is not as H. T. renders it be obscured but vanish away as the words following shew which are Who had these things He that preacheth hath founded the Heaven and the Earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away Whence it is manifest that he there speaks not of the Churches visibility but permanency as the Sun Augustin lib 3. cont Parmen cap. 5. tom 7. against the Donatists saith thus Who therefore would not sit in the assembly of vanâ—â—y let him not become vain in the type of pride seeking the Conventicls separate from the unity of the just of the whole world which he cannot finde But the just are through the whole City which cannot be hid because it is seated on a Mountain that Mountain I say of Daniel in whom that stone cut out without hands grew and filled the whole earth And after There is no security of unity but in the Church declared by the promises of God which being seated as was said on a Mountain cannot be hid and therefore it is necessary that it be known to all parts of the earth By which it is manifest that in opposition to the Donatists appropriating the Church to their party he asserts it to be manifest not by its outward splendour but its extension to all parts The words l. 2. cont Petilian c. 104 are thus Ye are not in the Mountains of Sion because ye are not in the City seated on the Mountain which hath this certain sign that it cannot be hid therefore it is known to all Nations but the part of Donatus is unknown to many Nations therefore it is not that Church It is evident he spake of the Church at that time which was known or manifestly visible to all Nations not from a potent Monarchy in one City but its diffusion through all parts of the world SECT III. H. T. hath not solved the Protestants Objections against the visibility of the Church H. T. adds Objections solved Object The Church is believed therefore not seen Answ She is believed in the sense of her Doctrines and to be guided to all truths by the Holy Ghost but seen in her Pastours Government and Preaching wherefore I deny the Consequence I Reply Though Protestants deny not the Church militant to be visible in the outward Government and Preaching of the Pastors yet they deny that it is always so conspicuous as that it may be known to every Christian as an Assembly of the People of Rome or Common-wealth of Venice to which all may resort for direction Nor by this Argument do they prove that the Church militant is not visible but that the Church in the Creeds Apostolical and Nicene which is one Catholick and Apostolick as such is not visible but invisible being the Object of Faith not of Sight nevertheless the Answer takes not away the force of the Objection if it had been alleged against the visibility of the Church militant For the Church is believed not as teaching but as being it is the existence of the Church not the Doctrine of it that is believed as even the Trent Catechism expounds it now that being Catholick that is according to the Catechism consisting of all believers from Adam till now in all Nations cannot be the object of sense but of faith and therefore the Catholick Church in the Creeds is the invisible of true Believers not the meer visible now militant H. T. adds Object The Woman the Church fled into the Wilderness Apoc. 12 6. Answ But is followed and persecuted by the Dragon v. 17. therefore visible I reply this Answer is ridiculous For whereas Protestants hence prove that at some times the Church is hid from men this Authour saith It was not hid from the Dragon that is the Devil which is not in question So that it appears he had nothing to answer this Inference from the Womans flying into the Wilderness and being hid that sometimes the Church is so hidden as it were in a Wilderness that though it be yet it is not so visible or conspicuous as that men can discern it so as to repair to it howbeit the Devil knows where they lurk Yet once more H. T. Object The Church of the Predestinate is invisible Answ There is no such thing as a Church of the Predestinate Christ's Church is the congregation of all true believers as well Reprobate as predestinate There is in his Floor both Wheat and Chaff St. Matth. c. 3. and in his Field both Corn and Tares which shall grow together till the Harvest the Day of Judgement St. Matth. c. 13. The Predestinate are as visible as the Reprobate It is true indeed their Predestination is invisible and so is also these mens Reprobation I reply To salve their main Tenet of the Popes being Head of the Church of Christ who is often so wicked as that if the Church of Christ be determined to be of elect persons onely many Popes cannot be termed Members much less Heads of the Church is this audacious Assertion invented that there is no such thing as a Church of the Predestinate contrary to express Scripture which mentions the Church of the first-born written in Heaven Heb. 12. 23. and the Church elected together with Peter or those he wrote to 1 Pet. 5. 13. and saith such things of the Church in many places to wit Ephes 5. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32. Ephes 1. 22 23 c. as cannot agree to Reprobates who cannot be said to be Christ 's body his fulness to be loved sanctified whom he nourisheth intends to present without spot as he saith there of Christ's Church He that desires more proof may reade Dr. John Rainold his fourth Conclusion where he proves it fully both from Scripture and Fathers that the holy Catholick Church which we believe is the whole company of Gods elect and chosen which hath not been yet answered that I know Nor do I see how the fourth Lateran Council could mean otherwise which determined as H. T. saith here art 1. pag. 30. that the universal Church of the faithfull is one out of which no man can be saved which can be true onely of the Church of the Predestinate As for what H. T. saith here The Church of Christ is the congregation of all true believers as well Reprobate as Predestinate it supposeth true believers may be reprobate but this is false meaning it of the truth of being opposite to feigned counterfeit or in shew onely For our Lord Christ hath said John 5. 24. John 3. 15 16 18 36. that such as believe on him shall not perish come not to condemnation are passed from death to life have everlasting life Nor do the Texts Matth. 3. 12. where the Floor is not Christ's Church but the Jewish people or Matth. 13. 30. where the Field is expresly interpreted vers 38. to be the World not the Church speak to the contrary It is true The Predestinate are as visible as the Reprobate
ROMANISM DISCUSSED OR An Answer to the nine first Articles of H. T. his Manual of CONTROVERSIES Whereby is manifested that H. T. hath not as he pretends clearly demonstrated the Truth of the Roman Religion by him falsly called Catholick by Texts of holy Scripture Councils of all Ages Fathers of the first five hundred years common sense and experience nor fully answered the principal Objections of Protestants whom he unjustly terms Sectaries By John Tombes B. D. And commended to the World by Mr. Richard Baxter Jer 6. 16. Thus saith the Lord Stand ye in the ways and see and ask for the old paths where is the good way and walk therein and ye shall finde rest for your Souls LONDON Printed by H. Hills and are to sold by Jane Underhill and Henry Mourtlock in Paul's Church-yard 1660. TO THE English Romanists Who term themselves CATHOLICKS Specially to those of the Counties of Hereford and Worcester ALthough the prejudice wherewith you are prepossessed against the Truth avouched by me the Ingagements whereby you are linked to the Roman See the Hopes that it 's not unlikely you feed you selves with of seeing your Native Countrey reduced under the obedience of the Roman Papacy besides the long experience which hath been had of the fruitlesness of Attempts to alter your Opinion in Religion how gross soever they have been proved to be might have deterred me from this Writing yet sith I have been instantly urged to it and am loath to imagine all of you tobe of so deplorable a wilfulness of spirit as that you will obstinately persist in your manifest Errours and thereby cast away your Sâ—uls I have adventured to publish this ensuing Treatise that I might not be guilty of betraying the Truth and your Souls by my silence I have been many years a Preacher in England chiefly in the Counties of Hereford and Worcester and though I have not had much acquaintance with any of you yet some Conferences have left me not without hope that you might see your Errour about the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope and Church of Rome which is the chief Point on which your Religion rests as it is opposite to Protestantism although formerly and of late the French and some other Churches have strongly opposed the Popes or Roman Churches Superiority above a General Council and their Infallibility in their Determinations Certainly these two Points which are the Pillars of the Religion of the Roman party are so far from being Catholick that to him that shall impartially examine the Proofs it will appear that they have been late Innovations and are yet contradicted by a great part of those Churches which hold communion with the Roman See And for many other Points of your Religion if you would either use your Senses or your understanding in judging by the Scripture translated by your own party what is true or false you could not be so besotted as to believe Transubstantiation Invocation of deceased Saints Justification by your own Works and their Meritoriousness of eternal Life Purgatoryâ—fire Prayer for the Dead another Propitiatory Sacrifice for Quick and Dead besides Christ's Communion under one kinde onely Worshipping of Images and Reliques with some other of your Tenets For freeing you from which Errours which are pernicious to your Souls if I could contribute any thing I should count it a part of my happiness of which I should have some hopes were it that I perceived you free from the Imposition of your Leaders on you not to reade such Writings as are against them which must of necessity enslave you to their Opinions and hinder you from an impartial Search after Truth wherein what deceit is used by your imagined Pastour the Pope may appear as by many other things so especially by the late carriage of Pope Innocent the tenth in the Controversies between the Jansenists and Molinists in France who being importuned to give Sentence concerning the five Propositions of Jansenius if we may believe Thomas White one of your chief Disputants and one whose approbation is to this Manual of Controversies of H. T. did in shew condemn Jansenius his words but did allow his meaning And that I may not be thought to misreport him I will set down his words in his Appendicula to his Sonus Buccinae about the Censure of the five Propositions of Jansenius Sect. 9. where after he had shewed that the Propositions of Jansenius might be true in their sense though the words were liable to Exceptions he adds But whereto are all these things said Is it that I might enervate or reprehend the Popes Decree Nothing less I profess that was published by the best Counsel and special guidance of the Holy Spirit which governs the Church The Church was afflicted with Dissentions one part stood propped by the Truth and Authority of holy Scripture the other being guarded with the multitude of Princes and of the common People circumvented with the sound of words flattering humane weakness took great courage What should the Father of the Church do He allayed the more unquiet part by granting them their words the more obedient part he flatteringly comforted by commending to them their Senses The former part of the Saying was confirmed by a publick Instrument The later if there be any credit to be given to men of tender conscience was done before the Oratour of the most Christian King It is manifest by what hath been said with what rectitude of Faith and Divinity this part shines that that exhibites prudence worthy the Pope thus take it Wherein it may be perceived that however White speak favourably of the Pope yet he sets out his dealing in that business as unworthy an infallible Judge of Controversies which should have decided openly for Jansenius whose Propositions stood propped by the Truth and Authority of holy Scripture according to their meaning which Innocentius the tenth commended to them that they might hold them still in that meaning in a Conference and yet he condemned their Propositions in their words by his Bull published to quiet the wrangling and potent party of Jesuits that had drawn the Princes and common People to their side by words that flattered humane weakness in stead of Truth glorifying God than which in so weighty a matter what could be done more like a Juggler or man-pleaser than a Servant of God constant in asserting Truth Which shews that the Popes resolve not by the Spirit of God or the holy Scripture but by humane policy as it may be for their advantage to keep their party in obedience to them And that it is not indeed any sincerity in seeking Truth or serious intention to feed the Souls of People with true Doctrine but to accommodate all their Determinations and Negotiations as to uphold their credit authority might be made abundantly appear by the History of the Council of Trent and many other ways which I shall not mention being shewed by many and particularly by Mr. Richard
in Paul's days in which it is clear from Rom. 14. 2. that one believed he might eat all things another who was weak did eat herbs Ver. 5. One man esteemeth one day above another another esteemeth every day alike In after Ages the differences in the Roman church it self if reckoned would make a large catalogue 4. It is not necessary to the being of a true church that the company and their profession be so visible as that they may be discerned as the Roman Senate was or the Venetian Republique and French Kingdom are For then the disciples which were assembled the doors being shut for fear of the Jews John 20. 19. had not been a true church of God nor the woman in the wilderness Revel 12. 14. nor those that wand red in dens and caves of the earth in desarts and mountains Heb. 11. 38. then the Saints in persecution should not be blessed as Christ saith Matth. 5. 10. but cursed as ceasing to be the true church of God 5. It is not necessary to the bring of a true church that there should be in it a succession of Bishops Priests and Laicks professing the same faith for then the first company of such professors though called out of the world should not be a true church of God for want of succession 6. Much less is it necessary that there should be a succession in the same place For then when Christ removed the candlestick that is the church out of it's place as he threatens Revel 2. 5. though believers should come to dwell there a thousand years after they should not be a true church because of the interruption of succession in that place the church at Jerusalem after the persecution had not been a true church if the Apostles had been scattered as well as the rest Acts 8. 1 2. Doth a church persecuted and driveâ— out of a place cease to be a church because they and their successors are removed out of their dwellings Suppose the place wasted and destroyed shall that destroy the being of the church which was there before 7. Much less is it necessary that there should be a continuance without any notable interruption in each age For there may be many hinderances of elections of Bishops and ordinations of Priests there may be scatterings of the Laicks as was at Jerusalem Acts 8. 1. and yet the being and verity of the church continue 8. If a church must be judged no true church because no Writings or Monuments have kept the catalogue of Bishops Priests and Laicks professing the same faith from Christ till this time a church shall be condemned as no true church for want of Writings and Monuments or because they are now lost by reason of the inundation of barbarism and barbarous people who spoil Learning and Arts which yet Popish Writers acknowledge to have happened in the ninth Age tearmed by Genebrard Chron. l. 4. the unhappy age for want of learned Writers and H. T. himself p. 25. saith In this tenth Age or Century I find no General Council nor yet provinciaâ— in which any controversie of moment was decided SECT V. None of the Texts alledged by H. T. prove a necessity of such a succession as he imagines to the being of a true Church AS for the Texts he alledgeth they are all so impertinently alledged that it 's likely had he not presumed he should meet with very credulous Readers he would not have mentioned them or at least he would have shewed how he proves his Proposition from them it being necessary to do so if he had a mind to instruct and not impose on his Readers The first Text Isa 59. 21. is no promise of such a succession in any visible church as H. T. speaks of but of a continuance of Gods Word and Spirit with the persons there meant which seem to be peculiarly the Jews by the Apostles alledging Rom. 11. 26. However they are onely the Elect who can be there meant sith the promise is made good to none other none other have the Spirit of God not departing from them not any whole visible church among the Gentiles from whom the Spirit of God may depart In the three next Texts Isa 60. 1 3 11. Isa 62. 6. Ezek. 37. 26. the very words apply the promises to Hieruâ—alem and the people of Israel so that if they speak of any continued succession in any visible church in all Ages it must be the Jewish which it is certain hath had no such succession but is broken off from the true Olive to this day and therefore cannot be meant of them in H. T. his sense till they be reingrassed The next Dan. 7. 13 14. speaks not of the continued succession which H. T. imagines of every true visible church but of the duration of Christs dominion which shall not pass away to another that is there is no kingdom which shall succeed to it as there did to the former Monarchies nor shall it be destroyed as they were but shall be continued to Christ without any succession So that this Text mentions not H. T. his succession but excludes succession of any other to Christs dominion Matth. 28. 20. intimates a succession to the end of the world of teachers and so doth Ephes 4. 11 12 13 14. but not in every true visible church nor so conspicuous as that all may know and discern the church as men discern the assembly of the people of Rome nor so apparent as that there may be produced a catalogue of Bishops Priests and Laicks professing the same faith from Christs time till now Much less doth John 14. 16. prove such a succession it being onely a promise of the Spirits abiding with the Apostles for ever which is no promise to the Bishop of Rome or any other visible church now SECT VI. The succession pretended to be in the Roman Church proves not the verity of the Roman Church but the contrary BUâ— H. T. contenting himself to have set down these Texts leaves the Reader to extract what he can out of them and passeth on to the proof of his minor That the Church now in communion with the See of Rome and no other has had a continued succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time which according to his meaning is as if he had said The Church either in Rome or Italy or Spain or France or Germany or Poland or any other part of the world which hath owned the Pope and his doctrine and been subject to his rule and no other has had a continued succession of Bishops Priests and Laicks professing the same faith with the now Bishop of Rome so conspicuous as that there may be a catalogue of such produced out of good records and no other can do so So that then if he proves his Minor he must prove 1. That church to have this succession continued 2. That no other hath Which he takes on him to do by a catalogue of the Roman churches
no right Baptism almost throughout the Churches under the Papacy there being nothing but watering of Infants with some frivolous Ceremonies no immersion or plunging into the Water after Profession of Faith as was in the primitive times and is the onely Baptism Christ appointed Infant-sprinkling perfusion or dipping being meer Innovations begun after the Apostles ages and being onely by unwritten tradition as their own learned men confess conveyed to the Church not instituted by Christ himself And for administring the Lords Supper he that reades their Missals or Sees their Mass may easily discern there is not that done by them which Christ appointed but such a change there is in it from Christs institution as that it cannot be termed a Sacrament of Christ but a meer ridiculous or abominable device of men more like a Play than a religious service 2. When they say that the Church hath always exterior Consecration and Ordination of Ministers they necessarily put themselves upon it to prove that it hath been so in the Roman Church which they can never prove to have been always in the Roman Bishops much less in their Priests the Records of their Consecrations and Ordinations being in many respects either none or very doubtfull at best but humane testimony which is fallible and if these were certain yet their own Canons make many things necessary to their Sacraments specially that sottish conceit of the Trent Council that the Minister of Sacraments must intend to do what the Church doth without which there is a nullity in what is done and yet it is impossible to be proved and so many things according to their Canons nullifie their Ordinations as Simony and other irregularities of which nevertheless their own Writers accuse a great number of their Bishops and Priests and sometimes one Pope hath made void the Acts of another and in despite hath cut off his fingers which did ordain Priests as Platina relates in the life of Stephan the sixth concerning the usage of Pope Formosus besides this the Ordination of their Priests is to sacrifice for quick and dead which is no part of the Ministerial Office which Christ required Matth. 28. 19 20. which being considered if this be the note whereby the true Church must be proved no Church in the World hath less proof for its truth than the Roman but the Exceptions will be so many against their exterior Ordination and Consecration as will by their own Canons and arguings prove the Roman Church to be no true visible Church at all and so this Argument will be retorted on H. T. Let us go on to his second Argument onely taking notice that he useth the term Ministers which other Papists do deride in the Protestants SECT II. Isai 2. 2. Matth. 5 14. Psal 18. with us 19. 4. prove not such a Church-visibility as H. T. asserts nor the words of Ireneus Origen Cyprian Chrysostom Augustin A Light saith H. T. always shining to the World and a City so seated on a Hill that it cannot be hid must needs be always visible But the Church of Christ is a Light always shining to the World and a City so seated on a Hill that it cannot be hid therefore the Church must needs be always visible The Major is manifest by the very terms The Minor is proved by Scripture The Mountain of the House of our Lord shall be prepared on the top of Mountains Isai 2. 2. You are the Light of the World a City seated on a Hill cannot be hid St Matth. 5. 14. He hath put his Tabernacle his Church in the Sun Psal 18. 4. Answ THough the Conclusion might be granted in some sense yet in the sense meant by the Romanists it is denied and in the Argument the Minor is to be denied and to the proof of it it is denied that the Texts produced prove it Not the first For though the Prophecies Is 2. 2 3. be meant of Christ and the times of the Messias yet whether by the Mountain be meant Mount Sion properly or the Church or Christ or the Apostles it is certain that it is meant of that time wherein the Gospel was at first preached to which sense Hierome expounds it and the exaltation of the mountain of the Lords house is in respect of the first promulging of the Gospel in respect of which neither at first nor now is Rome exalted above the Hills and therefore it is not meant of every particular Church visible nor of such conspicuity in government and outward appearance as the Romanists maintain The second Text Matth. 5. 14. is particularly meant of the Apostles and such Preachers of the Gospel as continued that Work with them or after them and doth not foretell what shall be but declares what they were in existence or duty rather and their conspiracy is in respect of the Preaching of the Gospel But this is not spoken of every particular or the whole Church militant at all times as if it were so visible as that every Christian might know where to address themselves to them and have resolution from them in their doubts The other Text is less to the purpose speaking of a Tabernacle for the Sun not a Tabernacle in the Sun the Suns Tabernacle not Gods put in the Heavens not on earth as Hierom reades according to the Hebrew although the Septuagint and Vulgar reade as H. T. and Augustin in his allegorical way expound it of the Church But it is frivolous upon Augustin's conceit in his Enarration on the Psalms to infer a Tenet from a place that hath quite another grammatical sense which is onely argumentative As for the sayings of Fathers the words of Irenaeus lib. 4. advers Hoeres cap. 45. are not that every true Church of Christ hath such a continued Succession and so visible as that every Christian may discern where to repair to it but onely in opposition to heretical Teachers tells us God hath set other Teachers in the Church than those he there opposeth Origen's words Hom. 3. on Matthew shew what was in his time not what must of necessity be and are meant of brightness of doctrine or truth not of outward glory in a conspicuous rule and state like some flourishing Empire Cyprian's words de unit Eccles are less to the purpose being not concerning the visibility but the unity of the Church but in neither for the Romanists purpose The words are thus Cut off the River from the Fountain and being cut off it will be dry so also the Church cloathed with the light of the Lord spreads its beams through the whole World yet it is one light which is every where diffused and yet the unity of the body not separated Chrysostom's words Hom. 3. on Isai 6. are that the Church is more rooted than the Heaven and then adds let the Greeks learn the power of truth how it is easier that the Sun should be extinguished than that the Church should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that
The multitude of believers had one heart one soul Act. 4. 32. Christ prayed that his Disciples might be one St. John 17. 11. I believe one holy Catholick and Apostolick church The Nicene Creed Ans 1. THe thing pretended to be demonstrated by her unity was the true church after he changeth it into this that the church of Rome is both perfectly one and also universal for time and place is thus demonstrated here the conclusion is the Roman Catholick church and no other is the church of Christ By comparing of which it is apparent that this Author supposeth the true church the church of Rome and the Roman Catholick church to be synonymous or diverse names of the same thing which is supposed but not proved nor yeilded nor can be true as shall be shewed after 2. This Author pretends to demonstrate by this argument the church of Rome to be perfectly one which should have been his conclusion whereas not heeding his words he makes it the Minor 3. He puts in by a parenthesis in the Major many words which are not in the Minor though they belong to the middle term which should be the same in both premises nor is any proof brought for them here to wit that the Pope is Christs deputy on earth the visible or ministerial head of that church which is one body one fold or flock 4. That the Major might be for his purpose it should have been thus that church which is one body one fold or flock of which he himself is the supreme invisible head and the Pope his deputy on earth the visible or ministerial and no other is the church of Christ but such is the church of Rome ergo But as it is now framed it is in the second figure of all affirmatives which is against Logick rules and makes the syllogism naught as the very freshmen know But to it as it is now framed I answer If the words and the Pope his deputy on earth the visible or ministerial be left out the Major is granted in this sense that the universal church of Christ are one body by unity of one spirit and faith of the fundamentals and one flock by unity of one head and supreme Pastor But in H. T. his sense it is most false that it is one by the same faith in every point without any difference in lesser points or without any divisions in rites and disciplin and in subjection to one universal Bishop on earth as Christs deputy and the churches visible head Nor do any of the texts prove it in this sense For the first doth not express what all Christians were in respect of their state but profession and the unity is not derived from either subjection to one universal Bishop on earth or agreement in all points but from participating of one bread in the Lords Supper For it is not to be read as this Author after the vulgar translation reads it as many as participate of one bread but for we all partake of one bread it being in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in some copies of the vulgar nam omnes as in the Plantin edition by the Lovain Divines 1574. I finde it in the margin so that the meaning is this we do shew our selves one body one bread forasmuch as we all partake of one bread in the Lords Supper The next text Ephes 1. 22 23. proves only that the church is one body by unity of one head to wit Christ as H. T. rightly interprets it And the third text John 10. 16. also makes the whole church one flock as it should be read not one fold in respect of one Pastor which the very words ver 11. 14 15 16. do shew plainly to be Christ himself who gave his life for them and no other and therefore none of these texts derive the unity of the church from subjection to the Bishop of Rome as visible head or chief Pastor The next text 1 Cor. 1. 10. doth only prove that the church ought to be of one mind and one judgement without Schisms not that they are or must be if they be the true church but the text proves the contrary that they may be a true church though there be Schisms and difference of judgement among them The fifth Acts 4. 32. only proves that the church at Jerusalem once were so at which time they had also all things common which doubtless H. T. will not say must or doth agree to the whole church at all times but not that the whole church shall be so still The last John 17. 11. is a prayer of Christ that it may be so and so will be accomplished but by the words ver 21 22 23. it seems most likely not to be till they be consummate in glory or if afore yet certainly the unity cannot be meant of unity in every thing for so Peter and Paul did not agree as Gal. 2. 11 12 13 14. it appears but of such unity in communion with God and aiming at his glory as is only in the elect by vertue of Christs indwelling by his Spirit which is nothing to the unity which H. T. here requires as peculiar to the Roman church The passage of the Nicene creed proves only an unity of the church but not an unity by agreement in all points and subjection to one Catholick Bishop on earth So that H. T. after his fashion cites many texts but not one for his purpose SECT IV. It is notoriously false that the Romanists are perfectly one or have better unity or means of unity than Protestants and H. T. his argument for the truth of the Roman church from its unity proves the contrary H. T. adds The minor is made evident even to the weakest understanding by the present manifold Schisms and divisions which are now among Protestants and all other Sectaries as well in doctrine as government whereas Catholicks are perfectly one both in disciplin and doctrine all the world over even to the least Article or point of faith being all united to one supreme invisible head Christ Jesus and all subordinate to one visible and ministerial head the Pope his Vicar on earth we all resolve our selves in points of faith into one safe and most unchangeable principle I believe the holy Catholick church we look on her as the immediate and authorized proponent of all revealed verities and the infallible Judge of controversies God himself being the prime Author and his authority the formal motive and object of our faith Answ 1. The Protestants are not Sectaries nor divided from the Catholick church but from the now Roman party who are really a faction divided from the Catholick church holding a new faith never established till the Tridentin council though with an impudent face H. T. avouch a most palbable falshood of the Romanists universality and arrogates to the Roman the title of Catholick church Nor are the now divisions of Protestants in doctrine or government such as cut them
be such disparities between a natural body and a mystical as are sufficient to shew the weakness of this arguing as namely that there are no parts vital in the mystical body besides the head as the heart liver and lungs are in the natural that some parts of the head it self may be cut off as the ears and nose and yet the being though not the integrity of the body continue that there are some parts that have not life as hair and nayles as some conceive that the parts receive not life from the head but the head and the rest from the soul yet â—ith the conclusion is true and the argument with its proof many wayes against the Popish tenets I grant it and observe 1. That the unity which is proved hence is not of the universal visible church the truth of which Papists and this Author go about to demonstrate by it's unity but of the mystical For in this mystical body the unity is spiritual by faith and the members have spiritual life from the head But in the Catholick church of which the disputes are according to Bellarm. l. 3. de eccl milit c. 10 c. are many dead members secret infidels so that this argument proves not the Catholick visible by it's unity but the Catholick invisible of true believers 2. This argument is not to prove the unity of the church by subjection to the Roman Bishop by which H. T. would demonstrate the unity of the church but by the unity to that head whence the body hath it's spiritual life and motion which sure is Christ only and not the Bishop of Rome 3. This similitude if by head were meant the Pope cannot evince the purpose of this Author For there have been Schisms in the Roman church of one Pope and his party against another and yet the unity of the Catholick church in the profession of the â—ame faith continued Whence it follows that Schism doth not take away the unity of the church Catholick without heresie but only disorder distemper and disquiet it And therefore though it were granted as it is not that Protestants were Schismaticks in dividing from the See of Rome yet they might be united to the Catholick church and it 's being and conservation continued as long as the unity of faith is continued and until it be proved that Protestants have departed from the unity of faith once delivered to the Saints which he can never do in vain doth H. T. go about to prove they are not united to the Catholick church SECT VI. The universality which Matth. 28. 20. Eph. 4. 12 13. Luk. 1. 33. John 14. 15 16. for time Psal 85. 9. Isa 2. 2. Matth. 28. 20. for place is meant agrees not to the now Roman church but better to the Protestants BUt H. T. proceeds thus To be universal for time and place is nothing else but to be coexistent with all time and to be spread or diffused over all places But the church of Christ from the time he hath founded it hath been coexistent with all time and shall be to the worlds end and hath and shall be spread over all nations therefore the church of Christ is universal or Catholick for time and place The Major is proved because the definition and the thing defined are convertible The Minor is proved by Scripture for time St. Matth. 28. 20. Ephes 4. 12 13. St. John 14. 15 16. St. Luke 1. 33. For place Psal 85. 9. Isa 2. 2. St Matth. 28. 20. Answ 1. The conclusion should have been the Roman Catholick church and no other is the church of Christ and the argument thus That church which is universal for time and place and no other is the church of Christ But the Roman Catholick church and no other is universal for time and place therefore the Roman Catholick church and no other is the church of Christ But so the Major had not been true of any church existent in one age nor the Minor true of the present Roman church but it is contrary to all sense and histories which relate the occurrences of the world specially in the churches of Christ 2. As the argument is framed here by H. T. the conclusion is granted being thus understood that the church of Christ is not confined to Israel only but extended to all Nations indefinitely and aptitudinally though not definitely and actually extended to every Nation For some nations never were actually the church of Christ nor any church of Christ among them though there was no restraint by Christs command of preaching to them But if it be understood of actual coexistence with all times and all places so the Minor is not true nor the Major as I conceive the meaning of the term Catholick in the Article of the Creed I believe the holy Catholick church nor is that the definition of the church Catholick that it is actually coexistent with all time and to be spread or diffused over all places but it is termed Catholick because it is not confined to one Nation and comprehends all the believers of any Nation Jew or Gentile nor do the texts he brings prove any other universality For Matth. 28. 20. proves not such an universality as that there shall be no interval of time or particular place wherein the church shall not be existent But that Christ would be with them that preach the Gospel all dayes till the end of the world so as that they had liberty to preach the Gospel in every place and should finde his assistance while they did preach not that alwayes in each day there shall be a Church of Christ on earth much lesse that there shall be a church visible conspicuously to all in every Nation of the earth The like is the sense of Ephes 4. 12 13. which is that Christ hath given various gifts till all come to the unity of faith but this proves not there shall be a continuance of the Church on earth in every age much lesse so conspicuously visible as that it may be known to all much more lesse in every place John 14. 15 16. is yet farther from the purpose as containing a peculiar promise to the Apostles if it be meant of any Church it is the invisible of true believers not of every or any meer visible Church wherein many have not the spirit of Christ at all much lesse abiding with them for ever The text Luke 1. 33. doth not prove that there shall be in every age or time a Church on earth but that Christs dominion shall never end The texts Psal 85. 9. Isa 2. 2. are thus meant that not only the Jews but also all Nations that is all other people by faith shall be admitted to the Church of God by faith as well as Jews now this proves not that there shall be in every place on earth a Church of Christ But H. T. adds I resume the Argument and make it thus 1. That church which is not universal or
man reade the words of the Council and judge And now whether a Religion that is at such open enmity with 1. Scripture 2. The Church 3. Tradition 4. Fathers 5. Councils 6. Some Popes 7. The common senses and Reason of all the World even their own 8. Unity of Christians 9. Knowledge 10. Experience of Believers 11. Charity 12. Purity of Worship 13. Holiness 14. Common Honesty 15. And to Civil Government and Peace which might all easily be fully proved though here but touched I say whether such a Religion should be embraced and advanced with such diligence and violence and mens souls laid upon it is the controversie before us And whether it should be tolerated even the propagation of it to the damnation of the peoples souls is now the Question which the juggling Papists have set a foot among those that have made themselves our Rulers and there are found men among us that call themselves Protestants and godly that plead for the said Toleration and consequently for the delivering up of these Nations to Popery if not to Spanish or other foreign Powers which if they effect and after their contrary Professions prove such Traitors to Christ his Gospel and their posterity as they leave the Land of their Nativity in misery they shall leave their stinking names for a reproach and curse to future Generations and on such Pillars shall be written This pride self-seeking uncharitableness and schism hath done If thou marvel Reader that the learned Authour of this Book and I do joyn thus against the common Adversary after our own Differences in the one point of Infant-baptism thou dost but marvel that we are Christians and have not made shipwrack of our Faith and Charity and on the account of our Imperfections and little Differences cast away our salvation and the Churches peace Be it known to you that we are some years elder than when our Differences begun and therefore if we have made no progress in Holiness we are unexcusable And we know that he that is strongest in holy Love is strongest in Grace Marvel not then if we get some little increase by the opportunities and mercies we possess and if we forget not that we are Members of the same Christ and Heirs of the same Kingdome where we hope to live in perfect Love when we draw nearer to it and see that long we cannot be thence and when we see what havock the Devil hath made in the Churches of Christ and the Souls of multitudes seemingly religious by uncharitableness and Schism I am sure the Soul that is most for Unity and Love is likest to those that are in Heaven This also is my Answer to the Papists that I know will make it my Reproach that I hold so much Communion with Anabaptists that is that I am not as uncharitable and schismatical as they that confine the Church to their deluded Faction We own nothing in each other that we discern to be evil but we unanimously practise so far as we are agreed If sin have left England and Europe any hopes the Lord have mercy upon a divided self-destroying Generation and suffer not the sins of men professing godliness to drive away the Gospel and send it to America according to Mr. Herbert's sad conjecture in his Church Militant And O that Professours of Godliness would consider both what they have done and how much of Holiness doth consist in Charity Unity and Peace and leave not to the Papists the temptation or honour of seeming more unanimous and peaceable than we lest they seem to themselves and others more holy than we Experience and Judgements will leave us the most unexcusable people under Heaven if we prevent not our own and the Churches ruine by a speedy diligent return to Charity and Peace As these are the thoughts which I judged most necessary on this occasion to communicate so are they the matter of my daily Prayers Reader the times require thee to be well versed in the Controversies with the Papists If thou love thy Faith and Soul be not lazy but as there are multitudes of excellent Treatises at hand against Popery be not through negligence a stranger to them And among others in this Treatise thou wilt finde the Adversary solidly confuted and the vanity of his Reasonings detected which briefly I did in his most material parts in my Key for Catholicks And among the many excellent Treatises against them with which Shops and Libraries abound I commend to the Countrey Reader that would see much in a little room and know the true grounds of confuting Popery two little Treatises viz. Dr. Challoner's Credo Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam and Dr. Moulin's Answer to Cotton's Questions with the Questions and Challenges annexed And for Arguments against Toleration of Popery Dr. Sutliffe's Answer to the Lay Papists Petition for Toleration and Powel's Answer to the same Whose side the Scriptures are on reade a little Book called The abatement of Popish Brags by Alexander Cook Reade also their own Catholick Moderatour proving Protestants no Hereticks and the Catholick Judge or Moderatour of the Moderatour by John of the Cross c. Shortly I hope you may have Dr. Moulin's excellent Treatise of the Novelty of Popery translated by his Reverend Son and now going to the Press The Lord grant that mens refusing to receive the Truth in the Love of it to their Salvation and their base subjecting it to their pride and worldly interests provoke not God to give them over to believe such Lyes as are here detected and to withdraw the Gospel from an unworthy Nation Amen Novemb. 11. 1659. RI. BAXTER Errata Page 4. margin reade White or de Albiis sonus p. 5. l. 22. r. Ephes 1. 23. p. 8. l. 2. r. Ezek. 37. p. 9. l. 30. r. being p. 13 l. 20. r. six l. 22. r. he p. 15. l. 3. 5. r. primacy l. 5. r. last l. 9 10. r. inconsequent l. 34. r. removed p. 16. l. 7. r. better l. 9. r. primacy p. 17. l. 6. r. decreed p. 19. l. 33. r. brings p. 21. l. 5. r. Milevis p. 24. l. 24. r. ninth p. 25. l. 9. r. Marozia l. 41. r. Gandavensis Andegavensis p. 26. l. 11. r. ego p. 32. l. 3. r. Ivo p. 36. l. 30. r. to the. l. 35. r. councils p. 39. l. 37. r. the. p. 43. l. 28. r. Armenians p. 50. l. 26. r. rood l. 38. r. second p. 52. l. 12. r. Dr. p. 54. l. 17. r. way of p. 55. l. 1. r. Thuanus p. 58. l. 14. r. commemorative p. 59. l. 41. r. our p. 65. l. 29. r. conspicuity p. 66. l. 14. r. hath said p. 70. l. 20. r. ambiguity p. 73. l. 19. r. palpable p. 80. l. 8. r. by which p. 91. l. 46. r. truth p. 95. l. 12. r. Bannez p. 96. l. 11. r. doth not p. 98. l. 46. r. of p. 110. l. 32. r. conceits p. 111. l. 22. r. according l. 23. r. vealeth l. 40. r. faction
p. 113. d. l. 1. p. 122. l. 8. r. thousand p. 124. l. 5. r. general p. 1â—5 l. 39. r. deceived p. 126. l. 18. r. of an p 135. l. 1. 12. d. het p. 140. l. 25. r. one ROMANISM Discussed OR An ANSWER to the nine First Articles of H. T. his Manual of Controversies ARTICLE I. The Church of Rome is not demonstrated to be the true Church of God by its succession SECT I. Of the Title Page of H. T. his Manual of Controversies in which is shewed to be a vain vaunt of what he hath not performed AMong the many Writings which have been dispersed for the seducing of the English People from the Protestant Doctrine and Communion to the imbracing of the Roman Tridentin opinions a Book of H. T. that is Henry Turbervile at I am told hath been instrumental thereto It is stiled as Becanus Costâ—rus and others before had done theirs A Manual of Controversies in which he pretends to have clearly demonstrated the truth of the Catholique Religion by which he means the Roman opinions branched by him into 28 Articles the truth of which he hath no otherwise demonstrated than by shewing that there is no truth in them Which will appear by considering that the two chief Points of the Roman Religion distinct from the Protestant are the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy and Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist into the very flesh and blood of Christ which he had of the blessed Virgin Now if he believe himself that he hath clearly demonstrated the truth of these by Texts of holy Scripture Councils of all Ages Fathers of the first 500 years common Sense and Experience yet there is so little said by him that carries a shew of proof of either or rather there is so much in his own Writing as gainsays it that were there not a spirit of error which doth possess men they would not believe him For that he hath not clearly demonstrated the truth of the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy over the whole Church is apparent in that he hath not demonstrated clearly Peter's Supremacy there being no Texts brought by him Art 7. to prove it but Ephes 2. 20. Matth. 16. 18. John 21. 16 17 18. Luke 22. 31. Matth. 10. 2. Mark 3. Luke 2. Acts 1. of which the very first proves that other Apostles were Foundations as well as Peter and therefore the term Peter or rock Matth. 16. 18. proves not the whole church so built on Peter as that thereby he is declared Supreme visible Head over them or over the whole church any more than other Apostles were Nor doth feeding the sheep of Christ prove any other Supremacy than was in the Elders of Ephesus commanded to do the same Acts 20. 28. and by Peter himself as a fellow-Elder with them required of them 1 Pet. 5 1 2 And confirming the brethren Luke 22. 31. is no more an argument of Peter's Supremacy than the same thing is of the Supremacy of Paul and Barnabas Acts 14. 22. The other Texts shew nothing but priority of nomination or speaking notwithstanding which H. T. p. 97. confesseth the Apostles to have been equal in their calling to the Apostlâ—ship nothing at all of supremacy and rule over the Apostles and whole church is deducible from them And for Transubstantiation or real substantial presence of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist that which he alledgeth is the words of institution Marth 26. 27 28. Mark 14. 22 24. Luke 22. 19 20. 1 Cor. 11. 24 25. which he would have it believed are spoken without trope or figure of speech saying p. 130. to whosoever shall peruse the Text Matth. 26. 27 28. there is no mention of any fâ—gure in it and yet p. 154. confesseth there is a figure in the word chalice And for the Councils of all Ages saith p. 7. that the second and third Ages produced no Councils and p. 25. he saith In this tenth Age or Century I finde no General Council nor yet Provincial in which any controversie of moment was decided And for Fathers of the first 500 years neither do any of the Fathers he cites ascribe to Peter such a supremacy over the Apostles and the whole church as the Romanists assert nor would any man imagine that Irenâ—â—us Cyprian or Augustine should intend such a supremacy to the Bishop of Rome who knows the controversies about Easter between Polycarpus and Anicetus Polycrares Irenaeus and the Asian Bishops and Pope Victor and about Rebaptization between Cyprian and Sâ—ephanus between the African Bishops about Appeals to Rome and Caâ—lestinus and other Bishops of Rome And for the point of Transubstantiation or real substantial presence of Christs flesh and blood in the Eucharist the sayings of Fathers being well viewed speak not what he would have them and Augustine's words cited by him p. 185. denying Judas to have eaten the bread which was our Lord himself must be understood as denying Transubstantiation sith he acknowledgeth he did eat the â—read of our Lord. As for common sense and experience how it should demonstrate clearly the Popes supremacy is beyond my apprehension yea against it sith Histories and Travellers tell me that the Greek and other churches to this day deny the Popes supremacy And that Christs real substantial bodily presence or transubstantiation should be demonstrated by common sense and experience is so impudent an assertion as no man can believe but he that hath tenounced common sense aud experience Nor can H. T. believe himself in that if he believe what he saith p. 203. The body of Christ in the Sacrament is not the proper object of sense p. 205. the evidence of sense is not infallible in the Sacrament which if there were no more said might satisfie an unprejudiced person that this Author doth not easily deserve belief but deals like a Mountebank that commends his Salves beyond their vertue and when p. 72. he forbids us to try by the dead letter meaning the Scripture or â—umanâ— reason it is a shrewd sign that what he said in the Title Page of his Demonstration was but a copy of his countenance no real thought of his own heart Nevertheless for the undeceiving of those who are willing to be undeceived I shall examine his Writing and shew that he hath not at all demonstrated the Roman Doctrine to be true nor answered the Protestants objections and that the true Fathers Prophets and Apostles and Teachers in the next Ages to them have not taught the now Roman opinions but the contrary SECT II. Of the Epistles before H. T. his Manual in which too much is ascribed to the Church and the Churches Authority deceitfully made the first point of his Treatise LEtting pass other things in the Epistles with the approbation and commendation of those of his own way as being no better than a kind of complement of one Papist with another of no moment but with that prejudiced party I shall onely take notice of that
passage in his Epistle to the Reader in which he saith but not truly It is agreed by all parties that the Church founded in Christs blood was the onely mistris of Divine Faith and sole repository of all revealed truths at least for an age or two For this is not true of the church but of Christ his Apostles and their preaching and writings And therefore it is not true which he thence infers that the controversies of the Church are the most important doubtless of all others or that on the notion and eviction of her authority all other points essentially depend for their knowledge and decision which in effect is as if he had said Were there not a Pope and his council the Scriptures would be ineffectual to know the revealed truths of God and to decide any controversies in Religion which I count little better than blasphemy nor doth he well to begin with that point were it that he intended to have cleared truth he should first as Bellarmine and some others have done have examined the points of the Scriptures sufficiency and the needlesness of unwritten Traditions and thereupon have examined the particular points in difference that thereby the Reader might have discerned whether the Roman church were the true church of God sith the truth of the church is known by the truth of faith which they hold as H. T. himself urgeth p. 45. Succession in the profession of the same faith from Christ and his Apostles continued unto this time is it by which the Church is known and therefore we must first know whether the Roman Faith be the same with that which Christ and his Apostles taught before we can know the truth of their succession and of their Church But H. T. after Becanus and others conceives it best for their design to forestall Readers with the Authority of the Roman Church which being oncâ— setled in mens minds no marvel if they swallow down such gross Doctrines as Transubstantiation half Communion Invocation and Worship of Saints deceased Angels Reliques Images Crucifixes and the rest of their errors and abuses wherein any that reads the Scriptures may see how far they are gone from the Primitive saith taught by Christ and his Apostles nevertheless having premonished the Reader of this deceitfull Artifice I shall examine his Book in the order he hath chosen SECT III. The Tenet of the falsity of all Churches not owning the Pope is shewed to be most absurd ARticle 1. saith H. T. Our Tenet is That the Church now in communion with the See of Rome is the onely true Church of God Answ By the Sâ—e of Rome he means the Roman Bishop or Pope and the Communion he means is in the same Tenets which they hold according to the Trent Canons and Pius the fourth his Bull with subjection to the Bishop of Rome's jurisdiction over the whole Church of Christ In which sense the Tenet is so palpably false and so extremely uncharitable that it is a marvel that any that hath the understanding of a man should imbrace it or the charity of a Christian should brook it For 1. If the Church now in communion with the See of Rome be the onely true Church of God then that Church onely hath eternal life for onely the true Church of God hath eternal life Extra Ecclesiam non est salus is their own determination Concil Lateran 4. Can. 2. and elsewhere But that Church which is not in communion with the See of Rome hath eternal life Ergo it is the true Church of God The Minor is proved thus That Church which believes in Jesus Christ hath eternal life But other Churches besides those now in communion with the See of Rome believe in Jesus Christ Ergo. The Major is plain from John 3. 16 18 36. 17. 3. 20. 31. 1 John 5. 11 12. Mark 16. 16. in which it is expresly said that he that believeth on Christ without any mention of Peter or the Pope hath eternal life The Minor is proved by their profession and other evidences of their reality in believing which if any deny to prove true faith in them he may as well deny there are any believers in Christ in the world 2. If there be no true Churches but such as are in communion with the See of Rome then there is some other name besides the Name of Jesus Christ given among men by which we must be saved and there is salvation in some other besides him for men have salvation in that name by which they are the true church of God and if we be the true church of God by communion with the Pope we have salvation by the Pope But this is most false and Antichristian to ascribe salvation to any other name besides the Name of Jesus Christ as being expresly contradictory to Peter's own words Act. 4. 12. There is no salvation in any other neither is there any name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved but the Name of Jesus Christ not Peter or the Bishop of Rome 3. If no churches be true churches of God but such as are in communion with the See of Rome then Christ died for no other churches but them For Christ died for his church Ephes 5. 25. it is not said he gave himself for them who are not his church But sure it is very uncharitable to say that Christ died for no other than those that own the Pope and contrary to the Scripture that God so loved the world that he gave his onely begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life Joh. 3. 16. therefore it is false and uncharitable to exclude all but Romanists out of the church of God 4. If none be the true church of God but such as are in communion with the See of Rome then none are members of Christ in Christ the sons of God but such as are in communion with the See of Rome for the true church of God onely are members of Christ in Christ the children of God Ephes 23. But it is false that none are members of Christ in Christ or children of God but such as are in communion with the See of Rome for the Apostle tels the Galatians Gal. 3. 26 27. that they were all the sons of God by â—aith in Christ Jesus that as many as were baptized into Christ had put on Christ v. 28 that they were all one in Christ Jesus without any requiring of communion with the See of Rome 5. If none are the true church of God but such as are in communion with the See of Rome then Christ is present with none by his Spirit and protection but such as are in that communion For such as are not the true Church of God Christ is not present with them by his Spirit and protection Rom. 8. 9. Ye are not in the flesh but in the spirit if the spirit of God dwell in you If any man have not
God Acts 20. 26 27. and elsewhere Ergo. 10. If there were many Saints and Martyrs acknowledged even by the Romanists to be such who did not hold communion with the Bishop of Rome so as to own him to be supreme visible head of the whole church but did oppose him and lived and died in that opposition and yet were in the church of God then they who hold not communion with the See of Rome may be the true church of God But the antecedent is true in Cyprian Augustine and many more opposing the Bishop of Rome about rebaptization appeals from Africa keeping Easter therefore either they must be unsainted or else it must be yielded that persons who are not now in communion with the See of Rome may be true churches of God I need not insist any longer in proving the falsity of a tenet so palpably absurd and demonstrated to be so by Bishop Mortan in his Grand Imposture of the Roman Church and by others elsewhere Let 's view H. T. his proof SECT IV. The succession of Bishops Priests and Laicks required by H. T. is not necessary to the being of a true Church THat saith he is the onely true Church of God which has had a continued succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time But the Church now in communion with the See of Rome and no other has had a succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time therefore the Church now in communion with the See of Rome and no other is the true church of God For proof of the major he alledgeth Isa 59. 21. 60. 1 3 11. 62. 6. Ezech. 3. 26. Dan. 7. 13 14. Matth. 28. 20. John 14 16. Ephes 4. 11 12 13 14. Answ The succession he means is expressed p. 45. to be a continued number of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another in the profession of the same faith This succession may be either in the same place or some place or other indefinite and it may be said to be continued without the least interruption for the smallest space of time or so continued that in each age or century there hath been such a succession though with some intermission The succession in the profession of the same faith may be either universal in every point or limited to fundamentals The succession may be said to be continued either so conspicuously as that there is an Assembly of that people in each age which any Christians in any part of the world did or might know as they do the Commonwealth of the Venetians or Kingdom of France oâ— as heretofore the Roman Commonwealth was known or else obscurely so as to be known onely to themselves and some near neighbors The proof of this succession may be conceived to be out of History or other clear Writings Records or Monuments extant expressing persons and their faith or else it may be conjectured from some more obscure intimations This Author I conceive from many passages following understands his major here thus That is the onely true Church of God which has had in the same place a continued succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time without interruption any notable time in any age of a number of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another in the profession of the same faith not onely in fundamentals but in other points also so conspicuously that all Christians did or might know it as the Roman Empire French Kingdom or Venetian Republique may be known and this to be proved out of History or other clear Writings Records or Monuments expressing the persons and their faith For such a succession this Author would have necessary to a true church which he imagines may be proved to be in the Roman church and no other But in this sense his Proposition is most false and no whit proved out of the Texts he produceth and nullifies the Roman church it self which he indeavours so much to magnifie as to make it to be the onely true church of God In opposition thereto I say 1. There may be a true church of God where there are no Bishops or Priests at all Which I prove 1. From Acts 14. 23. where it is said that Barnabas and Paul after they had gathered the churches they returned to them and ordained Elders in every Church which supposeth they were churches sometime afore they had Elders ordained for them therefore it follows there may be a true church without Bishops Priests or Elders sith those churches were such afore they had them 2. From the definition of a true church That is a true church which hath the definition of a true church H. T. confesseth often this Proposition to be true But a number of believers in Christ who have no Elders or Priests or Bishops hath the definition of a true church Ergo The minor is proved from the received definitions Bellarm. Tom. 2. Controv. l. de Eccles milit c. 1. Ecclesia est evocatio sive caetus vocatorum the church is the company of the called out and other Authors speak conformably But there may be a caâ—ling out or a company of persons called out though they have no Bishops or Priests therefore they may be a ture church of God 3. That company which hath the essential parts of a true church is a true church of God But a number of believers professing the faith of Christ hath the essential parts of a true church They are the matter of a church in that they are men the form is faith or the profession of it no other thing can be rightly assigned to be essential as constitutive of a true church their governours order special gifts and other things tending to their well-being are common accidents which may be or not be and yet the church remain a true church Therefore a number of believers professing the true faith of Christ without Bishops is a true church of God 2. It is not necessary to the being of a true church that there be a succession of Bishops distinct from Presbyters whom H. T. terms Priests For 1. There are many Fathers and popish Writers who make them but one Order at first Lumbard senâ—ent l. 4. distinct 24. Apud vcteres iidem Episcopi Presbyteri fuerunt The Antients took Bishops and Priests for the same therefore with them there were churches in which were no Bishops distinct from Presbyters 2. Where there were two Orders yet they were not so necessary but that the church may be without them otherwise in the vacancy of the Episcopal See which hath in Rome it self been sometimes some years together often many moneths and days the church should cease to be a true church of God for then it would follow that in such vacancies the Roman church did cease to be 3. It is not necessary to the being of a true church that there be a profession of the same faith in every point for then the Roman church should not be a true church
for this one thousand years are not to be compared their own writers being Judges who have opposed these doctrins of the now Romanists as hath been shewed by many learned men to the eternal confusion of Popish novelties then this Author hath here or any Popish writer elsewhere hath made to prove a succession of Pastors Councils Professors and Nations avouching the present Roman opinions which were never so avouched or enjoyned as now they are in Pope Pius the fourth his new Creed till about one hundred years ago And to this insolent demand where was your Church before Luther Protestants may reply to Papists where was your church which believed as you now do before Boniface the third Gregory the seventh Innocent the third and Leo the tenth The speeches of the Fathers for the churches continued succession do none of them prove the major of H. T. his Syllogism that is the only true Church of God which has had a continued succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time meaning it of local personal succession of which H. T. means it but only of succession in holding the same doctrin Nor do any of them prove H. T. his minor that the church now in communion with the See of Rome and no other has had a continued succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time for they were all dead above a thousand years afore this time All that can be proved is that in case of heresies or Schisms they made use of the succession in the Roman church which was then less tainted then some others to repress them yet so as that they alleged a succession in other churches as well as it but none ever as this Author held it necessary that all churches should own the Bishop of Romes supremacy or the Roman churches communion how corrupt soever they should prove only while they continued uncorrupt in the faith they held communion with them and so should we if they would embrace the primitive purity of doctrine and worship which Peter and Paul and other Apostles first taught in the churches of Christ of which that at Rome though not the first yet was one of the most famous and till their declining of great esteem SECT XIV H. T. hath not solved the Protestants objection H. T. takes upon him to solve objections against the Churches continued succession and saith thus Obj. Elias complained that he was left alone 3 King 19. therefore the church then failed Answ He spake figuratively for God himself told him in the same Chapter ver 18. that he had seven thousand at that time in Israel where he was who had not howed their knees to Baal and in the Kingdom of Juda there was then publick profession of the true religion in Hierusalem paralip 22. 14 15. so that consequence is false To which I reply this author shews himself deceitful in setting down our tenet and argument and slighty in his answer For the tenet of the Protestants is not that the Church hath failed and that there is no continued succession of men in the visible Church who have held forth the truth against Popish innovations But that sometimes they have been by persecution so obscured as that however they have been discernable among themselves yet not so to adversaries and to others of their brethren at a farther distance nor perhaps have they been so conspicuous as that a catalogue might be made of the succession of Pastors and people in the same place in every age but oft-times they have been so dispersed as to be in one age or time in one Country and another time in another and that the monuments of their being and doctrine have been in part lost and in part obscured by inundations of barbarous nations persecutions of Popes and Popish Princes and their knowledge and profession hath been sometimes larger sometimes less and still misreported by adversaries Nevertheless that is though they have been in such obscurity they have been true Churches of Christ and notwithstanding we cannot prove such a succession in any one City or Country of Pastors and people in every thing agreeing with us yet we may be a true Church as long as we hold the true faith once delivered to the Saints and now upon record in the holy Scriptures though we submit not to the Pope as chief Pastor nor own the now Roman doctrin in the articles required in the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth to be professed over and above the ancient Creeds In a word this we assert that the defect of a catalogue such as H. T. requires and the obscurity of professors nullifies not the verity of the Protestant Churches And this is proved by the objection thus If there were a true Church in Israel in Elias his days which was so hidden as that Elias knew them not and so could make no catalogue of them then there may be a true Church whose professors may be so obscure as that neither in the same nor in after ages a catalogue of them can be assigned But so it was as appears by Elias his complaint and Gods answer 1 King 19. 10 14 18. Ergo there may be a true Church whose professors may be so obscure as that neither in the same nor in after ages a catalogue of them can be assigned Now what doth he answer that Elias spake figuratively because God said there were seven thousand non-Baalites left in Israel and that there was a Church in Juâ—ah then and therefore the consequence false But to shew the slightiness of this shifter for I cannot term him rightly a respondent 1. He tells us not what figure he used nor in what words nor what sense the speech bears according to that figure nor how it serves for his purpose to avoid the objection I do not conceive what figure of speech he or any man can imagin in that speech I am left alone unless he meant Ironically I am left alone that is not left alone which were a frantick conceit or an Hyperbole or a Synecdoche of a part for the whole one for many but such an Hyperbole or Synecdoche would make the speech non-sense I that is a few or many are left alone For this were non-sense and self contradicting and contrary to the intent of the speech I being in the first person and that doubled few or many in the third to say few or many are left alone when alone excludes few many any more then one to say they seek my life that is of few or many when my notes only him that spake to wit Elias and no other to say I have been jealous that is a few or many have been jealous besides the citation Rom. 11. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the occasion end of the speech and answer of God shew such an exposition would be the conceit of a man extreme shallow or impudent And his reason is as ridiculous God himself told Elias in the same chapter ver 18. that
when Athanasius and others were not And he might have so interpreted the Speeches he allegeth of Hospinian and the rest I have not all the Books he citeth but some of their words I finde not as this Author would have them Bishop Jewel having said pag. 208. And to be short all the World this day crieth and groaneth after the Gospel adds And all these things are come to pass at such time as to any mans reason it might seem impossible when all the World the People Priests and Princes were overwhelmed with ignorance when all Schools Priests Bishops and Kings of the World were sworn to him that whatsoever he took in hand they would uphold it Which Speeches are to be understood onely of the Western Empire as when it is said Luke 2. 1. A Decree went out that all the World should be taxed it is meant onely of the Roman Empire and when John 12. 19. The World is gone after him it is meant by an Hyperbole of a great part so the words of Bishop Jewel are to be understood as is usual in such rhetorical expressions though the words are not as this Authour sets them down that the whole World Princes Priests and People were bound by Oath to the Pope Jewel Serm. on Luke 11. In like manner when Calvin saith lib. 4. instit c. 18. sect 18. that the abominations of the Mass presented to drink in a golden Cup hath so made drunk all the Kings and People of the Earth from the first to the last he alluding to the words Revel 18. 3. is to be conceived as in that Scripture and many more to be understood by an excess of Speech a great part in comparison of whom the rest are as if they were not To the same purpose were the words of Perkins Exposition of the Creed vol. 1. pag. 260. col 2. c. as the whole period recited shews which is this And during the space of nine hundred years from the time of Boniface the Popish Heresie to wit of the Popes Supremacy spread it self over the whole Earth and the faithfull Servants of God were but as an Handfull of Wheat in a Mountain of Chaff which can scarce be discerned The next words of Dr. White himself in the same period shews his meaning to be of freedom wholly and of appearing conspicuously and to the World visibly to be seen by all and separated from the rest For thus it follows And whether any company at all known or unknown were free from it wholly or not I neither determine nor greatly care Nor do I question but that the same is the meaning of the rest if their words were rightly cited and the Reader might perceive how they are wrested by H. T. against their meaning and they wrote those expressions in like meaning with those passages of holy Scripture which complain of corruption as universal when the greatest or most conspicuous part are so as Psalm 12. 1. Micah 7. 2. Phil. 2. 21. SECT II. The Argument of H. T. to prove the nullity of the Protestant Churches for want of Succession is turned against the Roman Church H. T. further argues thus Without a continued number of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another in the profession of the same Faith from Christ and his Apostles to this time a continued Succession cannot be had But Protestants have no continued number of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another from Christ and his Apostles to this time in the profession of the same Faith or Tenets the nine and thirty Articles or any other set number of Tenets expresly holding and denying all the same points Therefore Protestants have no continued Succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time The Major is manifest because it proceeds from the Definition to the thing defined The Minor is proved because Protestants have never yet been able nor ever will to assign any such number of men whom they have succeeded in their nine and thirty Articles or Luther in his Augustan Confession when he revolted from the Catholick Church no nor yet any one single Diocese or Biscop Answ 1. THis Argument is thus justly retorted Without a continued number of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another in the profession of the same Faith from Christ and his Apostles to this time a continued Succession cannot be had But Papists have no continued number of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another from Christ and his Apostles to this time in the profession of the same Faith or Tenets the Canons of the Trent Council the Articles in the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth or any other set number of Tenets expresly holding and denying all the same points therefore Papists have no continued Succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time The Major is manifest because it proceeds from the Definition to the thing defined The Minor is proved because Papists have never yet been able nor ever will to assign any such number of men whom they have succeeded in their Trent Canons and the Articles of the Creed injoyned to be professed and sworn to in the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth If any man pretend to such a Catalogue let him name none but such as held explicitely the Doctrine of the Tridentin Canons the Roman Catechism the Articles of the Creed injoyned by Pope Pius the fourth his Bull all granting and denying the same points that the late Faction of Romanists or Italian popish Sectaries granted and denied or that our new Reformers the Jesuites deny and grant for if they differ from them in any one material point they cannot be esteemed Catholiks Let him not name Christ John Baptist Peter Paul or any the Apostles or the Roman Church in their days For they did not admit and embrace the now called Apostolick Ecclesiastick traditions unwritten and other observances and constitutions of the Roman Church nor held it the right of the Roman Church to define the true sense and interpretation of holy Scripture to be received by all nor truly and properly seven Sacraments of the new Law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ and necessary to the salvation of mankinde nor allowed the received Rites of the Roman Church used in solemn administration of all the Sacraments nor all the things which concerning original sin and justification were defined and declared in the Council of Trent nor did acknowledge that in the Mass is offered to God a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and the dead and that in the holy Eucharist is truly really and substantially the body and blood with the soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into his body and of the whole substance of the wine into his blood which conversion the Roman Church calleth Transubstantiation nor that under one kinde onely all and whole Christ and the true Sacrament is received nor that there is a Purgatory
be right as having these words added in the minor or tenets c. which were not in the Major whereby there is a fourth term which makes a syllogism naught 2. By denying his Major and as a reason of that denial I say agreement of doctrin with Christ and his Apostles in the main points of faith and worship though there be no Bishops nor Priests is sufficient to a true Church and such succession as H. T. requires is not necessary 3. To the Minor though Protestants have not a continued number of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another from Christ and his Apostles to this time in the profession of the same faith or tenets the thirty nine Articles or any other set number of tenets expresly holding and denying all the same points yet they do agree with Christ and his Apostles in the doctrin of the Christian faith and the Christian worship and there hath been a succession in all ages hitherto of Christian professors holding the same points of faith in the fundamentals although sometimes more purely and conspicuously than at other times and they have opposed though not with the like success agreement or largeness in every age the Popish errors now avouched in Pope Pius the fourth his Creed and the Trent Canons And for answer to the proofs of the Major I deny that the Major proceeds from the definition to the thing defined a continued number of Bishops Priâ—sts and Laicks succeeding one another in the profession of the same faith from Christ and his Apostles to this time being not the definition of the continued succession necessary to the being of the true Church of God as hath been proved before in the answer to the former Article Sect 4. 5. And to the proof of the Minor I answer that Protestants may have true succession from Christ and his Apostles and may be esteemed Christians and Catholicks though they differ in many material points as long as they hold the same fundamental points and Protestants opposing all or some of the chief points of Popery as they arose and were discovered to them though they did not discern all their errors nor relinquish all their practises or the communion of the Churches subject to the Bishop of Romes rule but they were truely Protestants however otherwise named while they did hold the same fundamental truths we hold and opposed as they appeared to them all or some of the Popish corrupt worship and errors which the Protestants now do And for proof of this we rightly name the Waldenses Hussites Wicklevists Albigenses Puritan Waldenses Beringarians Grecians of whom writers testifie they excepted against the Popes supremacy purgatory half communion transubstantiation setting up and worship of Images propitiatory sacrifice of the Masse for quick and dead invocation and worship of Angels and Saints deceased seven Sacraments with other errors of the now Romanists and yet in the chief points of Christian faith and worship did agree with the now Protestants as may be gathered from the confessions and writings of their own either extant or acknowledged in the histories and writings of their adversaries such as were Rainerius Aeneas Sylvius Cochlaeus and others See Samuel Morlands history of the Evangelical Churches in Piedmont the first book by which their confessions and treatises are brought to light agreeing with Protestants What H. T. brings against this is either falsly ascribed to them by the calumnies of their adversaries whose recitals of their opinions to the worst sense no man hath reason to believe especially considering their works extant do refute them and it hath been often complained of that they have been misinterpreted and misreported or else if true is insufficient to invalidate our allegation of them H. T. tells us the Waldenses held the real presence that the Apostles were lay men that all Magistrates fell from their dignity by any mortal sin that it is not lawful to swear in any case c. Illiricus in Catalog Waldens Confes Bohem. a. 1. and Waldo an unlearned Merchant of Lyons lived but in the year 1160. Answ Sure he was not altogether unlearned of whom it is said by some that have seen his doings yet remaining in old parchment monuments that it appeareth he was both able to declare and to translate the books of Scripture also did collect the Doctors minas upon the same Yet were he unlearned sure he had store of companions among the Romanists Friers Bishops and Popes of those times by one of whom a Bishop was condemned as an heretick for holding that there are Antipodes and Paul the second saith Platina pronounced them hereticks who should from thence forth mention the name of the Academy either in earnest or in jest The very decrees and Epistles of the Popes in their Canon law shew that few of them had any skill in the Scriptures or the original languages competent to divines and who so readeth their writings observingly shall find that the ablest of their schoolmen in those dayes were very ignorant of the Scripture sense and language Nor do I think the Popes and generality of Bishops and Priests and Preachers among the Romanists at this day are men of much learning in the holy Scriptures So that I presume Waldus as unlearned as he was was comparable to the Roman Clergy at that time in learning and for holiness of life by the relation even of Popish writers exceeding them as much as gold exceeds lead and therefore as likely to know the mind of God as any Pope or Bishop or Frier at that time Now clear it is by an ancient manuscript alledged by the Magdeburg cent 12. c. 8. that the Waldenses held that the Scripture is the only rale in the Articles of faith fathers and councils no otherwise to be received then as they agree with the Scriptures that the Scriptures are to be read by all sorts of men that there are two Sacraments of the Church that the Lords supper is appointed by Christ and to be received by all sorts in both kinds that Masses were impious and that it was a madness to say Masses for the dead purgatory to be a figment the invocation and worship of dead Saints to be idolatry the Roman Church to be the whore of Babylon that the Pope hath not the supremacy of all the Churches of Christ marriage of Priests to be lawful with sundry more which are agreeable to Protestant tenets against Papists which is confirmed because much to the same purpose Aeneas Sylvius in his Bohemian history writes of their opinions Nor is it likely they held what they are said by H. T. to have held For it appears by the dispute between them and one Dr. Austin set down by Mr. Fox Acts and Monuments at the year 1179. out of Orthuinus de gratiis that their opinion was that Christ is one and the same with his natural body in the Sacrament which he is at the right hand of his Father but not after the same
and their invocation of what sort he meant being not expressed it serves not the turn to prove his confession of the Fathers of the first five hundred years holding Popish Invocation of Saints deceased SECT VI. The Answers of H. T. to the Objections of Protestants concerning their Succession are shewed to be vain and the Apostacy of the Roman Church proved AFter the rest of his scribling H. T. under the Title of Objection solved saith thus Object In all the Ages before Luther Protestants had a Church though it were invisible Answ This is a meer Mid-summer nights Dream that a Church which is a congregation of visible men preaching baptizing and converting Nations should be extant for a thousand years and yet be all this while invisible neither to be seen or heard of in the World I reply who frames the Objection as this Authour sets it down I know not sure I am that many of the Protestants do frame it otherwise that the Protestants had Churches afore Luther who did oppose popish innovations and that these were visible though not to their Enemies nor in so conspicuous a manner as the Roman Senate or Common-wealth of Venice and this is no Mid-summer nights Dream any more than that Papists have a Church in England in communion with the See of Rome and that they have Masses Baptizing c. although it be not known to Protestants nor so conspicuous as that we know where to go to them And these Churches have been seen and known in the World partly separate from the Roman Church partly continuing within the Roman Church but yet opposing the pâ—pal usurpations and corruptions As for H. T. his Definition of a Church it is to me more like a Mid-Summer nights Dream For is the Church a congregation of visible men preaching baptizing and converting Nations Are all the visible men in the congregation which is the Church men preaching baptizing and converting Nations May not a Church be a congregation of men that convert not any Nation if themselves be converted that baptize not others if themselves be baptized that preach not if they have heard received and profess the Word preached Are not Women part of the congregation which is the Church Do they preach and baptize However it is well this Authour sets down Preaching and Baptizing as acts whereby the men who are of the congregation which is the Church are visible which is all one with the marks of the visible Church given by the Protestants to wit preaching the Word and administring the Sacraments H. T. adds Object The Church in communion with the See of Rome was the true Church till she apostatized and fell from the faith Answ If she were once the true Church she is and shall be so for ever she cannot fail as hath been proved nor erre in faith as shall be proved hereafter I reply It is true Protestants yield that the Churches in communion with the Bishops of Rome were true Churches while they held the faith of Christ entire and did not by their innovations subvert it which was in process of time done by altering of the rule of faith the Apostolical tradition of the holy Scripture into unwritten tradition the Popes determinations and canons of councils as the sense of the Scripture or the revelations of the Spirit of God and by bringing in the invocation and worship of the Virgin Mary and other Saints altering the Sacrament of the Lords Supper instituted for a commemoration of his death into a propitiatory sacrifice for quick and dead asserting transubstantiation and adoring of the bread worshipping images and reliques perverting the Gospel by bringing in the doctrines of humane satisfactions for sin power to fulfill the law justification by works and meriting eternal life instead of free remission of sins to the penitent believer only through the blood of Christ and justification by faith in Christ without the works of the law In which points that the Churches now in communion with the See of Rome have apostatized is apparent by this argument Those Churches have apostatized who have left the faith once delivered to the Saints by the Apostles of Christ But the Churches now in communion with the See of Rome have left the faith once delivered to the Saints by the Apostles of Christ therefore the Churches now in communion with the See of Rome have apostatized The Major is evident from the terms apostasie being no other thing than leaving the faith once delivered to the Saints by the Apostles of Christ The minor is manifest by comparing the doctrine of the council of Trent and Pope Pius the fourth his Creed with the Apostles writings especially the Epistle to the Romans by Paul which shews what once the church of Rome believed For instance it is said Rom. 15. 4. For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope 2 Tim. 3. 15 16 17. And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good works Eph. 2. 20. And are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone which plainly prove the Scriptures use for all sorts sufficiency and divinity and the needlesness of unwritten traditions to guide us to salvation Rom. 12. 5. We being many are one body in Christ and every one members one of another 1 Cor. 12. 12. For as the body is one and hath many members and all the members of that one body being many are one body so also is Christ Ver. 13. For by one spirit we are all baptized into one body whether we be Jews or Gentiles whether we be bond or free ver 27. Now ye are the body of Christ and members in particular ver 28. And God hath set some in the Church first Apostles c. Ephes 1. 22. and gave him to be head over all things to the Church which is his body which prove the Catholick Church to have extended to all believers of Jews and Gentiles and that they and not the Roman only or those that are in communion with it are that one body or Catholick Church and that there is no other head of the whole Church but Christ nor any Apostle above another and consequently the Roman Church and Pope have no supremacy over the rest of the Churches Rom. 10 14. How shall they call on him in whom they have not believed 1 Tim. 2. 5. There is one God and one Mediator between God and men the man Christ Jesus which prove they then received not the invocation of Saints nor made the Virgin Mary or any other deceased Saint Mediators between God
not fail but be in some place or other more or less conspicuous in greater or smaller numbers yet it is not proved that the church militant definite of this or that place shall not fail nor is there a word in Scripture to prove this the priviledge of the Roman church or those that are in communion with the See of Rome that they cannot fail nor erre in faith nor do the words of Fathers rightly understood prove it But Scripture and experience do plainly refute it What hath been alleged is examined the rest will be in its place I proceed to that which remains in this Article Object The Catholick succession was one succession for the first five centuries Answ You may as well tell me of a white blackmore a Catholick is not a Protestant nor a Catholick succession a Protestant succession Who ever heard of a Protestant Pope The Catholick church was always governed by a Pope in the first five centuries as now it is and hath defined our tenets and condemned yours as you have seen It is the very essence of a Protestant as a Protestant to protest against the Catholick church as Lutherans and you have done To this I reply To an objection of such moment as this is the answer is but meer trifling For he knows that we mean by catholick succession not that which he calls catholick succession to wit of Popes of Rome but that the teachers who are reputed catholick whether of the Greek or Latin churches who have succeeded one after another in the five first centuries of years from Christs incarnation according to the account now used taught not the doctrine now professed in the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth or in the Tridentin canons but that in all or most of the points in difference between Protestants and Papists they taught the doctrine which Protestants now hold which hath been proved by Jewel and many other Protestant writers And in this sense it is no more absurdity to call a Protestant a catholick then to call a spade a sapde a straw a straw Protestants are truely Catholicks Papists are but falsly called Catholicks affecting the name as some that were of the Synagogue of Satan said they were Jews and were not but did lye Revel 3. 9. and impudently claiming that which they have no right to that they may be it as a stalking horse catch ignorant people who are taken with shews and confident talk being unable to sift out truth and discern it from pretences A Catholick succession is in true construction a Protestant succession and the Popes of Rome it self Protestant Popes teaching in such writings as remain not the now Papal doctrine but in the main the Protestant though by some of them excessively magnifying their See and promoting rites of mens invention way was made for the after corruptions of the Papacy The term Pope was in former times given to other Bishops Presbyters yea and Deacons too besides the Bishop of Rome though now the title is appropriated to him who deserves not the name of Papa or Father as it was heretofore used as an honourable title of the reverend and godly teachers and officers in the church of God nor any other way I know except it be in the sense in which an Italian said of Innocent the eighth Octo nocens pueros genuit totidemque puellas Hunc merito poteris dicere Roma patrem Many of whose predecessors and successors have made it their work to advance their bastards rather then beget children to God by preaching the Gospel It is a notorious falshood that the catholick church was alwayes governed by a Pope in the first five centuries if he mean by Pope a Bishop of Rome It s manifest by many instances that the African and Asian churches were not governed by him in the second third fourth and fifth centuries sith they did oppose him as appears by the contentions between Victor and Polycrates and others That which we have seen in H. T. or Bellarmin or any other writer of the Popish party hath not yet made it so much as probable that the Catholick church hath now defined the now Roman tenets or condemned the Protestants nor is it of the essence of a Protestant as such to Protest against the Catholick church but against the errors and abominations of the now Roman party Nor hath H. T. or any other proved that the Protestant teachers protest against manifest revealed verities and the very fundamentals of the Christian faith however they do protest against the fundamentals of the new Popish faith the Popes monarchy transubstantiation c. H. T. adds St. Augustin St. Hierom and many others are divided in their opinions whether Linus or Clement immediately succeeded Peter Answ Be it so yet they all agreed in this that the succession was morally continued to which it is a thing indifferent whether Clement immediately succeeded him as he well might being his scholar or first Linus then Cletus and then Clement which is now the more common opinion of the church I reply what he means by morally continued I understand not nor know I any sense of that speech which serves to take away the force of the objection which is that if it be uncertain who succeeded Peter immediately then the tradition of the church unwritten or not written in the Bible is uncertain and that too in a main point which is fundamental with the Romanists the succession of their chief Pastors upon which the truth of their church and the rule of their faith depends and consequently the rule of the Romanists whereby to know what we are to believe hath a meer sandy foundation not being sufficient to build a divine and firm faith upon and the Protestants are no more to be blamed than the Romanists if they do not so exactly set down and prove their succession of Bishops as the Papists require sith the Papists themselves are deficient in their own catalogue and if the Protestants can prove their faith out of Scripture though they prove not such a succession as is demanded they may as well be concluded a true church as the Roman which answers the two first Articles of H. T. his Manual of controversies Besides the most ancient tradition they have to wit Irenaeus l. 3. adver haeres c. 3. saith that Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome and then delivered the Episcopacy of the church to be administred to Linus which was done in their life time and so Linus did not succeed Peter as Bishop of Rome for he was Bishop while Peter lived and so if Peter died Bishop of Rome there were more Bishops together and Irenaeus makes them successors of Paul as well as Peter nor were they successors to them as having the same office with them For they could not be Bishops of particular places fixed there as now the term is used it stood not with their commission which enjoyned them to go into all the world and to
preach the Gospel to every creature nor were they successors to them in their Apostleship for that particular office ceased with the first Apostles So that the truth is this conceit of succession is but a vain conceit though it be much magnified by H. T. and other Romanists for want of solid proof of their several doctrins out of Scripture or primitive antiquity I go on to the next Article ARTIC III. Popish Church visibility not necessary Such visibility of Succession as the Romanists require is not proved to be necessary to the being of a true Church SECT 1. Exteriour Consecration and Ordination of Ministers is not necessary to the being of a visible Church what H. T. requires of Ministers preaching and administring Sacraments is most defective in the Roman Church Our Tenet saith H. T. is that the Catholick and Apostolick Church of God hath had not onely a continued but also a visible Succession from Christ to this time c. which we prove thus 1. A Society of men which hath always in it exteriour Consecration and Ordination of Ministers preaching baptizing and administring Sacraments must of necessity be always visible But the Church of Christ is a society of men which hath always in it exteriour Consecration and Ordination of Ministere Therefore the Church of Christ must of necessity be always visible The Major is proved by evident reason because those are all outward and sensible actions which are inconsistent with an invisible society of actors The Minor is proved by Scripture Go ye teaching all Nations baptizing them c. And Behold I am with you all days c. St. Matth. 28. v. 20. He gave some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists and other some Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of the Saints Ephes 4. 11 12. Answ THe Tenet and the Conclusion of the Argument differ the Tenet asserting what hath been the Conclusion what of necessity must be the Tenet having for its Subject the holy Catholick and Apostolick Church of God the Conclusion the Church of Christ indefinite and both Tenet and Conclusion is granted but not in this Author's and other Romanists sense It is granted there hath been a Succession but not a continued number of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another in the profession of the same Faith meaning the now Roman from Christ and his Apostles to this time which H. T. in the former Article makes the Definition of Succession And visibility of each particular Church is granted but not of the Catholick as Catholick which as such is to be believed not seen And this visibility it is granted to be of some at some times not in the same splendor or conspicuity at all times nor to all persons But Protestants deny it visible always to all in so glorious and conspicuous an estate as Bellarmine asserts when he saith in his Book de Eccles Milit. cap. 2. That the Church is an Assembly of men so visible and palpable as is the Assembly of the People of Rome or the Kingdom of France or the Common-wealth of the Venetians so that we might grant his Tenet and Conclusion were it not that fraudulently there is more intended than is expressed which is needfull to be discovered For answer to it as it is the Major is granted if it be understood of visibility simply but if meant of such a conspicuous visibility as the Romanists assert it is to be denied In the Minor it is to be observed 1. That a distinction is made between exterior Consecration and Ordination which I judge to be done that thereby may be implied the distinction of Bishops who are consecrated not ordained from Presbyters whom they ordain not consecrate to have been always in the Church of Christ which is not right 2. That it is asserted that the Church of Christ is a society of men which hath always in it exteriour Consecration and Ordination of Ministers which is because he holds a true Church hath always such Ministers But as I said before that is not true no not in the Church of Rome in the vacancy of the See which hath been sometimes long and therefore it is not necessary to the being of a true Church that always the exterior Consecration and Ordination be continued and if it may be intermitted one two or ten years and yet the Church a true Church it may be an hundred and therefore the Minor is not to be granted if meant of exterior Consecration and Ordination of Bishops distinct from Presbyters and such a perpetuity as is without the least intermission nor do any of the Texts prove it For the Precept Matth. 28. 19 20. proves onely it ought to be not that it shall be and the Promise if it do prove that a Succession shall be yet it doth not prove such a Succession as shall have exterior Consecration and Ordination but such assistance in Preaching and Baptizing as shall uphold and prosper them in that Work nor is this assured to any one place but indefinitely to any persons in any place where this Work shall be continued And the other place Ephes 4. 11 12. proves not a certainty of the event which is asserted in the Minor but if the Gift be meant of Institution of what ouâ—ht to be it notes onely a certainty of Duty if of Donation of Abilities it notes not an exterior Consecration and Ordination but an act to be immediately from Christ himself or by his Spirit and so doth not prove a futurity of such Succession by outward Consecration and Ordination as H. T. brings it for Nevertheless this Author doth disadvantage his own party by this argâ—ing For 1. by this arguing he plainly makes the marks of the Church by which it is visible Preaching Baptizing and administring Sacraments which doth by good consequence infer that the Protestants do rightly make the Preaching of the Word and the administring of the Sacraments the notes of the visible Church which will make well for the Protestants by whom these are observed but ill for the Ministers of the Roman Church chiefly the Bishops of Rome who neither preach nor baptize nor administer Sacraments but do other acts of other kindes Nor to speak truth is almost any of their Preaching the Preaching of the Gospel but the Rites of the Roman Church extolling the Virgin Mary and other Saints excellency little of the Gospel or if any part of it it is likely the History of the Gospel in an historical fashion little of the mystery but in stead thereof such Doctrines of humane satisfactions for sin merit of good works are preached as do overthrow the Gospel And for Baptizing though Bellarmine tells us lib. 2. de bonis oper in partic cap. 17. that at Rome the old Custome is not abolished of Baptizing the Catechumeni at Easter but among the Papists chiefly in the City of Rome there is no year in which many catechized persons are not baptized at Easter yet the truth is there is
but they are not meerly visible believers as some Reprobates are who profess faith which they have not But the true Church of Christ against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail Matth. 16. 18. contains onely such believers as have that faith which is true and that Election of God which with their faith are invisible and so are rightly denominated the invisible Church from that which is more excellent and the Reprobate have not ARTIC IV. One Catholick Church not the Roman The Church of Rome is not that one Catholick Church which in the Apostolick and Nicene Creeds is made the Object of Christian Faith SECT I. Unity in non-fundamentals of Faith and Discipline is not essentially presupposed to the Universality of the Church Militant H. T. to his fourth Article gives this Title The true Church demonstrated by her Unity and Universality and then saith Unity being essentially presupposed to Universality I thought it not improper to joyn these two in one Article Answ IF this Authour had meant to deal plainly he should have told us what Unity is essentially presupposed to Universality and how the true Church is demonstrated by her Unity and Universality Unity in general is so far from being essentially presupposed to Universality in general that the contrary seems more true that one is not universal Unity not consistent with Universality it being in effect as if iâ— were said One is many or all yet I deny not some unity in special may be essentially presupposed to some universality in special There are many sorts of unity which Logicians and Writers of Metaphysicks reckon up in respect of which it is certain that the true Church of Christ cannot be said to be one as it cannot be said to be one with generical or specifical unity for that is not essentially presupposed to universality of time and place but is abstracted from it But he seems to mean unity in Doctrine Discipline and Faith by the words following Universality likewise is manifold as Logicians and Writers of Metaphysicks shew as there is an universality of predication of essence and existence Now this Authour seems to mean universality of existence for time and place and his meaning is this that unity of Doctrine Discipline and Faith is essentially presupposed to universality of existence for time and place that is that Church which hath not the same Doctrine Faith and Discipline which all Churches of Christ in all times and places have had is not the true Church of Christ and that which hath is the true Church of Christ Now these Propositions I grant if meant of Doctrine and Faith in the Fundamentals but not if meant of meer outward Church-discipline or Doctrine and Faith in points not fundamental having learned from the Apostle 1 Cor. 3. 11 12 13 14. that some may build Hay and Stubble that is some errors upon the foundation Christ who yet may be saved which they could not be if they were not of the true Church of Christ or that is no true Church of Christ which consists of such In like manner the Apostle Rom. 14. 2. expresly tells us in the Church of Rome one did believe he might eat all things and another did eat herbs one esteemed one day above another others esteemed every day alike and yet God received them both and they were Gods servants v. 3 4 5. And that in Discipline there may be disagreement yea Schism and disorder is apparent from the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 1. 11 12. 51. 6. 7. 11. 17 c. 14. 26. 15. 12. who are termed the Church of God 1 Cor. 1. 2. And therefore without distinction and due limitation which this Authour omits his Position is not true But let 's view what he writes SECT II. The antiquity of H. T. his saying of the Roman Church its unity and universality is shewed Now saith H. T. that the church of Rome is both perfectly one and also universal for time and place is thus demonstrated Answ HEre again this Authour deals sophistically putting the Roman church for the true church as if they were the same and not explaining what he means by the Roman church which may eitherâ— signifie the church that is in Rome which is the expression of the Apostle Rom. 1. 7. or the Church where ever it be which holds the Roman faith And this Roman faith may be either the faith in all points which now at this day the Bishop and Priests and People dwelling at Rome hold or which the Christians at Rome held in the days of Paul and some Ages after If it be meant in this this last sense the true Church is no more the Roman church than Corinthian nor so much as the Hierosolymitan whence all churches received the faith if in the former sense the term is not according to the ancient use either in Scripture or ancient Ecclesiastick Writers though I conceive it so meant by this Authour To be perfectly one is also ambiguous it may be meant either that they have not the least disagreement in Doctrine Discipline and Faith or they hold the same Faith and Doctrine in the main or points fundamental To be universal for time and place may be either meant thus that the persons now termed the Roman church are universal for time and place But this is contrary to sense it being known by it that they were born within a certain definite time at certain definite places not in all times and every place existent or that the faith which now the Romanists hold is that which in all times and places the true church of God hath held And this we deny if it be meant of the Articles in Pope Pius the fourth his Creed and are willing to put all our controversies to this issue But H. T. looks quite awry from this as will appear by viewing his dispute which is thus SECT III. Unity under one visible bead without division in lesser points and disciplin is not proved from 1 Cor. 10. 17. Ephes 1. 22 23. John 10. 16. 1 Cor. 1. 10. Act. 4. 32. John 17. 11. and the Nicene Creed H. T. saith The argument for unity The church of Christ is one body one fold or flock of which he himself is the supreme invisible head and the Pope his deputy on earth the visible or ministerial But the Roman Catholick church and no other is this one body one sold or flock therefore the Roman Catholick church and no other is the church of Christ The Major is proved We are one bread and one body as many as participate of one bread 1 Cor. 10. 18. He hath made him Christ head over all the Church which is his body Ephes 1. 22 23. There shall be made one fold and one Pastor John 10. 16. I beseech you that you all speak one thing and that there be no Schisms among you but that ye be perfect in one sense and one judgement 1 Cor. 1. 10
off from the unity of the Catholick church they own Christ their head and faith in him which is sufficient to save them and even by this Authors next argument enough to make them members of the Catholick church 2. The Schisms and divisions of the Papists have been and are as great as the divisions of the Protestants In former ages there were many Schisms even in the church of Rome between the several Popes at one time and the factions among the people about Popes and Emperours and other quarrels Onuphrius reckons up thirty Bellarmin himself twenty six Schisms one after another sometimes one Pope condemning what another had done and excommunicating and persecuting Emperours Antipapes and all that have adhered to them Besides the contentions about the Virgin Maries immaculate conception about the superiority of a council above the Pope about Priests marriages election of Popes investiture of Bishops have been so great and frequent and of long continuance as their own histories shew that they far exceed the Protestants divisions The divisions in this last age and some at this day to wit in and since the council of Trent between Catharinus Soto Vega Andradius about certainty of salvation Pighius and others about inherent righteousness the Spanish and other Bishops and the Papalins about the divine right of Bishops and their residence not deriving their Episcopacy from the Pope the French churches not acknowledging the Bishop of Rome above a council nor yet receiving the Trent council the two Popes Sixtus the fifth and Clement the eighth about the vulgar translation both enjoyning each of their editions and no other as the right copy to be received under penalty of a curse though one in many places contradict the other as Dr. James in his Bellum Papale shews from which no Papists have or can vindicate the two Popes the divisions in England and Ireland between the secular Priests and the Jesuits about Episcopal jurisdiction and visitations between Papists in Italy at Venice and in England about the Popes power in temporal things over Princes in France and England about the lawfulness of killing Kings excommunicated by the Pope in England and France about Jesuitical equivocation at this day between Dominicans and Jesuits Jansenists and Molâ—nists about Gods predeterminations efficacious and sufficient grace and mans freewill have been and are at this day as great or greater in respect of the things in which they differ the continuance of them the parties differing and their bitterness one to another then the Protestants divisions and therefore the brag of H. T. concerning the Popish unity that Catholicks are perfectly one both in discipline and doctrine all the world over even to the least article or point of faith is a falshood apparent to all well read scholars though the simple English Papists from whom the truth of these things is concealed are made to believe by their Priests disguises and pretences as if it were so Nor doth that which H. T. here saith salve the matter and if it did the Protestants have as good a plea for themselves notwithstanding their divisions in respect of means for unity For 1. The Papists all the world over are not so subordinate to the Pope as to acknowledge his superiority to a council but that they have and think they may appeal from the Pope to a general council which may judge the Pope an heretick and depose him yea and take away the Pope altogether if they see it necessary nor do the Jansenists acquiesce in the late Pope Innocents determination at this day nor do the Sorbonists in France acknowledge the Popes power in temporals or the Venetians the Popes power to interdict their state and meddle with their government in exempting Ecclesiasticks from their jurisdiction 2. That which he saith of the Catholick church as the immediate and authorized proponent of all revealed verities and the infallible Judge of controversies is either nonsense or false or that which Papists reject in Protestants If they mean by the Catholick church the Pope or the Pope with his Cardinals or a council it is ridiculous nonsense to call any or all of them the Catholick church which according to their own Tridentin Catechism contains all believers from Adam to this day or that shall be hereafter and according to this Author p. 59. is coexistent with all times and spread or diffused over all places or if it be understood according to good sense it is most false For the Catholick church properly so called as it is in the Creed is neither mediate nor immediate proponent of all revealed verities much less authorized thereto nor do Papists so look on them For many of the Papists go no further than the present Pope or council or their Priests who only are to most the immediate proponents but rest in their determinations and adhere to what they determine with an implicite faith and blind obedience never enquiring what all believers have held or done before them Nor is it possible they should have resolution from the Catholick church properly understood as in the Creed it is believed for it is invisible they never did together express their determination in all points of faith have varied in many nor could it be known to others of their own time if they had much less to the believers of this age Nor is the Catholick church fit to be the mediate or immediate proponent of all revealed verities nor fit for such an authority as to be infallible Judge of controversies for to say the Catholick church is such is to say the university of believers is such of whom a great part are women a great part ignorant persons altogether uncapable of such an office yea it is contrary to the Apostle Pauls resolution 1 Cor. 12. 28 29. who tells us that God hath set some in the Church first Apostles then Prophets thirdly Teachers not the church to be teachers which is all one with proponents of revealed verities but teachers in the church and these are denied to be all the church when he saith ver 29. Are all teachers And to make them infallible is contrary to the Apostle Rom. 3. 4. where he saith let God he true and every man a lyar surely then not an infallible Judge of controversies yea should this be granted it would bring all confusion into the churches of God Nor can the speech have any good sense that the Catholick church is Judge in controversies but this which Protestants indeed rightly teach that every man is to judge for himself not for others with a judgement of discerning what doctrine or points of faith he hears and receives yet requiring upon pain of damnation that they be careful in examining what they embrace which the Papists do so much inveigh against falsly as if it were a leaving every man to his private spirit though they do in this no otherwise than Papists must of necessity yeild to each man when the determinations of Popes
Catholick for time and place is not the church of Christ 2. But the Protestant church and the like may be said of all other Sectaries is not universal or Catholick for time and place 3. Therefore the Protestant church is not the church of Christ The Major hath been proved before The Minor is proved because before Luther who lived little above â—ixscore years ago there were no Protestants to be found in the whole world as hath been proved by us and confessed by our adversaries To which you may adde they have never yet been able to convert any one Nation from infidelity to the faith of Christ nor ever had communion with all nations nor indeed any perfect communion among themselves therefore they cannot be the Catholick Church Answ The Major That church which is not universal for time and place is not the Church of Christ If meant of actual or aptitudinal universality is not true For the church of the Jews afore Cornelius was converted by Peter had been no church of Christ which was actually yea and aptitudinally that is according to Peters and other Christians circumcised their opinions and intentions to be confined to the Jews and therefore no other church than on earth were or was believed by Peter and those who contended with him Act. 11. 2. and yet there was a Church of Christ before as is manifest from Acts 2. 47. But if the Major be understood of universality of faith thus That church which is not universal for time and place by holding the faith once delivered by the Apostles to the Saints is not the church of Christ it is granted but in that sense the Minor is false the Protestants church is universal for time and place that is holds the same faith which was in all places preached by the Apostles and Apostolical teachers to believers And in this sense Protestants have been in every age before Luther and have as really converted Nations from infidelity to the faith of Christ as the Popish church or Teachers and have had more perfect communion with all Nations and among themselves then Papists as such have had and the Papists have not been so but have held a new faith not embraced by a great part of Christians nor in all places received or known nor for many hundreds of years taught in the churches but lately by the Italian faction devised to uphold the Popes tyranny and their own gain And therefore I retort the argument thus That church which is not universal or Catholick for the time and place is not the church of Christ But the Popish Roman church is not universal or Catholick for time and place but is of late standing therefore it is not the true church of Christ SECT VII The words of Irenaeus Origen Lactantius Cyril of Hierusalem Augustin are not for the universality of H. T. which he asserts the Catholicism of the Roman church but against it AS for the words of the Fathers which H. T. allegeth on this Article they are not for H. T. his purpose to prove that that is the only true church which is subject to the Bishop of Rome or that the Roman church is the Catholick church but they prove the contrary For the words of Irenaem l. 4. adv haereses c. 43. are these Wherefore we ought to obey those Presbyters which are in the church those which have succession from the Apostles as we have shewed who with the succession of Bishoprick have received the certain gift of truth according to the pleasure of the Father but to have the rest suspected either as hereticks and of evil opinion or as renters and lifted up and pleasing themselves or again as hypocrites working for gain and vain glories sake who depart from the original succession and are gathered in every place For all these fall from the truth By which it may be perceived 1. That H. T. omitted sundry words which would have shewed that Presbyters and Bishops were all one 2. That Irenaeus requires that those to whom he would have obedience given be such as have not only succession of place but also the certain gift of truth Whence it follows 1. That this speech doth not prove that we are to obey only the Bishop of Rome or the Roman Church but any Presbyters 2. That the succession required is not confined to Rome but extended to any place 3. That succession to any of the Apostles as well as Peter is termed original succession 4. That Presbyters who in any place depart not from the truth are in the church And therefore this place is so far from proving the necessity of unity with the Roman church or that it is the Catholick church that it proves the contrary The words of Origen are not for H. T. which require no other doctrine to be kept but that which is by order of succession from the Apostles and remains in the church to his time For neither do they say the church is only the Roman church nor that doctrine to be kept which remains in it or that which is delivered from Peter only or by order of succession from his chair or is delivered by unwritten tradition but that which is delivered any way from the Apostles by succession in any place The words of Lactantius are lesse for H. T. which do not at all call the Roman the Catholick church nor say in it only is Gods true worship and service and hope of life but in the Catholick church that is the Church of true believers all over the world as the words of Cyril of Hierusalem next alleged do shew in which is nothing for H. T. or against us And for the words of Augustin in his Book de vera religione cap. 7. We must hold the communion of that church which is called catholick both by her own and strangers they are maimedly recited Augustin saying that we are to hold the Christian Religion and communion of that church not onely which is named catholick but which is catholick and is named catholick and cap. 6. he explains what is meant by Catholick church per totum orbem validè latéque diffusa spread over the whole World firmly and largely and of the Religion which he terms the History and Prophecy of the temporal dispensation of the divine Providence for the salvation of mankinde to be reformed and repaired unto eternal life Whereby it may be perceived that he neither accounted that Christian Religion which is about the Bishop of Rome's power or any of the Popish Tenets which Protestants deny but the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ nor the catholick church the Roman onely but the Christian church throughout the World which consists of them who are named Christians Catholicks or Orthodox that is Keepers of integrity and followers of the things which are right as he speaks cap. 5. And for the words of Augustine Epist 152. that whosoever is divided from the catholick church how laudable soever he seems to himself to
live c. he shall be excluded from life they are impudently appropriated to the Roman church For a few lines before Augustine declares whom he calls the catholick church that which is spread over the earth which is designed by the divine testimonies of holy Scriptures which beginning from Hierusalem increased in places in which the Apostles preached and have written the names of the same places in their Epistles and Acts and was spread over the other Nations So that clearly Augustine tells us it was not the Roman Church onely which he meant by the Catholick but also the Corinthian Ephesian Thessalonian and all the rest in the world And therefore it is apparent that neither this not any other Father understood by the Catholick Church the Roman onely and those who acknowledged the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy nor did they hold a necessity of union with it SECT VIII That it is non-sense or falshood to term the Roman Church the Catholick Church and the shifts of H. T. to avoid this Objection are discovered H. T. adds Object The Roman Catholick Church is a particular Church therefore it is not Catholick or Universal Answ I distinguish your Antecedent the Roman Church as taken onely for the congregation of Rome or Italy is a particular Church I grant as taken for the whole collection of Churches holding communion with the See of Rome I deny it For so it is an universal Church containing all particular Churches as all the parts are contained in the whole and in this acception also it is called the Roman church because the particular Roman church is the mother church and hath a power of headship and jurisdiction over all the rest Object How can a church of one denomination be universal Answ I have told you already by the extent and latitude of her power which is over all So a particular man is called a General by reason of his power over all the Army I Reply Protestants do rightly object that the terming of the Roman church catholick is according to the right sense of words to speak contradictions to call that the whole which is not the whole but a part universal which is onely particular The Answer is by a Distinction which is meer non-sense The Church of Rome as taken onely for the congregation of Rome or Italy is a particular Câ—urch as taken for the whole collection of churches holding communion with the See of Rome so it is universal But was ever such language used by any Apostle or Ancient to term the Church of Rome any other than the believers dwelling or being at Rome Did ever any of the first Ages term the congregation of Italy or the whole collection of churches holding communion with the See of Rome the Roman church Paul when he wrote to the Church of Rome wrote to all that were in Rome Rom. 1. 7. and Ignatius the Martyr when he wrote to the Church of Rome terms it the Church which is seated in a place of the Region of Romans and the old Councils termed the Bishop of Rome The Arch-bishop of old Rome to distinguish it from new Rome and a Roman Synod is always meant of a Synod in the City of Rome If the new-minted gibberish of these men be received then the Church of Millain of Paris of Toledo and the rest are all one with the Roman Church and the Bishop of Millain c. the Bishop of Rome Who would not think that man crazed that should talk or write so By this kinde of talk the Roman Church should not be one and the Corinthian another but the Roman church the Corinthian Ephesian and all and the Apostle writing to the Corinthian should write to the Roman Church charging the Corinthian with Schisms should charge the Roman But this new canting Language is fit for these Juglers who have by such terms bewitched silly Papists to receive their new Doctrine H. T. saith As the Roman church is the collection of all churches holding communion with the See of Rome so it is an universal church containing all particular churches as all the parts are contained in the whole I reply Neither doth he shew any approved Authour for his speech nor what sort of parts other particular Churches are as they are contained in the Roman as the whole He will not make it an universal whole which is predicate or said on more churches in quid that is when the question is what the more churches are to say they are the Roman For then it were true to say the church of Naples is the Roman and so of other churches If any were asked who is in his wits What is the church of Naples Would he say It is the church of Rome Nor are other churches essential parts For then the Roman church should not be if the churches of Naples c. were not if they apostarize the church of Rome ceaseth to be Nor will it be said other churches are integral parts For then the church of Rome should be maimed and be but half a church if they revolted from the faith or obedience to the See or church of Rome What other parts he means I understand not nor do I think H. T. distinctly knows himself but that he is used to this unintelligible Jesuitical non-sense of Roman catholick church Sure before he made this the definition of catholick that it is nothing else but to be coexistent with all time and to be spread or diffused over all places according to which by terming the church of Rome catholick he should mean that the Roman church hath been in all places since Christ built this church and in every place of the world but both these are palpable Lies contrary to all Histories and sense nor in this sense should it be as a whole that hath parts but be the onely and an ubiquetary church But he gives two Reasons of this Title that it is the Mother Church and hath power of headship and jurisdiction over all the rest I reply 1. that both these are manifestly false For the Roman Church is not the mother Church in any true sense It is a saying indeed that God is a believers Father and the Church his Mother But however the Ancients have used it yet the Scripture saith not so nor is it in any good sense true For the church is but a congregation of believers who are first such aâ—ore they are a church now then the sense must be the church that is believers are the mother of believers that is the church which is ridiculous It is true it is said Gal. 4. 26. The Jerusalem which is above is free which is the mother of us all but that is the Evangelical covenant v. 24. not the church Nor is there any thing done by the Church or upon the church from which in a meet resemblance the church may be termed the mother of believers They are the Preachers of the Gospel not the church who bring forth souls to
Christ If the term Mother Church be from hence that from it the Gospel went forth it can be meant of none but Jerusalem from whence the Gospel went into all the world not from the Roman church Nor is it true that the Roman church hath the power of headship over all the rest no not according to the Papists own opinion which is that the Bishop of Rome hath this power and that it belongs to his pastoral office now I suppose they will not say the church hath the pastoral office or that they are Pastors if they should they must make Women who are of the Church as well as Men Pastors and all the Believers who are the church Pastors as well as the Bishop aud if the church be Pastors or have power of jurisdiction who are the Sheep who are to be fed and over whom this jurisdiction is to be exercised But if they mean onely by the church universal the Pope of Rome then all that is to be enquired is who is the true Pope when enquiry is made which is the true church and when there is no Pope then there is no church and when the Pope is uncertain it is uncertain which is the church So ridiculous is the Papists talk and dispute about the church that there is no tolerable sense can be made with truth of the Roman church being catholick the mother of churches having power of Headship and Jurisdiction over all churches Nor is it true that the Pope of Rome hath either of right or in possession such power not of right as shall be shewed art 7. where it will appear that the claim to it is meerly impudent and arrogant without any colour of right nor in possession For besides the Protestant churches the Greek churches neither now nor heretofore when unquestionably orthodox were ever subject to the Romish Bishop Yet were these things granted to H. T. that the Roman church were Mother and Head is this a fit reason to term it catholick Will any call a mother of twenty children all her twenty children Will any man call Julius Caesar because Dictator of Rome or the Roman Senate because Rulers all the Roman people or all the people of that Empire H. T. his instance is frivolous Though men call the Rulers of an Army the Captain General yet not a general man or the universal Army and sutably if it were allowed that the Bishop of Rome were universal Bishop yet in no good sense could he or the Roman church be termed the universal church But this talk about the Roman catholick church is manifestly ridiculous non-sense or false H. T. adds Object You communicate not with us and many others therefore your communion is not catholick or universal Answ I grant the Antecedent but deny the Consequent For universal communion requires not communion with all particular sects or persons but onely with all true believers no A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition avoid Tit. 3. 10 11. Answ To catholick communion is requisite communion with all Christian churches though not with all particular sects And that the Protestant churches are no Hereticks is manifest from their confessions which agree with the Scripture Doctrine although Papists do clamorously term them such and destroy them as such and therein shew themselves Successours to Nero not to Peter whereas Papists are the most manifest Schismaticks and greatest Hereticks that ever were I pass on to the next Article ARTIC V. The Roman Church is neither proved to be the Catholick Church nor the highest visible Judge of Controversies nor is it proved that she is infallible both in her Propositions and Definitions of all Points of Faith nor to have power from God to oblige all men to believe her under pain of damnation but all this is a meer impudent and arrogant claim of Romanists that hath no colour of proof from Scripture or Antiquity SECT I. The deceit of H. T. is shewed in asserting an Infallibility and Judicature of Controversies in the Church which he means of the Pope H. T. entitles his fifth Article thus The churches infallibility demonstrated and saith Our Tenet is that the Roman catholick church is the highest visible Judge of controversies and that she is infallible both in her Propositions and Definitions of all points of faith having a power from God to oblige all men to believe her under pain of damnation And six pages after p. 70. he saith thus Note here for your better understanding this whole Question that when we affirm the Church is infallible in things of faith by the word Church we understand not onely the Church diffused over all the World unanimously teaching whose Doctrine of Faith we hold to be infallible but also the Church represented in a Council perfectly oecumenical that is to say called out of the whole world and approved by the Pope whose Definitions of Faith we hold to be infallible Ans WE have here a most arrogant proud claim like that of the King of Tyrus Ezek. 28. 2 3. I am God I sit in the seat of God there is no secret that they can hide from me For what is this less which is here ascribed to meer men often the worst of men than the prerogative of the Son of God surely it's more than Angels have Job 4. 18 But though this Author is bold enough in the title and tenet yet in his after note he hath such subterfuges as shew his despair of making it good and his deceitful mockage of his unwary reader For 1. He deals like a sophister that after his arguments states the question 2. He doth so shift off this infallibility from one to another that he knows not well where to fix it Fain he would fasten it on the Pope as he doth in a manner at last and Hart more plainly confesseth with Rainold ch 7. divis 7. though it behove the Pope to use the advise of his brethren and therefore I spake of Confistories Courts and Councils yet whether he follow their advise or no his decrees are true But then the arguments from Scripture and Fathers which speak of the church not of the Pope had appeared to be impertinent Therefore he doth not in plain words disclaim it's infallibility but saith When we affirm the church is infallible in things of faith by the word church we understand not only the church diffused over all the world unanimously teaching whose doctrines of faith we hold to be infallible Wherein you may perceive 1. Egregious vanity in making the Roman church Catholick 2. The Church diffused over all the world teaching 3. Teaching unanimously which are all like a sick mans dreams of a golden mountain there having never been any such thing as this in the world nor ever is likely to be 2. Egregious deceit in the terming this church infallible Judge of controversies propounding and defining points of faith having power from God to oblige all men under pain of
do prove the infallibility of the Roman Church or Oecumenical council or Pope but are impiously wrested to uphold the most cruel tyranny that ever was in the world SECT IV. None of these texts Matth. 28. 20. 1 Tim. 3. 15. Matth. 16. 18. John 14. 26. John 16. 23. Act. 15. 28. do prove the infallibility in points of faith of the Catholick or Roman Church or the Pope or a general council approved by him H. T. adds a third argument for the Churches infallibilâ—ty thus If Christ be alwayes with his Church and have made her the pillar and firmament of truth against which the gates of hell heresies shall not prevail and given her the holy Ghost to assist her to all truth so that her definitions in an approved general council are the very dictates of the holy Ghost then is it impossible the Church should erre in faith But all this Christ hath done for his Church therefore it is impossible the Church should erre in faith The sequel of the Major is manifest by the very terms of the supposition the Minor is proved go ye teaching all Nations c. And behold I am with you all daies he is with her teaching St. Matth. 28. 20. The house of God which is the pillar and firmament of truth 1 Tim. 3. 15. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it St. Matth. 16. 18. He will give you another paraclere that he may abide with you for ever â—c He shall teach you all things and suggest to you all things whatsoever I shall say to you in all points of faith St. John 14. 26. He shall â—â—ach you all truth no errors St. John 16. 13. It hath seemed good say the Apostles in council to the holy Ghost and to us Act. 15. 28. Answ This Author still abuseth his reader by putting his conclusion otherwise then his tenet For whereas his tenet was that the Roman Catholick Church is infallible he puts his conclusion thus the Church is infallible as if the Church and the Catholick Church were all one and the Catholick and the Roman were all one and the Church of Christ and the visible Church militant were the same which are indeed fallacies which easily take with silly or prejudiced Papists that take what is said of the Church to be meant of the visible militant Church and what is said of the visible militant to be said of the Catholick Church and by the Catholick imagin the Roman meant and by the Roman the Pope But to discover the vanity of this argument 1. The sequel of the Major is denied nor is it manifest by the terms of the supposition For Christs presence is with every believer and he hath made every believer a pillar and firmament of truth and against every true believer the gates of hell heresies shall not prevail and he hath given the holy Ghost to every true believer to assist him to all truth as well as to the Church and his definitions are the very dictates of the holy Ghost when he defines according to Scripture and yet it is not impossible he should erre in faith Christ hath made promises of his presence and of his spirit and his spirit is said to be in and with every true believer as well as the Church Rom. 8. 1 9 15. 1 Cor. 6. 19. 2 Cor. 1. 22. and 13. 5. Gal. 4 6. Ephes 1. 13. 2 Cor. 6. 16. John 10 16 27 28 29. and yet believers may erre in faith Rom. 14. 2 3 5. 1 Cor. 15. 12. Gal. 3. 1. and 4. â—0 21. And therefore it is not true which this Author supposeth manifest Not is the Minor trâ—e or proved by the texts he brings For the promise Matth. 28 20. is not to the Church but to the Apostles and other teachers who succeed them nor is the promise made to them that they should teach no error in faith but that teaching as H. T. speaks or as long as they teach the true faith he would be with them by assisting and prospering them in their work The words 1 Tim. 3. 15 may be meant of the mystery of godliness mentioned v. 16. thus the Mystery of godliness is the pillar and firmament ground or seat of truth and without controverâ—ie great which I do conceive after Cameron and others to be the truest exposition as the same Apostle in other places gives such elogies to the great points of faith 1 Tim. 1. 15. and 4. 9. and 2 Tim. 2. 11. and the conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ver 16. doth make it very probable Nor doth Grotius his reason avoid it For the mystery even according to this exposition is the subject not the predicate Others refer it to Timoâ—hy but then it should be in the accusative case But let it be granted that it is meant of the Church which is said that it is the pillar and firmament of truth yet it is certain from the very words that it is meant of that Church in which Timothy was directed how to behave himself which was the Church of Ephesus as appears 1 Tim. 1. 3. not the Church of Rome and therefore must be understood in such a sense as agrees to it which the Papists themselves will not say was infallible or could not erre in faith And therefore they must yeild it to be meant either of what they were in duty to be or what they were actually thus they were such as by profession and practice did hold forth and maintain and uphold the truth in those parts not that they held nothing but tenets nor so held forth the truth but that they might erre and decay in their holding out the truth For it is certain they did so Rev. 2. 4 5. Act. 20. 29 30. The terms the pillar and firmament or ground or seat of truth are but metaphors and whereas there are these two things signified by hem 1. The upholding of the truth so as that otherwise it should fall 2. The fixing of the truth there so as that it should abide and be permanent there doubtlesse the former sense cannot be true For though God should have no Church on earth or in heaven no Apostle Prophet Bishop yet his truth would be upheld his word is for ever settled in heaven Psal 119. 89. Christ who is the truth John 14. 6. abides for ever and the spirit of truth remains for ever and will uphold his truth If it were as some of the Romanists say the Church only abode in the Virgin Mary at Christs death or as others say in the time of Antichrist there shall be no sacrifice nor ceremonies nor religion yet the Gospel of Christ shall be everlasting as the Angel terms it Revel 14. 6. therefore of necessity it must be understood in that sense in which it notes stability permanency fixednesse or abiding and the sense is the Church is the company among whom the truth abides unshaken in which sense Revel 3. 12. it is said him that overcometh will
I make a pillar in the Temple of my God and he shall go no more out And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used 1 Cor. 7. 37. for stedfast and 1 Cor. 15. 58. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stedfast unmoveable are made synonymous and Col. 1. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 grounded and setled in the faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not moved away from the hope So that the meaning is no more but this the Church of the living God is not a tile which is often shaken and blown down with the winde but a pillar that abides unshaken and the seat or ground or basis of truth where it abides being received and embraced by it Which is to be understood of the invisible Church of true believers and though not of every truth yet of the main truth of the Gospel as it is termed Gal. 1. 5. the Word of truth James 1. 18. the truth John 17. 17. which is expressed in the next words 1 Tim. 3. 16. from which he foretels an Apostasie 1 Tim. 4. 1. and cannot be meant of any truth whatsoever which may be in controversie For it is certain no meer mortal man nor all men were ever so infallible Which being rightly understood makes nothing for infallibility in all points which the Catholick Roman Church Oecumenical council or Pope or all together shall define as H. T. would have it The next text Matth. 16. 18. is as little to his purpose For it is not said against the Roman Church much lesse it is said against an Oecumenical council or the Pope of Rome the gates of hell shall not prevail but against my Church that is Christs wheresoever 2. Nor is it proved that by the gates of hell are meant heresies as this Author supposeth The truth is however by the modern use the term hell is appropriated almost to the place of the damned and the tormented there yet the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated hell is either never or not many times used in the bible for that place or those persons nor was of old the word hell appropriated to that place of torment but meant of the grave or the state of the dead in which sense it was meant of old that Christ went into hell that is for a time to abide among the dead as the learned Usher proves in his answer to the Jesuits challenge ch 8. and the gates of hell are no more than the gates of death or the grave as Isa 38. 10 Psal 9. 13. c. is meant So that the meaning of Matth. 16. 18. is no more but this the gates of hell or the grave that is death shall not so prevail against my Church but that I will raise it up at the last day to life eternal as our Lord Christ speaks John 6. 39. Which being the genuine meaning it is true onely of the church of the elect not of the meer visible nor of that is such a prevalency denied but that they may erre in faith however it be assured that it shall not erre in faith finally to perdition The next Text John 14. 26. is ill translated shall suggest to you all things whatsoever I shall say to you the words being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is he shall minde you of all things which I have said to you nor is this meant onely in points of faith as this Authour adds without any reason in the Text that he might restrain it to them in which he would have the church to be accounted infallible but also in matters of practise and this is meant onely of the Apostles as the words which I have said to you and particularities expressed vers 25 28 29. chap. 15. 27. chap. 16 4 6 12 13. shew And in like manner is the next Text John 16. 13. appropriate to the Apostles to whom the words were spoken Nor are the words restrained to matters of faith but extended also to points of practise and there is a promise of shewing them also things to come Which argues plainly that it is not a promise to the whole Church or Pope or Council or every particular believer sith it is certain that to none of these it is verified they have not things to come shewed to them according to that promise and therefore it must needs be impertinently alleged by H. T. to prove his Minor The last Text Acts 15. 28. H. T. himself confesseth was said by the Apostles in council not by Peter onely nor by a council without the Apostles much less by any Bishop of one City as Rome is and therefore proves not any unerringness in any but the Apostles nor in them at all times in all points of faith but onely their not erring in their determination at that time So that his Texts do none of them prove his Minor SECT V. There may be good assurance of the Word of God and its meaning and of our salvation without supposing the churches infallibility H. T. adds The consequence is confirmed because were not the Church infallible in things of faith we could have no infallible assurance at this distance what were the Word of God what not or what is the true sense and meaning of any one Book or Chapter in the whole Bible nor consequently of our salvation since without faith it is impossible to please God Heb. 11. 6. Answ H. T. Hath here vented a most poysonous and impious speech which tends to ruine the Foundation of Christian Faith and to promote Atheism yea in seeking to promote the arrogant claim of the Roman Bishop he doth by his arguing quite pull it down For if there be no infallible assurance without the churches infallibility in things of faith what is the Word of God what not nor what is the meaning of one Book or Chapter in the whole Bible then there is no certainty but from the Churches testimony of the truth of Christian Religion and that being questioned we have no way to convince an Atheist or Jew or Maâ—omâ—tan who deny such inâ—allibility nor hath the Pope any way to prove his Supremacy or Transubstantiation to be certain points of Faith but by the Churches infallibility that is indeed his own saying in which he that believes him upon no better ground is departed from faith in God to faith in a confesâ—edly sinfull and oft times notoriously wicked man and so makes not God's authority the formal moâ—ive and object of his faith as H. T. said pag. 58. falsly the Romanists do Besides how injurious is it to God to make him to have delivered his minde so as none can understand it without the Pope or a Council approved by him of whom according to H. T. his Doctrine who saith pag. 202. that sense cannot judge at all of substance though it be under sensible accidents there is no certainty whether they be men or not if we cannot judge of substance by sense Surely Christ did very ill to direct Infidels to search the Scriptures John 5.
39 and never to repair to the Church to be resolved in points of faith if H. T. say true How much doth he abase the credit of the Scripture who makes it to depend on mens for such is the Churches pretended infallibility report and ascribes it to Popes and Councils who do oft contradict themselves and one another which is onely to be had from God and his Word What is this but as in another case Tertullian said of the Roman Senates decreeing who should be worshipped as God God shall not be God unless man will so Gods Word shall not be his Word unless man will Which is so much the worse in H. T. who Art 8. ascribes that assurance to unwritten tradition of which there is no assurance but from men confessedly fallible as shall be shewed Art 8. which he denies to be from Scripture as if the obscure tradition of unknown persons from Age to Age were more certain than the great written tradition received from Apostles by the whole Church Besides how doth he reckon of all other besides Popes and Councils as if they were all idiots and fools that they can understand no Chapter of the Bible without the Pope who hath been sometimes altogether unlearned What Blockheads would he have men think themselves after all their study of Languages and Arts and of the Scripture that yet they cannot be certain what is the true sense and meaning of Matth. 4. Acts 8. or any other Chapter in the Bible unless the Church that is the Pope tell them Why do not all their Commentators and Preachers first ask the Pope of the meâ—ning of the Scripture afore they by writing or preaching take on them to expound it Why doth not the Pope forbid them to expound till they have consulted him Will â—e permiâ— them to teach that of which they have no infallible assurance Why doth he tie men to follow the consent of Fathers as Pope Pius the fourth in his Bull did if the Fathers yield no infallible assurance of the true meaning of any Chapter in the Bible without the Churches that is the Popes or his Councells infallibility How did it come to pass that the Fathers Chrysostome Hiâ—rome c. did so well expound the Scriptures as that their consent must be the Rule of modern Exposition Did they first consult the Church or the Church them Pope Damasus I believe had more help from Hierome to expound Scripture by than Hierome from Dâ—mâ—sus Have the Popes any better means to expound Scripture by than the Fathers or the Fathers than other learned men in these days Wherein did any of the Fathers exceed Cajetan Arias Montaâ—us and such learned Romanists or any of all the Popes after the Apostles days in ability to open Scripture Would not such men as these secretly disdain and smile in scorn if any should prefer any of the best Expoâ—itions of Popes before their own Will the Jansenians or Moliniâ—â—s think either the late Pope Innocent or the present Pope Alexander more infallible in their Eâ—positions than themselves I trow not so little is the pretended infallibility of the Church esteemed when it toucheth themselves however they make a great noise of it against Protestants yea some Papists have well preferred the Expositions of later Writers before the Fathers and Councils and Popes giving this for a Reason that later Writers have had more help in that they have had their own abilities and diligence to boot for finding the meaning of Scripture besides the Fathers Writings and may see farther than they did as a Childe set on a Giants shoulder as Banner did fitly express it Do not at this day the learned Expositors reject the Expositions of Fathers and Popes and Councils Doth not Maldonat the Jesuit expresly reject in his Commentâ—ry on John 6. 53. the Exposition of that Verse by which Pope Innocent Augustine and many of the Fathers following held the giving the Eucharist to Infants necessary to their salvation which the Council of Trenâ— it self doth condemn So sottish a conceit hath H. T. here vented that doubtless none but the ignorant sort of Popish Proselytes can believe him in if they do not resolve not to seem to see what they do see But were it granted that the Church were infallible I would fain know how H. T. can demonstrate who or which is that Church which is infallible or give assurance at this distance from Rome that this or that point of faith is thus determined by that infallible Church Will he make every Priest or Legate or Register of the Pope to be infallible If not let him tell me how he is infallibly assured that Pope Innocent the third or the Latâ—ran Council did define Transubstantiation or Pope Leo the tenth and the last Lateran Council the Popes Supremacy If he say by universal tradition or the Records which are kept and are to be seen and the agreement of opposite parties though in the points named there are none of these means which do give such assurance of those determinations as is given by them of the Scriptures sure me thinks H. T. who makes such determinations to be assuredly theirs upon such or the like Reasons of their credibility should yield that there is more assurance from these without the infallibility of the Church of the holy Scriptures being Gods Word and the true sense and meaning of it Will H. T. be more unbelieving than a Jew who acknowledgeth the Books of Moses the Psalms and Prophets to be Gods Word Will he not allow that to a Christian which the Jew had to wit assurâ—nce infallible from Micah 5. 2. that the Messiasâ—hould â—hould be born at Beâ—hlehem without the Churches infallibility Will H. T. think he can make such men as Arias Montanus or Cardinal Cajâ—tan and other learned Romanists believe that they are not certain of the Gospel of Matthew to be Gods Word or of the true sense and meaning of the third fourth fifth sixth seventh Chapters thereof without the Churches declaration Did they gather their Expositions out of Popes Decrees Canons of Councils or examine them by them Does not he know that in many places those and other learned men have interpreted Texts otherwise than Popes and Councils approved by him have expounded them Do not they know that such an attempt would be but an exposing of Popes and Councils to contempt and make their Canon Law appear â—idiculous What unmercifulness and carelesness of mens souls is there in Popes Councils Churches if they are infallible that in the space of sixteen hundred years they have not given us such a Commentary on the Bible as may take away all doubts from inquiring Christians about the true meaning of the Scripture and determine all controversies in points of faith Sure it 's fitter work than to enrich their kindred advance base sons give audience to Embassadours over-aw Princes and Emperours subdue the holy Land About which Popes and Councils have wasted a world of
the Apostles or if restrained to the church of that age it is meant of those that preâ—ched the Gospel to him 2. The words ego vero evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesâ—ae commoveret authoritas are not well rendred by H. T. as if they did declare his purpose for the future or that he would not believe the Gospel or any other reason but the Roman or present universal churches authority For this had been an impious speech in this sense and unfit for a holy man much more for a Bishop and contrary to many passages of the same Author as particularly lib. confes 9. c. 5. in which he saith that God would not have given so excellent an authority to the Scripture through all lands unless he would that by it God should be believed But either he used the Imperfect tense for the Praeterperfect after the African dialect as he doth in a like speech in his book de beata vita sic exarsi ut omnes illas vellem anchoras rumpere nisi me nonnullorum â—ominum existimatio commoveret where commoveret is used for commovisset which is the same word here used and so the sense is I my self verily had not believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholick Church had moved me noting thereby the occasion of his first believing not the sole Reason or Motive of his present believing and to this sense the speeches Obtâ—mperavi dicentibus credite Evangelio ipsi Evangeliâ— catholicis prâ—edicantibus credidi recte credidisti catholicis laudantibus Evangelium quibus prae ipientibus Evangelio credidi per â—os illi credideram which express the means by which he believed and that was not authority of empire in the Church by reason of their infallible Function and right to define what is to be believed but the credit of their persons by reason of their holiness honesty wisdom and such other acts of Gods providence mentioned in the Chapter before which held him in the Church 3. Or else he speaks upon supposition that the Gospel is not believed by reason of its most sincere wisdom unto the knowledge of which few spiritual men come in this life then in that case nothing would move him to believe the Gospel but the authority of the catholick church unto which sense the words chap. 4. and the series of the Dispute seem to lead and Bellarmine lib. 4. de notis Eccles cap. 14. to reconcile Augustine's words in his Dispute against Donatists that the Church is not demonstrated by Miracles but by the Scriptures and yet against Manichaeus his Epistle of the Foundation that the Church is demonstrated by Miracles not by the Scriptures but the Scriptures by the Church saith that he speaks upon supposition because the Manichees did admit Miracles but deny the Scriptures which countenanceth this last sense Any of these ways which have their probabilities the speech may be right but not for H. T. his purpose Certainly they ascribe no infallibility or supreme judicature in controversies of faith to the Roman Pope or Church If the speech be not understood in the last sense of not believing the Gospel but by the Churches authority on supposition of the excluding the innate evidence of wisdom and truth therein or if the second sense hold not that he speaks of what he had not done at first conversion it it certain the first sense must be acknowledged that he means it of the Catholick Church from the Apostles commending it by the authority of their universal tradition in other sense specially that in which the Papists allege it it were an impious speech and contrary to many other places in his Works Sure he that reades his first second and third Chapters of his second Book of Baptism against Donatists will finde him after Cyprian fully against the ascribing to any Bishop on earth supreme judicature over other Bishops or making any Church or Council infallible but asserting that the former fullest general councils may be mended by the later and that there is no determination of any Pope or Council or Church to be rested on as infallible in points of faith but onely the holy Scripture After all this empty scribling of H. T. he yet adds I now resume the priâ—cipal Argument and retort it thus upon our adversaries The Catholick Church is infallible in all her Proposals and Definitions of Faiâ—h But the Protestant Church and the like of all other Sectaries is not infallible in her Proposals or Definitions of Faith therefore the Protestant Church is not the Catholick Church The Major hath been fully proved before The Minor must be granted by our Adversaries because they have no other way to excuse themselves from being Heretickâ— in the revolt from our Church but by falsly pretending the whole Church errs in Faith and taught Idolatry and Superstition for nine or ten hundred years together till they began their blessed Reformation a most blasphemous evasion as hath been proved before by which they have excluded themselves from all possible assurance of true faith or salvation and therefore to arrogate infallibility to themselves which they deny to the whole Church were a most frontless impudence And then he adds his Note whom he means by his infallible Church which is set down in the first Section of the Answer to this Article Answ 1. Understanding by the Protestant Church that Church which hath been since the year 1517. termed Protestants from the protesting against the Decree made at Spires Anno 1529. as Sleidan lib. 6. Com. reports the Conclusion is granted we yield the Protestant Church or Churches are not the Catholick Church but Members of it conceiving it would be indeed to hold the Errour of Donatists if they should appropriate the Title of the Catholick Church to themselves or count all out of it that are not of that party as the Romanists do who are in this Successours to the Donatists But if by the Protestant Church be meant the whole number of them who held the same Faith in the Fundamentals which now the Protestants hold so it is the Catholick Church 2. We deny that the Protestants are justly termed Sectaries meaning by Sectaries a party which hath departed from the primitive Christian faith or doth separate from the universal Church as it is or was at any time in its integrity 3. We deny the Major to have been proved understanding it of the universal Church of this or any Ages in which the Apostles were not and did not concur in the Proposals and Definitions of Faith 4. We grant the Minor but to the proof of it we say it is utterly false that we have no other way to acquit our selves from Heresie than by pretending the whole Church erred in Faith and taught Idolatry and Superstition for nine or ten hundred years together till the Reformation begun 1517. yea we say that the Errours in Faith the Idolatry and Superstition we now accuse the Roman Church of â— were many of
in his days of which he warns Christians and our Lord Christ commands Revel 2. 2. the Angel of the Church of Ephesus in that he had tried some that said they were Apostles and were not and had found them Liars As for some of those things which Ancients have called Apostolical tradition the Papists themselves do reject them as the opinion of the Millenaries the keeping of Easter as the Quartodeciman held the giving the communion to Infants and many more and therefore all Apostolical traditions so termed cannot be the Rule of trial nor can they give us any sure Notes by which we may distinguish genuine Apostolical tradition unwritten from them that are supposititious It is true the oral tradition of the Apostles while they lived and there was access to them might be fit to be a means to try spirits by but the relation of Irenaeus lib. 2. adv haeres cap. 39. about Christ's age and the censure given of Papias in Eusebius plainly shew how quickly such traditions came to be mistakes and the very reason of John 1 Epist 4. 1. doth take us off from trying by such tradition because of the multitude of deceivers and therefore requires that such spirits as pretended tradition should be tried by an unerring Rule which is the holy Scripture But H. T. takes up the blasphemous reproach which some impudent railing Papists have heretofore given to the holy Scripture when it bids us not try by the dead letter by which he means the Scripture in contradistinction to unwritten tradition Which sure is not the language of the holy Ghost but of such impure mouths as in love to their Romish Idols endeavour to disgrace the holy Scripture 'T is true the Law ingraven in stone is termed 2 Cor. 3. 6. the killing letter yet not of it self for elsewhere Act. 7. 38. the law of Moses is termed the living Oracles but by accident in that it could not give life Gal 3. 21. in that it was weak through the flesh Rom. 8. 3. it did kill that is condemn men as guilty of sin and so accursed by it Gal. 3. 10. But on the contrary the Word of God is termed living Heb. 4. 12. the word of life Phil. 2. 16. And our Lord Christ bids the Jews search the Scriptures because in them they did think they had eternal life John 5. 39. and John 20. 31. These things are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and believing ye might have life through his name So that justly may H. T. with such other as before him have done the like be charged with impiety in his disparagingly terming the holy Scriptures especially of the New Testament the dead letter which Paul calls the word of life But it 's likely he meant that the Scriptures cannot hear both parties and so pronounce sentence in a point of controversie If this be his meaning he might term the churches sentence printed or written in parchment and Apostolical tradition unwritten the dead letters as well as the holy Scriptures For surely the authority of the church in an Oecumenical council approved by the Pope suppose the Trent council approved by Pope Pius the fourth and the Apostolical tradition doth no more hear or speak then the Scripture And it sure discovers an extream perversness and malignity of spirit in Papists that refuse to be tried by Scripture as being dead and require a living Judge to end controversies when the council and Pope and Apostolical tradition they would try by are as much dead as the Scripture which there is reason to conceive they do as foreseeing that if their proselytes would try their doctrines by the Scripture they could not stand As for humane reason no Protestant that I know makes that the rule by which he is to try the spirits nor his own private spirit if by it be meant his own councils But we say that every man is to make use of his own reason or judgement of discretion and the ability of his own intelligent spirit as the instrument or means by which he is to try whether that doctrine which is propounded to him be according to holy Scripture and in this he doth no more then Christ requires Luke 12. 57. yea and why even of your selves judge ye not what is right without the use of which it is impossible for men to make trial as men And this the Papists themselves must allow men to do according to their own principles For how else can they hear and believe the church if they do not use their reason to know the church and what it saith they must make men blocks or brutes if they allow them not the use of reason to try by When H. T. brings arguments from texts of Scripture Councils Fathers common sense and experience as his title page pretends would he not have men to use their reason to try whether he do it rightly would he have us go to a council approved by the Pope to know whether his arguments be good what a meer mockery is this of men to write books to teach people and yet not permit people to use humane reason to try their tenets whether they be according to Scripture Council Fathers common sense and experience as if we must not only take an Oâ—cumenical council approved by the Pope but also H. T. and every Popish writer whose book is licensed to be infallible If he write is it not that we may read and will he have us read and not judge and can we judge without humane reason But it is the fashion of these men to write and speak in points of controversie but not to permit their Disciples unless they judge them firm to them whatever they meet with to the contrary to examine their adversaries tenents arguments and answers by reading the Scripture and such impartial writers as would discover their deceit but either by some device or plain prohibition to deter them from searching after the truth that they may rest on the Popes and prelates determinations without examining H. T. further adds Obj. The Church may erre at least in points not fundamental Answ All that God hath revealed is fundamental at least for the formal motive of belief to wit the Divine authority revealing though not always for the matter and if it be once sufficiently proposed to us by the Church as so revealed we are then bound to believe it so that their distinction of fundamentals and not fundamentals is idle Besides if the Church be infallible in fundamentals then Protestants are Schismaticks at least in revelting from her in points not fundamental or necessary to salvation and sin against charity by accusing us of Idolatry I reply 1. Sure this exception is idle to argue the distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points of faith which the users of it take from the matter according to which he confesseth all is not fundamental that God revealeth to be idle because all
faith but he onely who hears the Pope speak by word of mouth from his chair or a council approved by him speak with audible voyce the reading of the Trent canons or the Popes Bull is not sufficient to beget faith much less the hearing a Priest or Prelate tell us their determination By which it may appear that if H. T. his dictates hold then there is neither church nor faith among the greatest part of Papists 9. All this discourse is idle because Papists themselves do grant in effect the distinction he excepts against and his own words do in a manner confesse it is right as the objectors explain it and therefore in this is but a meer humour of quarrelling as having a minde to say somewhat against Mr. Chillingworth and Dr. Potter the Lord Falkland and Dr. Hammond who have fully beaten them out of this their last hold of the infallibility of the Roman church which they would fain have fortified being unable to keep the field in the several points of controversie between us and them H. T. goes on thus Ob. In Gregory the greats time the discipline and doctrine of the Church was altered and corrupted Ans That cannot be for from Gregory the greats time to this day even the least substantial part of either hath not been lost or changed as is visible in all the councils liturgies and constitutions of the Church I reply this is so notoriouslly false and the contrary so fully demonstrated even out of the confessions of Popish writers themselves and in the points of the Popes supremacy out of Gregory himself l. 4. Epist 32 34 38 39. in the point of worshipping of Images in his Epistle to Serenus and in other points by Bishop Morton in his first book of the Protestants appeal against Brerely his Apology that were not this Author resolved to out-face the most manifest verities against the now Roman tenents he would never have vented so grosse a falshood The very confessions of Popes the decrees of reformation even in the Trent council prove the contrary to what H. T. saith Claudius Espentaeus com in 2 Tim. c. 4. digres 21. confesseth that toyes and lyes were in almost all their portesses And if there were no more to prove this Author an egregious lyar yet this is enough which is apparent to all the world that they have had councils opposing councils about the superiority of a Pope above a council since the time of Gregory the great and even in their Miffals and Bibles many things have been changed and purged Clemens the eighth hath altered many things in Sixtus the fifth his Bible and thereby shewed how corruptions have crept into their own authentick translation H. T. adds Object That which may happen to any one particular man or Church may happen to all but it may happen to any one particular man or Church to erre in faith therefore to all Answ I distinguish the first proposition that which may happen to one may happen to all in a divisive sense I grant in a collective I deny and granting the second proposition I deny the consequence for it proceeds from a divided to a compound sense and is as equivocal as this That which may happen to any one egge in the Parish may happen to all But it may happen to any one egge in the Parish to go into your mouth at once therefore it may happen to all the eggs in the Parish to go into your mouth at once I reply I know not whose argument this is Dr. Rainold in his Thesis saith thus but it may happen to every Church which may happen to any certainly what happened to the Church of Jerusalem which had much more ample promises then ever the Church of any City As it is formed by this Author I think the Major is not universally true but being formed thus that error which may be in each man and church singly and it 's not assured shall be removed from them met together may happen to them so met But error in faith may be in each man and Church singly and it 's not assured to be removed from them met together therefore error in faith may happen to them so met The Major is I conceive without question The Minor consists of two parts 1. That all men and Churches singly or severally may erre in faith I think will not be denied That the Popes as private Doctors may erre in faith it 's not denyed by the stiffest assertors of the Popes infallibility That any particular Church also even the Roman may erre it 's not denied the infallibility which H. T. would have to belong to it is as Catholick and this must be when the whole Church diffused over the world unanimously teach a point of faith or it 's representative in a perfectly Oecumenical council called out of the whole world and approved by the Pope 2. That to none of these is such infallibility assured which is proved in that there is no promise of such infallibility to any of them The texts urged by H. T. in this article yeild not that promise nor that text Mat. 18. 20. For 1. Christ may be in the midst of men and yet they not infallible He walks in the midst of the Churches Revel 2. 1. yet they might and did erre in faith So God hath promised inhabitation to every true believer and walking with them 2 Cor. 6. 16. and yet they were not infallible 2. If infallibility were there promised it was promised to two or three gathered in Christs name and so to a Church neither collectively nor representatively Catholick 3. The promise is but conditional upon supposition of being gathered together in Christs name which whether any council be it is uncertain to us As for H. T. his distinction and application they seem to me to savour of unskilfulnesse in the meaning of Logick terms A proposition is true in a divided sense which is not true in a compound when the predicate agrees to the subject considered as at different times upon an alteration as when it is said the blind see the deaf hear the dumb speak this is not true in a compound sense that at the same time that persons are blind deaf dumb they see hear speak but in a divided sense But the Major proposition as set down in the objection is understood of the same time without alteration And so it is not true that it proceeds from a divided to a compound sense Nor is there any consequence in the proposition as he unskilfully speaks but the proposition is a simple or categorical proposition As for his similitude of eating eggs they may be kept for his breakfast as now being unseasonable But he proceeds Object The Apostles were not each of them to depend on the decrees of the Church Answ True the Church was to depend on them as on the first masters and proposers of faith who had each of them a peculiar prerogative of divine assistance
and infallibility in matters of faith yet were they each consonant to other in all their doctrines of faith and whatever was taught by any of them was stedfastly believed by all I reply H. T. saith in his Epistle to the reader that it is agreed by all parties that Christ our Lord hath founded and built a Church in his own blood which was the onely Mâ—stris of divine faith and sole repository of all revealed truths at least for an age or two which if true then the Apostles were in that age to depend on their decrees But here he eats his words in the Epistle the Church was the sole Mistris of divine faith here the Church was to depend on the Apostles as on the first masters and proposers of faith How these hang together I understand not That which he saith here of the Apostles is very true understanding by masters not Lords but teachers The Church neither now nor in any age was Mistris of faith it is not the Church in right sense that is the teacher or propounder of divine truths but the learner It is the meer sophistry of Papists to term the Pope and Prelates the Church and to call a hundred or two of Bishops some of them meer titulars without any Diocesse such as never knew what the office of a Bishop was nor ever preached the Gospel to any people the Catholick Church The concession that the Apostles had each of them a peculiar prerogative of divine assistance and infallibility in matters of faith proves that this was not Peters prerogative and if it were a peculiar prerogative to each Apostle then it descends not to any successors and so by this Authors own words the infallibility of the Pope or council is a meer figment Nor is infallibility to be sought from any but Christ and his Apostles doctrin who do still propound matters of divine faith to us in the holy Scriptures Nor hath the Church of Rome any more priviledge of keeping or conveying to us the truths revealed by the Apostles then that at Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus Alexandria or any other which the Apostles founded and therefore Ireneus Tertullian and such of the Fathers as direct us to repair to the Apostolick Churches for establishment against hereticks direct us to other Churches where the Apostles preached besides the Roman It is further objected the Church hath now no new revelations nor can â—he make now any new points of faith therefore we are not bound to believe her definitions H. T. Answers I grant the antecedent but deny the consequence for though she can make no new points yet she can explicate the old and render that clear which was before obscure and can define against new herefies I reply The grant of the antecedent is sufficient to prove that if the Church as it is termed teach any other points of faith then were revealed to the Apostles we are not bound to believe her definitions and consequently she must prove her definitions by Apostolical tradition and not only say they are Apostolical ere we are bound to believe them it being still to be heeded which Paul saith Gal. 1. 8. If he or an Angel from heaven or any man preach I may adde or believe any other Gospel then what was preached by Paul and received by the Galatians he is accursed and consequently each person is to examine and judge for himself whether that which is preached or defined for him to believe by Pope or council agree with the Apostles Gospel or no and if the Church can onely explicate the old then an heresie cannot be made by a council which was not before and if Pope John the two and twenteth his tenet condemned in the council of Constance were heresie after the council condemned it it was so before contrary to what Bellarmin saith l. 4. de Rom pontif c. 14. and it follows he that can best explicate the old and render it clear which was before obscure hath the best title to infallibility and if the Church or Pope have no new revelations then he must explicate by study and so not by prerogative of his chair but by ability in languages arts and other knowledge in which if he have lesse knowledge as certainly some if not all the Popes for a thousand years have had one of them as Alpâ—onsus a Castro saith not understanding Grammer and one of them being necessitated to substitute another to do divine offices for him by reason of his ignorance in literature there is lesse reason to adhere to their explications then to others who have more skill therein Arias Montanus Vatablus and such other learned men are to be relied more upon for explications and definitions in points of faith then the Pope or Bishops if they be such as were in the Trent council of whom it is manifest by Frier Pauls history of that council that there were scarce any of them learned in the Scriptures especially in the main point of the Gospel concerning justification by faith then it is unjust to tye men to follow the Fathers who had lesse skill then others in interpreting Scripture as the learned of the Roman party do often shew in their writings then did Innocent the third ill to make a new point of faith in defining transubstantiation which was but an opinion before as Scotus and Tâ—nstal have asserted then it is monstrous tyranny beyond all that ever any tyrants before practised to burn to death men women children old and young Bishops and Noblemen for not holding it then are the Popâ—s and Popish party guilty of shedding a sea of blood in England France Belgia Germany Italy Spain Poland and elsewhere for denying transubstantiation the Popes supremacy and such other new tenets as Popes have thrust on the Christian Churches then hath Pope Pius the fourth done wickedly in imposing on men a new Creed and Popish Doctors do ill in justifying it and not opposing it But is not this a mockery to say the Church may not do it and yet they do it and H. T. avoucheth it what else are their tenents of receiving the eucharist under one kinde of worshipping images of purgatory invocation of Saints indulgences service in an unknown tongue monastick vows with many more but new points of faith and is it not all one to make new points of faith as by authority onely without any agreeablenesse to the meaning of the words so to explicate the Scriptures as that they shall be wrested to maintain that which is not there taught and that condemned as heresie which is not contrary to them Rightly said Chillingworth Answ to Char. Maint part 1. ch 2. num 1. Tyranny may be established as well by a power of interpreting laws as by making them and so doth the power of Rome set up the greatest tyranny that ever was in the world by usurping this vast power of being an infallible interpreter of Gods laws though in their Prefaces to their corrected editions of their
to discover the truth And though it be that Councils may be and have been usefull when good choice hath been made of persons and undue practises to mis-lead and over-aw them have been removed yet as Nazianzen in his five and fiftieth Epistle ad Procopium complained that he knew no good issue of them so he that shall examine the cariage of things in Councils even the best of them since the Apostles days will finde reason not to take any thing from them on trust meerly by reason of their authority and for the Councils which have been above a thousand years by reason of the activity and prevalency of Factions and the unlearnedness of most of the Bishops in them will find more reason to be jealous of what Councils have determined them to acquiesce in them Nor will it follow that if this judgement be allowed to every private man then all or any Heresies whatsoever have been good and sound Doctrine but that those who have pretended Reason and Scripture have abused both Nor is H. T. his Reason of force because Hereticks pretend to reason and Scripture therefore every one is not to judge for himself and all Heresies were sound Doctrine any more than than this cavillers pretend Law and Reason therefore Judges that use their knowledge in the Law and their Reason in passing Sentence do justifie cavillers or determin no better then cavillers Were the Churches authority infallible hereticks might and did pretend to it's authority and Apostolick tradition and therefore notwithstanding these yet heresie may be taken for sound doctrine as well as if private reason be made a Judge for each ones self yea many heresies have alledged unwritten tradition and have had some council or other perhaps more and more numerous to patronize them then the Orthodox so that I may say setting aside the holy Scripture which is now the rule by which to determine what is error what not neither the Churches authority nor unwritten tradition can prove a point to be heresie or extirpate it but rather propagate and establish error as by experience is manifest there being never more heresies established and propagated by any one or more private mens following their reason then have been by the Popes and Councils supposed to be Oecumenical and infallible nor is there any greater cause of erring then the confidence of infallibility nor any error so fast rooted as that which is decreed by men that will confesse no error As for those heresies which he reckons as unanswerable by humane reason if he mean they are unanswerable by humane reason how or in what manner the things opposed by them are it is granted but of this Mr. Chillingworth doth not make humane reason Judge if any humane reason cannot comprehend how a thing should be nor can answer all objections yet if it judge that God hath revealed it is so it is to believe it even as Mary was to believe her having a son though she knew not how Luk. 1. 34. That which each mans reason is to judge is not how a thing can be which God hath revealed is or shall be but whether it be so revealed and this he is to do not by a blind assent to what the Church or his teachers say but by searching as the Beraeans did Act. 17. 11. with Gods approbation even when Paul preached to them the Scriptures whether they say right And if the Scripture say the contrary to what those named hereticks say then are their tenents to be rejected of which each persons reason is to judge for himself he being to be saved or damned according to his own faith if not the determination of councils against it is not to be received And this manner of judging by reason will neither promote herefie nor Atheism but on the contrary if the Popes Councils Churches determination be counted infallible it will perpetuate an error if once received as too much woful experience shews in the Roman Papacy wherein the error of transubstantiation though it be such as is so contrary to Scripture reason sense Fathers that a man unprejudiced would think them meer mad men or phrenetick persons who hold it yet it is by Papists maintained I dare hardly say by the learned believed most obstinately and furiously to this day Finally saith H. T. because if private reason were the onely Judge of controversies it would evidently follow the general councils of all former ages which have commanded all persons under pain of damnation to obey their definitions and submit to their decrees were the most tyrannical and unjust assemblies that ever were in usurping such a power over mens consciences and consequently that there neither is nor ever was any such thing on earth as a Church or obliging guide in matters of faith and Church Government I reply though Mr. Chillingworth say not private reason to be the onely Judge of controversies nor denies the Church or Council to be Judge of controversies but only the infallibility of them yet if he did say either neither of these things would follow which H. T. makes consequent thereon For notwithstanding such saying he might deem councils to have followed Scripture and therefore not unjust in those commands and that there was a Church and Church government obliging men in matters of faith though not by vertue of their own authority yet by vertue of Gods revelation in the holy Scriptures Neverthelesse if I may be allowed to speak my judgement freely I do think that if not all yet most of the Councils termed general have been for more then one hundred years too unjust and tyrannical in their commands usurping the words of the Synod at Jerusalem Act. 15. 28. too arrogantly as if their authority were equal to the Apostles and imposing on mens consciences burdens too intolerable and that this hath been a most pernicious engine of Satan to cause divisions and mischiefs in the Church of Christ And certainly if any have followed humane reason and a private spirit in deciding controversies of faith and judging matters of religion they have been Popes and the Councils approved by Popes who do almost in every thing in some things expressely forsake the Scripture and adhere to their own reason in their Canons and Decrees and Papists who receive their determinations do forsake the guidance of Gods Spirit and follow humane reason and a private spirit H. T saith further Ob. Your therefore believe the Church to be infallible and whatever else you believe because you judge it reasonable to believe it and your very act of faith it self is an act of reason therefore reason is the only Judge of controversies Answ The discourse and approbation of reason is alwayes a previous and necessary condition to our deliberate and rational acts of faith and the very acts themselves are acts of reason not discoursing but simply assenting All this I grant yes I deny your consequence because our acts of faith are not ultimately resolved into
private reason which faith often is inforced to captivate but into the authority of God revealing and the Church proposing I believe it saith Tertullian because it is impossible viz. to humane reason I reply 1. Chillingworth makes not reason the only Judge of controversies nor any Protestant therefore the conclusion is ill fathered on them 2. The reason of H. T. his denial of the consequence is insufficient For it supposeth the consequence to imply that our acts of faith are ultimately resolved into private reason and this private reason judging that onely to be true of which it conceives how it is possible But the truth is they that make reason the Judge of controversies neither resolve ultimately their acts of faith into private reason neither do they conceive they have reason to believe onely what they conceive how it is possible to humane reason but resolve their faith into Gods authority as the formal and ultimate reason of their believing and make their reason onely the means or instrument by which they finde that God hath revealed that which they believe not excluding their teachers credit and Churches example as a fit motive to hearken to it as a thing credible Which opinion is confirmed by this authors own words making faith an act of reason and discourse and approbation of reason alwayes a previous and necessary condition to it and therefore in all acts of faith even when it rests on the Churches Authority yet eachmans private reason is the Judge for himself discerning in controversies why he is to believe one and not another all the difference is the Papist thinks he hath reason to believe transubstantiation Popes supremacy c. because he takes the Church of Rome or Pope to be infallible The Protestant doth not believe them because the Scripture doth not say thus which alone he takes for an infallible rule to judge by in such controversies Whether Papists faith be ultimately resolved into the Authority of God revealing hath been before considered a little and will more in that which follows To Tertullians words I can return no answer till I know where to finde them As they are here cited they seem nor right Yet again saith H. T. Ob. There is no Apostolical tradition for the Churches infallibility Answ Yes a more universal one then for the Canon of the Scripture it self which notwithstanding you believe on that score if at all For there is not any one book either of the old or new Testament which hath not been rejected by some heretick or other if therefore it be a sufficient proof of an universal tradition for the whole Canon of Scripture that some one or two general Councils have set down the number and names of all the books of Scripture though not without some variety and that the Fathers have given testimony to them some to some books some to others but few to all and that the Church in after ages hath accepted them for such how much more universal is the tradition for the Churches infallibility which is virtually decided and attested by the Anathema's and definitions of all the general Councils that ever were condemning all who did not humbly obey and subscribe to them every decision being attested by all the Fathers no one contradicting or condemning the stile and most unanimously accepted by the whole Church of after ages I reply the speech of H. T. here that there is a more universal Apostolical tradition for the Churches that is not only the Church diffused over all the world unanimously teaching but also the Church represented in a Council perfectly Oecumenical that is to say call'd out of the whole world and approved by the Pope it's infallibility in definitions of faith then for the Canon of the Scriptures it self is so monstrously false and so pernicious as tending to the undermining of the fabrick of Christian Religion that it shews an impudent face and an impious heart in the assertor For 1. The tradition of the Canon of the old Testament is by the whole Nation of the Jews from Moses to Christ and from Christ and his Apostles who have testified that to them were committed the Oracles of God Rom. 3. 1 2. and this witnessed by the Jews unto the death and by the complement and events verifying it And though it be that some hereticks have been adversaries to the Law and Prophets yet scarce any but such as have been little better then phrenetick have denied it to be divine however they have conceived them not binding And for the Canon of the new Testament though some parts have been a little while somewhat doubted of in the second and third ages by some few yet the rest have had universal and undoubted tradition from the Apostles and Evangelists and primitive teachers who witnessed the truth of the doctrine by many evident undeniable divine miracles and by their martyrdome by which also in after ages many of the Fathers and other Christians gave testimony to it and since the Churches Greek and Latin Protestant and Popish Heretical and Orthodox in Asia Africa Europe have attested it as divine But for the Churches infalibility in that sense in which this Author means it how little hath been brought appears by the answer here made and that much may be said against it will appear by that which follows Yea I dare bodly say that as H. T. holds it no one Council or Father of esteeme held the Churches infallibility in the first thousand years from Christs incarnation and I think I may say for half a thousand more but many not onely of those who are reckoned for hereticks by Romanists but also such as have been judged Catholicks have opposed it in the second and third ages yea whole Nations Emperors Kings and states have opposed the definitions which the so termed Generals Councils approved by the Pope have made and many learned men have written against it none died for it in that time nor were any miracles wrought to confirme it Nor hath the questioning of some few of the books of Scripture either by some hereticks or a few Fathers for a while abated the credit of those parcels questioned in the Churches of Christ throughout the world So that if it were true that we believed the Canon as I know nothing but uncharitablenesse can make this Author question whether we do onely on that score as we do not yet we have far more abundant tradition for it then is for the Churches imagined infallibility 2. I say the Anathema's and definitions are neither formal nor virtual proofs of an universal tradition or attestation to the Churches infallibility For 1. p. 7. He confesseth in the second and third ages were no councils nor in the tenth in which any controversies of moment were decided p. 25. and therefore here this universal tradition fails 2. Those that were not approved by the Popes but rejected by them and those which were not Oecumenical have not used such Anathema's
of Africa tells the Arians they in vain ran about to seek councils since the Scripture is more powerful then all councils Answ He says it was vain for them who had rejected the general council of Nice nor doubt we but the Scripture hath in many respects a preheminence above the definitions of general councils and a higher degree of infallibility yet these also are infallible in points of faith I reply the reason of Athanasius shews it was in vain for Arians to seek to councils because the Scripture was against them not because the council of Nice was against them as the very words recited by H. T. shew who doth well to acknowledge the Scriptures preheminence which justifies Protestants who stick to the Scriptures against councils which do often swerve from them and sometimes oppose them As for the degree of infallibility if there be any degrees of infallibility which perhaps a Logician will deny infallibility being a meer negation of liableness to error or being deceived H. T. ascribes to them it is so uncertain what it is and so weakly proved that none that loves his soul should rest on it and not try what they hold by the Scriptures confessedly more infallible As for the speech of the council of Basil there 's no reason why Protestants or others should rest on it when Papists themselves even H. T. p. 79. rejects it and says it was not approved in any decree but such as concern Church benefices and yet this man concludes with it's speech about the authority of a general council as if it were certain So vertiginous is this Author ARTIC VI. Sanctity and Miracles prove not the Roman Church true The Roman Church is not demonstrated to be the true Church by her Sanctity and Miracles SECT I. The Texts brought by H. T. to prove that the true Church is known by Sanctity and Miracles are shewed to be impertinent H. T. proceeds thus Article 6. The true Church demonstrated by her Sanctity and Miracles Our Tenet is that the Roman Catholick Church is known and evidently distinguished from all false Churches not onely by the marks and properties by us premised but also by her sanctity and power of doing Miracles and is proved thus That is thé true Church and lawfull Spouse of Christ which is eminent for Sanctity of Discipline and Doctrine and for Miracles But the Roman Catholick Church and no other is eminent for Sanctity of Discipline and Doctrine and for Miracles therefore the Roman Catholick Church and no other is the true Church and lawfull Spouse of Christ The Major for Sanctity is proved by that Article of the Apostles Creed I believe the holy Catholick Church as also by these Texts of holy Scripture Christ gave himself for his Church cleansing her by the Laver of Water Baptism in the Word that he might present her to himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle but that she might be holy and unspotted Ephes 5. 27. These things ye were saith St. Paul but ye are washed but ye are sanctified but ye are justified in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God 1 Cor. 6. 10. A good Tree bringeth forth good Fruit by their Fruit ye shall know them St. Matth. 7 17 20. Strait is the Gate and narrow is the Way which leadeth to Life c. If thou wilt be perfect go and sell all thou hast and give to the poor c. and come and follow me St. Matth. 19. 21. There be Eunuchs who have gelded themselves for the Kingdom of Heaven he that can take let him take St. Matth. 10. 12. Obey your Prelates and be subject to them c. Heb. 13. 17. Answ 1. THe Syllogism is not good the words and no other being wanting in the Major Proposition and if they be put in the Major is false That which is eminent for Sanctity of Discipline and Doctrine and for Miracles and no other is the true Church and lawfull Spouse of Christ For a Chnrch may be true and a lawfull Spouse of Christ which is not eminent for Miracles Else it would go ill with all the Churches since Miracles have ceased and with the Church consisting of John Baptist and his Disciples But as it is now expressed by H. T. I grant the Major though except the words of Christ Matth 7. 17 20. the Texts are all impertinent The Article of the Creed is not meant of the meer visible church but of the church which is also the invisible of the elect persons nor is it meant of holiness of outward Discipline and Doctrine but of inward real holiness and so are Ephes 5. 27. 1 Cor. 6. 10 11. yea the former is meant of that holiness which is perfect without spot or wrinkle when the Church is presented to himself at his appearing and the other of that sanctifying which is by the Spirit of God and not onely by Baptism The Texts Matth. 7. 13 14. 19. 11 12. Mark 10. 21. Heb. 13. 17. are not expressions of properties which are marks of the church but Precepts and signifie what duty some did or ought to do Now the doing of some duties is not a mark of the church as v. g. doing justice giving to the poor relieving the Saints selling all we have which may be in Infidels and those duties which are in the three later Texts are special duties of some and therefore not marks which agree to the whole church but such as all members are not tied to every member not a woman is not to geld himself but he that can take it nor to sell all Papists make these Evangelical counsels of more perfection than is ordinary nor to obey Prelates and therefore in such they are no parts of Sanctity much less marks of a true church SECT II. The Sanctity of men in former Ages proves not the holiness of the present Roman Church BUt it is the Minor which is to be denied of which H. T. saith thus Now that the Roman Catholick Church hath abounded with and brought forth Saints in all Ages which is a pregnant and convincing proof of our second Proposition is manifest by the Chronicles and Martyrologies of the whole Christian World Answ 1. To talk of the Roman catholick church is non-sense as is shewed before 2. It is scarce good sense to say The Church brings forth Saints when the church is no other than the Saints or a company of Saints 3. Were it yielded that the Church did abound with and bring forth Saints in all Ages yet this proves not the sanctity of the church but of those Saints in it nor doth it at all prove the sanctity of the Discipline or Doctrine but of the persons much less the power of Miracles the sanctity of the church persons being often Saints as John Baptist who have not power of doing Miracles and unholy persons have it sometimes Matth. 7. 22 23. and if it did prove any thing it would prove
Heaven preach any other Gospel than that which is written he is to be held accursed Gal. 1. 8 9. And that Miracles are not necessary for proving our calling while we preach the Scripture-doctrine as Bellarmine scribles lib. 4. de not is Eccles cap. 14. But on the other side if Papists do not stick onely to Scripture nor will be tried by it it is necessary they should produce Miracles of their Popes and Prelates to verifie their claim or new Gospel of which they are altogether destiâ—â—te and have nothing to allege but a company of Fables concerning some foolish Friers such as Francis Dominick c. upon the report of silly superstitious Women and doting companions of them or some jugling tricks in corners done by cheating Priests and Jesuits which serve for no other purpose but to prove the Priests to be Knaves and their Popish Proselytes that believe them to be fools And we have cause to press them as in the next Objection Why do not then your Priests do Miracles we would be glad to see some of their doing To which H. T. saith Answ Because of your incredulity as our Saviour told she Jews St. Matth. 17. 19 Yet they do many in Gods appointed time and place as the Records of the Church will testifie though not to satisfie your sinfull curiosity See Francis a Sancta Clara in his Paralipomena who recounts many great and evident Miracles I reply if our incredulity be the onely reason of their not doing them among us yet me thinks they should do them in Italy and Spain where men have â—aith in them But except of a few tales of Philip Nerius Ignatius Loyala Francisca Teresa Isidore of Madrid an Husbandman and some other late canonized Saints long after their death sworn by some admirers of them or credulous receivers of reports concerning things of them not openly done and commonly known as the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles were I hear of none The Paralipomena of Franciscus a Sancta Clara or Davenport who endeavoured to reconcile the nine and thirty Articles of the Church of England with the Doctrine of the Church of Rome that is Light with Darkness a little afore these Wars I never saw nor do I expect to finde any thing from such a man but fraud and falshood who had the face to endeavour to draw the Articles purposely framed against the Popish Doctrine to a sense consistent with it What Justus Lipsius writ of the Miracles done by the Idol at Halles and Zichem Turselin of the Chapel at Lauretto and such like Relations there is no man that heeds the Scripture will give any credit to them but take them either as fictions or illusions of Satan to confirm men in the idolatrous Worship of the Virgin Mary and to promote the Priests gain which is a great part of the Roman Religion But the frequent Impostures of Papists in this kinde as of the Blood of Christ at the Abby of Hales that of Boxley Abby and the holy Maid of Kent related by Speed in his Chronicle of Henry the eighth at Orleans by Gray Friers related by Sleidan Com. lib. 9. at Bruxels related by Meteran lib. 10. hist Belg. that of the Boy of Bilson near Wolverhampton in Stafford-shire which is related in a Book of that thing and persons yet alive can testifie of the Priests deceit in it with many more give just cause to discredit all such Narrations as meer jugling tricks Nor have the Legends of Saints which this man calls the Records of the Church any better credit with the more ingenuous of their own Church of whom though some mince the matter calling them Pious Frauds as if Piety might be upheld by Lyes yet Ludovicus Vives freely censured those that made them to have had a Brasen forehead and those that believed them a Leaden heart And therefore it is the more necessary for their Priests to let us see their Miracles not to satisfie our curiosity but our consciences if they will have us converted from disbelief in their Lord God the Pope as in the Canon Law be is termed there being nothing in the Scripture to prove the Roman Churches verity or infallibility or the Popes Supremacy as will appear by examining the seventh Article to which I now hasten which is intituled The Popes Supremacy asserted ARTIC VII The Popes Supremacy is an Innovation The Pope or Bishop of Rome's Supremacy or Headship of the whole Church of God is not proved by H. T. SECT I. Neither is it proved nor probable that Peter was Bishop of Rome or that he was to have a Successour Our Tenet saith H. T. is that the Pope or Bishop of Rome is the true Successour of St. Peter and Head of the whole Church of God which hath in part been proved already by our Catalogue of chief Pastours who were all Popes of Rome and by the Councils of all Ages approved by them and owning them for such and is yet farther proved thus Answ THat Peter was Pope of Rome hath been said but never yet proved but by the tradition of the Ancients who might be as easily deceived in that as they were about Christ's age the keeping of Easter and many other things Those very men who relate Peter's sitting at Rome as Bishop do not agree about his immediate Successour whether Linus or Clemens or Cletus as H. T. confesseth here pag. 52. And the relation it self is so inconsistent with that which Paul saith that by consent he and Peter agreed that Peter should go to the Jews and had the Gospel of the Circumcision committed to him his not saluting Peter in his Epistle to the Romans his being at Antioch and according to Luke and Paul in other places so long a time as they mention in the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Galatians makes it altogether improbable that he should be Bishop at Rome such a time as they say he was and be put to death in Nero's time as the tradition insisted on bears in hand Nor was it agreeable to Peter's Office appointed by Christ to be as a fixed Pastour in one Place And if he were settled in any place it is more probable it was at Antioch where Paul mentions him to have been than at Rome nor of his translation of his Seat from Antioch to Rome is there any proof but what is by such tradition as in this and other things appears to be very uncertain and unlikely Yet were it yielded that Peter was Bishop or chief Pastour how will it be proved that he was to have a Successour Paul it is certain was at Rome and did while he was there undoubtedly execute the Office of a Pastour yet Popes do not challenge themselves to be Paul's but Peter's Successours however they put Paul's Sword in their Arms with Peter's Keys and in their Writings say the Church of Rome was founded by Peter and Paul and use Paul's name with Peter's in their Sentences
that he allegeth Eph. 2. 20. to prove that the rest of the Apostles were built on the foundation of them all though not equally when the Text doth not at all mention the Apostles being built on the Foundation but the Ephesian believers nor are the Ephesian believers said to be built on them unequally on Peter as the supreme on others after him but on them all without any difference and not onely on them but also on the Foundation of the Prophets Christ alone being the chief corner-stone SECT IX Cyprian Hierome Gregory the councils of Constantinople Chalcedon Nice are against the Popes Supremacy It is added thus by H. T. Object St. Cyprian de unit Eccles says The Apostles were equal in dignity And St. Hierome affirms the church was equally founded on them all lib. cont Jovin Answ They were equal in their calling to the Apostleship I grant in their power of Government and Jurisdiction I deny And the church was equally founded on them all before a Head was constituted I grant after a Head was constituted I deny and so do the Fathers St. Cyprian saying in the same place that Christ disposed the origen of unity beginning from one Peter And St. Hierome tells us He chose one of the Twelve that a Head being constituted the occasion of Schism might be taken away I Reply Cyprian's words in his Book de unitate Ecclesia are recited above Art 5. Sect. 6. in which he expresly saith thus Hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praditi honoris potestatis sel exordium ab unitate proficiscitur ut Ecclesia una monstretur that is That verily were also all the rest of the Apostles which Peter was endued with equal allotment of honour and power but the beginning proceeds from unity that the church might be shewed to be one So that the very words are express that all the Apostles were not onely equal in their calling to the Apostleship but also in power and honour and that Peter was made a Representative of all yeâ— had no more power and honour than other Apostles and for Bishops he saith presently after Episcopatus unus est cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur that is Bishoprick is but one of which wholly or entirely a part is held by each Which words plainly shew this to be his meaning 1. That the Episcopacy or charge of looking to the Church of Christ is but one and the same in all the World even as the Church Catholick is but one and the same 2. That each Bishop hath but his part none the whole none is an universal Bishop over the whole Church 3. That each Bishop who hath his part holds it in solidum that is wholely or intirely the power and charge is as much in one as another 4. That Episcopacy was first invested in Peter for all that Episcopacy might be one and undivided and the Church one so as that no Church break from another nor any Bishop be above another As for the words of Hierome lib. 1. advers Jovin they are thus At dick super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia licet idipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claves regni coelorum accipiant ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur tamen propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur ut capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasio that is But thou sayest who arguest for Marriage upon Peter a married man the church is founded although that thing in another place is done upon all the Apostles and all receive the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens and equally upon them the strength of the church is established yet therefore among twelve one is chosen that a Head being constituted the occasion of Schism might be taken away In which words it is manifest that he makes the other Apostles equally Foundations of the Church with Peter and to have the Keys of the Kingdom of Heavens and terms Peter not a Head in respect of Power or Jurisdiction over the rest but in respect of Order that for want of it no occasion of Schism might be Which to have been the minde of Hierome appears fully in his Epistle to Euagrius in which he determines that in the Scripture Bishops and Elders were the same that Peter calls himself a fellow-elder and John an Elder but after one was chosen who might be set before the rest that was done for a Remedy of Schism lest each one drawing to himself the church of Christ might break it And then he makes the Church and Bishop of Rome equal with other Churches and Bishops If saith he Authority be sought the World is greater than a City Wheresoever there is any Bishop either at Rome or at Eugubium or at Constantinople or at Rhegium or at Alexandria or at Tanis he is of the same merit and of the same Priesthood Power of riches and humility of poverty makes a Bishop neither higher nor lower But all are Successours of the Apostles Whence these things may be inferred 1. That Bishops are not above Elders originally 2. That their superiority is by positive order 3. That the Apostles were Elders 4. That all Bishops are their Successours 5. That the Bishop of Rome is not above another Bishop 6. That the Authority of Rome is less than of the World Yet further saith H. T. Object One Body with two Heads is monstrous Answ Not if one be principal and the other subordinate or ministerial onely as in our present case so Christ is the Head of the Man and the Man of the Woman 1 Cor. 11. without any monstrosity I reply to make a thousand metaphorical subordinate ministerial Heads of the Church of Christ may be without monstrosity But to make a supreme visible Head over the whole Church ascribing to him such a power as agrees to none but Christ nor can be exercised by any but Christ for the good of his body hath monstrosity in it or rather treason against Christ But such a Head is the Pope made by H. T. therefore this conceit of him and other Papists induceth monstrosity The Minor is partly shewed before and may be fully proved by instancing in the acts of power the Pope takes to him in defining what the whole Church is to believe what is the sense of Scripture receiving Appeals from all places judging causes setting up and putting down Kings and Bishops and many more wherein he arrogateth and usurpeth that power to himself which doth onely agree to Christ and can be exercised by none but him Again saith H. T. Object St. Gregory rejects the name of Universal Arch-bishop as Antichristian lib. 7. indict 2. Epist 96. Answ He rejects it as it excludes all others from being Bishops I grant as it onely signifies one to be supreme and above all others I deny and so doth he himself saying in the same Book Epist 62. if there be any crime found in
Bishops I know no Bishop but is subject to the See Apostolick And lib 4. Indict 13. Epist 32. The care and principality of the church hath been committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of the Apostles St. Peter yet is not he called Universal Apostle as if there were no other Apostles but he You see in what sense he rejects the word Universal I reply Gregory not onely rejected the Title of Universal Arch-bishop or Patriarch but also rejected it as proud wicked perverse profane blasphemous aud the Usurper of it as a Fore-runner of Antichrist and not onely as not agreeing to the Bishop of Constantinople but also as not agreeing to him or any of his Predecessours lib. 6. Epist 24. lib. 4. Epist 32. 36. None of my Predecessours consented to use this profane name of Universal Bishop none of my Predecessours ever took upon him this name of singularity neither consented to use it We the Bishops of Rome do not seek nor yet accept this glorious Title being offered unto us Nor in the sense onely as H. T. denies it due to the Pope as if it excluded all others from being Bishops but even in the sense in which the Pope now usurps it For 1. He rejects it in the sense in which John of Constantinople did affect it But he did not affect it as thereby assuming to himself to be the onely Bishop but the supreme which appears 1. In that a Synod of the Greek Bishops did agree to give it him Habita Synodo seipsum Patriarcham universalem creasset that is Holding a Synod he had created himself universal Patriarch Platina in the Life of Pope Gregory But doubtless the Synod would not give him the Title as importing him the onely Bishop for then they should have unbishopt themselves which neither he nor they did 2. Gregory when he chargeth him with his arrogating that Title to himself tells John himself lib. 4. Epist 38. that he sought this Title that he might seem to be under none and he alone before all that be endeavoured that by the appellation of universal Bishop he might put under himself all the members of Christ that he desired to be called in the World not onely the Father but also the general Father that he desired by that word of elation to put himself before Bishops and to hold them under him which shews he affected not to be accounted the onely Bishop but the supreme 3. He affected no more than what after Boniface the third of Rome obtained of Phocas as appears by the words of Platina in the Life of Boniface the third who speaks thus Boniface the third a Roman by countrey obtained from Phocas the Emperour yet with great contention that the See of blessed Peter the Apostle which is the Head of all churches should be both so called and accounted by all which place indeed the Church of Constantinople endeavoured to challenge to it sometimes evil Princes favouring and affirming that in that place should be the first See where the Head of the Empire was And Baronius Annal. Eccles at the year 606. relates the Decree of Phocas thus that the Roman Bishop alone should be called oecumenical or universal but not the Constantinopolitan And Bellarmine lib. 2. de Pontif. Rom. cap. 31. saith They would equal the See of Constantinople to the Roman and make it universal speaking of the Greeks in the business of John of Constantinople whence it may be plainly gathered that the thing which the Patriarchs of Constantinople affected was not to be accounted the onely Bishop so as that none but he should be accounted a bishop but that he should be the Head or Supreme of all Bishops by reason of the Seat of the Empire there and that this Gregory disclaimed as proud 4. That was affected by John which he and Cyriacus his Successour used for twenty years but neither of them used it so by word or deed as to exclude others from being Bishops as well as themselves for in John's own writing to them extant in the body of the Romam Greek Law he terms them fellow-servants Metropolitans and Bishops to whom he writes and others in their Writings to the Patriarch of Constantinople when they term him oecumenical Arch-bishop yet style themselves Bishops and fellow-priests but they would be accounted supreme or prime Bishops of the whole Church so as to be under none but above all 2. It is proved that Gregory rejected the Title of Universal Bishop in the sense of the supreme Bishop in that he Regist lib. 11. Epist 54. resolves thus If any man accuse a Bishop for whatsoever cause let the cause bâ— judged by his Metropolitan If any man gainsay the Metropolitan's judgement let it be referred to the Arch-bishop and Patriarch of that Diocese and let him end it according to the Canons and Laws And for what he addeth that if a Bishop have no Metropolitan nor Patriarch at all then is his cause to be heard and determined by the See Apostolick which is the Head of all Churches it is added beyond the Canons of Councils and Laws of Emperours and though it prove that he claimed a reference of causes in difference between Bishops within his Patriarchate yet not where there were other Patriarchs to which the Bishops were subject much less through the whole World And that he termeth the See of Rome the Head of all Chuches doth not prove a Supremacy of Government by any institution of Christ but a preheminence of order and some Ecclesiastical Privileges by reason of that Cities being the Seat of the Empire And hereby is understood what H. T. cites out of the seventh Book Epist 62. of Greg. Epistles Indict 2. that it is not meant of all Bishops universally but of the Bishops within that Patriarchate but this was in case of fault onely for it follows But when no fault requires it all according to reason of humility are equals So that Gregory doth not by that speech shew that he had an universal supreme Jurisdiction and power over all Churches so as that they were subject to his commands and deteminations in points of faith but that he accounted the African Churches subject to his reproof as he had a common care of the Church every where in which Gregory himself and all other Bishops and Churches are subject to any Bishop wheresoever Certainly Gregory had most absurdly argued against the arrogance of John of Constantinople calling the Title of universal Bishop new profane proud blasphemous foolish perverse and him a Fore-runner of Antichrist whosoever should use it if he had imagined it belonged to himself or any Bishop of Rome And for what H. T. allegeth that John claimed to be universal Bishop as excluding all others it is but an absurdity which Gregory pressed him with as following upon it not acknowledged by John but rather denied as when we urge men with absurdities following their tenets which they do not own and how he urgeth it
necessity of Infant baptism or for changing the Saturday into Sunday c. all which notwithstanding are necessary to be known by the whole Church and to be believed by us in particular as Protestants will acknowledge if they be once sufficiently proposed to us by the Church Nor is it sufficient we believe all the Bible unless we believe it in the true sense and be able to confute all Heresies out of it I speak of the whole Church which she can never do without the Rule of Apostolical Tradition in any of the Points forementioned I Reply unless the man had a minde to plead for Arians Photinians Macedorians and Socinians I know not why he should so often make the Doctrines of three distinct Persons in one divine nature the Sons consubstantiality to the Father the Procession of the Holy Ghost from both and his Godhead as Apostolical unwritten Tradition Sure this is the way to bring into question these Doctrines which if they be not in Scripture will never be believed by intelligent Christians for the Pope and Council of Trent's sayings whose proceedings never tended to clear truth but to juggle with the World This is one certain evidence that they never intended to clear truth because they condemned the Doctrines of Protestants unheard nor would ever permit them to come to plead for themselves in any impartial assembly till which be done no man can construe the proceedings of a Council to be any other than practises to suppress truth And for their juggling they were so notorious that many Papists themselves have observed them as may be seen in the History of the Council of Trent especially about the divine right of Bishops of the Laity having the Cup Priests Marriages in which Papists themselves found that they were meerly mocked by the Pope and Court of Rome As for this mans denying the Antecedent it seems to me to savour of such an imputation of a defect in God as tends to Atheism For sure he is not to be termed a provident and just God who declaring his minde in the Scripture and promising life to them that observe his Word and threatning Death and Damnation to them that do not believe and obey yet doth not set down all necessary points therein to be believed and obeyed unto life Yea doth not H. T. by denying it contradict himself who saith pag. 105. In the Doctrines which Christ and his Apostles taught and the Books which they wrote are contained all things that are of Faith And for the Consequence if it be not good The Bible contains all things necessary to salvation either for belief or practise for all sorts of men whatsoever and that explicitly and plainly therefore the Bible is the Rule of Faith neither is his own second argument good for Tradition pag. 105. In the Doctrines which Christ and his Apostles taught and the Books which they wrote are contained all things that are of Faith therefore the infallible means of knowing them is the infallible and true Rule of Faith in both the Consequence being the same As for his Instances I say If the three Creeds and four first Councils be not in the Scripture they are not necessary to be known for the whole Church and to be believed by us in particular though they be sufficiently proposed to us by the Church that is in their non-sense gibberish the Pope or a general Council approved by him require us to receive them Neither hath the Church as he terms it power to propose any thing as necessary to be known for the whole Church and to be believed by us in particular but what is contained in the Bible nor hath it such authority as that we are bound to believe them if it do propound them though never so sufficiently but are bound to reject them as contrary to the duty we ow to Christ of acknowledging him our onely Master much more reason have we to contend against them when they are propounded by the Popes of Rome who teach not the Doctrine of Christ but cruelly and proudly tyrannize over the souls and bodies of the Saints in a most Antichristian manner and impose on them as Apostolical traditions things contrary to Christ and his Apostles in the Bible Nor is it true that all Protestants will acknowledge all thsse Points he mentioneth as necessary to be known for the whole Church and to be believed by us in particular I grant it not sufficient for us to believe all the Bible unless we believe it in the true sense but aver we can believe it in the true sense and be able to confute all Heresies out of it without the Rule of Apostolical tradition unwritten in any of those points in which the Errour is as our Lord Christ was able by it to vanquish Satan for which reason it is termed the Sword of the Spirit Ephes 6. 17. And for Traditions or Popes Decrees they are but a Leaden Sword without Fire and Faggot yea there is so much vanity in them as makes them ridiculous and so unfit for refutation and were it not for the horrid butchery and cruelty which Princes drunken with the Wine of the Cup of the Fornication of the Whore of Babylon make of their best Subjects at the instigation of Popes and Popish Priests nothing would appear more contemptible than their decisions Yet more Object Doubtless for speculative Points of Christian Doctrine Books are a safer and more infallible Way or Rule than oral Tradition Answ You are mistaken Books are infinitely more liable to Casualties and Corruptions than Traditions as well by reason of the variety of Languages into which they are translated as the diversity of Translations scarce any two Editions agreeing but all pretending one to mend the other besides the multiplicity of Copies and Copists with the Equivocation and uncertainty of dead and written words if captiously wrested or literally insisted on Who can prove any one Copy of the Bible to be infallible or uncorrupted those that were written by the Apostles own hands we have not or who can convince that any one Text of the Bible can have no other sense and meaning than what is convenient for his purpose insisting onely on the dead Letter All which dangers and difficulties are avoided by relying on Apostolical tradition which bindes men under pain of Damnation to deliver nothing for Faith but what they have received as such by hand to hand from Age to Age and in the same sense in which they have received it Think me not foolish says St. Augustin for using these terms for I have so learned these things by Tradition neither dare I deliver them to thee any other way than as I have received them Lib. de utilit cred cap. 3. I reply A more impudently and palpably false Discourse than this is a man shall seldom meet with it being contrary to all experience and use among men and condemns all the customes of the most civil people of folly
all which we may easily come to know by means of Apostolical tradition without which we can have no infallible assurance of any Point of Christian Doctrine I reply neither the Church nor her Ministers can sufficiently propose to any man for the Word of God any other than the Scripture by which we may have infallible assurance of any Point of Christian Doctrine without oral Tradition unwritten And to say that the whole Church in general and not each man in particular is obliged to know all divinely revealed verities which are necessary to the salvation of all mankinde is to speak contradictions Yet once more saith H. T. Object You dance in a vicious Circle proving the Scripture and the Churches infallibility by Apostolical tradition and tradition by the Scripture and the Churches infallibility Answ No we go on by a right Rule towards Heaven We prove indeed the Churches infallibility and the credibility of the Scriptures by Apostolical tradition but that is evident of it self and admits no other proof When we bring Scripture for either we use it onely as a secondary testimony or argument ad hominem I reply if this be so then doth H T. in his Title-page pretend demonstration of his falsly called Catholick Religion by Tents of holy Scripture in the first place onely as a secondary testimony or argument ad hominem but it is oral Apostolical tradition which he principally relies on for his demonstration as being evident of it self and admits no other proof which oral Apostolical Tradition being no other than what Popes and Councils approved by him have approved it follows that what Papists call Catholick Religion is not what the Scriptures teach but what Popes and their Councils define into which their Faith is ultimately resolved No marvel then they decline Scripture or if they use it do it onely because of Protestants importunity not because they think it is to be rested on and if so sure H. T. plays the Hypocrite in pretending to demonstrate his Religion out of Texts of holy Scripture If other Papists would stick to this which H. T. here saith we should take it as a thing confessed that Popery is not Scripture doctrine but onely unwritten Tradition and to have for its bottom foundation the Popes determination and so to be imbraced upon his credit which sure can beget no other than a humane faith and in fine doth make the Pope Lord of their Faith which is all one as to make him their Christ and that is to make him an Antichrist Therefore I conceive other Romanists will disown this resolution of H. T. and seek other ways to get out of this Circle and herein they go divers ways Dr. Holden an English man and Doctor of Paris in his Book of the Analysis of divine Faith chap. 9. rejects the common way and sticks to that of universal Tradition which by natural reason is evident and firm But when he hath urged this as far as he can this must be the evidence that what all say and was so manifestly know by so many Miracles as Christ and his Apostles wrought must be infallibly true But the being of Christ the Mossiah and his Doctrine from God as the holy Scriptures declare is avouched by all the Church and manifestly known by Miracles therefore it must be true which is no other than Chillingworth's universal Tradition confirming the truth of the Scriptures and deriving our Faith from thence which if Papists do relinquish and adhere to the Popes resolutions whether they be with Scripture or without they do expresly declare themselves Papists or Disciples of the Pope not Christians that is Disciples of Christ I conclude therefore that H. T. and such as hold with him according to the Principle he here sets down are not Believers in Christ whose Doctrine is delivered in the Scripture but in men whether Popes or Councils or the universal Church or any other who delivers to him that oral Tradition which is his Rule as being evident of it self and admits no other proof though I have shewed it to be uncertain yea not so much as probable I go on to the next Article ARTIC IX Schism and Heresie are ill charged on Protestants Protestants in not holding Communion with the Roman Church as now it is in their Worship in not subjecting themselves to the Pope as their visible Head in denying the new Articles of the Tridentin Council and Pope Pius the fourth his Bull are neither guilty of Schism nor Heresie But Papists by rejecting them for this cause and seeking to impose on them this Subjection are truly Schismaticks and in holding the Articles which now they do are Hereticks SECT I H. T. his definitions of Heresie and Schism are not right H. T. intitles his ninth Article of Schism and Heresie and begins thus Nothing intrenching more on the Rule of Faith or the Authority of the Church than Schism or Heresie we shall here briefly shew what they are and who are justly chargeable therewith Our Tenet is that not onely Heresie which is a wilfull separation from the Doctrine of the Catholick Church but also Schism which is a separation from her government is damnable and sacrilegious and that most Sectaries are guilty of both Answ I Think Infidelity doth more intrench on the Rule of Faith than Heresie and Heresie may be where there is no intrenching on the Authority of the Church in this Authour 's own sense as when a man living in communion with the Roman Church and owning the Pope or being the Pope himself is an Arian as Pope Liberius or a Monothelite as Pope Honorius And for his definition of Heresie it is in mine apprehension too obscure and imperfect For it neither shews what is the Catholick Church the separation from whose Doctrine makes Heresie nor what Doctrines of it the separation from which makes Heresie nor what separation in heart or profession or other act nor when it is wilfull when not nor how it may be known to be wilfull Nor doth this definition agree with their own Tenets who acquit many from Heresie who wilfully separate from the Doctrine of the Catholick Church as they define it to wit that which is defined by a general Council approved by a Pope As for instance The Popish French Church is acquitted from Heresie yet they hold a Council to be above the Pope contrary to the last Lateran Council approved by Pope Leo the tenth Nor is this definition at all proved by this Authour but taken as granted though it may be justly questioned And for the use of the terms Heresie and Hereticks in the Ancients it is certain that many are put in the Catalogue of Hereticks by Philastrius Epiphanius Augustin and also by other Writers elder and later and those opinions termed Heresies which were not so The like faults are in the definition of Schism in not setting down which is the Catholick Church what is her government what separation of heart or outward
drawing of the Net on the shore at the Day of Judgement is damnable and the Sacrilege of Schism which surpasseth all other crimes lib. 2. cont Epist Parmen I reply it is a Scolds trick to say we slander and not to prove it We prove out of Paul's Epistle to the Romans that the Roman Church then held Justification by Faith without Works that every Soul even Popes were to be subject to Princes that the Scriptures are to be the Rule of Faith that the Church of Rome might fail that the Roman church is but a particular Church that it is evil to judge Christians for not observing difference of Meats and Days that it is Idolatry to do as Papists now do worshiping the Creature with such Worship as belongs to the Creatour that we are not to invocate Saints in whom we believe not with sundry more in which the present Roman church hath sweâ—ved from the primitive We prove out of Gregory the Great himself that the Doctrine and Discipline of the Roman church is not the same now as it was in all precedent Ages for he rejected the Title of Universal Bishop now usurped by the Pope and disavowed the Worship of Images with other things now received at Rome and before him Pope Gelasius termed the denying the Cup to the Lay-people sacrilegious Augustine himself hath taught us to account his words below Scripture-canon yet his speeches touch not us who do not separate our selves from the church of Christ on pretence of avoiding communion of bad men but from the Papacy on full proof that the communion of the Popish church is imposed on conditions of acknowledging such Errours and practising such Idolatry as are damnable We do not say that the church perished but that it was continued in a remnant of persecuted Saints We need not allege any Church for our Mother but the Jerusalem which is abovâ— which is the Mother of us all Gal. 4. 26. I judge it no better than an inconsiderate speech to say any visible church is the Mother of Christians it is in my apprehension all one as to say the church is the Mother of the church Christians or believers being all one with the church and therefore count such speeches whoever Father or Prelate he be that useth them no better than ridiculous non-sense and much more to call Bishops our Fathers in Christ and yet to term them the Church also and our Mother Nor need we allege a Church that brought us forth it is sufficient we can prove our Faith to be according to the Gospel and allege that we have been begotten by it which way soever it be Were not the â—berians a church of Christians who were converted by â— captive Maid when there was no church there before and the Indians by â—rumentius without a Church to bring them forth May not a man have Faith and Salvation in a Wilderness where he knows of no church Neither did Luther nor Tyndal separate themselves from all Nations but were expelled and peâ—secuted by the devilish Popes and Popish Clergy of Rome when they endeavoured to restore the purity of the Gospel to the Germans English and other Nations If Augustine meant simply that all Separation made before the Day of Judgement is damnable he wrote that which is not true it being contrary to Paul's practise Acts 18. 9. God's command 2 Cor. 6. 17. 2 Tim. 3 5. 2 Thess 3. 8. Revel 18. 4. He himself acknowledgeth lib. 2. cont Epist Pâ—rmen cap. 21. A man is not to associate with others when he cannot have society with them but by doing evil with them But if he meant it of such Separation as the Donatists made as it is likely he doth it toucheth not us who separate not from the Romanists because some evil men are tolerated but because Errour Idolatry and other evils are urged on us by them and such is their tyranny that without yielding to them there is no communion but in stead thereof Banishment or Burning Once more saith H. T. Object We did but separate from the particular Church of Rome Therefore not from the whole Church Answ I told you it the Question of the Churches universality in what sense the Church of Rome iâ— universal or Catholick and in what sense she is particular take it in which acception you will your Consequence is false for whosoever separates from an acknowledged true Member of the Catholick Church and such the Church of Rome then was in her particular he consequently separates from the whole and is an Heretick or Schismatick I reply neither as it is taken for the congregation of Rome or Italy nor as it notes a collection of all the Churches holding communion with the See of Rome is the Roman Church rightly termed the Catholick Church the non-sense and falshood thereof is shewed before Art 5. Sect. 8. Nor is it true that he that separates from the Catholick Roman Church in either sense is an Heretick or Schismatick And to his proof I say 1. That many Protestants deny the Roman Church a true Member of the Catholick Church when Luther separated but call it an Antichristian and malignant Church and they that acknowledge it a true Church in respect of the truth of being yet not of Doctrine and they that say it had the truth of being say it not of the predominant part but of the latent conceiving it was with them as it was with Israel in the days of Elijah that they did not own those Errours and evils which were practised in them or avouched by them though living among them or if they did yield to them or some of them they had pardon as doing it in ignorance retaining the old Creed of the Apostles And they attribute the truth of it to the few fundamental Articles which they held who were in it though very unsoundly by reason of the errours and corruptions mixed with them which made the Church among the Romanists as a leprous man unfit for converse and communion with whom though they might continue for a time in expectation of their repentance yet they might say to Rome being found uâ—câ—rable as the Jews to Babylon Jer. 51. 9. We would have healed Babylon but she is not healed forsake her and let us go every one into his own countrey for her Judgement reacheth unto the Heaven and is lifted up unto the Skies 2. That it is not universally true that he who separates from an acknowledged true Member of the Catholick Church separtes from the whole there may be a Separation partial not total privative not positive out of prejudice and passion in heat not in heart as between Paul and Barnabas Acts 15. 39. Chrysostome and Epiphanius temporary not perpetual in prudence though not out of absolute necessity necessary not voluntary just and not rash without revolt from the Faith or persecution of those from whom it is made In many of these sorts there may be a Separation which may be from
Nor can indeed in any true sense the Pope of Rome be termed Peter's Successour For if he be his Successour he is Successour in his Work or in his Power The Work of the Apostle Peter was by preaching the Gospel to found Churches to Christ and to that end was to go to several places but the Pope of Rome succeeds not in this he neither goes up and down unless in a pompous Procession or to a worse end nor preacheth the Gospel nor founds any Churches thereby nor doth think it his business but to stay at Rome and there to live in pomp and wealth and luxury and to lord it tyrannously over the Flock of God Nor is he Successour in his power Peter had power to give the Holy Ghost Acts 8. to strike Ananias and Sapphira dead Acts 5. But the Pope cannot do these things Nor in the Government of the whole Church For this Peter onely had not nor above other Apostles but together with the rest Nor was Peter's or the Apostles power any such visible Monarchy as the Pope claims to receive Appeals from all Churches to appoint Legates to hear parties in all controversies of faith to be an infallible Judge of such controversies an infallible Expounder of the Scriptures determining what is Heresie and what of Faith calling general Councils crowning Emperours deposing Princes dispensing with Oaths Marriages of persons in near degrees otherwise prohibited impose Laws about Fasting and many other things which God never appointed Such an Headship of the whole Church as the Pope claims Peter never had Nor is any such thing proved or so much as offer'd to be proved by H. T. his Catalogue which how insufficient it is hath been alread shewed I go on to his Arguments here SECT II. From being the Foundation Matth 16. 18. and feeding the Sheep of Christ John 21. 15 16 17. neither Peter's nor Popes Supremacy is proved The first Argument saith H. T. is this The foundation hath a preheminence of firmitude and stability before the rest of the building which is founded on it and the Shepherd is Head of his Flock and above his Sheep But St. Peter next after Christ himself was the Foundation of the whole Church and Pastour of the whole Flock therefore St. Peter next after Christ had a preheminence over the whole Church and was Head of the whole Flock and above all the other Sheep of which number were the rest of the Apostles Answ THe Headship and pastoral power which H. T. would prove to be due to the Pope is not a guidance onely by teaching but a princely dominion so as that all may appeal to him none from him his sentence must be obeyed by all under pain of damnation in matters of faith and must be judged infallible and 't is likely he holds with Bellarmine lib. 4. de Rom. pont cap. 5. that if the Pope should erre by commanding vices or forbidding virtues the Church should be bound to believe vices to be good and virtues to be evil unless it would sin against conscience and if he dissent herein from Bellarmine yet in the Canon Law distinct 40. such an absolute dominion is given him that though he should draw innumerable souls with him to Hell no man must say to him Why dost thou so and some Flatterers of the Pope have given him all power in Heaven and Earth yea and more than Christ had in Purgatory also allowing no Appeal from the Pope to God as having one Consistory with God calling him our Lord God the Pope nor did I ever read or hear that any Pope hath by any Censure corrected such blasphemous Titles but they have by their commands contrary to Gods dispensing with his Laws deposing Emperours and innumerable other practises shewed that they owned such power as theirs Now sure this power was never given to Peter nor any such like power under the term of a Foundation which is for the ruine not for the establishing of the Church nor under the charge of feeding especially of anothers Sheep of whom he is no Owner or Lord. Is this to feed Christ's Sheep to do what he will with them appoint what Penance he will put what Laws he please on the Sheep to excommunicate deprive of Civil and Ecclesiastical Dignity and Office at pleasure such a Supremacy is indeed so like that which Paul foretold concerning the man of sin 2 Thess 2. 4. that he opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped so that he as God sitteth in the Temple of God shewing himself that he is God that till I meet with some more likely than the Popes to be there meant I shall take it be a part of my Creed that the Pope of Rome is the very Man of sin there meant And for this H. T. who gives such a supreme Headship to Peter and the Pope over the other Apostles so as to make him a Shepherd to rule excommunicate deprive John James Paul as his Sheep it is so monstrously false an Assertion as none but he that hath sold himself to teach Lyes would ever assert it As for his Syllogism it is most grosly naught as having four terms at least The term hath a preheminence of firmitude and stability before the rest of the building which is founded on it being different from this in the Conclusion had a preheminence over the whole Church and so likewise are these the Foundation and the Foundation of the whole Church and therefore the Major should have been the Foundation of the whole Church hath a preheminence over the whole Church the Minor thus Peter next after Christ is the Foundation of the whole Church and the Conclusion thus Peter next after Christ had a preheminence over the whole Church or else thus The Foundation hath a preheminence of firmitude and stability before the whole Church But Peter next after Christ is the Foundation therefore Peter had a preheminence of firmitude and stability before the whole Church now neither of these Conclusions had been the point to be proved but might have been granted and the Assertion not gained And in the other Metaphor the Syllogism hath the same fault For in the Major it is Head of his Flock and above his Sheep in the Minor it is Pastour of the whole Flock and in the Conclusion not Head of his Flock and above his Sheep but Head of the whole Flock and above all the other Sheep and there is added too this tail of which there is no offer of proof of which number were the rest of the Apostles Now to discover besides the fallacy in the form the deceit in the matter of this Argument it is to be considered 1. That the Metaphor of a Foundation doth not at all import Rule or Government but inchoation and support and therefore is unfit to prove that Rule and Power of Government which H. T. derives from it 2. That he that is a Shepherd is Head or Lord