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 Apostles or if restrained to the church of that age it is meant of those that preâ—ched the Gospel to him 2. The words ego vero evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesâ—ae commoveret authoritas are not well rendred by H. T. as if they did declare his purpose for the future or that he would not believe the Gospel or any other reason but the Roman or present universal churches authority For this had been an impious speech in this sense and unfit for a holy man much more for a Bishop and contrary to many passages of the same Author as particularly lib. confes 9. c. 5. in which he saith that God would not have given so excellent an authority to the Scripture through all lands unless he would that by it God should be believed But either he used the Imperfect tense for the Praeterperfect after the African dialect as he doth in a like speech in his book de beata vita sic exarsi ut omnes illas vellem anchoras rumpere nisi me nonnullorum â—ominum existimatio commoveret where commoveret is used for commovisset which is the same word here used and so the sense is I my self verily had not believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholick Church had moved me noting thereby the occasion of his first believing not the sole Reason or Motive of his present believing and to this sense the speeches Obtâ—mperavi dicentibus credite Evangelio ipsi Evangeliâ— catholicis prâ—edicantibus credidi recte credidisti catholicis laudantibus Evangelium quibus prae ipientibus Evangelio credidi per â—os illi credideram which express the means by which he believed and that was not authority of empire in the Church by reason of their infallible Function and right to define what is to be believed but the credit of their persons by reason of their holiness honesty wisdom and such other acts of Gods providence mentioned in the Chapter before which held him in the Church 3. Or else he speaks upon supposition that the Gospel is not believed by reason of its most sincere wisdom unto the knowledge of which few spiritual men come in this life then in that case nothing would move him to believe the Gospel but the authority of the catholick church unto which sense the words chap. 4. and the series of the Dispute seem to lead and Bellarmine lib. 4. de notis Eccles cap. 14. to reconcile Augustine's words in his Dispute against Donatists that the Church is not demonstrated by Miracles but by the Scriptures and yet against Manichaeus his Epistle of the Foundation that the Church is demonstrated by Miracles not by the Scriptures but the Scriptures by the Church saith that he speaks upon supposition because the Manichees did admit Miracles but deny the Scriptures which countenanceth this last sense Any of these ways which have their probabilities the speech may be right but not for H. T. his purpose Certainly they ascribe no infallibility or supreme judicature in controversies of faith to the Roman Pope or Church If the speech be not understood in the last sense of not believing the Gospel but by the Churches authority on supposition of the excluding the innate evidence of wisdom and truth therein or if the second sense hold not that he speaks of what he had not done at first conversion it it certain the first sense must be acknowledged that he means it of the Catholick Church from the Apostles commending it by the authority of their universal tradition in other sense specially that in which the Papists allege it it were an impious speech and contrary to many other places in his Works Sure he that reades his first second and third Chapters of his second Book of Baptism against Donatists will finde him after Cyprian fully against the ascribing to any Bishop on earth supreme judicature over other Bishops or making any Church or Council infallible but asserting that the former fullest general councils may be mended by the later and that there is no determination of any Pope or Council or Church to be rested on as infallible in points of faith but onely the holy Scripture After all this empty scribling of H. T. he yet adds I now resume the priâ—cipal Argument and retort it thus upon our adversaries The Catholick Church is infallible in all her Proposals and Definitions of Faiâ—h But the Protestant Church and the like of all other Sectaries is not infallible in her Proposals or Definitions of Faith therefore the Protestant Church is not the Catholick Church The Major hath been fully proved before The Minor must be granted by our Adversaries because they have no other way to excuse themselves from being Heretickâ— in the revolt from our Church but by falsly pretending the whole Church errs in Faith and taught Idolatry and Superstition for nine or ten hundred years together till they began their blessed Reformation a most blasphemous evasion as hath been proved before by which they have excluded themselves from all possible assurance of true faith or salvation and therefore to arrogate infallibility to themselves which they deny to the whole Church were a most frontless impudence And then he adds his Note whom he means by his infallible Church which is set down in the first Section of the Answer to this Article Answ 1. Understanding by the Protestant Church that Church which hath been since the year 1517. termed Protestants from the protesting against the Decree made at Spires Anno 1529. as Sleidan lib. 6. Com. reports the Conclusion is granted we yield the Protestant Church or Churches are not the Catholick Church but Members of it conceiving it would be indeed to hold the Errour of Donatists if they should appropriate the Title of the Catholick Church to themselves or count all out of it that are not of that party as the Romanists do who are in this Successours to the Donatists But if by the Protestant Church be meant the whole number of them who held the same Faith in the Fundamentals which now the Protestants hold so it is the Catholick Church 2. We deny that the Protestants are justly termed Sectaries meaning by Sectaries a party which hath departed from the primitive Christian faith or doth separate from the universal Church as it is or was at any time in its integrity 3. We deny the Major to have been proved understanding it of the universal Church of this or any Ages in which the Apostles were not and did not concur in the Proposals and Definitions of Faith 4. We grant the Minor but to the proof of it we say it is utterly false that we have no other way to acquit our selves from Heresie than by pretending the whole Church erred in Faith and taught Idolatry and Superstition for nine or ten hundred years together till the Reformation begun 1517. yea we say that the Errours in Faith the Idolatry and Superstition we now accuse the Roman Church of â— were many of
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
be granted and yet the supreme Headship not proved The power said Hart Conf. with Rainold chap. 1. divis 2. which we mean to the Pope by this Title of Supreme Head is that the Government of the whole Church throughout the World doth depend of him in him doth lie the power of judging and determining all Causes of Faith of ruling Councils as President and ratifying their Dâ—crees of ordering and confirming Bishops and Pastours of deciding Causes brought him by Appeals from all the coasts of the Earth of reconciling any that are excommunicate of excommunicating suspending or inflicting other Censures and Penalties on any that offend yea on Princes and Nations finally of all things of the like sort for governing of the Church even whatsoever toucheth either preaching of Doctrine or practising of Discipline in the Church of Christ Now a person may be above others in power and dignity yea the Head and Primate of them and yet not have this power The Lord Chief Justice of one of the Benches the Speaker of the Parliament Chair-man of a Committee Duke of Venice President in a Council of Bishops the Head of a College the Dean of a Cathedral may have power and dignity above other Justices of the same Bench over Counsellours in the same Council over Knights and Burgesses in the same Parliament Prelates in the same Council Fellows in the same College Canons in the same Chapter and in a sort Primates and Heads of the rest yet not such supreme Heads over the rest as the Popes claim to be Yea notwithstanding such power he may be limited so as that he cannot act without them in making any Laws or passing any Sentence binding but they may act without him and legally proceed against him So that the Conclusion might be yielded and yet the Popes Supremacy not proved The truth is the Pope claims such a vast and monstrous power in Heaven and Earth and Hell as exceeds the abilities of any meer mortal man to discharge and is as experience shews the Introduction to a world of miseries and oppresons But let us view his proof of the power of Peter which H. T. ascribes to him Tâ—e Major saith he is proved because the stronger is not confirmed by the weaker nor the less worthy to be set before the more worthy generally speaking Answ This doth not prove his Major for a person may be weaker and less worthy and yet above others in power and dignity Queen Elizabeth was a Woman and so weaker in respect of her Sex and perhaps less worthy in respect of parts than some of her great Commanders and Privy Counsellours Will H. T. say she was below them in power and dignity Many a Father and Master may be weaker and less worthy and yet superiour in power and dignity Many a Prelate is stronger in knowledge and wisdom and more worthy in respect of holy life than many Popes I will not onely say than Pope Joan and Bennet the Boy but also than Pius the second or any other of the best of their Popes and yet H. T. will not yield such Prelates to be above Popes in power and dignity Me thinks he should yield Athanasius to be stronger and of more worth than Liberius Hiâ—rom than Damasus Bernard than Eugenius and yet he would be loath to ascribe more power and dignity to them than to the Pope Nor is it true that the stronger is not confirmed by the weaker whether we mean it of moral or natural strength or weakness and confirmation Apollos was confirmed by Priscilla David by Abâ—gail Naaman by his servant Nor if by generally speaking be meant very frequently is the speech true that the more worthy is set before the less worthy I think in the Acts of the Apostles Barnabas is more often before Paul than after as Acts 11. 30. 12. 25. 13. 7. 14. 12 14. 15. 12. I am sure in the Holy Ghost's Precept Acts 13. 2. whereupon they were ordained and in the Decree of the Apostles Acts 15. 25. Barnabas is first Will H. T. say Barnabas was more worthy than Paul Me thinks a man should be ashamed to utter such frivolous toys in so weighty a matter and fear to ascribe to a sinfull man so great and immense a Dominion on such slight pretences But how doth he prove his Minor The Minor saith he is proved I have prayed for thee Peter that thy faith fail not and then being at length converted confirm thy Brethren St. Luke 22. 31. The names of the twelve Apostles are these the first Simon who is called Peter c. St. Matth. 10. 2. St. Mark 3. St. Luke 2. and Acts the 1. Answ The Text doth not say Confirm the Apostles in the faith nor do we finde that they did but that he doubted as well as they Mark 16. 14. yea there is mention of another Disciples believing the Resurrection afore Peter John 20. 8 9. yea Paul seems to have confirmed Peter in the faith when he walked not with a right foot according to the truth of the Gospel Gal. 2. 14. Acts 14. 22. Paul and Barnabas are said to confirm the souls of the Disciples and Judas and Silas did the same Acts 15. 32. So that this Act shewes no Headship in Peter nor any privilege at all much less such a supreme Headship over the Apostles as H. T. allegeth it for but a common duty of charity which not onely may but must be done by an equal or inferiour to an equal or superiour Sure if Paul had known of this as a Privilege in Peter he would not have said that he went not up to the Apostles before him nor conferred with flesh and blood Gal. 16. 17. and that Peter added nothing to him Gal. 2. 6. As for his being preferred generally before the rest it is not proved by his being named before the rest he may be named after who is preferred before as Paul is after Barnabas nor do the four Texts express a general or frequent priority of nomination three expressing but one and the same act of Christ and the Catalogue being varied in the order of the rest some Evangelists reckoning Andrew next Peter sometimes James and in like manner the order altered in some others shews that the order of nomination imported no Privilege yea sâ—metimes Peter is named after Andrew John 1. 44. who had this Privilege to bring Peter to Christ vers 41 sometimes after Paul and Aâ—ollos 1 Cor. 1. 12. 3. 22. and other Apostles 1 Cor. 9. 5. Gal. 2. 9. which shews that John and Paul understood not that any such Primacy or Prerogative was given to Peter by his nomination first as Papists assert thence for if they had they would not at any time have inverted the order And therefore however a Primacy of order may be given to Peter yet 1. There is no necessity we should yield the acknowledgement of it to be a Duty imposed much less a perpetual Privilege of
p. 113. d. l. 1. p. 122. l. 8. r. thousand p. 124. l. 5. r. general p. 1â—5 l. 39. r. deceived p. 126. l. 18. r. of an p 135. l. 1. 12. d. het p. 140. l. 25. r. one ROMANISM Discussed OR An ANSWER to the nine First Articles of H. T. his Manual of Controversies ARTICLE I. The Church of Rome is not demonstrated to be the true Church of God by its succession SECT I. Of the Title Page of H. T. his Manual of Controversies in which is shewed to be a vain vaunt of what he hath not performed AMong the many Writings which have been dispersed for the seducing of the English People from the Protestant Doctrine and Communion to the imbracing of the Roman Tridentin opinions a Book of H. T. that is Henry Turbervile at I am told hath been instrumental thereto It is stiled as Becanus Costâ—rus and others before had done theirs A Manual of Controversies in which he pretends to have clearly demonstrated the truth of the Catholique Religion by which he means the Roman opinions branched by him into 28 Articles the truth of which he hath no otherwise demonstrated than by shewing that there is no truth in them Which will appear by considering that the two chief Points of the Roman Religion distinct from the Protestant are the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy and Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist into the very flesh and blood of Christ which he had of the blessed Virgin Now if he believe himself that he hath clearly demonstrated the truth of these by Texts of holy Scripture Councils of all Ages Fathers of the first 500 years common Sense and Experience yet there is so little said by him that carries a shew of proof of either or rather there is so much in his own Writing as gainsays it that were there not a spirit of error which doth possess men they would not believe him For that he hath not clearly demonstrated the truth of the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy over the whole Church is apparent in that he hath not demonstrated clearly Peter's Supremacy there being no Texts brought by him Art 7. to prove it but Ephes 2. 20. Matth. 16. 18. John 21. 16 17 18. Luke 22. 31. Matth. 10. 2. Mark 3. Luke 2. Acts 1. of which the very first proves that other Apostles were Foundations as well as Peter and therefore the term Peter or rock Matth. 16. 18. proves not the whole church so built on Peter as that thereby he is declared Supreme visible Head over them or over the whole church any more than other Apostles were Nor doth feeding the sheep of Christ prove any other Supremacy than was in the Elders of Ephesus commanded to do the same Acts 20. 28. and by Peter himself as a fellow-Elder with them required of them 1 Pet. 5 1 2 And confirming the brethren Luke 22. 31. is no more an argument of Peter's Supremacy than the same thing is of the Supremacy of Paul and Barnabas Acts 14. 22. The other Texts shew nothing but priority of nomination or speaking notwithstanding which H. T. p. 97. confesseth the Apostles to have been equal in their calling to the Apostlâ—ship nothing at all of supremacy and rule over the Apostles and whole church is deducible from them And for Transubstantiation or real substantial presence of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist that which he alledgeth is the words of institution Marth 26. 27 28. Mark 14. 22 24. Luke 22. 19 20. 1 Cor. 11. 24 25. which he would have it believed are spoken without trope or figure of speech saying p. 130. to whosoever shall peruse the Text Matth. 26. 27 28. there is no mention of any fâ—gure in it and yet p. 154. confesseth there is a figure in the word chalice And for the Councils of all Ages saith p. 7. that the second and third Ages produced no Councils and p. 25. he saith In this tenth Age or Century I finde no General Council nor yet Provincial in which any controversie of moment was decided And for Fathers of the first 500 years neither do any of the Fathers he cites ascribe to Peter such a supremacy over the Apostles and the whole church as the Romanists assert nor would any man imagine that Irenâ—â—us Cyprian or Augustine should intend such a supremacy to the Bishop of Rome who knows the controversies about Easter between Polycarpus and Anicetus Polycrares Irenaeus and the Asian Bishops and Pope Victor and about Rebaptization between Cyprian and Sâ—ephanus between the African Bishops about Appeals to Rome and Caâ—lestinus and other Bishops of Rome And for the point of Transubstantiation or real substantial presence of Christs flesh and blood in the Eucharist the sayings of Fathers being well viewed speak not what he would have them and Augustine's words cited by him p. 185. denying Judas to have eaten the bread which was our Lord himself must be understood as denying Transubstantiation sith he acknowledgeth he did eat the â—read of our Lord. As for common sense and experience how it should demonstrate clearly the Popes supremacy is beyond my apprehension yea against it sith Histories and Travellers tell me that the Greek and other churches to this day deny the Popes supremacy And that Christs real substantial bodily presence or transubstantiation should be demonstrated by common sense and experience is so impudent an assertion as no man can believe but he that hath tenounced common sense aud experience Nor can H. T. believe himself in that if he believe what he saith p. 203. The body of Christ in the Sacrament is not the proper object of sense p. 205. the evidence of sense is not infallible in the Sacrament which if there were no more said might satisfie an unprejudiced person that this Author doth not easily deserve belief but deals like a Mountebank that commends his Salves beyond their vertue and when p. 72. he forbids us to try by the dead letter meaning the Scripture or â—umanâ— reason it is a shrewd sign that what he said in the Title Page of his Demonstration was but a copy of his countenance no real thought of his own heart Nevertheless for the undeceiving of those who are willing to be undeceived I shall examine his Writing and shew that he hath not at all demonstrated the Roman Doctrine to be true nor answered the Protestants objections and that the true Fathers Prophets and Apostles and Teachers in the next Ages to them have not taught the now Roman opinions but the contrary SECT II. Of the Epistles before H. T. his Manual in which too much is ascribed to the Church and the Churches Authority deceitfully made the first point of his Treatise LEtting pass other things in the Epistles with the approbation and commendation of those of his own way as being no better than a kind of complement of one Papist with another of no moment but with that prejudiced party I shall onely take notice of that
V. The Romanists Doctrine as it is now was not the Doctrine of the Fathers of the first five hundred years nor is acknowledged to be so by the learned Protestants H. T adds a third Argument to prove that his with other Romanists Doctrines in which they differ from Protestants and are opposed by them are taught and approved by the Fathers of the first five hundred years which he thinks to prove by that he hath cited and shall cite out of the Fathers and the confessions of his Adversaries and to that end cites some Speeches of Fulk Kemnitius Whitgrft Calvin Whitaker Peter Martyr Duditius Rainolds Jewel and then infers triumphantly therefore the Father of the first five hundred years are not for Protestants but for us therefore Protestants are utterly at a loss in the point of continued Succession Answ 1. WHat is before cited hath been shewed to be insufficient and so will what is after if God vouchsafe me time and strength to that end 2. Of the passages cited the two last are not to the purpose and they are maimedly and corruptly cited The Speeches as they are cited say not any thing of the popish Doctrin taught and approved by the Fathers of the first five hundred years but the uncertainty of finding out the truth by their sayings without the Scriptures And that the dealing of this Author may appear I shall set down the words as I finde them in Jewel's Apology part 4. cap. 22. divis 3. For where these men bid the holy Scriptures away as dumb and fruitless and procure us to come to God himself who speaks in the Church and in their Councils that is to say to believe their fancies and opinions this way finding out the truth is very uncertain and exceeding dangerous and in a manner a fantastical and mad way and by no means allowed of the holy Fathers Which Speech is a most true and savoury Speech yet not in the least intimating a diffidence of the Fathers of the first five hundred years being for the Papists the contrary to which Bishop Jewel shewed in his famous Challenge at Paul's Cross and his making it good against Harding but onely vindicating the holy Scriptures from the foul Speeches of Hosius Pighius and other Romanists and asserting the authority of the holy Scriptures The other passage which is cited out of Dr. Rainold's Conference in H. T. it is printed Confess cap. 5. divis 1. is as corruptly and maimedly cited the words being thus at large Indeed Vincentius Lirinensis preferreth this mark of truth the consent of the Fathers before the rest as having held when they failed Nevertheless he speaketh not of it neither as that it may serve for trial and decision of questions between us For what doth he acknowlege to be a point approved and such as we are bound to believe by this mark even that which the Fathers all with one consent have held written taught plainly commonly continually And who can avouch of any point in question that not one or two but all the Fathers held it nor onely held it but also wrote it nor onely wrote it but alotaught it not darkly but plainly not seldom but commonly not for a short season but continually which so great consent is partly so rare and so hard to be found partly so unsure though it might be found that himself to fashion it to some use and certainty is fain to limit and restrain it Which words were sound and are necessary but not spoken out of any distrust of his cause or imagination as if the Fathers of the first five hundred years were for the Papists For in that very conference he largely proves that not onely the Fathers of the first five hundred years but also the succeeding Councils and Fathers till the sixteenth Century did onely yield the Pope a Primacy among other Patriarchs but not a Supremacy over the whole Church and that Primacy that was given him was by custome of the Church for the honour of the Imperial City which was auserible not because of any grant of Christ which was irrevocable Duditius was one whom by Thranus his description of him Hist l. 96. towards the end Martyr's Speech respects onely the point of vows which is not a point of saith Whitaker's Speech is not of the Fathers of the first 500. years but of the ancient Church which might be after or onely in some part of that time The words of Calvin lib 3. instit cap. 5. parag 10. are not rightly alleged being not together as H. T. cites them but injuriously pieced out of Speeches that are distant one from another He doth not deny nor yet expresly say that it was a custome thirteen hundred years ago to pray for the dead but whereas it was objected by the Adversaries he urgeth that if it were so it was without Scripture that it came out of carnal affection that what we reade in the Ancients done therein was yielded to the common manner and ignorance of the vulgar he confesseth they were carried away into errour but faith not they were all of that time carried away into errour that same testimonies of the Ancients might be brought which overthrow all those prayers for the dead that their prayers for the dead were not without hesitancy that they were different from the popish in divers things The words of Whitgifts Defense pag. 473. are mis-cited being not as H. T. cites them All the Bishops and learned Writers of the Greek and Latin Church too for the most part were spotted with the Doctrines of Free will Merit Invocation of Saints but thus How greatly were almost all the Bishops and learned Writers of the Greek Church yea and the Latins also for the most part spotted with the Doctrines of Free-will of Merits Invocation of Saints and such like Surely you are not able to reckon in any Age since the Apostles time any company of Bishops that taught and held so sound and perfect Doctrine in all points as the Bishops of England do at this time The words of Kemnitius I finde not perhaps because the Edition is not named with the Page But this I finde in the third part of his Examen pag. 628. Francos Edit 1609. that he not onely asserted but also proved that in the Primitive Church unto two hundred years after Christ born the Doctrine of the Suffrages Patronages Intercessions Merits Aid Help and Invocation of Saints in Heaven was altogether unknown and the reason or account of the veneration of Saints was then far other as we have shewed than that which was brought in I have not Fulk's Retentives against Bristow's Motives by me which I imagine is the Book which H. T. cites under the Title of Riot Briston but his citing with an c. and so small a shred of the Authour makes me conceive that he wronged Fulk by that maimed citation however sith the confession is but of three Fathers and the Saints whether living or dead
is not as H. T. renders it be obscured but vanish away as the words following shew which are Who had these things He that preacheth hath founded the Heaven and the Earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away Whence it is manifest that he there speaks not of the Churches visibility but permanency as the Sun Augustin lib 3. cont Parmen cap. 5. tom 7. against the Donatists saith thus Who therefore would not sit in the assembly of vanâ—â—y let him not become vain in the type of pride seeking the Conventicls separate from the unity of the just of the whole world which he cannot finde But the just are through the whole City which cannot be hid because it is seated on a Mountain that Mountain I say of Daniel in whom that stone cut out without hands grew and filled the whole earth And after There is no security of unity but in the Church declared by the promises of God which being seated as was said on a Mountain cannot be hid and therefore it is necessary that it be known to all parts of the earth By which it is manifest that in opposition to the Donatists appropriating the Church to their party he asserts it to be manifest not by its outward splendour but its extension to all parts The words l. 2. cont Petilian c. 104 are thus Ye are not in the Mountains of Sion because ye are not in the City seated on the Mountain which hath this certain sign that it cannot be hid therefore it is known to all Nations but the part of Donatus is unknown to many Nations therefore it is not that Church It is evident he spake of the Church at that time which was known or manifestly visible to all Nations not from a potent Monarchy in one City but its diffusion through all parts of the world SECT III. H. T. hath not solved the Protestants Objections against the visibility of the Church H. T. adds Objections solved Object The Church is believed therefore not seen Answ She is believed in the sense of her Doctrines and to be guided to all truths by the Holy Ghost but seen in her Pastours Government and Preaching wherefore I deny the Consequence I Reply Though Protestants deny not the Church militant to be visible in the outward Government and Preaching of the Pastors yet they deny that it is always so conspicuous as that it may be known to every Christian as an Assembly of the People of Rome or Common-wealth of Venice to which all may resort for direction Nor by this Argument do they prove that the Church militant is not visible but that the Church in the Creeds Apostolical and Nicene which is one Catholick and Apostolick as such is not visible but invisible being the Object of Faith not of Sight nevertheless the Answer takes not away the force of the Objection if it had been alleged against the visibility of the Church militant For the Church is believed not as teaching but as being it is the existence of the Church not the Doctrine of it that is believed as even the Trent Catechism expounds it now that being Catholick that is according to the Catechism consisting of all believers from Adam till now in all Nations cannot be the object of sense but of faith and therefore the Catholick Church in the Creeds is the invisible of true Believers not the meer visible now militant H. T. adds Object The Woman the Church fled into the Wilderness Apoc. 12 6. Answ But is followed and persecuted by the Dragon v. 17. therefore visible I reply this Answer is ridiculous For whereas Protestants hence prove that at some times the Church is hid from men this Authour saith It was not hid from the Dragon that is the Devil which is not in question So that it appears he had nothing to answer this Inference from the Womans flying into the Wilderness and being hid that sometimes the Church is so hidden as it were in a Wilderness that though it be yet it is not so visible or conspicuous as that men can discern it so as to repair to it howbeit the Devil knows where they lurk Yet once more H. T. Object The Church of the Predestinate is invisible Answ There is no such thing as a Church of the Predestinate Christ's Church is the congregation of all true believers as well Reprobate as predestinate There is in his Floor both Wheat and Chaff St. Matth. c. 3. and in his Field both Corn and Tares which shall grow together till the Harvest the Day of Judgement St. Matth. c. 13. The Predestinate are as visible as the Reprobate It is true indeed their Predestination is invisible and so is also these mens Reprobation I reply To salve their main Tenet of the Popes being Head of the Church of Christ who is often so wicked as that if the Church of Christ be determined to be of elect persons onely many Popes cannot be termed Members much less Heads of the Church is this audacious Assertion invented that there is no such thing as a Church of the Predestinate contrary to express Scripture which mentions the Church of the first-born written in Heaven Heb. 12. 23. and the Church elected together with Peter or those he wrote to 1 Pet. 5. 13. and saith such things of the Church in many places to wit Ephes 5. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32. Ephes 1. 22 23 c. as cannot agree to Reprobates who cannot be said to be Christ 's body his fulness to be loved sanctified whom he nourisheth intends to present without spot as he saith there of Christ's Church He that desires more proof may reade Dr. John Rainold his fourth Conclusion where he proves it fully both from Scripture and Fathers that the holy Catholick Church which we believe is the whole company of Gods elect and chosen which hath not been yet answered that I know Nor do I see how the fourth Lateran Council could mean otherwise which determined as H. T. saith here art 1. pag. 30. that the universal Church of the faithfull is one out of which no man can be saved which can be true onely of the Church of the Predestinate As for what H. T. saith here The Church of Christ is the congregation of all true believers as well Reprobate as Predestinate it supposeth true believers may be reprobate but this is false meaning it of the truth of being opposite to feigned counterfeit or in shew onely For our Lord Christ hath said John 5. 24. John 3. 15 16 18 36. that such as believe on him shall not perish come not to condemnation are passed from death to life have everlasting life Nor do the Texts Matth. 3. 12. where the Floor is not Christ's Church but the Jewish people or Matth. 13. 30. where the Field is expresly interpreted vers 38. to be the World not the Church speak to the contrary It is true The Predestinate are as visible as the Reprobate
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
in his days of which he warns Christians and our Lord Christ commands Revel 2. 2. the Angel of the Church of Ephesus in that he had tried some that said they were Apostles and were not and had found them Liars As for some of those things which Ancients have called Apostolical tradition the Papists themselves do reject them as the opinion of the Millenaries the keeping of Easter as the Quartodeciman held the giving the communion to Infants and many more and therefore all Apostolical traditions so termed cannot be the Rule of trial nor can they give us any sure Notes by which we may distinguish genuine Apostolical tradition unwritten from them that are supposititious It is true the oral tradition of the Apostles while they lived and there was access to them might be fit to be a means to try spirits by but the relation of Irenaeus lib. 2. adv haeres cap. 39. about Christ's age and the censure given of Papias in Eusebius plainly shew how quickly such traditions came to be mistakes and the very reason of John 1 Epist 4. 1. doth take us off from trying by such tradition because of the multitude of deceivers and therefore requires that such spirits as pretended tradition should be tried by an unerring Rule which is the holy Scripture But H. T. takes up the blasphemous reproach which some impudent railing Papists have heretofore given to the holy Scripture when it bids us not try by the dead letter by which he means the Scripture in contradistinction to unwritten tradition Which sure is not the language of the holy Ghost but of such impure mouths as in love to their Romish Idols endeavour to disgrace the holy Scripture 'T is true the Law ingraven in stone is termed 2 Cor. 3. 6. the killing letter yet not of it self for elsewhere Act. 7. 38. the law of Moses is termed the living Oracles but by accident in that it could not give life Gal 3. 21. in that it was weak through the flesh Rom. 8. 3. it did kill that is condemn men as guilty of sin and so accursed by it Gal. 3. 10. But on the contrary the Word of God is termed living Heb. 4. 12. the word of life Phil. 2. 16. And our Lord Christ bids the Jews search the Scriptures because in them they did think they had eternal life John 5. 39. and John 20. 31. These things are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and believing ye might have life through his name So that justly may H. T. with such other as before him have done the like be charged with impiety in his disparagingly terming the holy Scriptures especially of the New Testament the dead letter which Paul calls the word of life But it 's likely he meant that the Scriptures cannot hear both parties and so pronounce sentence in a point of controversie If this be his meaning he might term the churches sentence printed or written in parchment and Apostolical tradition unwritten the dead letters as well as the holy Scriptures For surely the authority of the church in an Oecumenical council approved by the Pope suppose the Trent council approved by Pope Pius the fourth and the Apostolical tradition doth no more hear or speak then the Scripture And it sure discovers an extream perversness and malignity of spirit in Papists that refuse to be tried by Scripture as being dead and require a living Judge to end controversies when the council and Pope and Apostolical tradition they would try by are as much dead as the Scripture which there is reason to conceive they do as foreseeing that if their proselytes would try their doctrines by the Scripture they could not stand As for humane reason no Protestant that I know makes that the rule by which he is to try the spirits nor his own private spirit if by it be meant his own councils But we say that every man is to make use of his own reason or judgement of discretion and the ability of his own intelligent spirit as the instrument or means by which he is to try whether that doctrine which is propounded to him be according to holy Scripture and in this he doth no more then Christ requires Luke 12. 57. yea and why even of your selves judge ye not what is right without the use of which it is impossible for men to make trial as men And this the Papists themselves must allow men to do according to their own principles For how else can they hear and believe the church if they do not use their reason to know the church and what it saith they must make men blocks or brutes if they allow them not the use of reason to try by When H. T. brings arguments from texts of Scripture Councils Fathers common sense and experience as his title page pretends would he not have men to use their reason to try whether he do it rightly would he have us go to a council approved by the Pope to know whether his arguments be good what a meer mockery is this of men to write books to teach people and yet not permit people to use humane reason to try their tenets whether they be according to Scripture Council Fathers common sense and experience as if we must not only take an Oâ—cumenical council approved by the Pope but also H. T. and every Popish writer whose book is licensed to be infallible If he write is it not that we may read and will he have us read and not judge and can we judge without humane reason But it is the fashion of these men to write and speak in points of controversie but not to permit their Disciples unless they judge them firm to them whatever they meet with to the contrary to examine their adversaries tenents arguments and answers by reading the Scripture and such impartial writers as would discover their deceit but either by some device or plain prohibition to deter them from searching after the truth that they may rest on the Popes and prelates determinations without examining H. T. further adds Obj. The Church may erre at least in points not fundamental Answ All that God hath revealed is fundamental at least for the formal motive of belief to wit the Divine authority revealing though not always for the matter and if it be once sufficiently proposed to us by the Church as so revealed we are then bound to believe it so that their distinction of fundamentals and not fundamentals is idle Besides if the Church be infallible in fundamentals then Protestants are Schismaticks at least in revelting from her in points not fundamental or necessary to salvation and sin against charity by accusing us of Idolatry I reply 1. Sure this exception is idle to argue the distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points of faith which the users of it take from the matter according to which he confesseth all is not fundamental that God revealeth to be idle because all
missals and the vulgar Latin translations of the Bible they confesse they used the help of learned men and one Pope alter what a former did and Judge of controversies from whom none may appeal and all are bound in conscience to stand to his definitions H. T. saith further Object The spiritual man judgeth all things 1 Cor. 2. 15. Answ By the Rule of Apostolical tradition I grant by humane reason or the private spirit I deny and such a spiritual man is in the Church as a part in the whole not out of it with Sectaries I reply It is true the spiritual man judgeth all things by the Rule of Apostolical tradition I mean that which is truly and confessedly Apostolical in the holy Scriptures not by that unwritten tradition which Papists falsly call Apostolical And it is true also that the spiritual man judgeth all things by humane reason not as the rule of faith but as the Organ or means of discerning as the buyer judgeth whether he hath measure by the Ell as the rule and by the eye as the Organ by which he compareth the thing bought and the Ell together And if by private spirit be meant nothing but his own ability to discern the spiritual man judgeth by his private spirit and so doth a Papist that judgeth by the rule of the Councils definition and Popes approbation judge what his Priest suggests to him to be such by humane reason and his private spirit Nor can it be otherwise if the judging be his act but it should be by humane reason unless we imagine a man as a man to act without reason However this is clear by his confession that a spiritual man is not onely the Pope or the Catholick Church but a part in the whole and that he not onely receives all that the Church propounds but judgeth and therefore doth not rest on the judgement of the Church with a blinde assent and that he is in the Church nevertheless and this supposeth that a spiritual man is not to presuppose the Church or Pope or Prelate or Priest infallible but to examine what they say and to judge for himself whether they speak right or not H. T. proceeds thus Object Right reason is the onely Judge of controversies therefore every mans private reason must be Judge for himself Answ The Antecedent I have sufficiently refuted and I also deny the Consequence as the most gross and unreasonable Assertion of all others though Mr. Chillingsworth's chief ground which appears thus I reply No Protestant that I know saith Right reason is the onely Judge of controversies and therefore there was no need of refuting it Nevertheless in what he hath said before about this point he hath refuted nothing except it be a sufficient Refutation to say without any reason or proof for it that we must not try all things by humane reason or the private spirit which is a way of reâ—uting fit enough for this Scribler though unfit for a Disputer 2. Nor do I think any Protestant makes that consequence which is here set down whereas he aâ—cribes it to Master Chillingworth he had dealt honestly if he had quoted the place that we might without reading a whole Book have found it If I mistake not Master Chillingworth chap. 2. part 1. Sect. 104. of his Answer to Charity maintained against Knot asserting a necessity of a personal Judge in points of controversie concerning the Christian faith that the Scripture was not and therefore the church must be it saith Scripture is not a Judge of controversies but a Rule to judge them by being understood of all those that are possible to be judged by Scripture and of those that arise among such as believe the Scripture that it is not necessary that all controversies should be decided that in doubtfull things there is no necessity they should be determined but that each should bear with other and he is safe that useth means to finde the truth though he miss it that fundamentals are plainly delivered in Scripture that the mâ—st unlearned may understand these by the translations of places on no side gainsaid that each mans own reason is Judge for himself that there is no such personal Judge appointed by God as Knot would have that his Reasons from the necessity of a personal Judge in civil controversies hold not in this matter that every mans particular reason is that by which he is to judge whether this or that Doctrine be agreeable to Scripture that even according to the way of the Papists the giving of the Office of Judicature to the Church comes to confer it upon every particular man For 1. Before any man believes the Church infallible he must have reason to induce him to believe it so else why do they set down Arguments to prove it 2. Supposing they are to be guided by the Church they must use their own particular reason to finde out which is the Church and to that end Popish Doctors give notes and marks whereby to discern it which are to no end if a Christian must not use his reason to judge whether they be right or no. So that in effect this is Mr. Chillingworth 's Argument as I conceive it There is neither a necessity of an infallible personal Judge among men to determine all controversies in Religion among Christians nor is any such appointed by God but each is to try for himself what is taught and even by Popish Writers own way he must use his particular reason to discern the validity of their proofs for the Churches infallibility and which is the Church which must be his guide by the marks of iâ— therefore it must of necessity be yielded that every mans particular reason must be Judge for himself Now this which H. T. unskilfully calls the consequence it being the consequent onely is no unreasonable much less gross Assertion and may very well be Mr. Chillingworth 's ground in answering Knot notwithstanding that which here H. T. produceth to the contrary First saith H. T. As contradicting the Word of God wherein we are taught that the things which are of God no man knows but the Spirit of God 1 Cor. 2. 11. No man can say Our Lord Jesus with true faith but in the holy Ghost 1 Cor. 12. 3. By which grace we are saved through faith and that not of our selves for it is the gift of God Ephes 2. 8. We are not sufficient to think any good thing our selves as of selves but our sufficiency is from God 2 Cor. 3. 5. We must captivate our understanding to the obedience of faith I reply Mr. Chillingworth's tenet being rightly understood contradicts none of these Texts For 1. when he saith Every mans private reason is to judge for himself he means whether this or that be the meaning of the Scriptures and whether that which some say is revealed in Scripture be so or not so that the judging which he asserts is of things revealed by the words
who are more justly to be accounted Protestants in respect of the doctrine they taught then Papists whom they falsly call Catholicks 3. It is not denied that Socrates l. 7. hist c. 17. mentions a miracle of Paul a Novatian Bishop and Augustin tract 13. on John and de unit Eccles c. 16. denies not that the Donatists alleged miracles and he calls them by contempt Mirabiliarios and judged that the Church was to be judged by Scripture and the miracles by the Church as Bellarm confesseth de notis Eccl. l. 4. c. 14. 4. Those that are said to be done by persons of the Catholick Church for the first five hundred years were not done by persons that held the now Romish doctrine or in confirmation of it or the verity of the now Roman Church 5. All the rest in all the ages following are of none or very small credit Gregory the great is himself judged by Romanists to have been too credulous of tales those Dialogues which are said to be his in which are related some of the miracles which the Papists rely on being either none of his or shewing too much credulity in him the rest of the miracles in the legends are so ridiculous fopperies as even discreet Papists themselves have discredited Dr. Rainold Conf. with Hart ch 8. divis 2. allegeth Canus as in general excepting against the reports of miracles even by grave ancient learned holy Fathers loc Theol. l. 11. c. 6. and particularly against Gregories Dialogues and Bedes history and the very Portesse as having uncertain forged false and frivolous things in them about Francis and Dominick and he shews that Pope Gelasius and a council of seventy Bishops with him condemned many false stories which were rehearsed in the Roman Portesses if Espencaeus Comment in 2. Epist ad Tim. c. 4. digress 21. be to be believed The two pretended miracles which this Author hath chosen for instance have nothing like divine miracles or truth The miracles of Christ and his Apostles were such as were done openly in the sight of all so as they could not be denied but even adversaries confessed them these were things only in private so as that there might be some device used to delude the sight or might be fancied to be so by some doating persons or might be by the illusion of Satan which is not improbable to have been used in them there being great cause to conceive that in those dayes of darknesse by seeming wonders apparitions visions prophecies Satan promoted the worship of Saints especially of the Virgin Mary the opinion of purgatory prayer for the dead worship of reliques by which Idolatry and superstition grew among Christians about and after the time of the second Nicenâ— Synod Nor is there any likelihood that the wounds of Francis should appear fifteen dayes afore death in which time he was likely covered and not after his death in which his body being naked they might have been more visible were not the time afore death more convenient for the imposture And the like may be said of the other tale What likelihood is there that a man should venture his life to steale two pieces of bread or little water cakes or that a Jew should buy one or do such an act before witnesses which would bring so much evil on him the thing seems more likely to have been a devised tale to pick a quarrel with the Jews as it was in those dayes usual for a pretence to get their goods as it had been done to the Templars Sure there was no justice to burn thirty eight for the fact of one much lesse to banish all Jews thence And why was nothing done to Paul Form either it was therefore a meeâ— fiction like one of those in Sir John Mandevils travailes or else a device to stiâ— up rage against the Jews that they might prey on their goods 6. Were it yeilded as it is not that there was truth in these relations yet the most that can be collected is that God would vindicate Francis from some ill opinions or reports of him not that he might be extolled as Horatius Turselin in his blasphemous Epigram did as if he were comparable with Christ or that either the Popes supremacy or the order of Friers or the verity of the doctrine of the Roman Church then much lesse the truth of the present Roman Church should be confirmed Nor if the other accident were true doth it follow that God would thereby confirm the opinion of transubstantiation but the verity of Christs being the Son of God and we may more justly answer concerning iâ— then Bellarmin doth concerning the miracle of the Novatian Bishop that it was done not to confirm the Novatian faith but Catholick baptism so the other was done not to confirm the Popish opinion of transubstantiation but the Christian doctrine of the man Christ his being the Son of God H. T. adds notwithstanding this confession of adversaries I will also all some Fathers of whose relations of miracles it is not worth while to consider whether they were true or not there being not one of them that proves this point that the Church which wants miracles is not the true Church or that the present Roman doctrine or Church are the true doctrine or Church That which Cyprian and Optatus relate if true did only vindicate the Lords Supper from contempt that of Gregory Thaumaturgus whether it were so or onely a report of which good men were sometimes too credulous it proves not the truth of the Roman Church but rather if any of the Greek Church which owned not the Popes supremacy nor their doctrines in that age Much less is that which he brings out of Chrysostom concerning the reliques of Babylas for his purpose sith it is expresly said to have proved against infidels that Christ was the Son of God and the Idols of the Gentiles were vain things which no more proves the truth of the Roman then of the Protestant Churches nor so much as of the Greek Churches who hold the same That of Ambrose concerning his brother Satyrus proves not transubstantiation but rather the contrary sith Satyrus adored not the Eucharist when he kept it and that he did keep him from drowning was but a conjecture nor is it proved that God by that accident approved his superstition though he might reward his faith and love of which that was a sign What Augustin l. 22. de civit Dei c. 8. writes of things done in his time are not undoubted sith some of them are related upon the report of one or more not very judicious who might enlarge things beyond truth espâ—cially when the custome was of reading the relations to the people and they were pressed in conscience to divulge them as there Augustin saith was done by him and it seemed so much for advantage of Christian Religion some of them might be by medicines working beyond expectation though attributed as the fashion is to that which was last
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
necessity of Infant baptism or for changing the Saturday into Sunday c. all which notwithstanding are necessary to be known by the whole Church and to be believed by us in particular as Protestants will acknowledge if they be once sufficiently proposed to us by the Church Nor is it sufficient we believe all the Bible unless we believe it in the true sense and be able to confute all Heresies out of it I speak of the whole Church which she can never do without the Rule of Apostolical Tradition in any of the Points forementioned I Reply unless the man had a minde to plead for Arians Photinians Macedorians and Socinians I know not why he should so often make the Doctrines of three distinct Persons in one divine nature the Sons consubstantiality to the Father the Procession of the Holy Ghost from both and his Godhead as Apostolical unwritten Tradition Sure this is the way to bring into question these Doctrines which if they be not in Scripture will never be believed by intelligent Christians for the Pope and Council of Trent's sayings whose proceedings never tended to clear truth but to juggle with the World This is one certain evidence that they never intended to clear truth because they condemned the Doctrines of Protestants unheard nor would ever permit them to come to plead for themselves in any impartial assembly till which be done no man can construe the proceedings of a Council to be any other than practises to suppress truth And for their juggling they were so notorious that many Papists themselves have observed them as may be seen in the History of the Council of Trent especially about the divine right of Bishops of the Laity having the Cup Priests Marriages in which Papists themselves found that they were meerly mocked by the Pope and Court of Rome As for this mans denying the Antecedent it seems to me to savour of such an imputation of a defect in God as tends to Atheism For sure he is not to be termed a provident and just God who declaring his minde in the Scripture and promising life to them that observe his Word and threatning Death and Damnation to them that do not believe and obey yet doth not set down all necessary points therein to be believed and obeyed unto life Yea doth not H. T. by denying it contradict himself who saith pag. 105. In the Doctrines which Christ and his Apostles taught and the Books which they wrote are contained all things that are of Faith And for the Consequence if it be not good The Bible contains all things necessary to salvation either for belief or practise for all sorts of men whatsoever and that explicitly and plainly therefore the Bible is the Rule of Faith neither is his own second argument good for Tradition pag. 105. In the Doctrines which Christ and his Apostles taught and the Books which they wrote are contained all things that are of Faith therefore the infallible means of knowing them is the infallible and true Rule of Faith in both the Consequence being the same As for his Instances I say If the three Creeds and four first Councils be not in the Scripture they are not necessary to be known for the whole Church and to be believed by us in particular though they be sufficiently proposed to us by the Church that is in their non-sense gibberish the Pope or a general Council approved by him require us to receive them Neither hath the Church as he terms it power to propose any thing as necessary to be known for the whole Church and to be believed by us in particular but what is contained in the Bible nor hath it such authority as that we are bound to believe them if it do propound them though never so sufficiently but are bound to reject them as contrary to the duty we ow to Christ of acknowledging him our onely Master much more reason have we to contend against them when they are propounded by the Popes of Rome who teach not the Doctrine of Christ but cruelly and proudly tyrannize over the souls and bodies of the Saints in a most Antichristian manner and impose on them as Apostolical traditions things contrary to Christ and his Apostles in the Bible Nor is it true that all Protestants will acknowledge all thsse Points he mentioneth as necessary to be known for the whole Church and to be believed by us in particular I grant it not sufficient for us to believe all the Bible unless we believe it in the true sense but aver we can believe it in the true sense and be able to confute all Heresies out of it without the Rule of Apostolical tradition unwritten in any of those points in which the Errour is as our Lord Christ was able by it to vanquish Satan for which reason it is termed the Sword of the Spirit Ephes 6. 17. And for Traditions or Popes Decrees they are but a Leaden Sword without Fire and Faggot yea there is so much vanity in them as makes them ridiculous and so unfit for refutation and were it not for the horrid butchery and cruelty which Princes drunken with the Wine of the Cup of the Fornication of the Whore of Babylon make of their best Subjects at the instigation of Popes and Popish Priests nothing would appear more contemptible than their decisions Yet more Object Doubtless for speculative Points of Christian Doctrine Books are a safer and more infallible Way or Rule than oral Tradition Answ You are mistaken Books are infinitely more liable to Casualties and Corruptions than Traditions as well by reason of the variety of Languages into which they are translated as the diversity of Translations scarce any two Editions agreeing but all pretending one to mend the other besides the multiplicity of Copies and Copists with the Equivocation and uncertainty of dead and written words if captiously wrested or literally insisted on Who can prove any one Copy of the Bible to be infallible or uncorrupted those that were written by the Apostles own hands we have not or who can convince that any one Text of the Bible can have no other sense and meaning than what is convenient for his purpose insisting onely on the dead Letter All which dangers and difficulties are avoided by relying on Apostolical tradition which bindes men under pain of Damnation to deliver nothing for Faith but what they have received as such by hand to hand from Age to Age and in the same sense in which they have received it Think me not foolish says St. Augustin for using these terms for I have so learned these things by Tradition neither dare I deliver them to thee any other way than as I have received them Lib. de utilit cred cap. 3. I reply A more impudently and palpably false Discourse than this is a man shall seldom meet with it being contrary to all experience and use among men and condemns all the customes of the most civil people of folly
drawing of the Net on the shore at the Day of Judgement is damnable and the Sacrilege of Schism which surpasseth all other crimes lib. 2. cont Epist Parmen I reply it is a Scolds trick to say we slander and not to prove it We prove out of Paul's Epistle to the Romans that the Roman Church then held Justification by Faith without Works that every Soul even Popes were to be subject to Princes that the Scriptures are to be the Rule of Faith that the Church of Rome might fail that the Roman church is but a particular Church that it is evil to judge Christians for not observing difference of Meats and Days that it is Idolatry to do as Papists now do worshiping the Creature with such Worship as belongs to the Creatour that we are not to invocate Saints in whom we believe not with sundry more in which the present Roman church hath sweâ—ved from the primitive We prove out of Gregory the Great himself that the Doctrine and Discipline of the Roman church is not the same now as it was in all precedent Ages for he rejected the Title of Universal Bishop now usurped by the Pope and disavowed the Worship of Images with other things now received at Rome and before him Pope Gelasius termed the denying the Cup to the Lay-people sacrilegious Augustine himself hath taught us to account his words below Scripture-canon yet his speeches touch not us who do not separate our selves from the church of Christ on pretence of avoiding communion of bad men but from the Papacy on full proof that the communion of the Popish church is imposed on conditions of acknowledging such Errours and practising such Idolatry as are damnable We do not say that the church perished but that it was continued in a remnant of persecuted Saints We need not allege any Church for our Mother but the Jerusalem which is abovâ— which is the Mother of us all Gal. 4. 26. I judge it no better than an inconsiderate speech to say any visible church is the Mother of Christians it is in my apprehension all one as to say the church is the Mother of the church Christians or believers being all one with the church and therefore count such speeches whoever Father or Prelate he be that useth them no better than ridiculous non-sense and much more to call Bishops our Fathers in Christ and yet to term them the Church also and our Mother Nor need we allege a Church that brought us forth it is sufficient we can prove our Faith to be according to the Gospel and allege that we have been begotten by it which way soever it be Were not the â—berians a church of Christians who were converted by â— captive Maid when there was no church there before and the Indians by â—rumentius without a Church to bring them forth May not a man have Faith and Salvation in a Wilderness where he knows of no church Neither did Luther nor Tyndal separate themselves from all Nations but were expelled and peâ—secuted by the devilish Popes and Popish Clergy of Rome when they endeavoured to restore the purity of the Gospel to the Germans English and other Nations If Augustine meant simply that all Separation made before the Day of Judgement is damnable he wrote that which is not true it being contrary to Paul's practise Acts 18. 9. God's command 2 Cor. 6. 17. 2 Tim. 3 5. 2 Thess 3. 8. Revel 18. 4. He himself acknowledgeth lib. 2. cont Epist Pâ—rmen cap. 21. A man is not to associate with others when he cannot have society with them but by doing evil with them But if he meant it of such Separation as the Donatists made as it is likely he doth it toucheth not us who separate not from the Romanists because some evil men are tolerated but because Errour Idolatry and other evils are urged on us by them and such is their tyranny that without yielding to them there is no communion but in stead thereof Banishment or Burning Once more saith H. T. Object We did but separate from the particular Church of Rome Therefore not from the whole Church Answ I told you it the Question of the Churches universality in what sense the Church of Rome iâ— universal or Catholick and in what sense she is particular take it in which acception you will your Consequence is false for whosoever separates from an acknowledged true Member of the Catholick Church and such the Church of Rome then was in her particular he consequently separates from the whole and is an Heretick or Schismatick I reply neither as it is taken for the congregation of Rome or Italy nor as it notes a collection of all the Churches holding communion with the See of Rome is the Roman Church rightly termed the Catholick Church the non-sense and falshood thereof is shewed before Art 5. Sect. 8. Nor is it true that he that separates from the Catholick Roman Church in either sense is an Heretick or Schismatick And to his proof I say 1. That many Protestants deny the Roman Church a true Member of the Catholick Church when Luther separated but call it an Antichristian and malignant Church and they that acknowledge it a true Church in respect of the truth of being yet not of Doctrine and they that say it had the truth of being say it not of the predominant part but of the latent conceiving it was with them as it was with Israel in the days of Elijah that they did not own those Errours and evils which were practised in them or avouched by them though living among them or if they did yield to them or some of them they had pardon as doing it in ignorance retaining the old Creed of the Apostles And they attribute the truth of it to the few fundamental Articles which they held who were in it though very unsoundly by reason of the errours and corruptions mixed with them which made the Church among the Romanists as a leprous man unfit for converse and communion with whom though they might continue for a time in expectation of their repentance yet they might say to Rome being found uâ—câ—rable as the Jews to Babylon Jer. 51. 9. We would have healed Babylon but she is not healed forsake her and let us go every one into his own countrey for her Judgement reacheth unto the Heaven and is lifted up unto the Skies 2. That it is not universally true that he who separates from an acknowledged true Member of the Catholick Church separtes from the whole there may be a Separation partial not total privative not positive out of prejudice and passion in heat not in heart as between Paul and Barnabas Acts 15. 39. Chrysostome and Epiphanius temporary not perpetual in prudence though not out of absolute necessity necessary not voluntary just and not rash without revolt from the Faith or persecution of those from whom it is made In many of these sorts there may be a Separation which may be from