and Pastors lawfully sent Eph. 4. Heb. 5. Rom. 10.4 this we grant 3. That are able to shew c. The mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of mountains and all Nations shall flow unto it Is 2. He hath placed his Tabernacle in the Sun Psal 118. Sir you are now gotten to Rome and the Scripture leaves you what sober man that reads these Texts would infer that the Bishops and Pastors of the Church are able to shew c. but it sticks in your teeth and therefore you stop at shew And truly I may well apply to you the words of the Psalmist Ps 39.6 with a little variation surely you walk in a vain shew surely you are disquieted in vain you heap up Scriptures and know not how to apply them The Scriptures you urge are not applicable to any thing you say Isa 2. Prove the amplitude of the Church under the Gospell by the access of the Gentiles by reason of whom also it shall be more glorious then formerly But what is this to the shewing of personall or doctrinall succession of the Churches Bishops Sure you do not understand by the Mountain of the House of the Lord onely the Bishops of the Church and by its being confirmed in the top of the mountains that all the Bishops of the Church shall be personally visible Herein you would surpass the very worst of doting Rabbins 2. In quoting Psal 118. you commit two errours one personall quoting Psal 118. for 19. The other vulgar reading after the Latine He hath placed his tabernacle in the Sun which is a most false reading as ingenious Papists confess Vatablus reads it thus Soli posuit tabernaculum in ipsis He hath placed a tabernacle in them i. e. the Heavens for the Sun that is as he notes Domicilium circumscripsit in coelis c. He hath made an house for it in the Heavens that there as in an high Theatre is might be better seen Lyranus tells us In Hebraeo c. In the Hebrew and in Hieroms translation according to the Hebrew it is thus He hath placed for them a tabernacle for the Sun Now do you think that either Vatablus Lyr◠Hierom or the Hebrews would infer that because the Sun is in the Heavens c. it s able to shew its own or Bishops personall succession I wonder you are not ashamed to reject the Hebrew and Hierom and produce a false translation to so little purpose as you do for suppose in both these Texts it were proved that the Church had a shew or were manifest yet it makes not for a successive visibilitie of an Hierarchicall Church Yea they clearly prove that the Church may be sometimes hid for the clouds may both make the mountains invisible and obscure the lustre of the Sun as common experience testifieth 3. Their Personall and Doctrinall succession He gave some Doctors and Pastors c. untill we all meet in the unitie of Faith Eph. 4 Indeed here is proved that there shall be Pastors in the Church till the end of the world God will still raise up some to preach his truth though there may be interruptions in particular Churches nor doth Matth. 28. prove a non interruption of succession of Bishops but only a non interruption of Christs presence But suppose Isa 2. Psal 19. Prove a visibilitie and Eph. 4. Prove a succession and Matth. 28. Prove a non interruption Yet to say therefore the Church must be able to shew a succession without interruption is fallacia compositionis And now let any man judge whether your definition be spirituall or no. 2. This definition is not a right definition according to the rules of Logick it s not adaequata definito not fitted to the Catholick Church For first it may agree to a particular Church as well as to the Catholick as is evident to any that examines it And secondly it doth not agree to the Catholick i. e. The universall Church For first Bishops and Pastors do not shew succession as Governours of the Catholick Church but as Bishops and Pastors in particular Churches The Popes shew their succession as Bishops of Rome The Patriarch of Constantinople shews his succession as Patriarch of that place thus the Bishops of England shew their succession in the Church of England He that shews a personall succession of government over the Catholique Church must produce not a Pstoral or Episcopal but Apostolical succession which Papists themselves lay no claim to 2. There are no such Bishops and Pastors as can shew a personal and doctrinal succession without the least interruption 3. This difinition comprehends not Popes and Bishops who are parts of it The Catholique Church as visible and distinct from particular Congregations is more truly defined by Lorichius in these words Sensus unitatis ecclesiae est c. The sence of the article of one Church is to believe that all the Congregations of the faithful are one Churche and that
New Testament See Rom. 1.19 20. 2 Tim. 3.15 16.17 John 17.3 3. Your Conformity of Faith to the Church in a Popish sence is a novel phrase not used by the first Christians nor the Apostles of Christ in any of their writings nor did they ever bid men beleeve as the Church beleeved though that was of greater authority then the present Church is but still called their faith to the Word of God contrary to which if Paul or any other Apostles yea or Angels from Heaven did preach the people were to reject them and no doubt if Paul had preached such stuff as now Popish Sermons are filled with traditions and new decrees ungrounded on Gods Word the Beraeans had rejected him and his praying It was for want of this Conformity of Faith to the Word of God that our Saviour upbraids the two Disciples that travelled to Emaus Luk. 24.25 He saith not O flow of heart to beleeve all that the Church beleeves this as I said was no Scripture language nor known to primitive Christians but to beleeve all that the Prophets have spoken And that he may lead them to this Conformity of Faith he expounds not the Decrees and Constitutions of Scribes and Pharisees who sat in Moses Chair whereof there were many but 't is said Beginning at Moses and all the Prophets he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself vers 27. Sir I beleeve you are so dutiful a son to the Church that had you been in Christs stead you would rather have told them of Popes decretal Epistles then of Prophets writings of Traditions rather then Scripture if such things then had had a being But 4. Why could not you say a Conformity of Faith to the Truth revealed as well as a Conformity of Faith to the Church revealing the Truth The Truth revealed not the Church revealing it is the Rule of Faith as I shall shew hereafter 1. You might have done well once for all to have told us what you mean by The Church for the word is diversly attributed even by those who in general agree that it is only the Roman Church as you seem by your Epistle to the Reader to understand it 2. You urge Scripture to prove your Assertion viz. three Texts Mat. 28.19 Luke 10.16 Mat. 16. The two first do not so much as mention the word Church the last mentions the word but proves not the thing you bring it for 1. Mat. 28. Going teach ye all Nations Ans I wonder in what word the proof lies I suppose it 's not in Going and I dare say Teaching proves it not for then every Teacher should be a Rule of Faith besides the Apostles were not to teach men to hang their faith upon themselves or others whether of the Roman or any other Church but they were commanded to teach men to do whatsoever Christ had commanded vers 10. amongst which this was the principal work to believe on him whom God had sent Joh. 6.29 viz. Jesus Christ to whom they were brought by the Apostles preaching as living stones to be built upon a foundation 2. Luke 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me Ans I suppose this Text is brought to explain the other which had need of a Commentary to make it speak your language But 1. This is spoken primarily and absolutely of the Apostles who were Christs mouth in delivering the Scriptures and therefore infallibly inspired by the Holy Ghost that they could not err in what they delivered to us That which Moses was to the Jews in delivering the Law the same were the Apostles to us in delivering the Gospel So that he that heareth the Apostles heareth Christ because it was the word of Christ which they did speak and this way we hear the Apostles speak yet whilest wâ— read or hear the Scriptures which they pen'd but what is this to the present Roman Church and her unwritten Traditions 2. As it 's understood of ordinary Ministers in the Church it can only be understood conditionally He that heareth you while your doctrine agreeth with the Word of God heareth me so that faith is not a conformity to any Teachers or their doctrine but so far as their doctrine is agreeable with the Scriptures which indeed are the Rule both of their preaching and our beleeving Consonantly hereunto the Apostle saith If any man teach otherwise and consent not to wholesom words even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ he is proud from such withdraw thy self 1 Tim. 6.3 c. The Scribes and Pharisees who were the Church in a Popish sence were to be heard but it was whilest they sate in Moses Chair that is whilest they preached not their own traditions and phancies but Moses doctrine Arias Montanus saith Elucid in Mat. 23. Christ bids them do what the Scribes and Pharisees commanded Ex praescripto legis id est ex Cathedrâ Mosis So Origen Origen apud Lyran. Super Cathedram c. isie sermo de me est qui bona dâ—ceo contraria gero 3. The Text speaks not of the Church for particular Ministers in the Church are not the Church Now your Rhemists expound it of them in these words It is all one to despise Christ RheÌ„ Annot. on the Text. and to despise his Priests and Ministers in the Catholique Church to refuse his doctrine and theirs And indeed it must be understood of those who labour in the Word and Doctrine not of non-preaching Popes and Prelates 3. Mat. 16. you would say Mat. 18.17 which you read thus He that heareth not the Church let him be as an Heathen and a Publican Not to say any thing of your false quotation or reading a fault common throughout your Book Protestants may take notice what great cause we have to put these men into our bosoms as they expect whilest they profess we are no better then Heathens or Publicans though I am sure their usage from us hath shewed us Christians But to the Text How little it makes for your purpose the Context words themselves will shew It speaks not of Conformity of Faith to the Church but of obedience of the offending party to the admonition of the Pastors of the Church Thus Lyranus Si non aud Eccles pr ceptum praelatos contemnendo Lyr. in loc You might as well say that faith is a conformity to our selves because it 's said If he neglect to hear thee vers 15. or to two or three witnesses because it 's said If he neglect to hear them vers 17. whereby is implied that he ought to hear them Hence it might well follow that faith ought rather to be resolved upon a neighbor that is a private man then upon the Church because the offended party is first to be heard before the Church And then Sir who is guilty of the Private spirit that you anon talk of Sure your selves and not the Protestants In stead of these misapplied Scriptures for you I shall give you
written in heaven stedfast ones hear saith he and acknowledg that this Church in the Apostolical Epistles is called a foundation 3. In regard of the first Christians and Ministers not succeeding Churches unless in such regards as I shall shew hereafter the Apostle speaks in the Present tense The authoritie of the Primitive Church is greater then of the present Churches There is a clear testimonie and much to our present purpose in your Lovain Doctor Driedo Dried lib. de dogm variâ—s who acknowledges that the Primitive Church was of greater authoritie in teaching and delivering Doctrines of Faith then the present Church because of the Apostles qui â—cclsiae illius columneae Gersom de vita spirituali animae f. 61. R. who being Pillars of that Church were eye-witnesses of that which they taught Thus Gersom expounding that Speech of Augustine you much glory in non crederem Evangelio and I had not believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Church had compelled me thereto saith he taking Church there for the Primitive Congregation of the faithful who saw and heard Christ and were his witnesses Suppose we grant this Church was the Pillar and ground of Truth in your sense what would your present Apostatized Roman Church gaine by hat Your Prelates are no such Pillars as the Atostles nor your Church such a foundation of truth as theirs Lastly supposing it were meant of the present Churches particularly of the Roman It 's being called the Pillar and ground of Truth doth not prove it's infallibilitie James Cephas Gal. 2.9 and John were Pillars yet who would infer from thence that they were infallible Gersom is by one call'd Constantiensis Concilii columnam a Pillar of the Council of Constance yet he was not thought infallible All that can be proved from these titles is this that God makes use of the Church both Pastors and faithful people according to their places to hold forth and preserve the truth which is accomplishhd in every particular Church so long as it continues a true Church of Christ but this doth not exempt it from ceasing to be a true Church or from erring Thus it may truly be said of the Churches of Asia and of Rome that while they continued true Churches of Christ they held forth and preserved Gods truth but neither this nor those were exempt from erring Adam in the state of Innocencie might have been truly called the Pillar and ground of truth and goodness holiness and righteousness yet Adam was created with a posse errare a possibilitie of erring as we know by woful experience Your other text is Matth. 16. I answer 1. By Church we are to understand true Believers Augustine expounds this place by Matth. 7.24.25 Aug. de unit eccles c. 18. See Lyran These cannot be finally prevailed against by the Gates of Hell There will be a number of true Believers and these visible let the Devil and his Instruments do what they can 2. By Hell Gates the Fathers understand persecutions and sins and will you say that the members of the true Church cannot be persecuted nor tempted to sin the contrarie is undeniable 3. It s one thing for Hell Gates to wound us and cause us to shrink another thing to overcome us utterly our weakness lays us open to blows and wounds such weakness was in Peter and the rest of the Apostles who denied or forsook Christ such weakness was in your Pope Liberius when he subscribed to the Arian Heresie Though God doth alwayes strengthen his servants against total Apostacie 4. Tell me Sir suppose I had brought this place to prove the certainty of the Saints perseverance would you have been perswaded that they could not err so much as in the least truth or fall into the least sin 3. Arg. Your third Argument is taken from Christs promise of his presence Matth. 28. I am with you alwayos to the end of the world Ans 1. This promise is made to all the Apostles and their Successors Pag. 15. and therefore if it proved infallibilitie for any it would be for the Apostles Successors in other Churches as well as Rome which is not harmonious musick to Popish ears 2. It s made to the Successors of the Apostles as imployed about the ministerial acts of teaching and baptizing and therefore if it proved infallibilitie the Pope must part with a priviledg you ascribe only to him 3. What is more promised here then Joh. 14.23 where Christ promiseth his presence and abode with private Christians even such as love him and keep his word whom you account not unerrable 4. There are three things contained in this promise a threefold effect of Christs presence with the successes of the Apostles 1. His special support and assistance for the discharge of their duties Thus Chrysostome saith Quia magna eis injunxerat c because he had laid a great task upon them to comfort them he saith Chrysost Hom. 91. in Matth. Behold I am with you c. q. d. lest you should complain that your work is difficult I will be with you who make all things light 2. His protection of them that there shall never cease a Succession of Pastors in the Church to the end of the world Ephes 4.11.12.13.14 3. Ordinarie illumination and direction I say ordinarie to distinguish it from that extraordinarie illumination which the Apostles had and which was suitable for them by whom the Scriptures were written and the Churches first founded but is ceased with them so as Gods Timothies must give themselves to reading meditation c. which the Apostles were not tyed unto Hereupon your inferences fall to the ground in that you say Either Christ was not of power to keep his Church from strayings or that he wanted fidelity to make good his word Christs power is larger then his will or promise and therefore sufficient to perform what he promised Nor is there any defect in his fidelitie whatsoever he hath promised he will perform it to his Church but he never promised her inerrabilitie she is not therefore to expect it from him 4. Arg. Your fourth Argument is in these words The certaintie Divine Faith requires to be built on is a further evidence of the Churches infallibilitie ibid. for how is it possible Faith can be certain if the Church that is to ascertain it be uncertain and fallible The Argument is reducible to this form That which Divine Faith doth build upon must be certain and infallible else Faith it self could not be certain but it 's the Church that â—ivine Faith doth build upon therefore the Church must be certain and infallible Your major I easily grant but deny your minor Proposition which being only questionable you should have brought some proof for it as well as for the other which no man doubts of but it hath been observed to be the practise of Jesuites Probare concessa leviter pertransire dubitata whom you are pleased to imitate
it is first to be regarded But you reply to this p. 67. As Scripture so what it contains would be as to belief hid and unknown but for the Churches information Answ This hath been formerly confuted Scripture gives a firmer and more convincing testimony to it self then men can give to it The efficacy of the word in the heart of him that reads and meditates in it is more powerfull to perswade him that its the Word of God then a 1000 Fathers or Popes the same may be said of the truth contained in it When the error of administring the Sacrament of the Supper was the Doctrine of the Church I appeal to any man to tell me whether the Scripture would not have manifested what was truth better then Pope Innocentius or any of his erring nephewes I 'm sure the Pope would not have informed what was truth according to Scriptures in that point and yet there were means of finding out the truth else all his Proselites had erred with him which would be dangerous to affirm It is the Scripture that declares and manifests the Church and therefore must be more mafest than the Church But you prove it thus The knowledge faith requires must be supernaturally certain and consequently an effect of the Holy Ghosts pâ—culiar assistance which is onely warranted to the Church and not to every private reading and reasoning Answ If you speak of the Holy Ghosts infallible assistance we grant the Apostles had it and therefore their knowledge was certain and their writings we ground our faith upon but this assistance is not now given to any You plead but for the Holy Ghosts peculiar assistance how this is warranted not onely to the Church but to private Christians For first Christ promiseth it to them Jer. 31.34 and assures them God will give it them if they ask Luke 11.13 2. Christ invites them to seek it Apoc. 3.18 3. The Apostle affirms that private Christians have it 1 John 2.27 The pride of Popish Prelates is intollerable they forsooth and none else have the peculiar assistance of Gods spirit to enlighten them Poore Christians must be robd of their spirituall Pastor that Popish Priests may be the onely teachers But I think your conscience struck you when you were penning this sentence and therefore to evade it in stead of saying Not to provide persons you say not to every private reading or reasoning which makes as much against your Popes and Priests as private Christians if those do ever reade and reason in private I grant that the Spirit is not given to every private person in every reading and reasoning No more as I said is he given to every or any Pope in every private reading or reasoning When the Pope speaks not ex Cathedra he 's as subject to ignorance and error as the poorest Christian and may erre by your own confession and he 's not alwayes in his chair But I dare affirm that private Christians in their serious reading of Gods Word joyned with Prayer and diligence may expect the peculiar assistance of God to lead them into the knowledge of Gods truth this is clearly promised Psal 25.9.12.14 upon our asking of him James 1.5 If any man want wisedom Spiritum illuminatorem saith the gloss Let him ask it of God c. The Psalmist prayeth that God would open his eyes that he may understand wonderfull things of Gods Law so should private Christians do through the want of spirit the Jews though they read the Scriptures they understand them not the vail is upon their eyes but it is to be done away in Christ by the Spirit of the Lord. Here is not a word of the Churches taking away this vail 2. You prove it by S. Paul S. Paul is plain Let men esteem us as the Ministers of Christ and dispensers of Gods mysteries 1 Cor. 4. Answ The words indeed are plain and easy to be understood but I know not how they make for you they do not prove that the Apostles had the peculiar assistance of Gods Spirit much less do they prove that private Christians are not capable of it All that they prove is this that the Corinthians ought not to contemn or vilifie Paul or any but account of them according to their calling as Christs servants and dispensers of divine mysteries 3. You prove it by experience saying Experience confirms no less in Seperatists who laying aside the Church and presuming upon their own readings and reasonings have vented as many absurd and extravagant impieties as they had base and exorbitant passions p. 68. A. 1. When men presume upon their readins and raesonings without having respect to the Spirit of God it 's no wonder if they err Reason is no sufficient guide in exposition of Scripture Flesh and blood reveals it not to us but the Spirit Hence it is that those Heretiques in Jude are noted by their want of the Spirit and this was the cause of their erring 2. The Church never put forth any Publike Commentary whereby the sense of Scripture might appear and therefore the Churches Exposition is a meer Chimera Suppose a Christian should desire to acquaint himself with Scripture as that which you say contains part of Gods Will but he dares not venture upon it himself and therefore desires to be guided by the Churches Exposition now he knows not where to meet with it I pray Sir could you direct him where he might find it The Fathers do not all of them alwayes agree and he finds their Expositions often rejected by your learned Doctors and somtimes they deserve not to be received Your Doctors of the Church are as different in their Expositions as can be as that Text of James some understand it of Extream Unction others deny that Extream Unction can be proved by it and for your Popes they seldome expound Scripture and when they do it their Expositions are oft irrational as that of Rom. 8.6 by Lyricus and seldom obvious In this case either the study of Scripture must be quite laid aside or else there must be some other guide thought of besides the Church which can be no other then the Spirit of God by which we are enabled to judg which is the true sense of Scripture Vid Can. loc Theol. l. 7. c. 3. Cajetan seems to approve of this when he adviseth that no man dislike a new sense of Scripture because it dissents from Ancient Fathers for God hath not confined the Exposition of Scripture to their sences but to Scripture it self Which way of finding out the sense of Scripture by comparing one place with another is done by the help of Gods Spirit principally though the advise of Pastors may come secondarily in as subservient thereunto 3. Those who have cried up the Church as some of them vented as absurd and extravagant impieties as any Schismatique What more absurd and extravagant Exposition can there be then that of Lyricus on Rom. 8. They that are married cannot
liberty of interpretation absolutely but as to such times and places and there is none of us pleads for private mens interpretation of Scripture publickly 4. You confound construction of Law by right reason and by corrupt affection this latter no man that hath right reason can plead for in the behalf of any people for indeed that would bring confusion but the former cannot be denyed to any for the Law is founded upon right reason and so far as this takes place the expounding of the Law cannot be prejudicial to any Commonwealth though it be done by private persons 2. You infer If this be true as it is what an undervaluing must it be of Gods wisdome and providence to think in a Commonwealth of his own immediate establishing as the Church is he hath left indifferently to all a liberty to make what sence they will of his Law Answ 1. We allow not that the sence men give of Scripture should be after their own lusts or wills If any man give a sence contrary to the mind of God it deserves to be rejected God hath not left to any one man much lesse indifferently to all a liberty to make what sence he will of Gods Law The Pope can no more claim that liberty than the meanest Laick and therefore you either play the fool or worse to disprove a liberty which no Protestant in the World pleads for 2. Yet I say God hath not left any of his children without means in the use whereof they may attain to know what is the Will of God in his Word Rom. 12.2 Indeed God hath set certain select persons of integrity and ability to dispence his Law but this is not opposite to private study and meditation in Gods Law the very principal charecter of a blessed man Psal 1. and 119. and is not study and meditation in Gods Law in order to the interpretation of it The Saints of God have earnestly studied Gods Law Yet this was never thought to tend to bring the peace and safety of the Church into danger of shipwrack nor to be the source of jars and garboils of Seperatists as you wickedly suggest Misapplying and wresting of Scripture may have those effects you speak of but what is this to the reading and right interpretation of it Your reason for this your unsavory speech is say you clear because all men are not apt to understand alike for being for the most part of different tempers and composures they have various fancies which of necessity will beget a diversity of understanding Answ 1. You are Aesops man qui ex uno ore calidum promis frigidum in your fourth Chapter you proved the Churches infallibility by this argument viz. that it was framed up of men of several Nations different tempers and interests therefore neither could nor can meet or conspire to cheat themselves and posterity with a lye p. 15 16. But here the same argument proves the Churches fallibility the fruit of diversity of understanding 2. I say If Christians were considerable only as men of different tempers and composures as you represent them and that their different tempers and composures were the directive causes of understanding I beleeve what you say of seperatists would be true of all Christians yea of all men in the World and there would be nothing but jars and garboils in every place Yea it may as truly be said of your great Rabbies the only interpreters of Scripture for are not they of different tempers and composures and so according to your doctrine have various fancies which of necessity must beget a diversity of understanding If you answer that these have the Spirit of God to guid them in understanding I reply so have all true Christians as I have already proved I deny not but there is corruption in the best and darknesse in their understandings they but see through a glasse and that darkly and therefore may mistake a wrong exposition sometimes for a true one and thus it is not only with Luther Zuinglius Calvin whose names will survive Romes obloquy and reproach of them but with your own Doctors whose expositions are not always the same But we must believe if we will that only schismatical Protestants such as Luther Zuinglius Calvin have different understandings and expositions of Scripture for say you they made no lesse then three contrary and repugnant senses of those plain words this is my body this is my blood p. 70. Answ 1. You tell us not what these three contrary and repugnant sences are and I am perswaded they may easily be reduced to two for though Luther and Zuinglius differed about the sence of the words yet I find not that Calvin and Zuinglius did and I rather think they did not for the opinion that some appropriate to Zuinglius Bellarmine chargeth upon Calvin in these words Bellarmine saith the opinion of Calvin reverâ nihil differt a sententia Zuinglii de Ludib lib. 1. c. 1. Haeresis erat c. It was the Heresie of some that the Eucharist was onely a figure of Christs body this Heresie doth Calvin teach 2. If the words be so plain how comes it that Papists do so much differ in their Expositions of them every word almost brings variety of Popish sences If we were to learn what the Pronoun This the very first of those pain words means we might go unsatisfied away for any resolution we should have from you One tells us it signifies Nothing another The Bread presently to be transubstantiate A third an individuum vagum contained under the forms of Bread A fourth the Body of Christ And now Sir I dare be bold to say that there is less agreement amongst Popish Expositors who yet profess to follow the Church in all their Expositions then amongst Luther Zuinglius and Calvin There being but three rather two Expositions of these words given by Protestants whereas there is at least four amongst Papists of one of the words For conclusion you bring us in objecting for our selves thus Those selected Persons intrusted with the administring and dispensing of the Lawes utter by mouth what they understand and they understand no more then what their private reading and reasoning are able to inform them so that even this way men would be to seek To this you answer 1. Judges have not onely their reading and reasoning to inform and direct them but likewise the practice of former Courts from the very promulgation of the Law at which time the sence and meaning of the same was declared by the Law-makers themselves Reply 1. You unlearnedly distinguish betwixt their reading and their knowledge of the practice of former Courts as if the practice of former Courts were not known by reading whereas you cannot mention any other means thereof unless you can make out a constant unwritten Tradition from the Lawmakers themselves which hath been propogated from one to another and the particular cases of former Courts have been so various
is the Spouse of Christ and Mother of all Christians And he fully and expresly meets with your self and such like flatteries of the Roman Church who monopolize the word Catholick to be Non tamen ejus sedis c. Yet let not the governors of the Roman Church extoll themselves as if that Church only as they speak exclusively were the Catholick Church and that it behoved us presently without triall of it to approve of whatsoever comes from that See and that for all Doctrines and pontificall constitutions nothing should be brought but an ipse dixit If we attribute this to that See we shall expose the Catholick Church to all errours And the Church of Rome cannot have any more pestilent enemies than those flatterers who do make her not onely the chief but the onely Church and extolling her above the Word and Catholick sence of Scripture above all the Catholick Fathers yea above the Church triumphant and consequently above the spirit of God do make of her I know not what Idoll This root of Parasites are overthrown by that of Hierom The world is greater then a citie So that it is evident the Roman being but particular cannot be the Catholick Church But supposing your definition good I come to examine whether it can rightly be applied to the Roman Church in the severall particulars of it as you say it may 1. You say Its a societie of men this agreeth to the said companie for in that companie is to be seen Jerusalem descended from above Apoc. 4. A goodly Hierarchie or heavenly order and subordination of sub-Deacon to Deacon of Deacon to Priest of Priest to Bishop of Bishop to chief Bishop or Pope who is subordinate to none but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an exalter of himself above all that is called God 2. Thes 2. and of the Laitie to all Answ 1. I know not whether to pity or laugh at you seeing you will needs be so exact as to prove that Rome is a society of men I wonder you do not go more directly to work It s not a direct proof to say in the Church of Rome there are sub-Deacons Deacons Priests Bishops chief Bishop a goodly Hierarchy or chief heavenly order therefore the Church of Rome is a society of men for you would perswade us that the pattern of your Hierarchy was brought by Dyonisius from heaven and that amongst the Angels there is a goodly Hierarchy or heavenly order so that we cannot tell by your argument whether the Church of Rome be a society of men or Angels Why might you not as well argue thus In Rome there are common whores that bring in great revenues to his Holiness there are or have been divells incarnate conjurers Magitians Simoniacks Whore-masters therefore the Church of Rome is a societie of men I am sure it s as good an argument as yours to prove your Churches manhood What assurance have we that your heavenly orders are all men for the Porrphyry chair is only for the Pope and I have not heard of any other chairs of humanity for inferior orders But you urge further these degrees are so masterlike set that they do not hinder and trouble but as great and less strings musically tuned make and preserve the melodious harmonie of peace and concord Ergo the Church of Rome is a society of men Who that reads these arguments can forbear laughter I am sure they are neither musically tuned nor do they make melodious harmony by this argument you might prove your fidle strings to be a society of men but I grant your assertion to be true without your reasons 2. The second part is Linked together This agreeth to the said company for in that company there is no diversitie of belief but one as Monarch swayeth in Europe Asia Africa and America where one and the same belief is imbraced for one and the same motive Gods revelation proposed by the Church Answ 1. If to be linked together be the main thing applyed to your Church in this second part it may agree to Heathens and Jews as well as Romans If the faith wherein they are linked together with the use of the same Sacraments which you seem to forget this may also agree with the Greek and Eastern Churches or to the Protestants who as is evident by their confessions of their Faith do as nearly agree as any Churches subjected to the Roman 2. What you say of the same beleef that it s received upon the Churches account I have before confuted it and for further answer to it refer you to Lorichius in my last quotation of him Lastly your talk of your Monarchiall sway c. is but a Popish brag or if reall t is an usurpation for which you cannot plead Law nor antient possession as Aronius will inform you if you consult him about the Popes dominions 3. The third part is lawfully sent This agrees to the said company for in that companie no man clarifieth himself but one receiveth power from another the sub-Deacon Deacon and Priest from the Bishop the Bishop from the chief Bishop or Pope Answ 1. I hope you will not make the whole company of Popish Catholicks Preachers though no man can inferre any thing else from your words for you say To be lawfully sent agrees to the said company which company you define to be under the government of Bishops and Pastors p. 73. 2. Supposing you meant it of Bishops c. yet there receiving of power one for another the sub-Deacon Deacon and Priests from the Bishops the Bishops from the Pope doth not prove that the Bishops and Pastors are lawfully sent unless it were made manifest both that the power of sending were in the Bishops and Pope and that they used it lawfully the latter of which especially wil be difficult for you to prov considering that your Priests c. are ordained not to an Evangelicall imployment as preaching the Gospell and administring the seals of the Covenant of grace but rather to offer sacrifice and such as the Gospell knows not 4. The fourth part is able to shew c. This agreeth to the said company for in that company an exact succession of power and doctrine is faithfully and with clearness deduced Writers of severall ages and nations having put forth and published to the view of the wâ—rld authentick Schemes and Catalogues of Popes Bishops and Pastors succeeding each other from Christ and the Apostles and from time to time laid open their doctrine Answ 1. Personall succession as I have shewed is no mark of a true Church its agreeable to other Churches and this is the succession which your Authors do principally if not onely demonstrate 2. It s observable that there is no personall succession of Bishops and Pastors to whom you joyn sub-Deacons and Deacons distinct from the Pope mentioned in any of your authors that I have met with though particular Churches as Spain France c. have had Apostolicall institution
he will gather strength by observing that the above named Luther Zuinglius Calvin c. But few days or months before their opposition held as the rest of Christians did in alâ— points with the said Company and that neither they nor any of them have left to posterity the least mention of any number of men in being before their opposition with whom to joyn and side to make good the same c. Ans 1. How this strengthens your proof I see not Should the Jews have objected against our Saviours and the Apostles Converts that their Jewish Doctrine was generally received and preached yea and that these Converts as Paul c. but a few days or months before their opposition held as other Jews did Would this think you make for them that they were the true Church The Gentiles the greatest part of the World profest against Christ and his truth and those who were called out of them to receive the truth did but a little before comply with the Gentiles against Christ Must this therefore strengthen the Gentiles cause against the truth It may be your self and others who have apostalized from the true religion but a few months before your opposition held as the rest of true Orthodox Christians did yet this will not even in your conceit advance your cause 2. It s questionable whether Luther Zuinglius and Calvin did hold with you in all points and that but a few days or months before their publique opposition of you The Speech of Alphonsus à Castro seems to import the contrary when he tells us that a great company seemed to wait for Luther and joyned with him as soon as he appeared I cannot think but that Luther was against the sale of indulgencies longer then a few weeks or months before his opposition 3. It s a gross lye that there is not left the least mention of any number of men in being before their opposition with whom to joyn and side I have fully shewed the contrary to this and therefore remitting the Reader to what I have formerly said I come to his next Argument Arg. 3. That Company composeth and maketh up the Catholick Church which is acknowledged even by their adversaries to be Apostolical but the above mentioned Company is acknowledged even by their adversaries to be Apostolical therefore that Company composeth and maketh up the Catholick Church The first Proposition say you is evident forasmuch as Apostolical in a right and genuine sence signifieth to believe as the Apostles believed which is to be Catholick Arg. 1. It seems now that profession of Apostolical Doctrine is a convincing argument to prove a Company to be the Catholick Church But Sir why did you not approve of this argument when we brought it for the Protestant Church Or how could you without blushing tell us That true Doctrine which is none other then Apostolical doctrin they being reciprocal is no mark of a true Church it being often found among Schismaticks who for want of Communion cannot make a true Church pag. 60. If Protestants can prove they believe those doctrines the Apostles believed will you acknowledge them the true Apostolical and Catholick Church We desire no more but that leaving humane constitutions and traditions you would examine our Doctrines by Scripture the true Epitome of Apostolical Doctrines and if we consent not hereunto proclaim us Hereticks 2. Your Explication of the word Apostolical is good and it evidently shews that Personal Succession is inferiour to Doctrinal in denominating a Church Apostolical and Catholick and that the Protestants supposed want of Personal uninterrupted Succession is no hinderance to their being the Catholick Church All which doth extreamly weaken your former doctrines 3. I deny your Minor Proposition and come to examine your proof of it You say It appears no less clear in several Protestant Writers who expresly account that the Apostles first planted the Christian Faith in England that the same was retained by Bishops and Pastors from the first Plantati n to S. Austine that in substance it differed not from that which S. Austine brought in that S. Austine was sent by Gregory the Great Bishop of Rome to convert the Saxons in England to the Roman Faith that the Roman Church in Gregory tâ—e Greats time was the same it is at this present c. All which you reduce to this Syllogism S. Austins Church and Doctrine were Apostolical S. Austins Church Doctrine were the same with the now Roman therefore the Roman Church and Doctrine are Apostolical I answer 1. By S. Austins Church I suppose you mean the Roman Church in S. Austins time as when you say The Roman Church in Gregory the Great 's â—ime was the same it is at this present Hereupon I particularly answer Gregory 1. To your Major That the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the time of Austin and Gregory was the same with the Doctrine of the Apostles 1. The Apostle tells us That even in his time the mystery of iniquity did begin to work and succeeding Ages discover its progress Most Ages did contribute some materials towards Rome's Temple though the nearer to the Apostles were more opposite and so more sparing in their contributions to it Hence it was that in the first five hundred years there is little to be found tending to Popery and that which is is rather in notions and terms then propositions as in most ancient Fathers we read the words Altar Sacrifice Merit c. yet it will never be proved that they used them for that which Papists now will have theÌ„ to signifie In the next age there was a greater decay of purity than before ignorance did much aboudd superstitioÌ„ attendant on it In this age did Gregory Austin live the former being sirnamed Rainold praelect de lib. Ap c. tom 1. prael 39. p. 365 Sixt. Senen bill Stae l. 5. Au. 137 F. Hier. Porter in the life of S. Gregory p. 266. Chronic. Carion lib. 4. p. 552 The Great indeed he was great as learned Rainolds observeâ— in comparison of those who succeeded him some of them who were before him yet was he short of apostolical purity being guilty of superstition and errour in divers points as the adjudging of children unbaptized to the torments of Hell extending Gods promise of Salvation even to Reprobates making Gods decree mutable and praying for such as are already damned as in the Case of Trojan Carion in his Chronicles attributes to him divers errours as Invocation of Saints and dedication of Temples to them a wrong perswasion of Monkish profession Works of Supererrogation Satisfactions Vows Virginity an opinion of sacrificing Christs body and blood for the dead whereunto he was moved by the report of Apparitions And besides all these he is noted as superstitious in imposition of Ceremonies and those some of them Jewish which are not fit to be imposed on the Church of Christ And as Gregory was guilty so
bread should become the body of Christ to us and that the Pascall Lamb or Manna should be so to the Jewes for Christ is called the Passover of Manna yea in these Sacraments Christ was truely and savingly received by them they did eat the same spirituall meat with us and drank the same spirituall drink for they drank of the Rock that followed them And that Rock was Christ What can be more express than these last words yet Papists will not here allow of Transubstantiation 2. That Bodies are the object of Sense yea and that the Senses cannot be deceived in judging of them whilest the Organ is rightly disposed the medium is convenient the distance equall the Sences of more then one concur in judgeing and that the phantasies be not hurt But here if the words be taken properly is a body which is not the object of Sense though the sences be rightly disposed the medium convenient the distance equall c. If you say it may be done by a miracle I answer first amongst the miracles of the Primitive Church this was never numbred by them or any others that I have read though its a greater miracle if a miracle than any others that are mentioned 2. In those miracles recorded in Scripture which were wrought by transmutation there was no deceiving of the Sense When Moses rod was turned into a Serpent as it was a true Serpent so the Senses did truely discern a Serpent When the waters were turned into blood the blood had the last colour effect of blood slaying the fish in it When by our Saviour the waters were turned into wine as it was true wine so it had sensible qualities as the last smell c. of wine It was the practice of the Sorcerers of Egypt to cause an appearance when there was no reall existance It s the practice of Papists to urge a bodily existence without the least appearance like their forefathers the Valentinians whom Irenaeus chargeth with saying of Christ Aliud erat aliud videbatur when some affirmed in the Sacrament there was no true fraction but onely in appearance Lorichius answers out of Ambrose Nihil falsum putandum in Sacramento veritatis c. We must not think of any falshood in this true Sacrament in the inchantments of Magitians the eyes are deceived that that seems to be which is not but it s otherwise in the Sacrament of Truth Gerrhard Lorich Instit Cathol de sacr Eucharist pag. 72. 2. To this I may adde that the materiall parts of Sacraments must be sensible objects such were the Sacraments of the Jewes and such without controversie is Baptisme where the materiall part is water which the Senses see feel c. Therefore it must be so in the Eucharist for there can no reason of a difference be given You cannot say that the materiall parts of it are bread and wine for you teach that in the Sacrament there is neither bread nor wine though there was before Consecration and the body of Christ cannot be it for it s not a sensible object being neither seen nor felt nor tasted and accidentall forms are distinct from matter Aquinas delivers this Conclusion Cum naturale sit homini c. Whereas its naturall for man to attain to the knowledge of intelligible objects by those which are sensible A Sacrament which signifies spirituall and intelligible good ought to be a sensible thing which how you will find it in your Sacrament I know not 3. That humane flesh is not to be eaten But if these words This is my Body be taken properly then Christs flesh should be carnally eaten which is doctrine for Cannibals not for Christians Saint Augustine upon this very ground understands those words John 6.53 Except ye eat the flesh c. figuratively and delivers this generall rule Aug. de doctr Christ l. 5. c. 16 Si aut facinus vel flagitium c. If the Scripture seem to command that which is hainous and wicked it s a figurative speech and instances in those words in S. John Papists give this reason of the invisibility of Christs body in this Sacrament because man abhors to eat humane flesh in the proper shape But what difference between one man seeing the shape of humane flesh and anothers hearing of such a thing to be humane flesh though he see it not It s the thing it self not the form or shape of it that is abominable a piece of humane flesh might be brought into such a form as it could not by the eye be distinguished from other flesh yet tell a man its humane flesh and he shall loath it upon that very report Though your seduced followers do not see flesh in thr Sacrament yet you tell and perswade them that the Host is humane flesh with its blood in it so that I must needs say they have either weak faith or strong stomacks To conclude Let me know to what end is this eating of Christs body for it s not turned into the substance of our body whereby it should nourish the body for then our bodies should consist of Christ which were a blasphemous assertion and for the soul it s not nourisht by carnal meat as flesh and blood spirits do not eat or drink nor are they capable of nutrition there is no Spirituall advantage comes by it Besides when our Saviour had been speaking so fully of eating his flesh and drinking his blood to prevent their carnall conceits of this spirituall Doctrine he addi this wholsome and seasonable doctrine that for his body it was to ascend up into Heaven where he was before and therefore his words were to be understood not carnally but Spiritually The words that I speak are Spirit John 6.63 You answer that these words do not run counter to your said truth in as much as these words were uttered to the Capernaits in answer to their question of Christs Power and not of the signification of his words Reply 1. I desire to know your ground for this Exposition I cannot finde that it is the Churches and I thought you an enemy to the private spirit 2. It s most evident that these words are uttered for explication of the words precedent for having told them that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood if they had life by him they question what he may mean by eating his flesh and drinking his blood and they seem to answer their own question by a carnall conceit which was as the Rhemists observe They imagined that he would kill himself and cut and mangle his flesh into parts and so give it them raw or rost to be eaten among them which could not be meant saith Augustine for that had contained an hainous and barbarous fact c. He tells them therefore they must understand his words spiritually of our abiding in him and he in us according to Augustine Tract 27. in Joan. tom 9. Lyra. in text Lyranus speaks very well to this purpose