not to receive the letters and complaint of the divided party from Cyprian nor to take on him to juâ—ge their cause but to remit them to their own Bishops 2. It appears by the fact of Cypriâ—n who opposed Stâ—phen Bishop of Rome in the point of rebaptizing the baptized by hereticks as his Epistle to Pompeius shews and joyned with Firmiâ—â—anus and other Bishops of Cappadocia Cilicia and Galatia excommunicated by Pope Stephen and so involved in the same censure in which state he died without repentance for ought is known and therefore conceived not the Pope infallible or his judge or himself subject to him but counted Stephen an usurper over his brethren by reason of his imposing his decree on others and censure of dissenters And for the words in the Epistle to Cornelius they are not as H. T. cites them To Peters chair and the principal Church infidelity or false faith cannot have access But to the Romans meaning not only the Bishop but the rest of the church and by perfidia there is meant not any infidelity or false faith whatsoever but those perfidious persons and their treacherous action in breaking from Cyprian nor doth he say that perfidiousness could have access at no time but not at that time which he ascribes not to the priviledge of the place but their constancy in the faith heretofore praised by Paul and to the providence of Cornelius their Bishop and their own vigilancy as the words in the end of the Epistle shew Although I know there your fraternity to wit being fenced by your Providence and also wary enough by their own vigilancy cannot be taken with the poysons of hereticks nor deceived and that so much the magisteries and divine precepts prevail with them as the fear of God is in them yet our over abundance of carefulness or charity hath perswaded us to write these things to you being indeed not altogether out of fear of Cornelius of whom he takes notice in the beginning of the Epistle Marvailing enough when he observed by his letter that he was somewhat moved by the threats and terrors of them that came and therefore doth earnestly press him to take courage and to withstand them Which being rightly understood the speeches of Cyprian concerning the Roman constancy and the inaccessibleness of perfidiousness to them appear only expressions of his confidence and good hopes not of any certainty that it would be so much less of any infallibility of their Bishop or church and this he did to engage them to withstand the schismaticks it being a great argument with persons to be constant to those who express their confiding in them and their expectation thereof And therefore he would have his Epistle read to the most flourishing Clergy there presiding with Cornelius and the most holy and most ample common people or Laity that if any contagion of poysoned speech and pestiferous sowing had crept in it might be all put off from the ears and breasts of the brethren and the entire and sincere love of good men might be cleansed from all filth of heretical detraction which shews that he conceived them liable to such contagion and pollution and that he was not certain that they were then altogether free All these things being considered it will appear that these passages of Cyprian are so far from proving the infallibility and supreme judicature and supremacy of the Pope and church of Rome which H. T. asserts that they prove the contrary The words of Lactantius l. 3. c. ult that it is only the Catholick Church that hath the true worship of God this is the well-spring of truth the dwelling place of faith c. are true but nothing to the purpose it being a meer dream that the Româ—n and Catholick church are the same nor if they were do they prove infallibility in all definitions of faith or supreme judicature in controversies of faith but the enjoying for themselves the true worship truth and faith The words of Cyril of Jerusalem that the Roman faith commanded by the Apostles cannot be changed l. 3. c. 4 in apolog cont Ruffinum we subscribe to who profess our ready reception of what faith the Apostles commanded The words of Vincentius Lyrinensis adv hares c. 41. are thus not as H. T. cites them In the antiquity of the Church two things are vehemently and studiously to be observed unto which they ought altogether to stick who will not be hereticks the first if any thing were anciently decreed by the authority of an universal council from all the Priests of the Catholick Church which is nothing to the later councils approved by the Pope nor doth prove that the ancient councils were infallible much lesse that the church or Pope of Rome are infallible Nor are the words of Augustin which I finde not l. 4. de bapt c. 4 I know by Divine revelation that the spirit of truth teacheth it all truth if they be as H. T. cites them for his purpose For if by it he means the church it follows not he means the Roman church and if the spirit teach it all truth it cannot be meant of all truth simply nor at all times But I finde these words l. 4. de bapt contra Donat. c. 5. In vain some when they are overcome by reason object to us custome as if custome were greater then truth or that were not to be followed in spirituals which is to the better revealed by the holy Spirit This is plainly true that reason and truth is to be put before custome The words of Augustin epist 118. c. 5. are not fully set down by H. T. They are thus If the authority of divine Scripture prescribe which of these speaking about offering and fasting is to be donâ— it is not to be doubted that that is to be done which we read In like manner also if any of these things the whole Church through the world doth frequent For to dispute whether we are so to do is of most insolent madness Where 1. He means it of rites not determined in Scripture not in points of faith 2. Neither doth he count it madness to dispute against the use of the Roman church yea he makes it a rule which he had from Ambrose to fast as they did at Millan when he was there and as they did at Rome when he was there Epist 86. ad Casul no nor to dispute against the whole church of one age but against the whole church in every age Other words of August cont epist fundam c. 5. are brought by H. T. and urged often by Romanists for the asserting the authority of the church above the Scripture thus And I my self would not believe the Gospel were it not that the authority of the Church moves me to it But the words are not thus rightly alleged For 1. The word Catholick is left out which shews he meant it not of the Roman onely and some words following seem to extend it to the church comprehending
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
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
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
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.
the Chalcedon which gave the Patriarch of Constanâ—inople equal power with the Roman in his Province and ascribed the Popes dignity not to any grant of Christ to Peter but to custome out of regard to Rome as the imperial city not to the council of Basil or Constance which made the council above the Pope But H. T. adds an argument for the Churches supreme power of judicature That is the supreme Judge in every cause who hath an absolute power to oblige all dissenters to an agreement and from whom there can be no appeal in such a cause But the Catholick Church hath an absolute power to oblige all that disagree in controverted points of faith nor is there any appeal from her decision therefore the Catholick Church is supreme Judge in controverted points of faith The Major is manifest by induction in all courts of judicature the Minor hath been proved above by the first second and fourth arguments Answ It is denied that the Minor hath been proved or that there is any other Judge besides the sentence of God in holy Scripture which can so oblige dissenters in those points Nor do a great part of Papists themselves at this day namely the French Papists make such account of the Roman church oâ— Popes judgement but that they do conceive they may and sometimes have appealed from them to a general council Occham held that the Pope was haereticabilis that is might be an heretick some of them being suspected of heresie have been fain to acquit themselves to Emperours by Apologies some of them have been condemned as hereticks by general councils Fathers universitie of Paris Gerson wrote a book de auferibilitate Papae and the French churches conceive their churches may be without a Pope and well governed by a Patriarch of their own It is but a new and late invented doctrine of Jesuits and other flatterers of Popes that the Roman church or Pope or a general council approved by him are infallible nor is there a word in any of the Fathers cited by H. T. to that purpose The words of Irenaeus l. 3. c. 40. are cited maimedly by H. T. they are entirely thus For where the Church is there is also the spirit and where the spirit of God is there is the Church and all grace but the spirit is truth By which it may appear that truth is ascribed to the Church by reason of the spirit and that by the Church he means not only the Roman but any where the Spirit of God is and in the words before he sets down the truth he means to wit that if one God and salvation by Christ which he terms the constant preaching of the Church on every side and equally persevering having testimony from Prophets and from Apostles and from all Disciples By which it is manifest that he commends no other preaching of the Church then is in the Scriptures not the definitions of any now existent Church or after Church without the Scriptures The next words of Irenaeus are not as here H. T. themâ— 1. c. 49. there being not in my book so many chapters but l. 4. c. 43. and are alleged by H. T. art 4. and answered by me before art 4. sect 7. The other words of Irenaeus The Church shall be under no mans judgement for to the Church all things are known in which is perfect faith of the Father and of all the dispensation of Christ and firme knowledge of the holy Ghost who teacheth all truth I finde not any where as he cites them In l. 1. there are not sixty two chapters and in l. 4. c. 62. which I suspect by his former quotation he would have cited the words are thus After he had said ch 53. such a Disciple meaning who had read diligently the holy Scripture which is with the Presbyters in the Church with whom is the Apostolical doctrine truely spiritual receiving the Spirit of God c. judgeth indeed all men but he himself is judged of none in several following chapters sets down various hereticks whom he shall judge and ch 62. saith he shall judge also all those who are without the truth that is the Church but he himself is judged of none For all things constant are known or manifest to him both the entire faith in one God omnipotent from whom all things are and in the Son of God Christ Jesus our Lord and the dispositions of him by which the Son of God was made man the firm sentence which is in the spirit of God who causeth the acknowledging of truth who hath expounded the dispositions of the Father and Son according to which he was present with mankind as the Father willeth By which any one may perceive that H. T. if these were the words he meant hath corruptly cited them mangling them and perverting them to prove an infallibility and supreme judicature of the Roman Church or Pope for others which are meant of every true spiritual Disciple and his private judgement for himself and in the main points of faith and according to and by means of the Apostolical doctrine of the Scriptures which is the very doctrine of Protestants concerning the judgement which each Christian may have and hath in points of faith and the certainty of it according to the Scriptures which while he follows he is judged of none nor needs any ones judgement Popes or others to define what he shall believe The words of Origen That only is to be believed for truth which in nothing disagreeth from the tradition of the Church And in our understanding Scripture c. We must not believe otherwise than the Church of God hath by succession delivered to us prefat in lib. periarch Whether they be rightly cited I know not having not the book to examine them by and by his other citations as by his citation of Origen art 4. where the same words as I conceive are cited somewhat otherwise which are answered art 4. sect 7. before the words from the Apostles being here left out and his c. here I suspect fraud Yet if the words be as he cites them they prove not what he brings them for there being no restriction to the Roman Church much lesse to the Pope nor is the tradition of the Church said to be that which is unwritten and other then is in the Scriptures and the faith which by succession the Church is said to deliver is not meant of any of those points which the Pope would obtrude on the Church of God and Protestants reject but in probability the points of faith which were in the Apostles Creed professed at baptism which Irenaeus Origen Tertullian c. were wont to hold forth against the hereticks of their times and Protestants do still avouch The words of Cyprian de unitate Eccles are not meant of the Roman Church but of the Church throughout the whole world as the words precedent shew and the freedom from adultery and the uncorruptednesse and chastity of
the Church cannot be meant of every visible Church as if it were free from error but of the true Spouse of Christ nor is the true Spouse of Christ free from error of any sort but that which is in the main points of faith concerning the Father Son and holy Spirit as the words following shew nor is he said to be separated from the promises of the Father or not to have God for his Father who divides from the Church of Rome and hath not it for his mother nor are all other Churches said to be adulteresses who hold not with the now Roman church but he who divides from the Catholick church nor hath it for his mother of whom he had said Illius faetuâ—nascimur illius lacte nutrimur spiritu â—jus animamur whence it appears that he meant the church to be his mother who is born again with the same birth baptism or faith nourished by her milk that is the Word of the Gospel and animated by the same Spirit And of this it is granted that whoever is so severed from the church of Christ that is the multitude or number of believers throughout the world who professe and are baptized into the common faith and are nourished by the same Gospel and quickned by the same Spirit they are divided from God and have not him for their Father But this proves not that he that is divided from the now Roman church is divided from God But there are other words of Cyprian cited by him as found Epist 55. in mine edition at Bafil 1558. l. 1. Epist 3. as Bellar. also cites them l. 4. de Romano pontifice c. 4. which are thus set down by H. T. To Peters chair and the principal church infidelity or false faith cannot have access in which he would insinuate 1. That the Roman church is the principal church 2. That by reason of Peters chair there no error in faith could come to that church But the words being rightly and fully set down and the Epistle being read throughout it will appear that Cyprian had no such meaning as this Author would put upon him The words are these After these things which he had related before concerning the crimes of some excluded by him out of the church of Carthage as yet over and above a false Bishop being constituted for themselves by hereticks they dare saile and bring letters from Schismaticks and profane persons to Peters chair and the principal church from whence sacerdotal unity arose and not think them to be Romans whose faith the Apostle declaring is praised to whom perfidiousness cannot have accesse Iâ— which I grant the Roman church is called the principal church from whence sacerdotal unity did arise and the See of Rome Peters chair the reason of which speech is plainly set down by Cyprian himself in his book de simplicitate Prâ—latorum or de unitate Eccleâ—â—ae in these words The Lord speaketh to Peter I saith he say to thee that thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not overcome it I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven and what things thou shalt binde upon earth shall be bound also in the heavens and what things thou shalt loose upon earth shall be also loosed in heaven And to the same after his resurrection he saith Feed my sheep And although to all the Apostles after his resurrection he bestowed equal power and saith As my Father sent me I also send you receive the holy Ghost if ye remit sins to any they shall be remitted to him if ye â—old them to any they shall be held yet that he might manifest unity he hath disposed by his authority the rise of the same unity beginning from one Verily the other Apostles were also that which Peter was endued with equal allotment of honour and power but the beginning comes from unity that the church may be shewed to be one And a little after which unity we ought firmly to hold and vindicate chiefly Bishops who are President in the church that we may prove also Bishoprick it self to be one and undivided Let no man deceive the fraternity with a lye let no man corrupt the truth of faith with perfidious prevarication Bishoprick is one of which by each entirely a part is held By which words it is manifest that Cyprian made the Roman church the principal church not because the Bishop of Rome was above any other in honour and power or that Peters chair was more infallible than other Apostles chairs or that a supremacy over the whole church did belong to the Pope of Rome for he expressely saith that the other Apostles were the same that Peter was that they were endued with equal allotment or fellowship of honour and power and that in solidum wholly and entirely that is as much one as another each Bishop held his part in the one Bishoprick but because he made the unity of Episcopacy to have its original from Christs grant to Peter Matth. 16. 18. that all Bishops might be as one none arrogating more to himself than another And that this was Cyprians minde appears 1. By the words in his Epistle to Pope Cornelius presently after the words which H. T. cites where against the practise of those that sailed to Rome to bring thither letters of complaint against Cyprian he saith But what cause is there of their going and declaring their making a false Bishop against the Bishops For either that pleaseth then which they have done and they persevere in their wickedness or if it displeaseth them and they recede they know whither they should return For sâ—â—h it is decreed by all us and it is â—qual alike and just that every ones cause should be there heard where the crime is admitted and to several Pastors a portion of the flock is ascribed which each Pastor should rule and govern being to give account to the Lord of his own act it is meet verily that thosâ— over whom we are president should not run about nor break the cohering concord of Bishops by their subdolous and fallacious rashness but there plead their cause where they may have both accusers and witnesses of their own crime unless to a few desperate and wâ—etched persons the authority of the Bishops setled in Africa seem less who have already judged of them and by the weight of their judgement have damned their conscience bound with the many snares of their sins Which words shew that Cyprian denied the authority of the Bishops of Africa to he less thâ—n the Bishop of Rome and that persons should appeal from them to Rome but asserts that they ought to stand to the judgement of their own Bishops and that a portion of the flock is given to each Pastor which he ought to rule and govern and thereof must give account to the Lord not the whole to any one no not to the Bishop of Rome and therefore he ought
this allegation doth no whit infringe the Objection H. T. adds Object St. Peter erred in faith when St. Paul contradicted him to the face Answ No it was onely in a matter of fact or conversation according to Tertullian lib. praescript cap. 23. by withdrawing himself and refusing to eat with the Gentiles for fear of the Jews Gal. 2. 12. I reply 'T is true Tertullian saith that Peter 's fact was conversationis vitium non praedicationis a vice of his conversation not of his Preaching and he shews wherein that he preached not another God or Christ or â—ope But this doth not shew that Peter erred not at all in any point of faith nor that Tertullian thought so yea the very words of Paul Gal. 2. 15. that he did not walk uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel shew that his practise did infer an opinion contrary to the truth of the Gospel and the words Why compeâ—lest thou the Gentiles to Judaize which could be no otherwise than by suggesting to them that opinion that they must do so shew he taught the Gentiles an Errour in a point of Faith contrary to the Decree of the Council Acts 15. It follows Object Christ blamed the incredulity of his Disciples in not believing his Resurrection St. Mark 16. 14. Answ He onely blamed their slowness in believing not any errour in faith or loss of faith in them seeing they had it not before for they understood not what Christ had said to them of it as appears St. Luke 18. 1 St. John 20. they did not know all points of faith at once but by degrees I reply the Question now is of Infallibility not of Apostasie now it is certain they were not infallible if they did actually erre and it is certain they did erre who did not believe Christ to have been risen from the dead which was sure an errour in a point of faith and so much the greater in that it was foretold by Christ himself that it should be and told by Women that it was so and of this number Peter was one after he was termed Peter and according to the Romanist's Doctrine had been made Prince of the Apostles and chief Pastour of the universal Church Now if Peter did erre then in faith much more may the Popes of Rome who pretend to be his Successours and to derive their Privileges from his grant and consequently cannot pretend to any more than he had Again Object Every man is a Liar Answ In his own particular be it so yet the holy Ghost can and will teach the Church all truth he is no friend to truth that contradicts it and albeit man of himself may erre yet by the holy Ghost he may be guided so that â—e erre not I reply The words that make every man a Liar do speak this of man in contradistinction to God's being true and thereby shew that this is made God's Prerogative to be true without any errour and that no meer man is such and therefore not infallible and consequently neither Roman Bishop nor Council nor Church infallible nor doth the Answer avoid it For if they be every one a Liar in his own particular they must be so in a community or Council as if each person in his own particular be blinde the whole company must needs be so too I grant the holy Ghost can and will teach the Church of Christ meaning the Church of the Elect all truth necessary to their salvation and he is no friend to truth that contradicts it but that he will teach any or all the visible Churches or their Bishops and Teachers or any one Bishop all truth in any point controverted so as that they shall be infallible Judges in determining controversies of faith is more than yet is proved by H. T. or any other And if man may of himself erre though he may by the holy Ghost be guided so that he erre not then unless it may be known that in this or that Definition of Faith he is so guided by the holy Ghost no man can rest upon his Definition as infallible But it is not certain that either a Council or Pope who are confessedly fallible of themselves and therefore do implore the holy Ghost's help as knowing they may erre are guided by the holy Ghost that they may not erre but by examining their Definitions by the holy Scripture For there is no other way to know they have not erred and consequently such a not erring being uncertain their Definitions can at no time without proof from Scripture which each person is to try for himself be a sufficient assurance to build a firm Faith upon which is confirmed by the next Objection Object Try all things hold fast that which is good 1 Thess 5. Believe not every spirit but try the spirits if they be from God 1 John 4. Answ Try them by the Churches authority and Apostolical tradition that is the Touch-stone not the dead Letter humane reason or the private spirit I reply If Christians are to try all things then they are to try the Churches authority and therefore the Churches authority can be no Rule of trial And indeed the Precept had been ridiculous if he had bid them try the Churches Definitions whether they were good or no and the spirits whether of God by the Churches authority unless the Churches authority were to be tried by something else which were of it self credible For when the Church defines for examples sake Transubstantiation to try this by the Churches authority is no more but to enquire whether the Church hath defined it if we must rest on its authority without examining its proof which would be all one as to say Try not at all what the church propounds but believe it But it is a vain Rule till we know who are the church by whose authority and what is their authority by which we must try especially considering it is not agreed among Papists whether a Pope or council jointly or severally be the church even H. T. pag. 70. speaks as if he would fain take in all but is doubtfull on which to fasten Nor are they agreed whether the Pope or council be superiour nor which council is approved which reprobate nor how far that which is approved is so The Rule is more uncertain when council is against council and Pope against Pope The truth is Papists contrary to the Apostles Precept are not allowed by their Doctrine to try what their church that is their Pope and Prelates teach them but they are bound to believe them with an implicit assent without any trial or explicit knowledge As for Apostolical tradition we like it well to try by it if it be in truth and not in pretence onely Apostolical tradition in which case we are to take heed that we be not deceived by such sayings as pretend to be from the Apostles but are not The Apostle Paul 2 Thess 2. 2. tells us there were such pretensions
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
used some of them perhaps fell out according to the course of such diseases as are said to be cured that of the healing of two Cappadocians hath too much suspicion of counterfeiting and Augustin himself though he relates somethings of his own knowledge yet makes none of them like the miracles of Christ and his Apostles which were more frequent and open and manifest in the presence of the adversaries as the raising of Lazarus and many more were and therefore he allegeth them for the stopping of their mouths who called for miracles rather then for any evident proof of religion using this very preface in the beginning of the Chapter Why say they are not those miracles now done which ye say have been done I may say indeed they were necessary before the world should believe for this that the world might believe Whosoever as yet seeks after prodigies that he may believe is himself a great prodigy who the world believing believes not But whatever be to be thought of the relations of Augustin in that place certain it is that Augustin ch 9 10. useth them not to give testimony to the confirmation either of the truth of the Roman Church or any of their doctrines nor for the worshipping of Stephen the Martyr or any other of the Saints but only to prove the resurrection of Christ to which they in their death gave testimony and therefore are all impertinent to the purpose of H. T. to prove the verity of the Roman Church by them SECT VIII The objections against the proof of the verity of the Roman Church from the power of miracles are not solved by H. T. But H. T. takes on him to answer objections thus Ob. Miracles have ceased ever since Christ and his Apostles Answ You contradict the plain promises of Christ made to his Church without limitation as also the histories and records of all Christendom I Reply 1. The objection is not as H. T. frameth it but that so frequent and manifest working of miracles as was in the days of Christ and his Apostles and which may be a note of the true Church or doctrine without consonancy to the Scripture hath ceased and therefore by this mark of it self the Roman Church is not proved to be the true Church 2. The contradictory to this is not proved by Christs promises or the Churches records For 1. The Promises John 14. 10. Mark 16. 17. are indefinite in respect of persons and time and an indefinite proposition is true in a contingent matter if verified but of some at some times and therefore these promises may be true of some believers onely and of the time wherein the Apostles lived and consequently by the promises it cannot be proved that there must be a power of working miracles in the Church in every age 2. That they cannot be understood of any age after the Apostles unto this day is manifest because they are not true of any age after that For however some miracles have been done yet not greater then Christ did which is promised John 14. 10. nor was the speaking with new tongues which is promised Mark 16. 17. in any age but that in which the Apostles lived 3. These promises are as much made to believers in other Churches as the Roman but now they grant there 's no power of Miracles in any other Church and therefore they must yield to understand the words with such a limitation as may make the Proposition true though there be no power of Miracles in the Roman Church 4. There 's no promise of the power of Miracles to confirm the truth of the Roman Church nor of any other point but the Christian faith and therefore none of the Miracles done by virtue of those promises prove the truth of the now Roman Church or Doctrine but onely the true faith which is believed by Protestants who believe the Creed as well as Papists As for the Records there are very few of them of any certainty after the Apostles days and Popish Writers themselves do confess that not onely in their Legends but also in their Liturgies fabulous things have crept so that by saying Miracles are altogether now ceased or else are very rare and are unfit to demonstrate the verity of any present Church is no contradicting Christ's promises or any good Records of Christendom H. T. adds Object Signs and Miracles were given to Unbelievers not to Believers therefore they are now unnecessary Answ No they are not for they very much confirm the immediate care and providence of God over his Church they excellently demonstrate his omnipotence and there be many disbelievers still the more is the pity I reply that Tongues are for a sign to them that believe not is the Apostles saying 1 Cor. 14. 22. not for them that believe and there is the same reason of other Miracles and therefore is this justly urged by Protestants that to believers to prove the truth of Christian Doctrine or of the Christian Church Miracles are unnecessary Now the Answer of H. T. is quite from the point when he tells us that they are necessary for other ends And yet it is not true that Signs and Miracles are necessary to confirm the immediate care and providence of God over his Church sith God doth by his ordinary provision either of Teachers or Christian Princes shew his immediate care and providence over his Church and by his daily works of the motion of the Sun and other acts of governing the World demonstrates his omnipotence nor by his Miracles and Signs hath he shewed so much his immediate care and providence over his Church for the guiding and protecting of them as his care of unbelievers by bringing them into his Church And it is true that there are many dis-believers still the more 's the pity and if God did see it good it would be a blessed hing if he did vouchsafe the gift of doing Miracles to convert the Indians Moors Tartars to the faith of Christ and we wish it were true which the Jesuits boast of Francis Xavier his Miracles in the East Indies though Franciscus a victoria relect 5. Sect. 2. and Josephus Acosta lib. 4. de Indorum salute cap. 4. 12 Blab out that which gives us cause to think that the Relations are but feigned things tending to magnifie the Pope and the Jesuits there being no such evidence of those things from any persons of credit who have traded or travelled into those parts But be they what they will it is certain God never intended Miracles to prove the Popes Supremacy or the verity of the Roman Church but the Christian faith and therefore till both or either of them be proved from Scripture if we be disbelievers we must be disbelievers still knowing this that if there should be never so great Miracles in shew done by Popes or Friers yet we are bound not to believe them without proof of their Doctrine from Scripture and that if any though an Angel from
infallible since sensible evidence in a world of ey-witnesses unanimously concurring is altogether infallible how fallible soever men may be in their particulars But there are worlds of ey-witnesses and hand-witnesses and tongue-witnesses and nose-witnesses and ear-witnesses of fathers and sons who all unanimously concurring discern and say of what they have seen felt heard tasted smelled that there is no flesh nor blood but Bread and Wine in the consecrated Host therefore the report that there is no flesh and blood but Bread and Wine in the Eucharist after Consecration or consecrated Host and consequently no Transubstantiation is altogether infallible So inconsistent are this Authours sayings in one place with that he saith in another as indeed Popish Doctrine being a Lie must of necessity be self-repugnant SECT III. The obligation of the Church not to deliver any thing as a point of Faith but what they received proves not unwritten Traditions a Rule of Faith H. T. proceeds thus A third Argument If Christ and his Apostles have given to the Church of the first Age together with all points of Faith this for the Rule of Faith that nothing on pain of Damnation ought to be delivered for Faith but what they had received from them as such then is was impossible that they should deliver any thing for Faith to the second Age but what they had received from them as such and so from Age to Age to this time But Christ and his Apostles did give to the Church of the first Age together with all points of Faith this for the Rule of Faith that nothing on pain of Damnation ought to be delivered for Faith but what they received from them as such Therefore it was impossible that the Church of the first Age should deliver any thing to the Church of the second Age for Faith but what they had received as such from Christ and his Apostles or consequently that they should erre in Faith The Major is proved because to make her deliver more for Faith than she had received in this supposition the whole Church must either have forgotten what she had been taught from her infancy in matters of Salvation and Damnation which is impossible in a world of ear and ey-witnesses as hath been shewed or else the whole Church must have so far broken with Reason which is the very nature of man as to conspire in a notorious Lie to damn her self and posterity by saying she hath received such or such a point for Faith which in her own conscience she knew she had not received and this is more impossible than the former even as impossible as for men not to be men as shall be shewed in the next Argument The Minor is proved by these positive Texts of Scripture Therefore brethren stand ye fast and hold the Traditions which ye have learned whether by word or our Epistle 2 Thess 2. 15. Those things which ye have been taught and heard and seen in me these do ye Phil. 4. So we have preached and so ye have believed 1 Cor. 14. 15. How shall they believe in whom they have not heard and how shall they hear without a Preacher Rom. 10. 17. The things that thou hast heard of me before many witnesses the same commend thou to faithfull men which shall be fit to teach others also 2 Tim. 2. 2. If any man shall preach otherwise than ye have received let him be Anathema Gal. 1. 9. Although we or an Angel from Heaven preach to you besides that which we have preached to you be he Anathema Gal. 1. 8. Answ 1. THe Conclusion were it granted is not the Position to be proved that the true Rule of Christian Faith is Apostolical oral Tradition not Books nor is it included in it sith some in the Church although not the whole Church of the first Age might deliver to the Church of the second Age and so from father to son that for Faith which was not received from Christ or his Apostles and it be after received as from the Apostles as is manifest in the reports of keeping Easter on the fourteenth of the Moon of the Millenary opinion as from John and in points of Faith the whole Church might mistake or forget not deliver all truth yea might erre and so not be fit to be a Rule of Faith 2. Were it granted that unwritten Traditions of the whole Church of the first Age to the second were a Rule of Faith yet are not the Romanists Traditions unwritten proved Rules of Faith unless they be proved to be delivered by the whole Church of the first Age to the Church of the second Age and so from father to son without alteration which they cannot prove Nevertheless sith this Argument tends to the asserting of an Infallibility in the Church of the first Age distinctly taken from the Apostles and their Writings I grant the Minor and omit the examining of the Texts brought to prove it though some of them yield a good Argument against unwritten Tradition But I deny the Major as being contrary to experience both in the Jewish Church to whom it was forbidden to add to or diminish from Gods commands Deut. 4. 2. and yet they did Mark 7. 8. 9. and in the Christian Church as is most evident in the Traditions of the Chiliasts about Easter and sundry other things And though the whole Church of the first Age did not deliver points of Faith to the second Age yet in the second and after-ages corruptions did come in which were taken for universal Traditions as in giving Infants the Eucharist which Augustine and Pope Innocentius took for an Apostolical Tradition though the Trent Council condemn it And many things there are now taken for Apostolical Traditions as Worship of Images praying to Saints not allowing the Wine to be drunk by all the Communicants which yet are manifestly repugnant to the Apostles Doctrine As for the proof of H. T. I say 1. The eye and ear-witnesses of all the points of Faith are not a whole World 2. Errours may be traduced as from the whole Church of the first Age and from the Apostles which were not from them 3. The Church delivers not Doctrines but the Teachers in them whereof many sometimes are Hypocrites sometimes weak in understanding all of them being men are liable to mistakes passion forgetfulness inadvertency and those that are not sincere may against their conscience deliver errours Sure if Polycarpus an Auditour of John the Evangelist and Anicetus Bishop of Rome in the second Age Polycrates and Pope Victor in the same Age Cyprian and Pope Stephanus in the next contradicted each other about Traditions no marvel later and inferiour Teachers such as Papias a credulous man and others mistook about them and the after Churches follow them in their mistakes 4. The Churches were in the Apostles days easily drawn away from the Doctrine which Paul had evidently taught them by hearkening to Seducers as the Galatians Gal. 3. 1. though the
It is false that the Roman Church falsly by H. T. called Catholick was in most quiet possession of her Tenets when Luther began his Separation in Germany Tyndal in England It is manifest by Cochlaeus his History of the Hussites that there were a remnant of them in Bohemia by Thuanus and Mr. Morland that there was a remnant of the Waldenses in the Valleys of the Alpes by Mr. Fox that there was a remnant of Lollards or Wictevists in England who did reject the Roman Doctrine then and since taught in many if not all the points in which Protestants do now oppose it 7. It is false that the Roman Church was in perfect peace and unity when Luther and Tyndal began their Separation For the controversies about the Virgin Marie's immaculate Conception about the Popes Supremacy above a Council and sundry other were rather suppressed than composed as the event shewed no party relinquishing the holding their Tenets to this day but each when occasion is offered contending for their way 8. It is false that the Doctrines and Government of the Roman Church had been the same from that time Luther and Tyndal began their Separation to the time of Gregory the Great or that Protestants do confess it It is most certain to the contrary that since Gregory the Great his time the Popes universal Episcopacy the Worship of Images Transubstantiation half-Communion in the Eucharist and many other points were brought into the Roman Church as Bishop Morton in his Appeal from Brereley 's Apology to King James hath proved 9 It is also most false that their Doctrine and Government were the same 〈◊〉 now they are to the times of the Apostles The contrary is proved out of the Epistle to the Romans by Bishop Robert Abbot against Dâ—ctor Bishop and by Bishop Jewel against Harding out of the Fathers 10. It is false which H. T. saith It is manifest both by the publick Liturgies Councils and Records of all Ages no one Doctrine of Faith or substantial Point of Doctrine professed then when Luther and Tyndal began their Separation by the Roman Church and opposed by Protestants had ever been censured and condemned as heretical or schismatical but all for the most part actually defined and established against ancient Hereticks as may be seen in the Councils The contrary is most manifest that the Council of Chalcedon and of Carthage in which Augustine was present opposed the Popes Supremacy as schismatical that the Synod of Frankford opposed the worshiping of Images as heretical besides many other as hath been shewed in answer to what H. T. here allegeth SECT III. The Sayings of Fathers prove not Protestants Hereticks or Schismaticks BUt H. T. saith Fathers for this Point though there is not one of the Fathers Sayings which he brings that speaks at all to that point of the Protestants being guilty of Schism or Heresie or that the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church or that her Doctrine and Government have been the same in all Ages or that in no case there may be dividing from it or teaching contrary to it without Heresie or Schism yea it is certain that Irenaeus Cyprian and Austin thought the clean contrary Irenaeus opposing Pope Victor his Excommunication of the Eastern Bishops for not holding Easter with him Cyprian opposing Pope Stephanus about Rebaptization Augustine opposing Popes Boniface Zozimus and Celestine about the Appeal of Apiarius But let 's view their Sayings The first is thus cited by H. T. In the second Age Irenaeus God will judge those who make the Schisms in the Church ambitious men who have not the honour of God before their eys but rather embracing their own interests than the unity of the Church for small and light causes divide the great and glorious body of Christ c. for in the end they cannot make any Reformation so important as the evil of Schism is prejudicious lib. 4. cap. 62. It is likely H. T. ignorantly put prejudicious for pernicious or his Authour whence he had it for it is in Irenaeus Quanta est Schismatis pernicies But it appears 1. That he hath either not read the place or not considered it because he puts in God will judge whereas it is manifest out of the words following But he will judge also all those who are out of the truth that is without the Church but he himself is judged of no man and from chap. 53. and following to be meant of every spiritual Disciple of Christ that had received the Spirit of God and the Apostolical Doctrine chap. 52. alluding to Paul's words 1 Cor. 2. 15. and he alters the love of God into the honour of God before their eys 2. That the place makes nothing against Protestants for it condemns onely them that make Schisms for small and light causes which was most true of Victor then Bishop of Rome in excommunicating the Asian Bishops for not keeping Easter as he did reprehended by Irenaeus in his Epistle recited by Eusebius hist 1. lib. 5. cap. 24. but is nothing against Protestants who neither make nor continue Schisms and that Separation which they make they do it for very great causes And he saith No Reformation can be made so important by them who divide upon light causes as is the mischief of the Schism they make but this hinders not but that the Protestants Reformation or correption which is Irenaeus his word is so necessary that it countervails the evil of the Schism consequent I add the words of Irenaeus the spiritual man who is a Disciple of Christ will judge all them who are out of the truth do justifie the Protestants in judging the Popes and Popish Doctors and Churches as Schismaticks and Hereticks who by their Doctrine of Popes Supremacy Invocation of Saints humane Satisfactions inherent Justice justifying Merit of Condignity have departed from the Apostolical Faith and by their cruel tyranny and hatred of Reformation have the most horrible and pernicious Schism that ever was in the Church of God and the Protestants are warranted thus to judge by the holy Scripture The words of Cyprian de unit Eccles in the third Age against the Novatians of the inexpiableness of their crime of Schism that it could not be purged by suffering for Christ nor they be Martyrs though they died for the Confession of his Name is too heavy a censure yet if it were true is nothing against Protestants who are not guilty of that Schism The words of Chrysostom hom 11. in Ephes shew how grievous an evil Schism is but prove not that they are all Schismaticks that separate from the Roman Bishop and Church nor that the Protestants are guilty thereof or the Romanists free The words of Optatus lib. 2. are not to any of the points now in controversie except he mean by the unity of the Episcopal Chair holding communion with the Bishop of Rome and assert that to be the one Episcopal Chair to which all other are to be
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
wherein it is revealed not a finding out what is not revealed But 1 Cor. 2 11. speaks of a knowledge of invention by search into the things without revelation a knowledge of invention not of discretion as the words vers 10. shew But God hath revealed them to us by his Spirit for the Spirit searcheth all things even the deep things of God Now Mr. Chillingworth so far as I discern did never assert that every mans private reason by its own search could ever finde out the mystery of the Gospel had not the Spirit revealed them to the Apostles and they to us but that each mans private reason since the Apostles have revealed them in their Writings may judge whether that which one Teacher saith is the Apostles meaning be truer than what another saith he makes Reason not the Judge of the Spirits revelation but of mens interpretation and inference 2 When Mr. Chillingworth makes each particular mans reason or his private spirit the Judge for himself he means right reason not every fancy which hath no proof and that reason which he calls right reason must be rectified by the Spirit of God and his influx upon the understanding and so the Text 1 Cor. 12. 3. is not against Mr. Chillingworth 3. When he means that every private mans reason or private spirit is a Judge to each man he conceives as the matter of his discourse lead him to speak this judgement to be onely of the meaning of the speech wherein the things revealed are made known whence comes a a speculative notional knowledge upon which a bare dogmatical faith follows but he asserted not right reason rectified by common influx of the spirit which understands onely the true meaning of such a Text or the truth of such a Proposition to be sufficient without a special work of the Spirit of God enabling a man to see the beauty worth goodness of the things thus believed above any other thing propounded to be chosen to beget an affective practical knowledge which begets faith of adherence of which 1 Cor. 12. 3. Ephes 2. 8. 2 Cor. 3. 5. 10. 5. are to be understood So that Mr. Chillingworth's Assertion rightly understood doth well consist with these Scriptures it being no whit contradictory to these speeches that no man can know by his invention the mystery hid in God but by the revelation of the Spirit and yet when it is revealed each mans private reason may judge of the meaning of the Scriptures in which it is revealed and whose Doctrine is most agreeable to those Scriptures and though no man can fiducially and electively say Jesus is the Lord but by the holy Ghost yet without the sanctifying and renewing or indwelling of God's Spirit a person may by his private reason understand the meaning of this speech Jesus is the Lord and assent to it upon credible motives with a bare dogmatical faith And though saving faith be the spetial gift of God to his Elect yet in working faith God useth mans reason to understand what he is to believe and to judge it to be true and as H. T. saith here p. 77. The discourse and approbation of reason is always a previous and necessary condition to our deliberate and rational acts of faith and the very acts themselves are acts of reason And though we are not of our selves sufficient to think any good thing yet our selves do think good things and by reason rectified by God's Spirit do judge them to be good And though we are to captivate our understanding to the obedience of faith yet that obedience of faith to which our understanding is captivated is by the assent of the understanding upon the apprehensions which our reason hath of the good of that we assent to and that which we obey But saith H. T. Secondly because divine revelations are not to be admitted or rejected for their seeming consonancy or repugnance to every mans private reason but for the authority of the Church proposing as the immediate motive and the Authority of God revealing as the highest Motive of our Faith into which it is ultimately resolved nor can any thing be more rational than to captivate and even renounce private reason where God the Authour of Reason commands it I reply I doubt not but Mr. Chillingworth would have said so too and have counted it an injury done to him to suggest it as H. T. seems to do to any as if he meant otherwise provided that by the authority of the Church proposing be meant not the pretended infallible authority of the Church or Prelates of it but either the infallible authority of the Primitive Church comprehending the Apostles or the probable and credible authority of the present Church or Teachers in it But it is likely H. T. meant it of the infallible authority of the present Church or Prelates of it which is not yet proved and till it be Mr. Chillingworth's Assertion is not overthrown H. T. adds Thirdly because if every mans private reason is to judge for himself in matters of Religion then all the Heresies that ever yet were in the World were good and sound Doctrines for there was never any Sect of Hereticks who did not pretend both to Reason and Scripture for their Tenets how damnable soever and some of them such as were unaswerable by humane reason setting aside the Churches authority and Apostolical tradition for who can prove by private reason or by all the reason of man against the Arians that a spiritual and indivisible substance such as God is could beget a natural Son of himself without a Mother or against the Sabellians and Trinitarians that the same indivisible essence or divine nature can be at once in three distinct persons the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost or against Nestor and Eutiches that one person can subsist in two different natures the Divine and Humane in Christ which notwithstanding are high Fundamentals in Christianity In all these and many others private reason must either bend the knee and be captivate to faith or become Atheism I reply I conceive Mr. Chillingworth would have said so too to wit that private reason must bend the knee and be captivate to faith in points revealed though it cannot comprehend how thing revealed should be so and yet his Assertion hold that each ones private reason is to judge these to be matters of faith and it will judge them to be so by the evidence it hath that these are divine revelations which right reason knows to be so from the agreement with the Scriptures without the present or late Churches authority or unwritten traditions though termed Apostolical And those Tenents which a private mans reason findes to be agreeable to holy Scripture though the whole Church of this or former Ages since the Apostles days should judge them Heresie and the Nicene or any other Council condemn them yet is that person to hold them as truth provided he do use his reason aright
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 his own Sheep but a Shepherd is not Lord or Head of anothers Sheep of which he is no Owner and therefore though he is to rule and feed them yet he is not to rule them after his own will but the Owners nor is he to take the profit of the Sheep but the Owner is to have it the Shepherd is not to look but for his pay and encouragement according to the will or contract of the Owner Now the Flock of Christ were none of Peter's Sheep nor were all the Sheep of Christ universally taken to be fed by Peter for then he should feed that is rule himself who was one of the Flock and so excommunicate himself absolve himself and sith the Pope hath Peter's power if he be one of the Sheep of Christ by this Doctrine he is to rule that is to excommunicate absolve and deprive himself And for the other Metaphor of a Foundation it hath the like absurdity For if Peter be the Foundation of the whole Church and the term Foundation imports the ruling of the whole Church Peter who is a part of the Church is the Foundation of himself and the Pope of himself and sith he is the Vicar of Christ he is in stead of Christ to himself and so hath preheminence over himself and the Pope in like manner yea unless they deny the blessed Virgin Mary to have been one of Christ's Sheep they must assert Peter and after him the Pope to have been the Foundation and Shepherd of the blessed Virgin Mary to have had a power to rule excommunicate and absolve her The truth is this the pressing of a Metaphor beyond that for what it is used draweth with it many absurdities and therefore the Metaphors of Foundation and Building Shepherd and Sheep can infer no more than that use of these which the Authour of the Speech intended by them which what it is will be considered by examining the Texts brought for proof And for the Arguments if they did conclude the thing in question they should be thus framed or to this purpose He that is the Foundation or Builder of the whole Church of Christ hath supreme unerring dominion or rule of the whole Church of Christ But such was Peter and by consequence the Pope of Rome Ergo. Again He that is to feed all the Sheep of Christ hath dominion or rule as aforesaid But that was Peter and consequently the Pope of Rome is to do Ergo. In both I should deny the Major understood of the under Foundation Builder and Shepherd though it should be yielded by concession of an impossibility yet he should not have such a supreme unerring Rule thereby and I deny the Minor also and in both as they stand or should stand there are many Propositions in these and his forms expressed or implied which are apparently false As 1. That every Foundation of the Church hath preheminence of firmitude above every Building founded on it There were some as firm in the Faith as the Apostles and of the Apostles some as firm or more firm than Peter 2. That every Foundation or Builder of the Church hath rule over it 3. That the Metaphor of a Foundation or Builder do note Rule or Dominion 4. That as applied to Peter they note in him supreme unerring Rule or Dominion 5. That he that is a Shepherd is Head of his Flock 6. That he is above his Flock 7. That the person that is bid to feed Christ's Sheep is bid to feed the whole Flock of Christ universally taken 8. That the charge of feeding them is as much as have supreme dominion be a visible Monarch over them 9. That the Bishop of Rome is Peter's Successour in that charge and power which Christ committed to him over his whole Church 10. That what is said of Peter in this point is true of every Bishop of Rome be he never so unlearned and vicious All which I have distinctly noted that it may appear upon how many suppositions the Popes Supremacy hangs and yet how loose and empty of proof from Scripture or Reason the Disputes of Papists are about this which is with them a fundamental point of their Religion in so much that were it not for the heavy curse that is befallen Papists that sith they receive not the love of the truth that they might be saved they should believe Lyes that they might be damned 2 Thess 2. 10 11 12. it could not be that understanding persons among them should ever assent to the claimed Supremacy of the Pope over the whole Church upon these Reasons But let us view what is said here The Major is proved because the Foundation supporteth the rest of the Building we are built on the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Cornerstone Ephes 2. 20. and the Shepherd hath a power to govern his whole Flock Answ The Argument framed hence must be this That which supporteth the Building hath a preheminence of firmitude and stability before the rest of the Building which is founded on it But so doth every Foundation Ergo. But the Major is not true of personal Metaphorical Foundations of which we now speak not of material proper Foundations A man may be a Foundation of a Common-wealth and support it by his wisdom and example and authority and yet not have a preheminence of firmitude and stability above that Common-wealth founded on him or it and so in the founding of the Church a man that founds it may fall away and yet the Church stand firm Neither is the Minor true of every personal metaphorical Foundation he may be said to be a Foundation that is begin a Church or Common-weath who doth not after support it The Text Ephes 2. 20. proves neither of the Propositions nor do I know to what purpose it is produced except to prove Peter to have been a Foundation But then it proves not Peter alone but the rest of the Apostles and Prophets to have been Foundations and so proves no preheminence to Peter above them which is the Assertion of this Authour But to me it is doubtfull whether the Apostles are termed Foundations 1. Because this seems to be appropriated to Christ 1 Cor. 3. 11. 2. Because it is not said Ye are built on the Foundations but the Foundation and therefore seems to have this sense ye are built on that Foundation which the Apostles and Prophets have laid not which they are and so the genitives are of the efficient not of the subject and the Foundation must be that Doctrine or truth they declared of which Christ that is the Doctrine or Faith of Christ is the chief Corner-stone Nor is this against that which is Revel 21. 14. that the names of the twelve Apostles are written in the twelve Foundations of the Wall of the new Jerusalem For that may be said because they were chief workmen in the laying of the Foundation as Paul saith of himself 1 Cor. 3.
prove there are Traditions truly Apostolical besides those which are written and this Tradition that those Books which we call holy Scripture are divine Writings we will embrace them as things to be believed But then 1. We say it is manifest that in the Apostles days there were Traditions put on the Apostles which were not theirs 2 Thess 2. 1. 2. That the Apostolical Tradition written is sufficient for faith to salvation 3. That unwritten Traditions are uncertain and much corrupted 4. That there is no certain Rule to know which are Apostolical Traditions but by the Scripture or Apostolical Writings 5. That neither the Popes nor Church of Rome nor general Councils determination is a sufficient assurance of Apostolical Tradition unwritten 6. That therefore to us now the holy Scripture is the onely Rule of Christian faith and life And to the Argument of H. T. I answer 1. By denying the Major giving this as a Reason because the means of planting and conserving faith though it were the essential means yet is not the rule of faith necessarily there being great difference between these two The means of faith is any way God useth to beget it as by dreams visions the speech of Balaam's Ass his Prophecy Caiaphas Prophecy the Star which guided the Wise-men Matth. 2. the Wives good conversation 1 Pet. 3. 1. yet these are not the Rule of Faith but the divine revelation it self And if it were supposed any one of these or any other were the essential means of Faith that is that means by which Faith is and without which it were not yet it were not therefore the Rule of Faith but the divine revelation or truth delivered by that means And to the proof of the Major which seems to be thus formed That is the true Rule of Faith which is immutable and the same in all Ages as the Faith it self is But the essential means of planting and conserving it at first is immutable and the same in all Ages as the Faith it self is Ergo. I answer 1. By denying the Major there are many things immutable and the same in all Ages as the Faith it self is and yet are not the true Rule of Faith as namely Gods Decrees and purposes the being of the Heavens the obedience of the Angels c. 2. By denying the Minor For whether the immediate Declaration of God to Adam Gen. 3. 15. or Christ's preaching by himself were the essential means of planting and conserving Faith at first or any other yet it is not immutable and the same in all Ages as Faith it self God's Declaration immediately or Christ's preaching by himself are not the same in all Ages yea Heb. 1. 1. it is said that God hath spoken to us in divers manners ways and times by the Prophets and in these last days onely hath spoken to us by his Son vers 2. chap. 2. 3. The salvation was at first begun to be speken by the Lord and since was confirmed by them that heard him which shews the means to be variable by which Faith is planted and conserved The Apostle tells us 1 Pet. 3. 1. that without the Word those that believe not the Word may be won by the conversation of the Wives so that their good conversation was at first a means of converting them and yet that was not to be the Rule of their Faith Whence it may appear that this Argument goes upon these false Suppositions 1. That there is some means essential to the planting and conserving of Faith at first 2. That the same means is essential to the planting and conserving of Faith at first 3. That this means is immutable and the same in all Ages as Faith it self 4. That what is the means of planting and conserving Faith at first must be the true Rule of Faith 2. I deny the Minor that oral and Apostolical Tradition not written Books was the essential means of planting and conserving Faith at first And to his proof I answer that by oral and Apostolical Tradition in his Tenet he means a delivery of Doctrine from father to son by hand to hand from Christ and his Apostles now if it be granted there was no Gospel written till eight years after the death of Christ or thereabouts it must be granted also that there was no delivery of Doctrine from father to son by hand to hand from Christ and his Apostles but onely their preaching viva voce with living speech in their own persons and therefore if that which was according to H. T. the essential means of planting and conserving Faith at first must be the true Rule of Faith still and no other then that Rule must neither be unwritten nor written delivery of Doctrine from father to son by hand to hand from Christ and his Apostles but their own personal Tradition viva voce which now ceasing there is no Rule of Faith at all left but the Quakers device of each mans light within him to be his Rule must take place But to me the Rule of Faith is divine revelation by what means soever it be delivered be it the Law written in the heart or in the Book by the signer of God in Tables of stone or delivered by an Angel in a Dream Vision Apparition by Christ or his Apostles or any other But sith God hath been pleased to order it be it sooner or later that what Christ and his Apostles taught should be written we are assured God would have us to take it for the Rule of our Faith and if Scripture be not the Rule of our Faith Christ and his Apostles did not well to commend it to us Luk. 16. 31. Joh. 5. 39. and to commend them that searched the Scriptures Act. 17. 11. nor the Apostles to direct us to them 1 Pet. 1. 19 20. 2 Tim. 3. 16. Rom. 15. 4. nor to allege them Act. 3. 22. 13. 33 34 35. nor Christ to have used them against the Tempter Matth. 4. 4. 7. 10. nor to have imputed errour to the ignorance of them Matth. 22 29. nor to have sent the Revelation of John to the seven Churches of Asia with declaration of blessedness to the observers of it and denunciation of a curse to the corrupters and infringers of it Revel 1. 1 3. 22. 18 19. nor the Apostles to write a Letter to the Churches Act. 15. 23. nor the Apostles to write several Epistles to several Churches And if many Ages though I think H. T. therein doth exceed were passed before all the Books of Scripture were dispersed and accepted for Canonical by the whole Church yet it is certain some were and they must be the Rule of Faith which were accepted And when any difference arose in points of Faith among the Christians of the first Age though they were to inquire of the Apostles what they taught yet when they could not speak with them they made use of their Letters written as Acts 15. 31. 1 Cor. 7. c. And if we are
Scripture or many Protestant ones are not and thus I frame my discourse All Protestant Tenets say you are sufficiently contained in Scripture but many Catholick Doctrines say I denied by Protestants are as evident in Scripture as divers Protestant Tenets therefore many Catholick Doctrines denied by Protestants are sufficiently contained in Scripture He that has hardiness enough to deny this Conclusion let him compare the Texts that recommend the Churches authority in deciding controversies and expounding Articles of Faith with these that support the Protestant private spirit or particular judgement of discretion let him compare the places that favour priestly Absolution with those on which they ground their necessity not to stand upon the lawfulness of Infant-baptism let him compare the passages of the Bible for the real presence of our Saviours body in the Eucharist for the primacy of St. Peter for the authority of Apostolical Traditions though unwritten with what ever he can cite to prove the three distinct persons in the blessed Trinity the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father the procession of the holy Ghost from both the obligation of the Sunday in stead of the Sabbath so expresly commanded in the Moral Law and when he has turned over all his Bible as often as he pleases I shall offer him onely this request either to admit the Argument or teach me to answer it Answ H. T. sure hath a singular eyesight which sees such an evidence in this Argument as that he sees nothing more evident What is not this more evident that the whole is bigger than a part that God made the World that the Word was made Flesh Sure an Argument ad hominem is no demonstration specially when what the man holds at one time upon second and better thoughts he relinquisheth nor is an argument ad hominem fit to establish any truth but somewhat to lessen the opinion of the man who is thereby convinced of holding inconsistencies and therefore the cause is not given into H. T. and his fellows hands that unwritten traditions are a Rule of Faith or that Popish Doctrine is grounded on Scripture because some Protestant tenets have no better proof thence than some Popish tenets denied to be contained in the Scripture But that I may gratifie H. T. as much as in me lieth in his request I tell him The Syllogism is in no Mood or Figure that I know nor if I would examine the form of it do I doubt but that I should finde four terms in it at least and then H. T. it is likely knows his Syâ—logism is naught Nor do I know how to form it better unless it be formed dis-junctively but it belongs not to me to form his Weapons for him To it as I finde it I say that if he mean that all Protestant tenets simply are sufficiently contained in Scripture who ever he be that saith so yet I dare not say so But this I think that all or most of the tenets which the Protestants hold against the Papists in the points of Faith and Worship which are controverted between them are sufficiently contained in the Scripture and all of them ought to be or else they may be rejected And for his Minor I deny it if he mean it of those Protestant tenets in points of Faith which are held by all or those that are avouched by common consent in the harmony of their confessions excepting some about Discipline Ceremonies and Sacraments And for his instances to the first I say I am willing any Reader who reades what is written on both sides in the fifth Article here should judge whether hath more evidence in Scripture the Churches imagined infallible authority in deciding controversies or that each person is to use his own understanding to try what is propounded to be believed without relying on any authority of Pope general Council or Prelates who are never called the Church in Scripture And for the second I do not take it to be a Protestant tenet that Infant-baptism is necessary and for the lawfulness I grant there is as much evidence in Scripture for Priests judiciary sacramental authoritative Absolution as for it that is none at all for either And for the third there are Protestants that grant a real presence of our Saviour's body in the Eucharist as the Lutherans and some Calvinists grant also a real presence to the worthy receiver but not bodily but for the real presence by Transubstantion there is not the least in Scripture of it self as Scotus long ago resolved And for the Primacy of St. Peter it hath been told this Authour that a Primacy of order of zeal and some other endowments is yielded by Protestants but Supremacy of Jurisdiction over the Apostles is denied and it is proved before Article 7. to have no evidence in Scripture And for the authority of Apostolical traditions though unwritten if there were any such truly so called I should not deny it but that there are any such which are a rule of faith now to us he hath not proved in this Article nor brought one Text for it but some far-fetcht Reasons of no validity But I presume his brethren will give him little thanks for gratifying so much the Antitrinitarians Arians Socinians as to yield that those points which are in the Nicene and Athanasius his Creed and were determined in the first general Councils are no better proved from Scripture than Transubstantiation the Popes Supremacy and unwritten Traditions being a Rule of Faith Are not these Texts Matth. 28. 19. 1 John 5. 7. John 1. 1. 1 John 5. 20. and many more which Bellarmine lib. 1. de Christo brings to prove the Trinity of persons the Sons consubstantiality the Spirits procession more evident than this is my Body for Transubstantiation Thou art Peter for the Popes Supremacy and H. T. his Scriptureless reasoning for unwritten Traditions Bellarmine lib. 4. de verbo Dei cap. 11. and elsewhere acknowledgeth the tenets about Gods nature and the union of natures in Christ to be plainly in Scripture As for Sunday being in stead of the Sabbath he should me thinks allow somewhat in Scripture for it Col. 2. 16. Acts 20 7. 1 Cor. 16. 1 2. Revel 1. 10. more evident than for his real presence Peter's Supremacy unwritten Traditions But I see prejudice doth much to sway men and make them see what others cannot The Crow thinks her own Bird fairest Yet again saith H. T. The same Syllogism may with equal evidence be applied to the negative as well as positive Doctrines on either side All Catholick points denied by Protestants are sufficiently say you condemned in Scripture But many points imbraced by Protestants are as clearly say I condemned in Scripture as divers they deny in opposition to Catholicks therefore many points embraced by Protestants are sufficiently condemned in Scripture Where does the Bible so plainly forbid Prayer for the Dead as this darling Errour and fundamental Principle of Protestancy that any one
however ignorant however unstable ought to reade the holy Scriptures and unappealably judge of their sense by his private interpretation Where is it so plainly forbidden to adore Christ in what place soever we believe him to be really present as it is to work upon the Saturday Thus if the Bible be constituted sole Rule of Religion Protestants clearly can neither condemn the Catholick nor justifie their own Answ The Conclusion may be granted that many points embraced by Protestants are sufficiently condemned in Scripture without any detriment to the Protestant cause Protestants do not pretend to Infallibility but that the tenets in point of Faith which in opposition to Papists their Harmony of Confessions avoucheth are sufficiently condemned in Scripture is more than H. T. or any other can prove To his Syllogism I answer by denying his Minor And to his instances I answer the Prayer for the Dead which Protestants say is forbidden plainly in Scripture is Popish Prayer for the Dead to have them eased or delivered out of Purgatory now this we say is condemned plainly in Scripture 1. Because it supposeth a belief of a Purgatory-place in Hell which is an Errour and every Errour is condemned in Scripture as contrary to truth 2. All Prayer is condemned which is not agreeable to the Rules of Prayer now the Rules of Prayer in Scripture are that we should pray in Faith James 1. 6. Ask the things which are according to the will of God 1 John 5. 14. Not for him that sins unto death vers 16. But to ask for deliverance out of Purgatory when there is no such place nor God hath promised any such thing is not in Faith nor according to Gods will but is as vain as to ask for him that sins unto death it is all one as to pray that the elect Angels or Devils should be delivered thence which were a Mockery of God 3. God forbids Jeremiah to pray for that which he would not hear him in Jer. 14. 11. therefore Prayer for the Dead to be delivered out of Purgatory in which God will not hear is by parity of reason condemned as if a man should pray that the Reprobate should not be damned or the Elect should not be saved The Protestants say not that every one however ignorant or unstable ought unappealably to judge of the sense of all Scriptures by his private interpretation There are plain Scriptures and Points fundamental and of these they say they may and ought to judge of their sense each one by his own private interpretation if by it be meant his own understanding but not if by it be meant a peculiar fancy such as no man else conceives nor the words import but they say in difficult places and points not fundamental they ought not to judge of their sense unappealably that is so as not to use the help of the learned in which number Fathers and Councils have their place and especially their own Teachers to finde out the meaning of them yet when they have used means they may and must suspend any judgement at all or stick to that which in their own understanding seems most probable or else they must go against their own conscience which were sin or they must be Hypocrites saying they judge that to be so which they do not yea there should be an impossibility in nature granted that a man at the same time doth judge that to be the sense of the same thing which he doth not but they deny that a man ought so to rest on any Pope or Councils or Doctours judgement as to hold what they hold without any other proof though it be in their apprehension against Scripture sith that is plainly condemned Matth. 23. 10. And they hold that every man that hath the use of natural understanding ought to reade the Scripture John 5. 39. Col. 3. 16. Rom. 15. 4. 2. Tim. 3. 15 16. and to judge their sense in this manner and this is no Errour much less a darling Errour of Protestancy Nor can H. T. prove it any where condemned in Scripture As for the place 2 Pet. 3. 16. to which his words seem to allude it proves not the reading of the Scripture or judging of the sense to be condemned yea ver 3. 15. proves the contrary that Christians should reade Paul's Epistles in which those things are which are hard to be understood onely it condemns the wresting of them to their perdition by the unlearned and unstable which Protestants do condemn as well as Papists It is not forbidden to adore Christ in what place soever he is but 1. It is an Errour contrary to an Article of Faith to conceive Christ in a Wafer-cake on earth called the Host by Papists whom we believe to be in Heaven at the right hand of God and of whom it is said that the Heaven must contain him till the times of the restitution of all things Acts 3. 21. and so it is forbidden to adore that Bread as if Christ's Body were there it being a belief of an Errour contrary to an Article of Faith 2. It is flat Idolatry to adore with divine Worship a piece of Bread though taken to be the Body of Christ it being forbidden Matth. 4. 10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serve Nor can the imagination of a person acquit the person that does it from Idolatry For if it could the Worship of the golden calf which the Israelites proclaimed to be the Gods that brought them out of Egypt Exod. 32. 8. and worshipped God thereby vers 4. 5 8. Micah's Worship of his molten Image of the Silver which he dedicated to the Lord Judges 17. 2 3 4 and Jeroboam's Worship of the golden Calf 1 Kings 12. 28. yea all the Idolatry of the Heathens who worshipped those things which were no Gods should be excused because they thought them Gods or intended to worship God by them As for working upon the Saturday it is true it was forbidden to the Jews but we conceive it not forbidden to us because the Jewish Sabbath is abrogated Col. 2. 16. And if H. T. do not think so he doth Judaize and if he hold the Lord's day and the Saturday Sabbath too he agrees with the Ebionites mentioned by Eusebius lib. 3. hist â—ap 27. so that it is utterly false that if the Bible be constituted sole Rule of Religion Protestants clearly can neither condemn the Catholick no justifie their own Bâ—t it is rather true which Dr. Carleton in his little Book of the Church avouched that the now Roman Church is proved not to be the true Church of Christ because in the Trent Council the Romanists have altered the Rule of Faith And for my part to my best understanding I do judge that the Romanists are not to be reckoned amongst Christians though they call themselves so but that as by their worshipping of Images burning Incense to them praying to a Crucifix adoring the Host and almost
all their Worship and in their invocating of Saints and Angels as Mediatours to God they are departed from the two great points of Christianity 1 Tim. 2. 5. 1 Cor. 8. 6. Ephes 4. 5 6. and thereby are become Pagans so by their substituting of another Rule of Religion than the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles in their Writings to wit unwritten Traditions which are nothing else but the Determinations of Popes and Councils approved by him they do prove themselves not to be Disciples of Christ which is all one with Christians Acts 11. 26. and accordingly are not to be judged a church of Christ but Papists which name Bellarmine lib. de not is Eccles cap. 4. doth not disown or the Popes Church truly Antichristian SECT VI. Sayings of Fathers and Councils prove not unwritten Traditions a Rule of Faith H. T. recites the sayings of eight Fathers and two Councils for Tradition The first of Irenaus lib. 3. cap. 4. doth not at all prove that we have now unwritten Traditions for a Rule of Faith but that if the Apostles in stead of which fraudulently as I fear H. T. puts If the Fathers had left us no Scripture at all ought we not to follow the order of Tradition which they delivered to whom they committed the Churches To understand which it is to be noted that Irenaeus having proved Valentinus his Doctrines of Aeones or more Gods and Lords than one to be false out of the Scriptures chap. 2. he speaks thus of the Valentinian Hereticks When they are reproved out of Scriptures they are turned into accusation of the Scriptures themselves as if they were not right nor from authority and because they are diversly said and because the truth cannot be found out of these by those who know not Tradition For that truth was not delivered by Letters but by living voice which is the very Plea for Traditions which H. T. here useth for which cause Paul said We speak wisdom among them that are perfect as they took themselves to be and said They were wiser than either Presbyters or Apostles and would neither consent to Scriptures nor Tradition and then cap. 3. shews the Tradition of the Apostles by what was preached in the Churches founded by them and to avoid prolixity refers to Linus Anacletus Clemens at Rome and to Polycarpus and his Successours at Smyrna and after useth the words mentioned chap. 4. which do not at all mention Tradition in all after ages as a Rule but the Tradition from the Apostles to them that knew the Apostles and that onely in the main point of Faith concerning God the Creatour and onely upon supposition there had been no Scripture and that after he had alleged the Scripture to stop the course of Hereticks that declined the Scripture Whence it is apparent 1. That Irenaeus counted Scripture the constant Rule of Faith 2. That he counted Tradition unwritten a Rule onely upon supposition that the Apostles had not left us Scripture 3. No Tradition to be that Rule but what was from men acquainted with Apostles 4. To be used onely in case men were so perverse as to decline Scripture which is our case in dealing with Papists which moved Bishop Jewel in his Sermon at Paul's Cross to offer that if the Papists could prove the Articles then enumerated by antiquity of the first five hundred years after Christ he would subscribe which neither Harding nor Bellarmine nor Perron nor any of the Romanists could or can do The words of Tertullian lib. de praescript advers Haeret. cap. 21. 37. are indeed that the Doctrine is to be held which the Church had from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ Christ from God But he expresseth how he means it when he saith in the same place But what the Apostles have preached that is what Christ hath revealed to them I will also prescribe that it ought to be no otherwise proved but by the same Churches which the Apostles themselves built they themselves by preaching to them as well by living voice as they say as by Epistles afterwards Which plainly shews that Tertullian mentioned no other Doctrine to be received from the Churches than what the Apostles after wrote nor from any other Churches than those which the Apostles by preaching built by which he means the Corinthian Philippick Thessalonian Ephesian as well as Roman chap. 36. And though he use against Valentinus Marcion and other Hereticks the Tradition of those Churches yet chap. 8. he plainly directs to the Scriptures as the way to finde Christ by using his words to the Jews John 5. 39. Search the Scriptures in which ye hope for salvation for they do speak of me This will be Seek and ye shall finde Which being considered it will appear that Tertullian was far from asserting unwritten Traditions of things not contained in Scripture delivered in these later ages and called Apostolical by Popes and Councils the Rule of Faith Cyprian's words lib. 2. Epist cap. 3. ad Cacilium in some Editions Epist 63. shew his mistake about Traditions as he counted the mingling of Water and Wine in the Eucharist to be the Lord's tradition so he did also Rebaptization in which the Romanists desert him neither shew he held unwritten tradition a Rule of Faith yea arguing against them that used Water without Wine he proves the Lord's tradition out of Scripture and urgeth it against them and though his Reasons be frivolous yet these expressions shew he adhered to the Scripture as his Rule But if it be commanded by Christ and the same be confirmed and delivered by his Apostle that as oft as we drink in commemoration of the Lord we do the same thing which the Lord also did we are found that it is not observed of us which is commanded unless we also do the same things which the Lord did and mingling the Cup in like manner recede not from the divine magistery Again I marvel enough whence this hath been used that against the Evangelical and Apostolical Discipline in some places Water is offered in the Lord's Cup which alone cannot express Christ 's Blood Whence may be perceived that even in Cyprian's days corrupt usages came in by following other Traditions than those that are written In the same Epistle Cyprian adds this remarkable speech Wherefore if Christ alone be to be heard we ought not to attend what any one before us hath thought is to be done but what Christ who is before all neither ought we to follow the custome of a man out the truth of God sith God speaks by the Prophet Esay and saith Without reason do they worship me teaching Mandates and Doctrines of men Origen's words do not prove unwritten Traditions a Rule of Faith when he saith In our understanding Scripture we must not depart from the first Ecclesiastical tradition Tract 27. in cap. 23. St. Matthai nor Athanasius when he saith This Doctrine we have demonstrated to have been delivered from hand to hand by
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
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