written in heaven stedfast ones hear saith he and acknowledg that this Church in the Apostolical Epistles is called a foundation 3. In regard of the first Christians and Ministers not succeeding Churches unless in such regards as I shall shew hereafter the Apostle speaks in the Present tense The authoritie of the Primitive Church is greater then of the present Churches There is a clear testimonie and much to our present purpose in your Lovain Doctor Driedo Dried lib. de dogm variâ—s who acknowledges that the Primitive Church was of greater authoritie in teaching and delivering Doctrines of Faith then the present Church because of the Apostles qui â—cclsiae illius columneae Gersom de vita spirituali animae f. 61. R. who being Pillars of that Church were eye-witnesses of that which they taught Thus Gersom expounding that Speech of Augustine you much glory in non crederem Evangelio and I had not believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Church had compelled me thereto saith he taking Church there for the Primitive Congregation of the faithful who saw and heard Christ and were his witnesses Suppose we grant this Church was the Pillar and ground of Truth in your sense what would your present Apostatized Roman Church gaine by hat Your Prelates are no such Pillars as the Atostles nor your Church such a foundation of truth as theirs Lastly supposing it were meant of the present Churches particularly of the Roman It 's being called the Pillar and ground of Truth doth not prove it's infallibilitie James Cephas Gal. 2.9 and John were Pillars yet who would infer from thence that they were infallible Gersom is by one call'd Constantiensis Concilii columnam a Pillar of the Council of Constance yet he was not thought infallible All that can be proved from these titles is this that God makes use of the Church both Pastors and faithful people according to their places to hold forth and preserve the truth which is accomplishhd in every particular Church so long as it continues a true Church of Christ but this doth not exempt it from ceasing to be a true Church or from erring Thus it may truly be said of the Churches of Asia and of Rome that while they continued true Churches of Christ they held forth and preserved Gods truth but neither this nor those were exempt from erring Adam in the state of Innocencie might have been truly called the Pillar and ground of truth and goodness holiness and righteousness yet Adam was created with a posse errare a possibilitie of erring as we know by woful experience Your other text is Matth. 16. I answer 1. By Church we are to understand true Believers Augustine expounds this place by Matth. 7.24.25 Aug. de unit eccles c. 18. See Lyran These cannot be finally prevailed against by the Gates of Hell There will be a number of true Believers and these visible let the Devil and his Instruments do what they can 2. By Hell Gates the Fathers understand persecutions and sins and will you say that the members of the true Church cannot be persecuted nor tempted to sin the contrarie is undeniable 3. It s one thing for Hell Gates to wound us and cause us to shrink another thing to overcome us utterly our weakness lays us open to blows and wounds such weakness was in Peter and the rest of the Apostles who denied or forsook Christ such weakness was in your Pope Liberius when he subscribed to the Arian Heresie Though God doth alwayes strengthen his servants against total Apostacie 4. Tell me Sir suppose I had brought this place to prove the certainty of the Saints perseverance would you have been perswaded that they could not err so much as in the least truth or fall into the least sin 3. Arg. Your third Argument is taken from Christs promise of his presence Matth. 28. I am with you alwayos to the end of the world Ans 1. This promise is made to all the Apostles and their Successors Pag. 15. and therefore if it proved infallibilitie for any it would be for the Apostles Successors in other Churches as well as Rome which is not harmonious musick to Popish ears 2. It s made to the Successors of the Apostles as imployed about the ministerial acts of teaching and baptizing and therefore if it proved infallibilitie the Pope must part with a priviledg you ascribe only to him 3. What is more promised here then Joh. 14.23 where Christ promiseth his presence and abode with private Christians even such as love him and keep his word whom you account not unerrable 4. There are three things contained in this promise a threefold effect of Christs presence with the successes of the Apostles 1. His special support and assistance for the discharge of their duties Thus Chrysostome saith Quia magna eis injunxerat c because he had laid a great task upon them to comfort them he saith Chrysost Hom. 91. in Matth. Behold I am with you c. q. d. lest you should complain that your work is difficult I will be with you who make all things light 2. His protection of them that there shall never cease a Succession of Pastors in the Church to the end of the world Ephes 4.11.12.13.14 3. Ordinarie illumination and direction I say ordinarie to distinguish it from that extraordinarie illumination which the Apostles had and which was suitable for them by whom the Scriptures were written and the Churches first founded but is ceased with them so as Gods Timothies must give themselves to reading meditation c. which the Apostles were not tyed unto Hereupon your inferences fall to the ground in that you say Either Christ was not of power to keep his Church from strayings or that he wanted fidelity to make good his word Christs power is larger then his will or promise and therefore sufficient to perform what he promised Nor is there any defect in his fidelitie whatsoever he hath promised he will perform it to his Church but he never promised her inerrabilitie she is not therefore to expect it from him 4. Arg. Your fourth Argument is in these words The certaintie Divine Faith requires to be built on is a further evidence of the Churches infallibilitie ibid. for how is it possible Faith can be certain if the Church that is to ascertain it be uncertain and fallible The Argument is reducible to this form That which Divine Faith doth build upon must be certain and infallible else Faith it self could not be certain but it 's the Church that â—ivine Faith doth build upon therefore the Church must be certain and infallible Your major I easily grant but deny your minor Proposition which being only questionable you should have brought some proof for it as well as for the other which no man doubts of but it hath been observed to be the practise of Jesuites Probare concessa leviter pertransire dubitata whom you are pleased to imitate
Rome's Conviction OR A DISCOVERIE Of the unsoundness of the main Grounds of Rome's Religion in answer to a book called The right Religion evinced by L.B. Shewing 1. That the Romish Church is not the true and onely Catholick Church infallible ground and rule of Faith 2. That the main Doctrines of the Romish Church are damnable errors therefore to be deserted by such as would be saved Nos autem non moveat aut turbet haeretici istius perfidi abrupta dementia qui cum in tam ingenti dissentionis schismatis crimine constitutus ab Ecclesia seperatus sit sacrilegà temeritate non dubitet in nos sua crimina retorquere Cum sit enim à seipso nunc factus immundus sordibus sacrilegis inquinatus hoc nunc nos esse contendit c. Cyprian libell ad Novat Haeretic By WILLIAM BROWNSWORD M.A. and Minister of the Gospel at Douglas Chappell in Lancashire London Printed by J.M. for Luke Fawn at the sign of the Parrat in Pauls Churchyard 1654. Brownsword's Romes Conviction Christian Reader COnsidering the multitude of Popish as well as of other corrupt Books dispersed amongst us the greater activitie of the Romish partie in oppugning than of ours in propugning the Truth the reproaches which the true Reformed Protestant Religion by reason of the Schismes Heresies Blasphemies Perjuries Treacheries and other gross enormities of some pretended Professors thereof lies under It must needs be a work acceptable to God and good men to speak a word in season to roll away the reproach of Sion to make good her antient plea against Babylon and to manifest that we have neither lost nor left our Religion The which is the pious design of this Author in this answer As therefore upon perusall of it we have judged it to be solid as well as seasonable so we shall pray and hope that it may be serviceable to the Church of God Richard Hollinworth Edward Gee To the Worshipfull WILLIAM ASHHURST ESQUIRE SIR IF either particular favours exhibited to the Authour of any Book or publick zeal for truth in the exhibitant two of the main grounds of Dedicatory Epistles may oblige to a Dedication I know none whom I can so readily look to as your self from whom as the Church of God hath received much good especially whilest the Lord did imploy you in a publick trust so my self in particular have shared of your influences Your actings in publick seasoned with wisedome piety zeal and fidelity have made you pretious in the godlies sight both in this and our sister Nation Your seclusion from that trust hath made you less seen not less vertuous your influences are not bound up but contracted that they might be more forcible where they fall Our cold Religion hath more of warmth by your presence Whilest you are an example to some and an encouragement of others to their duty Your constancy zeal for Truth love to the Ministery diligence in frequenting Ordinances besides your Family worship and that in these fickle and cold times wherein Ministry Ordinances and Duties are every where cried down do render you a worthy example to frozen souls Your respect to the Ministers of Christ to whom your house is as Obediahs to the Prophets learned from the example of your religious father is a great incouragement of them to their duty Hereof as others so especially my self have been a witness and a large partaker receiving the greater influence by my nearness to you being for some time of your family and still owned as your Pastor As a small acknowledgement whereof I humbly offer these first fruits of my publick labours for under your wing they were sown quickned and brought to this ripeness They beg your acceptance and patronage which if the Author obtain for them He matters not the blustrings or hatred of Popish adversaries against him The weakness of the work may receive strengthâ— Cum sapimus patrâ—â—s years may teach more knowledge In the interim your favour may much strengthen it but especially Gods blessing to which I commend both your self and it and rest Yours in all Christian dutie perpetually obliged WILLIAM BROWNSWORD To the Orthodox READER AMongst all the Darts that Satan useth for the subversion of the Church there is none more dangerous nor more used then his Arrow of Division Hereby apishly imitating God himself who by dividing their tongues overthrow Babels Builders and by an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Sechem destroyed them both When Satan had endeavoured but could not hinder the Churches Resurrection in Great Constantine what hot divisions did he raise within her by Arian Hereticks what contentions did the Church groan under in the time of zealous Luther when Zion had newly delivered her selfe from the daughters of Babylon with whom she had dwelt In our own times since the Church began to ascend to more then ordinary Reformation in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government and that the Reformed Churches were drawing to the nearest union even in this juncture of time doth this old Serpent practise his ancient policy This he doth by his agents amongst whom in these last ages the Romanists first Heathen now Christian idolaters are chief These have been the usual Fomenters of Protestant differences using it as a main stratagem to divide us that so they may overcome us witness the advice of Cardinal Allen mentioned by the Cheshire Ministers in their attestation Chesh attest p. 34. And the project of the Spanish Court attested by Sheldon sometimes a Popish Priest Sheld Survey of Miracles of Antichrist pag. 179 180. and conversant in it His words because considerable I have at large transcribed Wheresoever saith he and whensoever I have heard as I have done often some no small ones of those countreys and of those Courts debate upon 88 s overthrow they ever resolved that Elizabeth living so they termed that renowned Queen's Reigne there was no such like attempt to be made but she being dead then if variety of Competitors which they hoped for did bring confusion it would be good fishing otherwise if there follow a Successour peaceably to the Crown then they resolved that all means possible were to be used that peace might be concluded which being made then by the secret endeavors of Priests and religious men who might be sent hither with more security then before we must draw said they if not wholly yet to be at least our indirect favourers and friends some of the Commanders and those who cannot be won by pretence of religion must be purchased by gifts and large promises But above all we must labour to shake hands with some of those to whom the care of the Navy the Ports and Sea-coasts is committed that if any such like attempt hereafter be thought upon by the Pope or his Catholick Majesty we may find some favourites This is their grand Project and whether they are not now acting it let the Considerate judge for my own
rule of faith as such cannot be considered but as to us it being a relative tearm cannot be considered without relation to beleevers who are its correlative you might as well tell of a father considered in himself or in respect of his Child A father abstract from relation to his child is no father no more is the Word of God abstract from its respect to beleeve in a rule of Faith 2. You are extream quick and witty in distingishing betwixt Gods truth revealed and the same truth expressed I wonder what 's the difference doth not God when he reveales his truth expresse it to us revelation is nothing else but the expressing of some thing formerly unknown Spiritists say Gods truth revealed or expressed to us in Scripture is the rule of Faith and manners to beleevers 2. You say Their difference is about the exprâ—ssion These Spiritists holding that it is that of their private Spirit joyned to to that of Scipture only those Catholiques that it is that of the Châ—rch Scripture bearing witness to her truth Answ 1. If Spiritists for I use your own word and you agree about the rule of Faith both in it self and in respect of us that it is Gods revealed truth and the same truth expressed to us Why then do you entitle your Chapter The Spiritists rule of Faith as if we had one rule of Faith and you another whereas you assert that the difference is not about the rule but the expression of it You explain the difference thus Spiritists hold that the rule of Faith is Gods revealâ—d truth expressed to them by their private Spirit joyned to the expression of Scripture only Catholiques teach that it is God revealed truth expressed by the Church Scripture bearing wirness to her truth Ans 1. For your opinion I say 1. What mean you by Gods revealed truth I perceive you understand not the Word of God revealed by the Prophets and Apostles in Scripture for you seem to blame us for our expression of Scripture only and accordingly oppose the Scriptures sufficiency in your next section 2. How comes it that the Spirit of God hath no place with you in expressing the truth of God Must your Diana shoulder out the Scripture and the Spirit too The Spirit is much beholding to you for your opinion Are you not Antispiritists in this your doctrine and clearly destitute of the favourable effects of the Spirit of God 3. Hath the Scripture no use or imployment with you but to come in and bear witness that the Church is true Doth it not witness for Gods truth as much as for your Churches truth Is it not the testimony of the Lord Jesus But as the thing Church is the Pillar of Truth so the word Church is the very Pillar and Prop of Popish Errors and therefore you use it usque ad nauseam 4. Are not you like a turning mill-horse or like the wicked in the Psalms Impii nmbulant in circuitu You say the Scripture is the Rule of Faith at least partial as the Church expresseth that is expoundeth it and if you be asked how you know the Church expounds it right you answer by the Scripture which bears witnesse to the Churches truth The Scriptures bear witness to the Churches truth and the Church bears witness to the Scriptures truth But your tenet is so clear with you though most grosse and wicked that you add no confirmation of it but what ariseth from the opposition of ours as you have delivered it Therefore 2. I come to defend ours against you but first I will lay it down in other tearms 't is this we say that the rule of divine belief is the Word of God contained only in Scripture the means whereby we understand it is principaly the Spir t of God which enlightens our minds and eâ—abâ—es us by the use of those means God hath appointed us to use amongst wh ch we number the consent of learned men in former and in the present age for the findiâ—g out of the Scriptures meaâ—ing Now if this be tâ—e private Spirit you speak of we acknowledg it and own it and account what you say against it to be sinfull and foolish as will presently appear Against us 1. You affirm that this Spirit is false and spurious Answ 1. Is the Spirit of God in private persons false and spurious Or have they not this Spirit Take heed of blasphemy for you are at the brink of it The Spirit is promised to private Christians as well as to others and doth testifie as truly though not always so manifestly and fully in them as in publique persons convened in Council I could quote many particular Doctors of your Church preferring their own expositions of Scripture before the expositions of the Church and Fathers but for brevity to refer to Dr. Mortons learned Apeal lib. 9. c. 29. I will only say one thing for your self that in your expositions of Scripture so much as it is especially in your reading of it you follow neither Church nor Father nor honest Christian witness the Scriptures you bring for your impudent assertion 1. text 2. Pet. 1. No interpretation of Scripture by private Spirit Excellently read you have found private Spirit in expresse words yet let me tell you had you been put to read this Text instead of a Miserere mei before a Judg of Assise your reading would hardly have saved you from hanging 2. Text Math. 18.17 To belâ—eve the Churcâ— Admiâ—able Heâ—e is faith iâ— the Church in express tearms which none ever saw before 3. Text 2 Cor. 10. Where say you St. Paul wisheth to captivate the understanding to the obedience of faith Yet more falshood The Rhemists as well as we and all men that are in their right wit and have any thing of ingenuity read it to the Obedience of Christ I wonder you read it not to the obedi-of the Church And thus you would prove both faith and obedience due to the Church which in time might have procured you a Cardinalship 4. Text Luke 16. None can serve two Masters This reading is tolerable I will briefly now answer these Texts 1. To the first I say the words are these knowing this first that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interprâ—tation and they are spoken of the penmen of Scripture not of private Interpreters who did not use their own wills and counsels vers 21. but were inspired by the Holy Ghost The Rhemists reading shews that it belongs to the Prophets Vnderstanding this first that no prophesie of Scripture is Made by private interpretati n It 's spoken of the Composure not of the Exposition of Scripture 2. Your second Text I have formerly answered 3. Your third Text Chrysostom understands of bringing men from the estate of death and destruction into the estate of life and Salvation subjecting them to Christ Your gloss by All understanding conceives is meant all proud conceited persons who are made subject to the faith of
you say the Scriptures declare not that its lawfull to eat strangled meats and blood Answ 1. The Scriptures declare that every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving 1 Tim. 4.4 And that Christians are not to be judged for their eating of any meats Col. 2.16 So it be not with the offence of our brother who is weak thus Lyra on that decree of the Apostles concerning strangled meats and blood saith Those who were newly converted from Judaisme did abhor these meats Lyran. in Acts 5.20 and therâ—fore although it was meat that lawfully might be eaten yet for their sakes the Gentiles were commanded to abstain from as a man is to abstain from that meat which is hateful to his companion but afterwards the cause ceasing through the clear discovery of the Gospel the effect ceased And this Gospel light he fetcheth from Math. 15. and 1 Tim. 4. both which are Scripture 2. It may be questioned whether it be necessary to salvation to beleeve that things strangled blood may be lawful to be eaten The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink we are not justified by meat It s weaknesse to think any meat unlawful Rom. 14.2 but not heretical the eating or refusing of meats is of that kind of things quae dubium est quo animo fiant not of those quae non possunt bono animo fiâ—ri as Augustine distinguisheth Thus much for answer to your reason and its confirmation Lastly In the close of your Chapter you bring an argument to prove that Spiritists do not make the Scriptures a rule of their belief 't is this Were Scripture the rule of their belief though it contain divers truths yet those truths meeting and becoming one in revelation they wo ld all perfectly agree not only Lutherans amo g themselves Zuinglians among themselves Calvenists among themselves but likewise Lutherans with Zuinlians c. It being the property of unitie to unite and make one all that conform to the same Answ 1. You suppose that all they who acknowledg one Rule must perfectly agree amongst themselves which is evidently false an exact walking according the same rule is not attainable by any society on this side heaven For 1. All have not the same measure of knowledg whereby they should understand exactly every point in Scripture many things are Scriptural by consequence which must be found out by argument and are hardlier understood than other things Though in some places of Scripture a Lamb may wade yet in others an Elephant may swim The Apostle saith Let us as many as be perfect be thus minded if in any thing ye be otherwise minded God shall reveal even this unto you Nevertheless whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same rule c. Phil. 3.15.16 It s a perfection an high attainment for Christians to be perfectly one Yea it s a priviledg of another life Rhem. annot on Phil. 3.15 where knowledg becomes perfect Eph. 4.13 with 1 Cor. 13. The Rhemists acknowledg this as the judgment of Saint Paul acknowledging that in this imperfection of mens science in this life everie one cannot be free from all error or think the same that another thinketh whereupon may arise difference of understanding opinion and Judgment in certa n hard matters which God hath not revealed or the Church determined and therefore that such diversity is tollerable and agreeable to our humane condition and the state of the way that we be in 2. All have not the same measure of grace and freedome from corruption and passions which prevail to draw men from a conformity to the same rule Some are of a crosse and peevish temper subject to a spirit of contradiction maintaining errors lest they should seem to be overcome by others or not to have been so sound as others are Passion had a great influx upon the differences of our first reformers nor are you free from this evil this Spirit of contradiction You reject clear expositions of Scripture because we approve of them When Augustine comparing the Jewish and Christian Sacraments saith fuerunt c. they were divers in the signs but alike in the thing signified grounding his speech upon 1 Cor. 10.3 Maldonate answers I am perswaded if Augustine had lived in our age he would have thought otherwise especially perceiving the heretical Calvinists to be of of his opinions And he further adds I rather approve my own exposition than that of Augustin because this is more contradictory to the Calvinists Mald. in Joan. 6. 2. Your selves acknowledg one Rule the Church yet cannot truly say that all Papists do perfectly agree I shall shew the contrary hereafter 3. Though Protestants differ about particular truths yet they all agree in this that whatsoever God reveals to them in Scripture they are bound to beleeve it Herein Lutherans Zuinghans and Calvenists as you name them do fully agree 4. You falsly and ignorantly suggest to your seduced followers that the Protestant Churches are full of divisions and disagreements Calvenists differing amongst themselves and from Lutherans c. Sir I pray you read the harmonious confessions of Protestant Churches and if by them you be not convinced of error in your next give us some catalogues of those divided and sub-divided differences you generally mention till then we shall suspend our belief of you Your reason in these words It being the property of unitie to unite c. is a piece of non-sence If you had mentioned Rule instead of unity it had been most true but nothing to purpose It is the property of a rule to unite and make one all that conform to it So that to the making up of this unity there must not only be an exact rule but a perfect conformity to it in them whom it doth concern which perfect conformity canot be yeelded by any living man to the Word of God because of ignorance and corruption which remain in the very best of men The conclusion of your Argument needs no answer the Premises being overthrown What you say of our doing homage to Luther Calvin and Zuinglius's fancy is simple and false You know we abhor a blind obedience and an implicite faith The books our people read ordinarily are not Luther Calvin or Zuinglius's works but the sacred Scriptures by which we examine all writings even their 's you now mention if we meet with them We look upon Luther Calvin and Zuinglius as eminent lights in the Church of God not as Gods We say not Dominus Deus noster Calvinus c. as some of you have said of your Pope We acknowledg them indued with the Spirit but not infallibly inspired as holders forth of an old light hid under a Romish bushel not as introducers of any new one as reformers not innovators We reverence them as pious men now with the Lord but neither pray to them nor keep holidays for them our homage we
Pastors should be visible after they are dead for a visibility of them whilst they live would be to no purpose it not providing the the Church of means to defend aâ—d make good her right in case of opposition c. Answ 1. For men to be visible after death is something accidentall and withall strange unless to a popish ear or a necromancers eye but supposing charitably that you mean that their names should be visible I say 2. There is no necessity for evidencing a true Church that the names of all preceding Bishops and Pastors thereof should be mentioned It s sufficient that it be shewed that their Doctrine had its rise from Christ and that the Apostles professed and preached it Thus we shew the truth of our Church against your Antichristian Temple It s a truth subscribed to by all that the Doctrine which had its rise from Christ and was professed by the Apostles had professors of it in all ages and these must needs be true Pastors though without exact succession Your self formerly did confess that it is required of Protestants to deduce a succession from Christ and his Apostles not of men meerly sent but withall professing the Doctrine maintained in the Church of England though now forgetting what you had before said you affirm that if Bishops and Pastors be found succeeding each other without intermission its euident they are true and Catholique but this I have confuted before 3. Your reason with its comparisons annexed to it do not prove your assertion you say It not providing the Church of means to defend and make good her right in case of opposition the question of the Churches right is to be decided not unlike that of two great men laying claim to a principality by vertue of some pretended descent from a certain Prince Answ 1. It is unlike if by discent you mean a series of personal succession without interruption For the Churches right is not decided that way Scribes and Pharisees might have lineal descent from Aaron yet be theeves and robbers John 10.8 The Churches planted since the Apostles days could not have this lineal discent from Christ and his Apostles yea the Churches planted by the Apostles might have their Hiatus Yet both these later be true Churches of Christ You seem to grant pag. 56 that the Bishops and Pastors of some particular Churches cannot be named in a constant succession How then will you prove the truth of those Churches for it cannot be proved by this means you plead for 2. Supposing them like yet it s not the un-interruptednesse of succession for which they lay claim to the principality for it may have been in the hands of usurpers but discent together with the qualifications required in him who is to inherit which are found in one but not in the other thus it may be said of the Church whose discent from Christ together with her qualifications viz. investure with true Doctrine and right administration of Sacraments according to the will of Jesus Christ doth entitle her to the inheritance of truth 2. Or to a river whether it hath its off-spring from such an hill or mountain the surest way is to trace the river up to the head Answ 1. It may be probably known by other means than this viz. by compareing the water of the mountain with this in the river by the ascent of the water of the rivers c. 2. Tracing it is not always a sure way it may be mingled with other waters as have not their rise from that mountain it may run through a dead sea and then you may be at a losse whilst you seek an uninterrupted derivation of it from its head Yet 3. I grant that when the head is near and there is no mixture of impure and different waters your course is very good thus the fathers who lived within a few years after Christ and before heretiques came into Bishopricks and Pastoral Churches did make use of derivation of succession But the case is otherwise with us we living many hundreds of years after them and there having been heretical Bishops in the Church Lastly You say The truth of Doctrine is discernable much after the same manner if it be found to have no way varied but to have kept its own from Christ and the Apostles doubtless its Orthodox if not most certainly its new and false Answ 1. The former part is most true but not the later that Doctrine is true which though it have been varied in particular Churches yet at present is the same with the Apostles Doctrine 2. Granted is true what will become of your present Church and its Doctrine which you confesse is not the same with Christs and his Apostles Doctrine certainly it will follow that your new articles of communion in one Kinde prayer in an unknown tongue c. are new and false The rest of your answer is but a piece of railing rhetorick not worthy a reply SHAPE V. THe fift Shape is this That Church is true and Catholique which professeth the Apostles Doctrine clearly delivered in Scripture but the Protestant Church doth so therefore c. You answer 1. True Doctrine is no mark of a true Church it being often to be seen among schismaticks who for want of communion cannot make a true Church Reply 1. The profession of the Apostles Doctrine delivered in Scripture is a mark of the true Church as not agreeing to any other which I prove by these arguments drawn from your own assertions 1. True Doctrine is the Churches inseperable mate p. 40. But it could not be her inseperable mate if it could be seperated from her and brought into society with a schismatical Church 2. Christ hath entrusted his Church with trueth and ordained her keeper and preserver of it and what comes upon any other score than upon the Churches account and credit is to be reputed Apocryphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of belief p. 13. Therefore whatsoever Doctrines are out of the true Church are not truths For that which is beleeved by men out of the Church comes not upon the Churches account and therefore with you is Apocriphal 3. True Doctrine is Her the Churches Doctrine p. 51. Therefore cannot agree to others 4. There is no agreement betwixt the Temple of God and idols no concord with Christ and Belial You urge these words to prove that professors of error cannot be in the Church and it will as strongly prove that professors of truth cannot be out of the Church where then is your truth agreeing to a schismatical Church 5. Doctrine being in nature much like unto number the least addition or diminution altereth its kind and groundeth a new denomination p. 50. Now you cannot name any number of schismaticks that did not either adde to or diminish something of the Doctrine which the Apostles taught in Scripture hence 't is that both Augustine and Hierom tell us that there is no schisme which doth not
and so many that they require strong memories to retain them 2. Law-makers are not able to comprehend all particular cases that may happen nor do they use to declare the meaning of the Law unless occasionally in some doubtfull cases for it is supposed that the Law when delivered is clear and manifest at least in the substantials of it 3. Judges do not alwayes look so far as to the Law-makers but to the practice of former Courts grounded upon right reason which is indeed the foundation of all just and good Lawes 2. You answer with respect to the Church The Church besides the Letter of Scripture which she reads assiduously with watching fasting and prayer for a right and happie understanding thereof and her own reasoning hath the help of a better and sure tradition and the assistance of the Holy Ghost Reply 1. What you mean by the Church here is hard to guess I fear your commendations will not well agree to Popes and the rest of your Ecclesiasticall Grandees their other imployments are so great and their affection to Scripture in comparison of humane Traditions so little and their devotedness to the Expositions of others so absolute that I cannot believe that they read Scripture assiduously with watching fasting Prayer and for your common people they must not take that pains about Scripture if they would so that you must either give us another definition of Church then you do page 73. or acknowledge that the Church doth not reade the Letter of Scripture assiduously with watching c. 2. What ever you speak of the Church may be as truely spoken of particular Christians they are capable of reading the Scriptures with the use of fasting watching Prayer they have reason whereby they can discern truth from errour they are also capable of using that which you call a better and surer Tradition and the assistance of the Spirit is as truely with them as with those you call Church And therefore I shall conclude with you leaving what I have said to the impartiall Reader desiring him to judge by it whether private Christians being rationall men yea men indued with Gods Spirit and thereby capable of understanding the Will of God in the Scriptures may not according to the ability given them and in their places seek for and deliver the sence of Scripture and whether this be any undervaluing of Gods Wisedome and Providence or do directly tend to absurd and extravagant impieties CHAP. XI Of the Roman Church BY the word ROMAN say you are not only comprised the inhabitants of that particular territory of Rome but likewise all Christians in the World that acknowledg the Bishop of Rome for their chief Pastor appointed by Christ to govern his flock Answ 1. It may well be doubted what acknowledgment you mean whether an acknowledgment de facto or de jure only If you mean by Roman Church are only comprised those who do actually acknowledg the Bishop of Rome for their chief Pastor you overthrow its universality It is not then Catholique for only a part of the West makes this acknowledgment The Eastern Church wholly and a great part of the Western do disclaim his supremacy and worship not the image of the beast nor receive his name in their foreheads Yea if you consult antiquity you shall find that there never was an actual acknowledgment of the Pope as chief Pastor by all Christian Churches There were other Patriarchs besides him who had their several distinct limits Azor. inst mor. p. 2. l. 3. c. 35. q. 5. viz. the Patriarchs of Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem Some of whose limits were no lesse then the Roman Patriarchs and whose power did extend to the constituting ordaining and confirming Bishops Archbishops and other Ecclesiastical officers as your Azorius testifies yea so independent was the power of each of them upon other that none of them was to meddle in anothers Patriarchat as its proved out of the Councill of Constantinople Can 2. by the learned Scultetus who also clearly explains the sixt Canon of the Councill of Nice to this purpose Scult Synlag medul Theol. Patr. p. 418. and answers the objections that Papists make against it All that Azorius gives to the Pope is this Inter Patriarchas c. Amongst the Patriarchs the Pope of Rome was chief to whom as Patriarch the Western Provinces and many Ilands in the mediterranian sea towards the West were subject Here is priority of Order but no supreamacy of power over the other Patriarches the Bishop of Rome had power over all the Cities and places about Rome as the Nicen Creed hath it but not over his fellow Patriarchs or their Cities c. His power was provincial not oecumenicall 2. If you mean that by Roman are comprised those who ought to acknowledg the Pope for their chief Pastor it will remain to be resolved who those are whether some particular part of the Christian World or the whole The former you cannot grant but overthrow universality and set Roman against Catholique which you are use to conjoyn in their predication of the Church The later we cannot admit till you can effect an impossibility in proving that in the language of the Ancients the Catholique Church was couched under the word Roman It is evident that a particular Church is sometimes by the Ancients dignified with a general and common attribute and are called Catholique Churches but I never read that the universal Church is couched under a particular appellation as a proper predicate thereof I say A proper predicate For I acknowledg that the Church in Scripture is called Sion and Jerusalem but these are only figurative expressions of it it is never called the Church of Sion or the Church of Jerusalem though it might rather be called so then the Church of Rome or the Roman Church the Scripture never takes notice of Rome when it speaks of the Catholique Church except as an enemy 2. Notwithstanding I shall suppose that you mean of them that actually submit to the Pope and thus you distinguish the Roman Church from all schismatical companies of Christians whether Protestants or others This company say you together with the said Bishop compose and make up the true Catholique Church Answer 1. The truth of this will appear by your arguments which you bring for the proof of it The arguments are these which I shall consider of in the order I finde them propounded 1. Argument That company of Christians compose and make up the true Catholique Church to which the definition of the true Catholique Church doth agree but the definition of the true Catholique Church doth agree to the above mentioned company therefore they compose and make up the true Catholique Church p. 72. 73. Answ If you speak of an exact and perfect definition wherein the definition is adequate to the thing defined agreeing fully to it and not to any thing else I subscribe to your major proposition but deny
chief of you been designed to speedy ruine as our King and Nobles by you in the Gun-powder Treason Have forraign Nations been sent for to come and destroy you yet such usage as this have Protestants had from you How many Protestants have been murdered by you in the daies of Q. Maâ—y in this Kingdome How many thousands have suffered miserable tortures by you in Ireland within these few years And it s more then probable the slaughters that have been in these late Wars have proceeded from you time would fail to tell of forraign murders committed by Catholikes The Duke of Alva boasted that he had slain 36000. Protestants in Belgium only in a very few years France can give sad instances of very many murders and yet our English Papists are great sufferers by Protestants as if Papists might cut our throats lawfully yet it were unlawful for us yea grievous persecution to hold their hands 2. How come your sufferings to be glorious or how are they for truth What truth is it you suffer for Popery is a combination of Heresies old and new with the Valentinians and Gnosticks you add to holy Scripture a number of Apocriphal Books and Traditions Iren. adv Haeres lib. 1. c. 16 17 18 22 30. lib. 2. c. 39. you use Extream Unction you cry out against Marriage and abstain from flesh you worship the Image of Christ you make Christs body phantastical being one thing and seeming another with the Ebionites you adore places you use strange language before the people who cannot understand you how then can you suffer for truth which you do not hold but supposing Popery to be the truth do you suffer for it Can you name one Papist that is a great sufferer and that meerly for his Religion It s true many of you stand sequestred and some of your estates are set to sale but this is only upon a civil account had you lived peaceably out of arms you had still enjoyed your estates for ought I know neither are you alone sufferers this way but have Protestants going along with you you suffer as evil doers murderers busibodies thieves your oppressions and murders of the Parliaments friends whilst you were in power may put you in mind that you suffer not for Truth or Religion your sufferings have still been for Treason such were the sufferings of some of you in Q. Elizabeths K. James and King Charls's Raign and such is your present suffering you being the kindlers of those flames that have burnt down the glorious Towers of this Land The truth is your Religion is Treason and as such might well be rooted out from amongst us but yet you have not met with such strict measure from us your Doctrines put us in fear of you left if we binde you not to good behaviour we may come to loose our lives by you we know that in the Popes Books we stand as Heretiques such as are not to be suffered and that you are the Popes Slaves ready to execute his Decrees without scruple you are all Cross-bearers actors of the Popes pleasure whether against Prince or people It s one of Bellarmines Positions Bellarm. tract de Pontif. potestate advers Guil. Bard. cap. 20. p. 191. Non licet Christiane tollerare Regem infidelem aut alios pervertintem and he gives this reason why the first Christians rose not up against their Magistrates Hoc fuit quia tum Christianis deerant vires temporales So that if you had power in your hand you would not sit still and it s your weakness that makes you loyal Subjects what we do therefore to you is for our own security your practises and Doctrine put us upon it your sufferings are just and that deprives them of glory and merit yea and of being imitations of the Saints sufferings neither are you for all your obstinacy so much as Conquerours much less the best and greatest conquerours c. Had the Spanish Armado or the Gunpowder Treason taken effect or had the Irish fury gone on without stop it may be you would have proclaimed your selves Conquerours Champions c. But blessed be God that those snares were broken and were escaped I shall conclude with this prayer that this cry of persecutions which is made by these late Popish writers with one mouth be not a Trumpet calling up a discontented Party in this and other Nations about us to execute an Irish fury upon us in England The Epistle to the Reader OF many Religions professed in this Land several Writers even of approved integrity and profound learning have so clearly demonstrated that there is only one true rule and that the Roman is it that I cannot but impute the ungeneral acknowledging of the same to prejudice or impatience of labour to prejudice in them that have read their works and yet do not believe accordingly to impatience of labour in others that will not bestow the pains to turn over great volumes A. 1. I may well retort your words with a little variation and say that of several Religions professed in the Christian world and in special in this Land if we may justly call the several opinions and wayes of worship many Religions several writers men of approved integrity and profound learning have most clearly demonstrated that there is only one ttue and that not the now Roman but that which the reformed Churches do hold and maintain is it So that mens rejecting of it cannot be imputed to any want of truth evidence of this Religion but to other causes amongst which your two shall have the leading in my Catalogue 1. Prejudice in them that have read our works yet give no credit to them nor can it be otherwise with you whilst your faith is pin'd upon others sleeves Let us speak never so much reason let our assertions be plain Scripture yet if your Priests affirm it not you will not believe us yea many times when you are convinced of the truth of our assertions you will not believe them because they are ours as if a truth might be an error because we hold it When Augustine had affirmed that the Jewish Sacraments though differing in signs yet were the same in signification with ours because the Apostle saith Mald. in Joan. 6.11.60.62 they did all eat the same spiritual meat 1 Cor. 10.3 Maldonate answers that he is perswaded that if Augustine had lived in these times he would have thought otherwise especially perceiving the heretical Calvinists to be of his opinion and saith further that he rather approves of his own opinion then of that of Augustine because this is more contradictious to that of Calvin How can these men read our books without prejudice when they will not receive a truth professed by ancient and eminent Fathers because we hold it Sure if we have thoughts of convincing these men we must write for Popery and then they will become Protestants for fear of joyning with us in our opinions
New Testament See Rom. 1.19 20. 2 Tim. 3.15 16.17 John 17.3 3. Your Conformity of Faith to the Church in a Popish sence is a novel phrase not used by the first Christians nor the Apostles of Christ in any of their writings nor did they ever bid men beleeve as the Church beleeved though that was of greater authority then the present Church is but still called their faith to the Word of God contrary to which if Paul or any other Apostles yea or Angels from Heaven did preach the people were to reject them and no doubt if Paul had preached such stuff as now Popish Sermons are filled with traditions and new decrees ungrounded on Gods Word the Beraeans had rejected him and his praying It was for want of this Conformity of Faith to the Word of God that our Saviour upbraids the two Disciples that travelled to Emaus Luk. 24.25 He saith not O flow of heart to beleeve all that the Church beleeves this as I said was no Scripture language nor known to primitive Christians but to beleeve all that the Prophets have spoken And that he may lead them to this Conformity of Faith he expounds not the Decrees and Constitutions of Scribes and Pharisees who sat in Moses Chair whereof there were many but 't is said Beginning at Moses and all the Prophets he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself vers 27. Sir I beleeve you are so dutiful a son to the Church that had you been in Christs stead you would rather have told them of Popes decretal Epistles then of Prophets writings of Traditions rather then Scripture if such things then had had a being But 4. Why could not you say a Conformity of Faith to the Truth revealed as well as a Conformity of Faith to the Church revealing the Truth The Truth revealed not the Church revealing it is the Rule of Faith as I shall shew hereafter 1. You might have done well once for all to have told us what you mean by The Church for the word is diversly attributed even by those who in general agree that it is only the Roman Church as you seem by your Epistle to the Reader to understand it 2. You urge Scripture to prove your Assertion viz. three Texts Mat. 28.19 Luke 10.16 Mat. 16. The two first do not so much as mention the word Church the last mentions the word but proves not the thing you bring it for 1. Mat. 28. Going teach ye all Nations Ans I wonder in what word the proof lies I suppose it 's not in Going and I dare say Teaching proves it not for then every Teacher should be a Rule of Faith besides the Apostles were not to teach men to hang their faith upon themselves or others whether of the Roman or any other Church but they were commanded to teach men to do whatsoever Christ had commanded vers 10. amongst which this was the principal work to believe on him whom God had sent Joh. 6.29 viz. Jesus Christ to whom they were brought by the Apostles preaching as living stones to be built upon a foundation 2. Luke 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me Ans I suppose this Text is brought to explain the other which had need of a Commentary to make it speak your language But 1. This is spoken primarily and absolutely of the Apostles who were Christs mouth in delivering the Scriptures and therefore infallibly inspired by the Holy Ghost that they could not err in what they delivered to us That which Moses was to the Jews in delivering the Law the same were the Apostles to us in delivering the Gospel So that he that heareth the Apostles heareth Christ because it was the word of Christ which they did speak and this way we hear the Apostles speak yet whilest wâ— read or hear the Scriptures which they pen'd but what is this to the present Roman Church and her unwritten Traditions 2. As it 's understood of ordinary Ministers in the Church it can only be understood conditionally He that heareth you while your doctrine agreeth with the Word of God heareth me so that faith is not a conformity to any Teachers or their doctrine but so far as their doctrine is agreeable with the Scriptures which indeed are the Rule both of their preaching and our beleeving Consonantly hereunto the Apostle saith If any man teach otherwise and consent not to wholesom words even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ he is proud from such withdraw thy self 1 Tim. 6.3 c. The Scribes and Pharisees who were the Church in a Popish sence were to be heard but it was whilest they sate in Moses Chair that is whilest they preached not their own traditions and phancies but Moses doctrine Arias Montanus saith Elucid in Mat. 23. Christ bids them do what the Scribes and Pharisees commanded Ex praescripto legis id est ex Cathedrâ Mosis So Origen Origen apud Lyran. Super Cathedram c. isie sermo de me est qui bona dâ—ceo contraria gero 3. The Text speaks not of the Church for particular Ministers in the Church are not the Church Now your Rhemists expound it of them in these words It is all one to despise Christ RheÌ„ Annot. on the Text. and to despise his Priests and Ministers in the Catholique Church to refuse his doctrine and theirs And indeed it must be understood of those who labour in the Word and Doctrine not of non-preaching Popes and Prelates 3. Mat. 16. you would say Mat. 18.17 which you read thus He that heareth not the Church let him be as an Heathen and a Publican Not to say any thing of your false quotation or reading a fault common throughout your Book Protestants may take notice what great cause we have to put these men into our bosoms as they expect whilest they profess we are no better then Heathens or Publicans though I am sure their usage from us hath shewed us Christians But to the Text How little it makes for your purpose the Context words themselves will shew It speaks not of Conformity of Faith to the Church but of obedience of the offending party to the admonition of the Pastors of the Church Thus Lyranus Si non aud Eccles pr ceptum praelatos contemnendo Lyr. in loc You might as well say that faith is a conformity to our selves because it 's said If he neglect to hear thee vers 15. or to two or three witnesses because it 's said If he neglect to hear them vers 17. whereby is implied that he ought to hear them Hence it might well follow that faith ought rather to be resolved upon a neighbor that is a private man then upon the Church because the offended party is first to be heard before the Church And then Sir who is guilty of the Private spirit that you anon talk of Sure your selves and not the Protestants In stead of these misapplied Scriptures for you I shall give you
one or two plain Scriptures proving the Word of God to be that whereunto a Christians faith is to be conformable The Apostle continued witnessing both to small and great saying None other things then those wâ—ich the Prophets and Moses did say should come to pass Acts 26.22 This was his teaching And for his own faith you have it Acts 24.14 This I confess unto thee that after the way which they call Heresie so worship I the God of my fathers believing all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets I shall put you in mind of what one of your Proselites writes about this Point I found that by consent of all Christians Dr Vane Lost Sheep return p. 5 6. this knowledg of the means to attain to happiness was not to be gotten by clear and evident sight nor by humane discourse founded on the principles of Reason nor by reliance upon Authority meerly humane but Only by Faith Grounded On The Word of GOD revealing unto men things that were otherwise only known to his infinite Wisdom seeing the Church to the worlds end must be built on the Apostles and Believe Nothing as Matter of Faith beside that which was delivered of them as St. Paul saith Ephes 2.20 Your self also when you come to the Point to speak of the Rule of Faith say that the Truth of God revealed and expressed to us is the Rule of Faith Chap. 9. If Faith be grounded on Gods Word and that this Word of God be the Rule of Faith How can the Church be it seeing there is a vast difference betwixt the Truth and the Church as betwixt a Rule and him that bears it Can you say properly that a man that keeps the standard in his house is the standard or that the post that bears it is it or that the ship that carries the compass is the compass Now you only say that the Church is the Pillar of Truth i. e. it doth but bear it If the Church be the Rule of Faith then I wonder what Rule they have sure not themselves and they being men like us they cannot be without a Rule no more then they can be Christians and yet want faith 3. You say By the first Conformity man comes to the knowledg of God as he is the Author and End of Grace by the second he relies upon his Mercy and Goodness c. Ans 1. You seem to make faith a bare knowledg distinct from reliance on Gods mercy and goodness whereby you give too little to faith whose acts are not only to discern God and divine objects but to rely upon that merciful and good promise of God whereby he offers himself and divine objects to be received by us By this receiving is faith expressed John 1.12 If faith be no more but bare knowledg then Devils yea Reprobates may have true faith yea and may hope in Gods mercy for faith is the foundation of sound hope Your Vasquez is more ingenious then most of you for he acknowledgeth that besides a dogmatical or historical faith Vasq in 1. 2. To. 2. disp 209. c. 1. 4. which he calls Catholike there is also a peculiar faith whereby a Christian believes that he is or shall be justified or saved And this faith is the foundation of that hope you mention and not much differing from it only that as hope looks at the thing promised so faith doth more directly reflect upon the promise though Vasquez saith the same of faith that you of hope Cujus generis est fides qua aliquis credit se a Deo per orationem obtenturum id quod petit c. I shall conclude this with the words of learned Rivet Ineptiunt ergo ne quid gravius dicam qui cum tribuant fideli spem fiduciam circa electionem gratiam salut m Propriam fidem tamen negant Rivet sum Cont. Tract 4. q. 16. ss 6. But as you cast faith here below it self so in the next Chapter you set up Charity above it self making it the soul of faith CHAP. III. Of the Diversities of Faiths Hopes and Charities IN this Chapter I shall only take notice of two passages 1. You say The means of habitual and actual divine Faith Hope and Charity is the Tradition of the Church Ans 1. If by the Tradition of the Church you mean the true and right Exposition of Scripture made by faithful Pastors and Teachers of the Church as Vincentius Lyrinensis understands it then I shall easily consent to you for it is no more then the Apostle himself asserts when he saith Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God Rom. 10.17 But 2. If you mean the Churches opinions distinct from Scripture or unwritten Verities as they are called by you then I affirm that these are not means for your proposed end the Scripture it self without your additions being sufficient to make the man of God perfect in all graces And this you are not altogether unconvinced of as appears by your Preachers who in their Sermons do ground their discourses upon Texts of Scriptures and I suppose their Sermons are intended to be means of faith hope c. 2. You say St Paul gives to Charity the preeminence And not undeservedly for she is the enlivening Soul of Faith and Hope c. both they being out of her company as dead bodies without life or motion c. Your assertion is grounded upon two Scriptures viz. 1 Cor. 13.13 and James 2.26 For the first I freely subscribe to the preeminence of Charity but upon the Apostles reason not yours which is the continuance of Charity when Faith and Hope fail Thus the Apostle is understood by your ordinary Gloss Primasius Augustine and the generality of Expositors In presenti tria haec Lyran. in 1 Cor. 13.13 in futuro sola charitas permanebit Majus est ergo quod semper erit quam quod aliquando cessabit But you say It 's the Soul of Faith c. This I deny For 1. Your own Authors do earnestly contend that true faith yea that faith that justifies and is joyned with hope and charity 1 Cor. 13.13 may be without charity charity therefore cannot be the soul of faith for the enlivening soul cannot be absent from its body and yet that body remain a true living humane body 2. The Apostle saith that faith without works is dead as the body without the soul yet you will not say that good works are the soul of faith whereby it hath life and motion Your Rhemists assert it that the Thief on the Cross wanted good works and thereupon conclude RheÌ„ Annot. on Luke 23.43 that Faith hope c. will be sufficient and good works not required where for want of time and opportunity they cannot be had Now can you say that his faith was without life and motion It had so much life and motion that it brought him to Heaven by your own confession Now if the
body move it hath the soul in it be its motion never so little or of so short continuance 3. Faith is before Charity and that not only by priority of nature but of agency or activity Faith is a leading grace Men first believe to righteousness and then make confession to Salvation Faith first apprehends and lays hold on the mercy and goodness of God in the promise and then for that his goodness and mercy towards us we do love him and keep his Commandments This is clearly taught by our Saviour Luke 7.47 as Salmeron Tolet Stella and others even Papists acknowledg Now in Nature the Soul precedes the body in its activity 4. If charity and good works were the soul of faith they should be intrinsecal to faith for the form is not out of the matter nor the soul out of the body but so they are not Hence 't is that some learned men call charity an external form of faith and other virtues and by spirit in the Text they understand the breath making the sence this Even as the want of breath argues a dead body so the want of works a dead faith Estius ascribes this Exposition to Cajetan Estius in Jam. 2.26 who as he saith was moved to it by this reason because works are not the form of faith but certain concomitant effects but the soul is the form of the body Azorius clearly adheres to Cajetan Azor. instit Moral lib. 9. c. 3. q. 6. denying charity to be an intrinsecal form of faith or other virtues because they have their proper fruit and produce works without charity only he calls it an extrinsecal form which will never prove it to be the soul of them Par. in loc Pareus doth well observe for this purpose that it 's not said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not without soul but without spirit or breath Bernard speaks most suitably to this Exposition Sicut corporis vitam c. As we know the life of the body by motion so the life of faith by good works If this Exposition please not I shall commend to you that acute one of Mr Perkins saith he Perkins on Galat. 5.6 Here is a false composition of the words Faith that is without works is dead is true but to say Faith is dead without works as though they gave life to faith is false To conclude Though we deny charity or good works to be the enlivening soul of faith yet we assert them to be the inseparable concomitants of a true faith so that as good works cannot be without faith so neither can faith be without good works As faith looks towards the promise by beleeving it so doth it reflect upon the Will of God by obeying it these are its two vital acts that is internal this is faith's external act neither of which can a living faith not exercise CHAP. IV. Of the Churches Power and Infallibility in matters of Faith IN this Chapter you come to the Churches Infallibility as a main part of Religion and a leading Article in the Creed to whom you are so liberal that you leave little to Christ or his Father It 's the observation of one of your own men that throughout your Ladies Psalter the Name of God is changed into the Name of our Lady so the Name of God into the name of Church and the Attributes of God are predicated of the Church as here Infallibility answering herein the Apostles description of Antichrist That he opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped so that he is as God sitteth in the Temple of God shewing himself that he is God 2 Thes 2.4 But to your Chapter You might have done well seeing the Church must come in first to have defined to us what Church it is you speak of before you tell us of her Infallibility as whether it be the Church virtual or representative or essential did I know which you meant I could speedilier answer you but seeing I do not I shall shew the fallibility of each of them lest I should happen to miss of you 1. Then Infallibility is not a Jewel annexed to your Popes Crown Lyra commenting on the words of Christ Mat. 16.18 The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Lyran. ibid. A verâ fide subvertendo-scil saith Ex quo patet c. Whereby it is evident that this Church which hath this promise doth not consist in men of ecclesiastical or secular power or dignity because many Princes and Popes summi pontifices and others inferior have been found to apostatize from the Faith wherefore it consists in those persons in whom is true knowledg and confession of faith and truth Some of your Popes have been deposed for Heresie as Eugenius by the general Council of Basil Concil Basil Ses 34. apud Binnium Hart Answ to Reynolds p. 246. Honorius by the sixt general Council was condemned and that justly saith Hart in his Answer to learned Reynolds Innocentius was little better then an Heretique who held that the Sacrament of the Eucharist was necessary for children Nor was he alone in this Heresie for it continued in the Church 600 years as Maldonat observes Maldon in Joan 6. Concil Trid. ses 21. Can. 4 ap Bin. Now that it was an Heresie appears by the Curse laid upon it in the Councel of Trent If you say the Pope taught it not I answer How then durst the Church believe it and for so long a time whereas the faith of the members must be conformable to the belief of the Churches Head Or why did not the Pope hinder it when he saw it was believed in the Church as a necessary truth It cannot be imagined how the Pope should be free when the Church was so infected 2. Infallibility is not the inseparable Priviledg of the Church representative or a General Councel for according to Papists it hath no infallibility in it self but depends upon the infallibility of the Pope which I have shewed to be a Chimaera Azorius tells us Azor. iustit Moral part 2. l. 5. c. 12. q. 1. that it 's agreed upon by all Catholikes that a General Councel may err in faith and manners if it be not called and confirmed by the Authority of the Pope of Rome And he instances in the Council of Ariminum of 600 Bishops who erred with Arius The Council of Constantinople of 300 Bishops who erred with Leo the Emperor This is the meaning of Lorinus as I conceive Lorin in Act. 15.7 p. 583. Col. 2. when he saith Wise or learned men are to be consulted with but all the infallibility is in him alone Now let any Papist shew any reason why in a Council the Pope should be infallible and out of it should be as other men But Councils called and confirmed by Popes have with Papists themselves been accounted fallible The Council of Basil was called by Eugenius and had the
Durand Scotus Gabriel and Almain for concluding that the authority of the Church is the reason of our belief of the things of Faith 2. From immediate inspiration of the Spirit Thus the Apostles were immediately inspired so that in their delivering of the truth they could neither fallere nec falli neither deceive nor be deceived this is taught by the Apostles Paul and Peter 2 Tim. 3.16 2 Pet. 1.21 The later of whom perswades us to give heed to the word of God because the holy pen-men of it were inspired by the H. Ghost Again for power which you leave unexplained it may be observed that there is a twofold power in order to this effect belonging to Christ 1. Authoritative which is his designation or appointment hereunto this may be understood by that text you cite As my Father sent me c. 2. Qualitative or dispositive this is Christs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other is his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one is his power the other his authority Again this power is exercised two wayes 1. By discoveries of the truth revealed to him Thus it s said All things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you Joh. 15.15 This is his outward teaching 2. By commanding the heart to believe and consent to those truths he reveals this power is spoken of by the Psalmist in Psal 110. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power Christ doth command the soul to receive the truth by stamping upon it a divine authority Majesty and withall by his Spirit discovering to the soul this authority and Majesty so stamped upon it This way doth Christ exercise his power in bringing the soul to close with the Scriptures as the rule of its belief 2. I proceed now to your consequence He having communicated his said knowledg and power to the Apostles and in them to the succeeding Churches but she may challenge a like interest and right in respect of after-Christians Ans 1. You tell us of succeeding Churches but lest you should seem to forget your dear Mother or give other Churches liberty to claim equal priviledges with her whilst you talk of Churches you neglect construction and come in with a She may challenge 2. 'T is false that she may justly challenge a like interest and right in respect of after-Christians as to the propounding of a rule of belief to them For 1. There is no need of another rule for them the rule that Christ propounded being suited to all Christians and fully sufficient and perfect as your self confess If that Christs teaching hath the full height and perfection of a rule i. e. be a compleat and perfect rule what needs another rule or can this other rule be higher then that which hath its full height or have greater extent then that which is perfect the perfection of Christs rule shews that nothing can be added to it If you say it was perfect as for the first Christians but not for after Christians I desire to know the ground of this distinction for I am ignorant of it 2. The succeeding Church hath not communicated to her the same knowledg and power that Christ had her knowledg is not universal there hath been in every Age since your Churches Apostacy an addition of supposed truths which the former Age believed not Your Pius 4. hath added some Articles to the ancient Creeds as necessary to be believed unto Salvation which formerly were not so imposed if once thought of sure then the Church before the Trent Council either knew not the whole revealed will of God and so could not by their preaching lay an exact rule of belief or you propound a larger object then Faith will well admit Again her knowledg is not infallible as I shewed in the beginning of this Chapter the present Church of Rome hath notoriously swerved from Primitive purity in their late Articles of Pope Pius his Creed Besides this it cannot claim either of these means of infallibility which I mentioned before the same may be said of power it s not the same with Christ they want both his power and authority as I have explained them Indeed if that which the succeeding Churches preach and teach be the same that Jesus Christ and his Apostles preached and taught then it is a rule of Faith to us but thus it s not the teaching of the Church that makes it a rule but its identity with the Scriptures the marrow of Christs and the Apostles preaching Thus the assertion is true otherwise the Churches teaching without respect to Scripture is not a Rule as I have already shewed and this is my Antagonists meaning as appears by his next words All matters of Faith as well other points as Scripture are to be taken up upon her account c. 2. Consequence or rather the first consequence arising from that is in these words Whence it follows pag. 13. that all matters of belief as well other points as Scripture are to be taken up upon her account and credit Ans 1. If by other points you understand other points of Faith then are contained in Scripture you take that for granted which is notoriously false viz. that there are points of Faith which the Scriptures containe not and consequently that they are imperfect and insufficient to be a rule of Faith and this is most false For 1. Whatsoever was contained in the ancient Creeds which were rules of Faith to those Christians that used them that was all contained in Scripture and more was not imposed as necessary to be believed to Salvation I deny not but your Trent Creed contains more then Scripture even many Articles which learned men say cannot be proved but out of unwritten Traditions but as it contains more then Scripture so is it much larger then any Creed that was used before it so that either their Faith was imperfect having an imperfect foundation or yours is redundant transgresseing the bounds of a right and ancient rule 2. The Scriptures testifie their own sufficiency 2 Tim. 3.15 16. I desire you to consider these two following Texts Act 26.22 with chap. 20.27 Lyran. He had declared the whole counsel of God so far as concerned Salvation and yet preached nothing but what the Scriptures did contain Ans 2. If you mean that we are to believe that the Scriptures are the Word of God and that other fundamental points besides this The Scriptures are the word of God are the truths of God and to be believed meerly because the Church asserts it so that the Churches affirmation of them should be the formal cause of our belief of these truths as I suppose you mean this I deny For 1. The Scriptures contain in themselves arguments that may convince a true Christian that they are the Word of God Many notes are given by Protestants which to you pulling them in pieces and viewing them singly seem weak which conjunctim or all together have
much strength in them He that reads the Scriptures with a spiritually enlightened mind cannot but confess that never meer man spake like the Holy Writers and that flesh and blood revealed not those things to them which they declare but God only 2. Upon what account was this truth taken up by the first Christians for the space of three hundred years after Christ they could not take it up upon the Churches account and credit for your Authors hold that its only in the power of Oecumenical Sinods to define which are the Scriptures and for this time there was no such a Sinod called The first Sinod that I finde delivering the Canon of Scripture was that of Laodicea held about the year 364. Afterwards the third Council of Carthage both Provincial Sinods only though afterwards confirmed in a General Council 3. Upon what account or credit doth your Church take up this truth that the Scriptures are the Word of God Sure you are so great an Enemy to Spiritists that you will not think of extraordinary Revelations or Enthusiasms I hardly think that ever the Holy Ghost fell upon your Popes or Councils in fiery Tongues or that they had either visions or dreams nor do I think that you will say that your Church propoundeth the Canon of Scripture meerly upon the supposal of former practise that former Churches did allow and believe the Scriptures now received are Canonical for this is only a testimony concerning matter of fact in which 't is confessed the Pope may erre through wrong informations There may be spurious Canons foisted into former Councils like Pope Zozimus Canon of the Nicene Council whereby he maintained his Supremacy I therefore suppose that your judgment must be that your Church assisted by the Spirit doth from internal notes of Scripture conclude the divine authority thereof Hence 't is that Councils proceed by argument and reason and there is an acknowledgment of the truth before they proceed to definition or Decree Now if the Church take up Scripture upon this account that she through the assistance of Gods Spirit discerns the notes and marks of Gods Word why may not a Christian by the same assistance discover these notes and so believe that the Scriptures are Gods Word upon the same account that the Church takes up this beliefe though withal he doth and ought to reverence and highly account of the judgment of the Church or Pastors of it as that which hath a Priority and is an occasion of Christians private judgment and a confirmation of it yet as I hinted before it must not be denied that Christians have a divine light in themselves being taught of God Joh. 6.45 which is for the discovery of divine objects as natural light or reason is for the discovery of natural This Bellarmine confesseth saying Bellar. de lumine fid Conc. 1. Quemadmodum omnes homines c. As all men are indued with a certain natural light whereby they understand the first principles to be true without labour without arguments nor is there any that demands reasons and arguments when those principles are propounded So also all Christians enlightened by God with a certain divine and supernatural light do acknowledg the first principles of our Faith though difficult and exceeding reason to be most true Origen in his Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he proves the Divinity of Scriptures by divers arguments Origen lib. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cap. 1. as Protestants do hath a notable speech to this purpose Si quis cum omni judicio c. If any one doth judiciously and with that reverence that is meet consider of the Sacred Writ while he reads and diligently searcheth into it most certainly having his minde and senses affected with some divine inspiration he acknowledgeth that the word he reads is not the word of men but of God and of himselfe perceives ex semetipso sentiet that these books are written not by humane art or mortal eloquence but by the hand of God Thus I suppose it was with the first Christians of whom you cannot say that they believed the books of Scripture to be the Word of God meerly because the Apostles and others held them they were so but upon other account this overthrows your Position What I have said of the Scriptures may be said of other points of Faith that they are not taken up meerly or mainly upon the Churches credit and account but rather because God hath revealed them in his Word wherein they are therefore written that we might have a sure argument for our Faith But I come to your next inference 2 Consequence or Conclusion Whatsoever comes upon any other score is to be reputed Apocriphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of faith Magna Diana Romanorum Great is your Roman Goddess but its only with the Shrine-makers of Rome your conclusion is very high but notoriously false For 1. It s not the Churches definition that makes any book Apocriphal but the want of divine inspiration in those who wrote them so that whatsoever is not written by the Prophets or Apostles the Subjects of divine inspiration that is certainly Apocriphal whether the Church receive them or not Hence many of your learned men reject those books as Apocriphal which the Council of Trent declared to be Canonical the Apostle saith All Scripture is by divine inspiration 2 Tim. 3.16 the Scriptures of the Old Testament are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Pet. 1.19 read Luke 24.27 2. It was six hundred years after Christ before any General Council delivers the Canon of Scripture now will you say that till that time the books of Scripture were Apocriphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of Faith 3. The Spirit of God may work Faith in the Soule while it is reverently reading the Word of God without the testimony of the Church the person for the present being ignorant what the Church teacheth of particular points this is clear by the place of Origen even now mentioned Lyranus speaks of a teaching of the Spirit Lyran. in 1 Joh. 2.27 Vbi deficit humana Doctrina 4. When the Thessalonians received the Apostles Doctrine not as the word of men but as the Word of God Greg. Analus fid lib. 1. c. 15. was this Doctrine no way appertaining to the obligation of Faith Your Gregory of Valence confesseth Multa sunt c. There are many points of Christian Doctrine which of themselves can procure to themselves credit and authority Lastly the Greek Church with the reformed Churches receive all the Articles of the Apostles Creed because consonant to Gods Word not because delivered by your Roman Diana are those Articles therefore to be reputed Apocriphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of Faith Sure you cannot be so impudent as to assert it though we know Jesuitical impudency is not little For your Scriptures Sect. 2. When I see them reduced to arguments I shall
endeavour to answer them for the present I understand not what they should prove and therefore dismiss them without any answer In your third Section you go about to prove the Churches infallibility as a qualification of her for the delivery of a Rule of Faith and you urge divers Arguments which I now come to examine and answer Arg. 1. God hath endowed her with inerrability whereby to convey the truth safely and without danger of miscarrying by arming her proof against all the enemies of truth against ignorance error darkness weakness For this you urge divers Texts In these words though they seem an intention of but one argument yet there are these two viz. 1. If the Church cannot convey truth safely and without danger of miscarrying but by the gift of inerrability then Christ hath endowed her with it But she cannot convey truth safely and without danger of miscarrying but by the gift of inerrability Ergo c. 2. If Christ hath armed his Church against the enemies of truth viz. ignorance darkness error and weakness then hath he endowed her with inerrability but he hath so armed her Ergo c. To these in order Ans First to the first I answer 1. By denying the consequence of the major Proposition the reason of my denial is this Christ hath not made the Church the principal much less the only means of conveying truth safely Though yoor Pope Cardinals Jesuites Priests yea General Councils should err yet there remains a safe way of conveying truth without miscarrying that is the Scriptures 2 Pet. 1.19 Beda paraphrasing upon those words In a dark place Beda apud Lyran. hath this note In hujus saeculi nocte c. In the night of this world full of temptations vices and errors where there is hardly one to be found without error against which this light is necessary So that you see the Scriptures convey the truth safely against temptations vices errors in the judgment of this venerable Author It may be you will object that infallibility is necessary for the Church that she may safely convey these Scriptures wherein the truth is But I deny this to be true For 1. It cannot be denied but God did make use of the Jewes to preserve the Scriptures Rom. 3.2 yet by the leaven of their Doctors the Pharisees the Commandments of God were transgressed Matth. 23.5 Yea it evidenceth their errability that they mistook the sense of the Law and when Christ came Mariana tract pro edit vulgát cap. 7. p. 50. that they did generally oppose and resist him and yet I believe the Scriptures yea I had almost said the very iota's and titles of them were preserved from miscarrying Your Authors confess of the Hebrew text that there is no substantial error in it 2. The Law was by Gods providence kept safely a great while in the House of the Lord unknown to any till Hilkiah the High-Priest found it in the daies of Josiah 2 King 22.8 Now you will not ascribe infallibility to the House of the Lord. 3. You acknowledg not the Greek Church to be a true Church yet the Scriptures have been safely preserved by them whilest the error of the Chiliasts and of those who laid a necessity on Infants to receive the Eucharist remained in the Church which was for some 100. of years yet then the Scriptures were preserved from miscarrying The truth is Gods Providence is chiefly ingaged for the preservation of these books and that concurring any means that God useth may suffice though they were Turks and Heathens that had the keeping of them 2. I answer by denying your Minor and say the Church may convey the truth without the gift of inerrability bestowed on her as well as other Churches subject to errour have done Thus we confess that your Roman Church hath preserved the ancient Creeds the Commandments and Scriptures though we deny you to be sound members of the Catholike Church We admire and adore Gods providence not your inerrability had not a Divine hand overawed you I fear the Scriptures would have fared little better then the Fathers have done whose writings you have notoriously corrupted and falsified as hath beene manifested against you by our learned Writers 2. Arg. 2. To your second Argument I answer by distinction viz. a subject and particularly the Church may be armed against ignorance darkness error and weakness either in regard of hurts blows and lesser foils or in regard of total ruine or a final overthrow or if you will these may be considered either as total or only partial It 's exemption not onely from total and ruining ignorance darkness error and weakness but from inferiour degrees hereof that can prove infallibility in the subject so exempted So then if the Church be exempted from all degrees of these evils so as they cannot at all hurt her then your Argument is good but this exemption I utterly deny Christ hath only so far armed his Church whilst Militant against these that they shall not ruine or destroy her gross ignorance and obstinate error the forerunners of ruine cannot happen to the Church but lesser degrees of these may This is confessed by your own Authors of each of these 1. Ignorance Lombard saith Lomb. l. 4. dist 18. f. Deus non semper sequitur ecclesiae judicium c. God doth not alwayes concur with the judgment of the Church which judgeth somtime by stealth and ignorance 2. Darkness Ccc. Dial. p. 1. lib. 5. cap. 28. Occam saith Circa illa c. Concerning those things that are not necessary to be believed expresly it s not necessary that the Churches judgment be alwayes certain Sure uncertaintie of judgment must arise from darkness 3. Error Thus Picus saith Fieri potest c. It may be that the Vice-head may be distempered as the natural Franc Picus Theor. 23. and as this noxious humour so that may diffuse into the body unsound opinions Stapl. Relect c. 1. q. 4. Art 5. Not. 1. Stapleton confesseth That perfect holiness in regard of Doctrine is not in all times and places because great men may not only doubt but err in some points of Doctrine and yet the true Church remain with them 4. Weakness Thus Turrecrema saith Quamvìs ecclesia Turrecr sum d. Eccles 2. c. 112. c. Although the Church be supported by divine power and authority yet inasmuch as it is a Congregation of men something through humane weakness is acted by it which is not divine Thus it 's confest that the Church is not totally exempted from these enemies But because you bring Scripture to patronize your cause let us see whether it speak for you 1. Against Ignorance you urge Mat. 13. To you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdome of heaven Ans 1. I wonder your Rhemists had nothing to say for the Churches infallibilitie from this Text all that they conclude from it is this That to the Apostles and
such as have the guiding and teaching of others deeper knowledg of Gods word and mysteries is given then to the common people as also to Christians generally that which was not given to the obstinate Jewes which makes nothing from a total exemption of them from ignorance if it did much more would that place of St. John 1. Ep. 2. cap. 27. where 't is said The anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you and ye need not that any man teach you but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things c. Prove such an exemption for private Christians and so lay a foundation for their infallibilitie which would derogate from the Honour of his Holiness of Rome 2. It is most evident that the Disciples of Christ to whom these words were spoken had ignorance in them and that of such things as were needful to be known See Mark 9.31.32 Luk. 9.45 Joh. 12.16 viz. the Death and Resurrection of Christ c. 2. Aagainst Darkness you urge Matth. 6. but 't is Matth. 5.14 You are the light of the world Ans 1. If you mean that the Apostles and their Successors are so light that they have no darkness in them you are no better then a blasphemer for it 's said of God and cannot be spoken of any other God is light and in him is no darkness at all 1 Jâ—h 1.5 Aug. in Ps 10. 2. S. Augustine alluding to this place compares the Church to the Moon which you know hath her dark spots though the Sun to which Christ is somtimes compared be altogether transparent and bright 3. They are called a light not so much in regard of their inward qualification Lyran. in Mat. 5.14 as of their office which is to instruct and direct others in their way as Gregory Burgensis and Cyranâ—s note 4. Learned Cameron conceives that this is spoken of the Apostles as Apostles which is probable because our Saviour speak to them as related to an Apostolical or Universal charge and thus it proves nothing for your present Church Lastly I fear that whilst your men was writing for inerrability your thoughts were possessed with the Churches visibilitie which your Doctors of Rhemes would prove from hence But then why did you not bring in the next words Ro. 17.3 A City set on a Hill which would more directly with a little variation of number have pointed at your Holy Mother on her seven-headed Beast 3. Against Error and Falshood you urge Joh. 14. I will send unto you the Spirit of truth to remain with you for ever And Isa 62. Thou shalt no more be called forsaken To your former I answer it makes nothing for you for it 's one thing to have the Spirit of Truth to lead into truth and another thing to have it making us infallible I conceive there are few of your Priests or Jesuites but think themselves to have the Spirit of Truth yet are not infallible Nay private Christians may have this Spirit of truth and by it may be kept from damnable or Soul-ruining error yet who would say they are infallible It 's a groundless distinction of the Rhemists to say That the Spirit for many other causes is given to divers private men and to all good men to sanctification but to teach all truth and to preserve in truth and from error he is promised and performed only to the Church and the chief Governour and General Councils thereof The contrary to this is affirmed by themselves in another place Joh. 17.17 saying Christ prayeth that the Apostles their Successors and all that shall be of their belief may be sanctified in truth i. e. may have the Spirit of truth and be freed from error The Spirit then may be had and yet inerrability be wanting to a person To your other Text It seems to be put in to make up a number of Texts not of Proofs I believe you neither considered Text nor Context when you brought it in I profess I cannot see the least shadow of proof in it for the Churches infallibilitie it being spoken to the Jewes in regard of their desolations and therefore contains a promise of Gods returning with mercie and loving kindness which was suitable for their comfort in their low condition 4. Against Weakness you urge 1 Tim. 3. She is the Pillar and ground of truth And Mat. 16. Hell Gates shall not prevail against her To the former I answer 1. If any particular Church be here spoken of it is not the Roman but the Church of Ephesus where Timothy governed which by your own confessions might err 2. The words may be refer'd to what follows It 's not said expresly She is the Pillar c. as you abusively read it Cameron doth refer them to the next verse and gives divers reasons why they should be so refer'd Verba ista Columna c. sunt conjungenda cum sequentibus ratio 1. Alioqui erit Oratio Apostoli hiulca suspensa si legamus Domus Dei columna fundamentum veritatis sine controversia c. est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non coherent ista 2 Non solet Apostolus novi Argumenti tractionem inchoâ—re à conjunctione 3. Haec est usitatissima formula inter Judaeos quum quis profitetur se traditurum praecipua dogmata Religionis ut illud pronunciat columnam esse fundamentum veritatis vel sapientiae quod traditurus est Et solent Apostoli uti phrasibus receptis in ecclesia judaica sed accommodatis ad rem quam agunt Cameto shewing amongst other things that this was a manner of speech which the Jews did frequently use when they delivered some main and principal points of Faith And hereunto the Apostle Paul who was well versed in the customes of the Jewish Rabbies being now to deliver the main points of our Faith concerning Jesus Christ might well allude If we take it thus it 's not the Church but the truth it self especially those principal points of Religion mentioned in the next verses Thus Irenaeus saith That the Gospel which was preached by the Apostles was afterwards by the will of God delivered to us in writing Fundamentum columnam fidei nostrae futurum that it might be a ground and Pillar of our Faith 3. Supposing it be spoken of the Church Iten advers haeres lib. 3. c. 1. init yet this is 1. In regard of the Word of God which is preached and continued in the Church if God remove his Word from a Church as from the Churches of Asia c. that Church ceaseth to be a Pillar and ground of truth 2. In regard of true Believeers who are truly the house of the living God and adhere to the Word of God others are not De compage domus they are not of the House Augustine hath a notable saying to this purpose Aug. praefat in Ps 47. he tells us the Church consists of Saints such whose names are
The reasons of my denial are these 1. It s the priviledg of the Word of God written or the Scripture to be the ground of Faith These things are written that ye might believe Joh. 20. ult i. e. that your Faith might have a certain foundation revelations or traditions being more uncertain and easily pretended where they have no existence or being Compare with this 2 Pet. 1.18.19 Ye have a more sure word of Prophecie that is In quo magis confirmetur auditor whereby the hearer may be more confirmed So that the word is more sure and that to us inasmuch as we are thereby more confirmed Hence it is that our Saviour sends his hearers to the Scriptures that therein they might finde what they have to believe Joh. 5.39 So doth the Prophet Isa 8.20 and Abraham in the parable Luk. 16.29 which your Lyranus comments thus upon Lyran. in Luk. 1 is 29. Habent Moysen c. they have Moyses who taught moral actions and the Prophets who delivered mysteries of Faith and these suffice to salvation therefore it follows let them hear them This was the measure of the Apostles preaching and faith Act. 26.22 Act. 17.10.11 By this the Bereans tryed the truth of the Apostles preaching and for its conformity thereto Annot. of Divines on the Text. did receive it into their belief 't is said therefore many of them believed i. e. because of the testimony of the Scriptures So that we may truly say that if the Apostles had preached any thing beside or contrary to Scripture the Bereans would not have believed their preaching and the Apostle himself would have justified them herein Gal. 1.8.9 On which Text Augustine hath this note Qui praeter greditur Aug. apud Lyran. in c. He that goes beside the rule of Faith doth not walk in the way but departs from it Neither would the Apostle himself have us found our hope on him but on that truth which he declared That which was spoken by him was better then he by whom it was spoken From whence what can be more clearly infer'd then that 1. The Word of God preached is the rule of Faith And 2. That faith is not resolved into persons preaching the truth but into the truth preached by them contrarie to both which is your minor Proposition 2. Ans Supposing it true that the Church must be the ground of Faith yet I affirme that this is not yours or any other present Church but only the Primitive Church which as I have already shewed is of greater authority then the present Church which is in a kind grounded upon the Apostolike Church or that Church which contains the Prophets Apostles c. All succeeding Churches are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets whose testimony because of their visible converse with God and Christ becomes efficax ad credendum effectual for the grounding of Faith It s observeable that whereas Abraham might have told the rich man that his Brethren had a present Church to hearken to yet he only mentions Moses and the Prophets 2. I affirm that if your Church be a foundation of Faith yet this would not be a Divine but only an humane Faith And indeed this is the very reason why your Doctors commonly held that Faith is ultimately resolved upon God himself revealing the truth as Azorius observes because Divine Faith must be resolved into a Divine testimony which the testimony of the Church is not and they prove it by divers arguments especially by foure which I have transcribed out of Azorius And though he do not altogether adhere to their opinion Ratio 1. Ecclesiae testimonium est quidem divinum sed participatione non per se sua naturâ at Dei testimonium est divinum per se suâ naturâ fides divina resolvi debet in testimonium quod sit per se non autem participatione divinum 2. Quae sunt fidei revelatione Divinâ non naturae lumine sunt patefacta at Deus est qui revelat ac pandit res fidei non ecclesia 3. In Angelis Prophetis Apostolis caeteris Librorum Cananicorum Scriptoribus fides non resolvebat in ecclesiae testimonium sed in Deum per se pro xime revelantem at fides nostra est ejusdem speciei cujus fui illa Ergo in eandem rationem credendi reducitur 4. Quamvis ecclesia sit testis non tamen Condit aliquem articulum fidei sed declarat explicat quae sunt fidei c. Azor. Instit Moral Parl. 2. l. 5. c. 24. q. 2. but allows somthing to the Church yet he acknowledges that it 's ex accidenti by accident that our Faith is resolved into the Churches authority Again 2. Many learned Papists believe and teach that it 's onely an humane Faith whereby we believe that this or the other Pope is Peters Successor and Christs Vicar on earth because it depends on this Proposition that this or the other Pope is orderly and Canonically chosen to the Popedome which is also objected against General Councils Now how can we believe a Popes Decrees for a Divine Faith when it s onely an humane Faith whereby we believe that he is Pope or Peters Successor Becanus clearly resolves That if any stay in the resolution of the Church and ascend not to the Scripture his assent who believes because of the authority of the Church is not an assent of Theological Faith but of an other inferiour order viz. that which Scotus calls an acquired Faith and saith is only conceived by the Churches testimony which indeed is nothing else but an human faith for its such a Faith whereby we believe one that may both be deceived himself and may deceive us although we believe that he will not deceive us Sot lib. 2. de Nat. grat c. 7. Hereupon Sotus acknowledgeth of him that he held the authoritie of the Church to be only humane than which what can be more contradictory to your assertion 3. Ans I grant that the testimony of the Church is an external motive to belief as is also consent of people conformitie of the things believed to natural light accomplishment of Prophecies Miracles Gods Judgments against the Enemies of Truth c. The testimonie of the woman of Samaria was an external motive to the Samaritanes belief not the formal cause of it so the preaching of Godly Ministers is a means whereby men are brought to believe yet you will not conclude that Faith is built on them and they infallible It is the Church by which as a means not for which as the formal ground we do believe Your fifth Argument is taken from the Churches composure and nature 5. Arg. p. 18. 16. in these words Look on the Churches composure and nature and her strength will appear yet more by reason she is framed and made up of men Gen. 22. dispersed and spread over the world Act. 1. who
Popish Dominions that he could say lived well You are abundant in mentioning the good lives of Catholiques and their holiness of life is become a note of your Church Sure you do not mean that Papists absolute keeping of the Commandements is your Note The truth is he lives well who for the main of his life endeavours to conform himself to God sorrowing for his failings and inability to do what God requires and flies to the mercy of God for the remission of all the miscariages of his life he that lives thus lives well and if he dies he dies well Blamelessness before men sometimes yea usually denominates a good life The perfect life wherein is no sin is the life of Angels and Saints in Heaven where there is perfection of knowledg and grace This perfection the Apostle Paul aimed at but confesseth he had not attained Phil. 3.12.3 Whereas you speak of tearming him a good liver that steals c. I know not who asserts it nor to what end you urge it It s one thing to live directly contrary and another thing to live according to the Law though it come short of Angelical perfection 3. Argument is this The justness of Laws that inflict severe punishments upon the breakers of the Commandments are nâ—t at all consistent with the impossibility of keeping them Necessity is a good and forcible excuse against the strongest charge Supposing you to speak of humane Laws I answer 1. No humane Lawes take hold of any for want of exact and perfect obedience Exact obedience refers to thoughts which human Laws reach not to either to reward or punish 2. They suppose a possibility of outward conformity to them before men this was in Paul before his conversion who as touching the righteousnesse of the Law was blameless but this was no more but outward conformity for he wanted grace whereby only your perfection is attainable 3. What you say of necessity is vain for 1. There is no necessity of coaction whereby man might be forced to transgress the Law the will of man is free from this necessity 2. If there be any necessity to transgress it s contracted by our selves through our own fault and therefore is not a good and forcible excuse against the strongest charge Do you think when God shall ask natural men at the last day why they did not keep his Commandments that their necessity will be a good and forceable excuse against Gods charge And your self cannot deny but that natural men as such are unable to keep Gods Commands unless you professe Pelagianism 4. Argument you say The very light of reason gives testimony to the Commandments possibility they being all grounded upon reason and suited to her bent and inclination the wickedst man alive cannot say that he breaketh any Command without some secrâ—t check of conscienco Answ 1. What could Pelagius have said more for his error Doth not your argument prove his opinion to say the Commandments being grounded on natural reason it s in the power of nature to keep them is the grossest Pelagianisme 2. I will grant to you that the commandments are suited to reason as it was in its primitive purity but not as depraved The Commandments therefore were not impossible to Adam in whom reason was pure and right nor should they have been impossible to any of us if we had stood innocent but now they are impossible to us because reason in us is depraved and they are not suited to depraved reason there are neither fewer nor easier Commandments given to us then to Adam but the very same If you say grace supplies reasons defect I answer 't is true that Grace doth reform Nature but brings it not to its primitive purity there is no man reacheth to that height of reason that Adam had and to that consonancy of it to Gods Law Adams posse non peccare is in no son of man 3. Whereas you say the wickedst man alive c. I question the truth of it when your Church through the hypocrisie of lyers brings in Doctrines of Daemons forbids to marry and commands to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth Do your conscience check you Are they not rather seared with an hot iron according to the Apostles prediction Do wicked mens consciences checks them for every thought of their hearts that is evil It may be the commission of the grosse external act of theft or adultery or murder and the like is usually atended with some check in most men but the commandments reach further then to the outward act to mens thoughts and words and gestures and few men will know that these are sins now there must be science before conscience 2. Suppose it true all that it proves is this that there are some footsteps of reason and conscience in men which we deny not but it proves not that reason hath its perfection in them or that the Law might be kept by them though its probable that they might break it lesse then they do See Rom. 1.18 19 20 21. 4. Having ended your Arguments you come in the next place to answer some seeming objections against you 1 Object God only requires mans endeavour To this you Answer 1. This is repugnant to Christs expresse words which are not Math. 19. If thou wilt come to Heaven endeavour to keep but keep the Commandments Many a good endeavour as many a good purpose burns in Hell Heaven is rhe reward of doing not of endeavouring Reply 1. Not taking notice of the objection which is your own figment I say God doth require endeavour which by urging that text Math. 19. you seem to deny yea there are as many Commandments of endeavours as of actual obedience in the New Testament yea further there are promises and those of Heaven made to endeavours Lâ—ke 13.24 Strive to enter in at the strait gatte c. Mat. 7.7 8. Ask and it shall be given you seek and ye shall find c. Reply 2. Though God do not require only endeavour yet God accepts of endeavour where there cannot be action God commends accepts of Davids intention of building him an house though he built it not If a good intention may be accepted instead of action which your Rhemists assert why not a good endeavour Rep. 3. Endeavour is the utmost that is attaineable in this life according to the judgment of your best School-man Aquinas Aquin. 22. q. 24. 7. c. who shews that that perfection of charity whereby the whole heart of man is continually and actualy carryed towards God is our perfection in our Countrey but not pâ—ssible in this life in which because of human infirmities its impossible always actually to think of God or to love him but there is another kind of perfection which is when a man doth wholly endeavour to devote himself to God and Divine exercises omiting other things unlesse so far as humane
capacity of our condition is not sufficient to denominate or render the subject it is in perfect or an exact keeper of the Law of God If a debter owe twenty pound and hath but five pound which he pays to his Creditor doth the payment of this five pound which is as much as the present capacity of his condition reacheth to denominate and render him a perfect payer of his debt I trow not and pray Sir shew the difference betwixt this and your assertion CHAP. VI. Of Religion 1. YOu assert that Religion consists in belief not humane grounded upon reason but relying on the Churches authority and the assistance of the Holy Ghost Religio est virtus perquam homines Deo debitum cultum reverentiam exhibent Aquin. 22. q. 81. 1. c. religio est quae cultum honorem Deo tribuit Azor instit mor. p. 1. l. 3. c. 26. l. 9. c. 5. p. 23. Answ 1. The proper act of Religion is to worship and bring honour to God with relation to whom only Religion is defined by your Schoolmen and others This worship is due to God only and is that whereby we give up our selves unto God as the supream Lord of all and do place our hope and that in him as Azorius defines it According to this faith is a part of divine worship an act of Religion but relating to God the supream Lord of all not to the Church which is only a servant under him or if you will an assembly of his servants and indeed its reason that faith should refer to God it being the principal act by which a creature honours God and therefore is more pressed then any other Evangelical duty and besides its requisite it have a settled object to rest upon which is Gods authority for the Churches is not always visible Abraham beleeved but his faith relied not upon the Churches authority The Blessed Virgins faith could not rest upon any authority of the Church especially at Christs death when your men affirm that the Church was in her only but even then the Word of God the material object of faith had a visible existence and the fidelity of God faiths formal object was present with her to lean upon The Scriptures you urge to prove that faith relies on the Churches authority viz. Mark 16. John 14. make nothing for you the later speaks only of the Disciples instruction by the Spirit of God The former proves that we must beleeve the Gospel the material object of faith but saith not a word of the Church it saith not he that relies upon the Churches authority shall be saved Whosoever beleeves the Gospel whether he receive it from the Church or not shall be saved I challenge you or any that dotes on the word Church to give me any Scriptures that teacheth to beleeve in or on the Church and think you not the Apostles knew how to speak as well as you 2. I have already shewed that the Churches authority is but humane in the judgment of learned Papists and that the Spirits assistance makes her not infallible nor a guide or rule of belief Your self do in effect confesse at least of the present Church For you say pag. 16. To be the guide of belief requires further ability and skill to lay open immediately to belief Gods reveled truth a prerogative belongs to the Church and no other as to whom alone revelation was made Now this ability is not in the Church she laies not open immediately Gods reveiled truth whether hereby you mean that the Church speaks to the heart the seat of faith or that she doth it not by means of the Scriptures the Church lays open divine truths by the means of Scripture Besides the Church is not the subject of revelation which you say is the foundation of this prerogative Your Logical proceeding in councels shew your want of reuelation Your consciousness hereof makes you say revelation WAS made it was but is not so now 3. Your inference hereupon is 1. Thus The Religion of sectaries is vain their b lief being grounded on some humane respect not upon the warrantable authority of the Church ibid. Answ There may be belelief gounded neither on the authority of the Church nor on humane respects Consult Azorius and he will tell you that there are Cathâ—liques who ground not their faith on the authority of the Church and yet ground it not upon humane respects The Word of God revealed unto us by the light of faith wrought in the soul by the spirit is no humane respect and this Orthodox Christians build their belief upon 2. Inference For them to deserve the name of true Christians and to be stiled of the right Religion their only way is to level at perfection that takes its rise from an absolute resignation of their wills to the will of God in order to the Church which is to become spiritually little ones Matth. 18. Answ 1. Where do you learn that this grounding our belief upon the authority of the Church is the way yea the only the way to be true Christians and of the right Religion Are not those Papists who differ from you in this point and such there are as I have shewed true Christians and of the right Religion I am sure they are Papists for the main and therefore cannot be of a wrong Religion if popery be the right 2. Who told you that that Text of Matthew was to be so expounded I have seen divers expositions of the fathers on this Text different from yours but I find not one that from it doth teach us to ground our faith on the Church as the only way to true Christianity and the right Religion 3. It s a good lesson to teach us to submit our wills to the Will of God but it doth not appear that we should ground our faith upon the Churches authority the Scriptures are altogether ignorant and destitute of expressions of such a duty CHAP. VII Of the unity of Religion JN the beginning of this Chapter you assert that True Religion is One but presently fal upon the unity of persons in this one Religion and to the means whereby they come to be united which means you propound in these words viz. Experience shews that this unity of Religion is an effect of acknowledging the Church for the rule of belief it being visible to the eye that all that square their belief to the Church are one in religion whereas they that take to themselves other rules discent and jarre c. p. 28. Asw 1. Whether those who acknowledg the Church for the rule of belief be so one in Religion as that they neither dissent nor jarre I refer it to any mans judgment who hath but ordinary insight into the writers of Popish controversies I wonder whose experience it is that finds it Or what Alseeing eye it is that discerns All acknowledgers of the Churches authority to be one in Religion Have you seen
All Papists If you have are mens judgments and thoughts visible to the eye Or did they all write their judgments and give you them that your eye might see them But I shall confute this hereafter 2. Why do you vary your phrase for first you say this unity is an effect of acknowledgiâ—g the Church for the rule of belief And then as thinking you had missed it you speak of actual squaring mens belief to the Church There is a great difference betwixt these A Papist may acknowledg the Church to be the rule of faith yet through ignorance of what the Church holds or some other cause he may not square his belief to the Church Experience tells me that many Papists in these parts acknowledg the Church to be the rule of belief yet it s hard to find one that doth not in some point or other differ from the Church I have found many that in some points dissent from her Soto and Catharinus who were both present at the Trent Council could not agree what was the Councils meaning in the points of Original sin and justification but wrote one against the other of those subjects So that though both of them might acknowledg the Church to be the rule of faith yet they could not both square their belief to the Church unlesse she be a maintainer of contrary Doctrines 4. May not experience carry it as much for the Scriptures and shew that they are the rule of faith for its most certain that all that square their belief to the Scriptures are one in Religion Thus the primitive Christians did square their belief to the Scriptures and were unanimous It s mens leaving the Scriptures and building upon their own fancies or building their faith upon changable and unstable men that makes dissentions and jarring The Word of God being always the same there cannot be dissention where is conformity to it 2. You give a reason hereof saying Of which no other reason can be given but that the Church is alwaies constant and certain other rules subject to uncertainty and change Answ 1. What mean you when you say that the Church is always constant and certain is it in regard of existence I grant it of the Catholique but deny it of your Roman Church God had a Church before there was a Roman Church and when Babylon the great is fallen there will be the Church still I know no warrant you have that your Church shall always continue there is much in Scripture to perswade the contrary Or 2. Is it in regard of holding and manifestation of the truth but this way it hath not been always constant Time was when it was Arian under Liberius and the Orthodox grievously persecuted in it time was when it administred the Lords supper to Children even for 600 years Time was when the Bible of Clemeâ—t was commanded under the danger of a curse to be received as only Authentical now Sixtus his Bible must be so received upon the same danger Time was when your twelve articles of Pope Pius's creed were not enjoyned as necessary to be believed to salvation as now they are Again Sometimes it hath happened that the Church could not would not or durst not manifest the truth Where was then its certainty The question about the efficâ—cy of grace was twice brought to the Apostolique chair forsooth and after many years disputation in regard of its subtilty it was sent away with the difficulties in determination wherewith it came thither Questions it seems must be easy or else your vertual Church cannot certainly determine them What certainty is here when subtilties can stop the Popes determinations Your decrees concerni g the virgins impeccability in the Council of Trent are dark and of no great certainty 2. It s fâ—lse that other rules are subject to uncertainty and change The Scriptures are more certain and unchangable than your Church they are called a more sure word of prophecy to which we do well that we take heâ—d But that we might think that you reverence Scriptures you say True it is that Scripture in itsel that iâ— as it is the Word of God dictatâ—d bâ— the Holâ—-Ghost is certain and infallible but to us 2 Tim. 3. to wiâ— as it is liable to this and to oth rs privâ—te interpretation it is as uncertain and â—allible as man witnesse the many contrary interprâ—tations c. Answ 1. The Scripture is not only certain in it selfe but even to us and therefore the Apostle speaking to private Christians 2 Pet. 1. saith We have also a more sure word of Prophecy whereunto ye d well that ye take heed as unto a light c. The Scripture oft declares its own plainnesse and certainty as to us Prov. 8.9 All the words of my mouth are plain to him that understandeth they are plain obvious Vatabl. and easie to be understood Psal 19.7 The testimony of the Lord is SVRE making wise the simple Psalm 1â—9 130 The en rance â—f thy Word giveth liâ—ht it giveth undâ—rstanding unâ—o the simple 2. Th u h particular men may makâ— wrâ—ng interpre ations of some placâ—s yâ—t thâ—s is when they use not that diligence and those means that they ought to use as viewing antecedent and subsequent Scriptures comparing like places considering what words are figurative what proper reading and pondering the interpretation of the learned bringing all to the rule of faith i. e. plain places wherein the articles of faith are clearly propounded Tertul. l. de veland virgin or if you will the Apostles Creed which Tertullian calls the immutable and unalterable rule of faith And your selves grant that the virtual Church may erre if she use not diligence 3. May not the same you say of Scripture be said of your Popes Decretals Councils Canons c. may not these have wrong interpretations No doubt but they may witness the difference betwixt Soto and Catharinus Certain it is that the Scriptures in points necessary to salvation are more clear than your Decrees and Canons Lastly I know not what you quote 2 Tim. 3. For I find nothing for you in that Chapter but rather against you Timothy had known the Scriptures from a child and they are said to be able to make him wise to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus Here is study of the Scriptures note of the Churches Canons Here is faith in Jesus Christ not in the Church The Scriptures as I said or ignorant of such expressions CHAP. VIII Of the Spirit of Spiritists WHen I had read this Title and compared it with the Title of your tenth Chapter I thought Spiritists and Protestants had noted two distinct kinds of persons But the matter of this and the next Chapter shew that in the language of the beast they are the same It s strange you bring not in Scripturists and Christians they are equally strange to you who glory only in the name CATHOLIQUE but why do you use these names Is it
so much as one miracle Hast thâ—u by thy prayers raised up the dead or r stâ—red them thaâ— have been sick of fâ—aâ—ers If thou wert of any worth thâ—u wouldst do some miracle Answer and say 't is writâ—â—n thou shâ—lt not tempt the Lord thy God I will not therefore tempt God as if I belonged to God if I did a miracle or did not belong to him if I did it not This is our answer when you demand of us miracles as evidences of the Spirits favour 2. You say The Spirit in us induceth to ill it perswading a disloyal deâ—ection fr m the Lords prayer the Commandments and church This is a most grosse and impudent slander we neither teach nor practise defection from the Lords Prayer the Commandments or that faith which the Apostles preached and the primitive Christians received from them We reverence and use the Lords Prayer as the most exact and perfect pattern of Prayer We insert it in our Catechisms teach it our children earnestly seek after those blessings it contains we have honourable and precious thoughts of it as of whatsoever Jesus Christ delivered to us We receive the Commandments as the rule of our obedience the guid of our way and as the Lord enables us do conform our selves thereto The like we say of the Church We reject no Doctrines that we know to be Apostolical Its our cleaving to the Apostolical Church which makes us to be hated of Papists What Creeds the ancient Churches of Christ have received we freely own and beleeve all things written therein though we ingeniously professe our dislike and rejection of your late coyned articles as not being received by former Churches Finally the Spirit that is in us doth not induce us to any ill we have indeed corruption in us which induceth us to ill but we pray and strive against it I dare affirm it and disprove it if you can that our reformed Ministry is as holy if not more than your Priesthood our people that receive the truth into their hearts walk as closely with God and as free from sin as most of your Catholiques yea its observable that the more free any parts are from popery and papists the more zealous and religious they are and more carefull sanctifiers of the Lords day Since it pleased God to set me in the place where I now live which is in the midst of Papists and popish persons I have given my self to observe their waies and I find the best of them notorious profaners of the Lords day spending it either in drinking or walking about from house to house or sporting and if they have Protestant servants imploying them about their worldly businesses as much as on any other day But Sir I may say of your self and such like as Hiero. of some Qâ—um bona imitari non queant c. Hierom. When they cannot imitate the good is in us which they can only do they envie us in this think themselves verie learned that they can detract from us You cannot imitate therefore enuy it s one peice of Jesuitical learning to slander What you bring those names of our Authors in your margent for I know not I am sure were they alive they would accuse you of slandring them 3. You say This Spirit in us prompteth things contrarie and inconsistent each with other Ans The Spirit in us is the Spirit of truth and leads us into truth not universally and infallibly as if we knew all truth and erred in nothing for it s not given fully and perfectly though there be light in us yet it s not without darkness if it were we should be Angels rather than men comprehensors rather then travellers This spirit keeps us from the destructivenesse of error not from error yet I say the confessions of the reformed Churches are most harmonious our Churches teach not things contrary nor inconsistent each with othea though particular men in our Churches may dissent in some points as in all Churches 3. In your last section you bring in and answer two Arguments formed as I suppose upon the anvile of your own brain 1. God is no accepter of persons his Spirit being free may breath on whom he pleaseth To this you answer This is out of the matter in hand here being no dispute of Gods power what he may do but of his will what he doth Reply When I know whose argument this is and see the form of it I shall vindicate it from your answer if I like it at present I shall shall only desire you to remember your answer when you come to the point of transubstantiation 2. Arg and Answ their other ground for insâ—iration upon the assurance of Consciencâ— St. Paul and St. Augustine convinced long since of weaknesse and coufinage Reply This argument came out of the same mint with the other for which of us lay any claim to inspiration 2. 'T is true we say that the Spirit bears witnesse with our spirits that we are the Children of God and doth not the Apostle say so Rom. 8.16 Your Rhemists confesse that by this testimony the Children of God have an attestation of his favour towards them 3. Whereas you object the example of St. Paul and Austin pray tell me can conscience never tell true because sometimes it erred there is an erring conscience is there therefore no rightly informed conscience You make notable inferences 4. May not conscience mistake in its judgment about works as to their goodnesse or badness nay was it not about works that St. Paul and Augustines conscience did erre you acknowledg it was the one persecuted the Church the other the Truth Why should not the Spirit when by conscience it testifies of it self be regarded as when it testifies of works You say conscience can have no greater certainty then the understanding that gaue it being and the understanding often misseth I grant that the understanding of it self is errable and subject to mistakes but being guided by the spirit its certain and so is conscience The Apostle saith We know thâ—t we dwâ—ll in him and he in us 1 John 4.13 because he hath given us of his Sprit and we see and do testifie c. Upon which words your Glosse saith Per hoc c. Hereby we prove that he hath given us of his holy Spirit because we see that is through the Spirit of inspiration by faith we know and by the testifying spirit do we witness c. CHAP. IX Of the Spiritists rule of Faith YOu begin with a distinction about the rule of faith which you say may be considered in it self or in r spect of us In it self its Gods reveal d truth in respect of us it s the same truth expressed to us Thus far say you Catholiques and Sâ—iritists agree their difference iâ— about the expression Answ 1. I conceive your distinction is vain and can hardly beleeve that Spiritists agree with you thus far For 1. I conceive the
p. 152. An. 1531. p. 214. that he was non parum doctus not meanly learned The Epitaph this same Author mentions to be written upon Oecolampadius shews him to be a man of great learning the rest of them were men of good parts and indued with a Spirit of zeal for Gods truth besides with those gifts the present necessity did much concurre those who had the key of order neither entring in themselves nor admitting others into it who sought the advancement of Christs Kingdom 2. By meditation of others who received authority from the prime-giver thus the Protestant Bishops and Pastors after the Apostles time received their power from the hands of those whom the Apostles had before invested therewith yea if we speak of the first Protestant Bishops and Pastors they had their authority immediately from the hands of the Apostles The Waldenses who had Bishops and Pastors amongst them are supposed by some of your side to have continued from the Apostles upon this account are judged more pernicious to you than any other Sect. But to omit them Rainer de vit morib Waldens apud Vsher de aeccles Christ success stat p. 151. The first and ancients Fathers of the Church were Protestants in their Doctrines You have been often challenged to shew that the Bishops and Pastors of the Church for many hundred years after Christ were not Protestants but Papists maintaining the articles of your Late Creed It were easy to shew that those Doctrines of Protestants that you anathematize as heresies were with the ancient Fathers received truth thus were communion under both kinds prayer in a known tongue c. by your own confessions It s therefore false that the Apostles were dead and gone long before these had any being So then we have power and authority from Christ by meditation of others succeeding the Apostles But against this I have said you object thus Object By this is implyed a continuation of succession in the Protestant Bishops and Pastors ever since Christ and the Apostles it is not conceiveable any other way how power could be transmitted from one hand to another as is averred Answ 1. Here is not implyed a continuation of succession c. if thereby you understand such succession as admits of no interruption and that in particular Churches The succession of Pastors in particular Churches may cease through the violence and tyranny of enemies yet the violence being over there may be a reestablishments of the Ministry and that in succession to the former though the means of the new establishment be only the peoples choice which in some cases is most valued 2ly What if there hath been a continuation of succession in the Protestant Bishops c You answer They must then be visible for as much as it was their parts to preach the Word of God and administer the Sacraments Rep. I grant it who ever denyed that the Pastors of the Church were visible We hold indeed that sometimes they may lie hid from their enemies but they are visible to their friends though they be not seen in the streets of Rome they are visible in the mountains and woods c. when the Church is in the wilderness her Pastors are not visible in Cities and Courts 2. But what if visible You answer If visible they may be produced they ought to be produced they may because that power is vain and fictitious that is not reducible to act Mat. 5. They ought because Bishops and Pastors in case of controversie are to give an account of their calling Luke 7. as well to settle the wavering as to bend and make supple the stifnesse of stubborn misbeleevers 1 Pet. 3. Rep. 1. They might be visible in their times yet now not producible You know what rigor hath been used against Protestant books you burnt Wicklif's works and have extinguished others You deal with us as Doctor Featly shews as if a theif should steal our purse and make away our money and then demand of us what is become of our money if we had any such summes of money in what bag and where those bags are 2. There are ofâ— our Authors who have produced Protestant Bishops and Pastors i. e. such as have maintained Protestant Doctrine in every age since the Apostles 3. Whereas you say They may because that power is vain and fictitious that is not reducible to act Math. 5. 1. Your reason is a piece of nonsence and having no relation to what it should prove the question is about the power of naming them not the actual naming them if we had granted the power and denyed the act your Say had made somewhat for you as when you say the Commandments may be kept but cannot name one that keeps them it makes against you 2. It s a tautology your word Reducible denotes power not act so that it s as if you had said that power to act is vain and fictitious that is not in power to act 3. Your quotation is impertinent so far as I know I have searched Math. 5. and I find not any thing that may make for your purpose and I 'm sure your axiom is not there Sure you mistook Matthew for Aristotle 4. It s false that there is a necessity of producing Protestant Bishops and Pastors we look more at succession of doctrine then persons and think this sufficient to denominate us the true Church for which we have Tertullian's judgment in that book you even now cite affirming That those Churches which are able to produce none of the Apostles or Apostolical men for their first planters are notwithstanding Apostolical for consent of faith and consanguinity of doctrine When our Authors bring in Catalogues of Protestant Pastors it is to stop the mouths it may be of unreasonable men that demand them of us Your reason to prove this necessity is this Bishops and Pastors in case of controversie are to give an account of their calling For 1. It 's one thing for a Pastor to give an account of his calling and another thing to give an account of his predecessors If you were a Bishop in some City and were demanded of the lawfulness of your calling were the way to give them a beadrol of your predecessors in that City This would come short of giving satisfaction for they might be lawful Shepherds and you who succeed them no better than a ravening wolfe 2ly The Text Luke 7. proves nothing for you if you point at the account our Saviour gives of his calling to Johns Messengers v. 19 20. You shall find no naming or producing of his predecessors but of his Doctrine and works Go tell John saith he what ye have seen and heard So we when you demand how we prove our selves true Pastors send you to what you hear and see our Doctrines and works conformable to the Word of God the Law of Moses and Gospel of Christ 3ly Few that have a desire after truth and regard our Doctrine
be so evident in it self why do not all Papists agree with you but rather oppose you 2. Your reason is most ridiculous 't is this The true Church was before any false one therefore succession is proper to the true Church If you had been speaking of antiquity your argument would have had some force in it but antiquity and succession are different things constituting two distinct notes of your Church Antiquity properly points at the beginning of Churches succession only at the continuation of them But I think your mind was upon antiquity for in your fifth Section you purposely handle it and your meaning here is this that false Churches cannot derive their succession to the first foundation thereof which is Christ for you say There must be a stop and bar betwixt whatsoever counterfeit Church and Christ c. To which I answer 1. Heretical Churches as such cannot derive their succession from Christ or the Apostles for then they should derive their Heresies also But 2. Those Churches that are now or have lately been Heretical may yet derive a personal succession from Christ in as much as at first they were planted and established in the truth by the Apostles but have since degenerated Thus it is with the Greek Churches and your Roman Church and probably was with the Arians who though they wanted doctrinal succession yet might have personal there being Bishops of note who maintained that Heresie In the former regard its true which you say that the Arian derivation climbeth no further then Arius there 's a great difference betwixt succession of Doctrines and persons though you seem to take no notice of it Lastly you return to the Protestant Church and whereas it s said There have been named in several ages the Albigenses the Apostolici Wickliff Hus. You Answer None of these were Protestants c. Rep. 1. Some of these were Protestants the Albigenses otherwise called Waldenses were Protestants Parsons confesseth that they devised and framed out of Scripture the whole platform of the Protestant Gospel Pars 3. Con. part 3. Hist of France Book 1. pag. 15. edit an 1595. Id. p. 67. A French Historian writes thus of them Who in spite of all the Potentates in Christendom sowed about the year 1100. and even since their Doctrine smally differing from the Protestants at this day For the further clearing of this take this extract of their confession of Faith which they delivered to Francis 1. Of France about the year 1540. and which they said was taught unto them ever since the year 1200. It contained the Articles of God the Father Creator of all things of the Son advâ—cate and Intercessor for mankind of the Holy Ghost Comforter and Teacher of the Truth of the Church which they said to be assembled of all the chosen having Jâ—sus Christ for Head of Ministers of the Maâ—istrate whom they confessed ordained of God to punish Malefactors and defend the good to whom it sufficeth not only to carry honor but also to pay Taxes and Imposts without acception of state whatsoever and that at the example of Christ who did likewise practice it Of Baptism which they maintained to be a visible and extenor sign represeâ—ting unto us the Regenerati n of the Spirit and Mortification of the Members Of the Lords Supper which they hold for a thanksgiving and commemora ion of the benefit received by Christ Of Marriage which they say was not forbidden to any by h w much it was Holy and ordained oâ— God Of good work wherâ—in they ought to imploy themselves continually â—f Mans tradition which they ought to shun protesting in Sums that the Rule of their Faith was the Old and New Testament and that they believed all which was contained in the Apostles Creed This positive Confession I have taken verbatim out of the French Historian to which I may add a Negative one out of Aeneas Silvius and others viz. they held that the Bishop of Rome was not above other Bishops That prayers for the dead and Purgatory were devised by the Priests for their own gain That the Images of God and Saints were to be defaced that confirmation and extream unction were no Sacraments That it is vain to pray to the Saints in Heaven since they cannot help us That auricular confession was a trifling thing That it was not meritorious to keep set Fasts of the Church and that such a set number of Canonical hours in praying was vain That Oyl and Chrism were not to be used in Baptism That the Church of Rome was not the Holy Church nor Spouse of Christ but Babylon the mother of Abominations If you desire to see more of them read Calverii Epitom Historian page 555. where you have a large Catalogue of them and now let the reader judge whether they were Protestants or no. But you object two things to prove that they were not Protestants 1. They hold not in all points with them For this you cite divers Authors But I answer 1. I confesse the Authors you mention do severally attribute divers errors to them but these witnesses agree not amongst themselves Guido Carmelita chargeth them with saying that Masse is to be said once only every year Aeneas Silvius contrarily saith that they hold that the Priest may consecrate at any time and minister to them that require it The same Guido saith they held that the words of consecration must be no other but the Pater noster seven times said over the bread but Aeneas Sylvius Antonius and Luxemburg say the contrary affirming that they thought it sufficient to speak the Sacramental words only Prateolus chargeth them with Manicheisme but Reinerus the French Historian and others free them from it 2. Their confessions shew that there is very small difference betwixt them and the Protestants 3. Though they should not hold in all points with Protestants yet they might be Protestants perfect complyance is not absolutely necessary to constitute a person a member of the Church Many of the members of the Church of Rome Corinth Galatia c. did not agree in all points with those Churches yet were members of them The French Papists go under the name of Catholiques yet agree not in all points with the Church of Rome for they deny the Pope to be above a general Council and that the Council of Trent was Oecumenical and Lawfull The books of many named Catholiques have been censured for unsound speeches and because they have not held in all points with your Churh yet are Catholiques still The Apostle supposeth that though those who are perfect do walk by the same rule yet some may be otherwise minded Phil. 3.15 which the Rhemists in their note on that place clearly grant 2. You object that they hold not in all points with themselves Answ 1. We are beholding to you for your good opinion of Protestants the argu-is this They that hold not in all points with themselves are not Protestants The Waldenses hold not
modest Bishops the weapons wherewith he was assaulted were meek exhortations perswasions entreaties not bulls curses racks tortures that holy age knew no such Ecclesiastical censures as Luther and his followers were acquainted with The French Historian gives this account of Protestants persecutions page 38. The Doctrine of Luther seemed to encrease by the greatnesse of persecutions which might be seen by the hot persecutions in the year 1534. for searches and informations were no sooner made of the prisoners but they were as speedily burnt quick tyed to a stake after swinged into the aire were let fall into the fire and so by a pullise pul'd up and down untill a man might see them all roasted and scorched by a small fire without complaining not able to speak by reason that they had taken out their tongue and gagged them 2. Arius did not set himself against the vices of an usurping lordly power which might have procured him hatred and revengefull opposition but Luther did whose two vices as Erasmus told Fredrick were that he touched the bellies of the Monks and the Crown of the Pope 3. Arius his heresy was not constantly maintained and stuck to Arius recanted and subscribed the Nicen Creed as did others his followers but Luther's Doctrine was constantly maintained by himself and followers without any recantation or counterfeit compliance 4. Arius his heresie did not seem crosse to reason but rather conformable but Luther's did crosse carnal reason the ground of Popish heresies In these regards Luther might more truly becompared with the Apostles than Arius And indeed his Doctrine though you are pleased to slander it as being acceptable and pleasing to the depravednesse of Nature and so contrary to the Apostles Doctrine is the very same for the substance of it that the Apostles taught being no way contrary to mortification of wills religious fasting chastity and the like And therefore it was not itching after novelties and pronnesse to libertinage that drew many after him but a desire of reformation both of Doctrine and Discipline which were exceeding corrupt in the Romish Church whereof very many were sensible and under which they groaned waiting for freedom and this is that which a great Papist saith Neither did Luther in this age come forth alone Alphons de Castro ado haeres epist nuncup but accompanied with a great troop as with a guard waiting for him as for their Captain and Leader who seemed to have expected him before he came and upon his coming did cleave unto him SHAPE III. PRotestants received their mission from Catholique Bishops in Queen Elizabeths daies and since You answer Ans If some did which is to be proved nay the contrary seems to be proved by Doctor Champney it is evident the greater part did not and what a Church must that companie make of which most are judged fit to preach the Word of God and administer the Sacraments without Authoritie Repl. 1. We had Protestant Bishops in England before Queen Elizabeths days eminent oppugners of Popish heresies then in the time of Queen Mary whom notwithstanding your fiery rage God preserved making them to survive her bloody raign by these were others afterways ordained as Bishop Parker who was consecrated by the imposition of hands of Bishop Barloe Bishop Coverdale Bishop Scory and two suffragans So that I know no Protestant that needs to use the shape you impose upon us nor do I think any doth but you set up moments and then shoot at them which is a very learned and ingenious prank But 2. Supposing it our Shape I say to your answer 1. Divers Popish Catholiques in Queen Maries days were Protestants in Queen Elizabeths and these might have an hand in Ordinations afterwards 2. Though the greater part of our Pastors received not Mission from Popeish Bishops yet they might have authority You beg the question when you tell us that they are not ordained by Popeish Bishops have no authority We had lawful Bishops Pastors in England before your Pope or any of his gowned Factors knew England But you answer 2ly Admit the calling of Protestant Bishops and Pastors were right in all of them it would not follow that the Protestant Church is true so long as she advanceth Protestantism contrary to the meaning of the Catholique Bishops who never impowâ—red any but in relation to the setting up and upholding of Catholique Religion Rep. 1. If you admit this it will follow according to your principles that there is personal succession and consequently a true Church inasmuch as derivati n of succession is so proper to the true Church that it cannot agree to any false as St. Hierom in Nucam 1. Observeth Sir you remember the words they are your own page 41. but oportet mendacem esse memorem 2. True Religion is not to be measured by mens meaning but by the Word of God So then if according to Gods Word protestantism be the true Religion it s no great matter what your Catholiques Bishops meaning be 3. Catholique Bishops ought to ordain men in order to the setting forth of the unsearchable riches of Christ Eph. 3.8 To preach the Gospel Col. 1.25 Mark 16.15 This is contained in the Scriptures If your Bishops ordain men to preach any thing else they are abusers of their power their ordination is impure and unlawfull and so far to be frustrated Thus our Protestant Bishops and Pastors that have been ordained by you retain that which is pure viz. power to preach the word and administer the Sacraments but reject that which is evil in your ordinations we retain the power which is good and from God but reject those circumstances of yours which accompany the conveiance of it and are evil 2ly You say Communion with the true Church being as necessary a requisite to the makeing up of a true Church as union of parts to the compleating of a natural body what colour for truth in the Protestant Church that is at variance with the Catholique of whom she glorieth to have her power and which she confesseth to be a true Church Repl. 1. I grant that communion with the true Church is necessary but your inference hereupon is vain For 1. We deny that the Popish Church is the Catholique Church You appropriate that name to your selves but who gives it you Indeed the Roman Church in her purity before shee was infected with the Leeven of Popery was a Catholique Church Euseb eccl Hist l. 4. c. 15. l. 10. c. 7. Socr. schol l. 2. c. 2. but so were other Churches called as well as shee with whom you hold no communion now nor they with you as the Church of Smyrna Alexandria Carthage 2. It s not necessary to the constitution of a true Church to have communion with you The Eastern Churches were as much at variance with you as Protestants are yet they were tâ—ue Churches The Affrican Bishops did oppose divers of your Popes one after another telling them they should
hid and conceal their opinions and whilst the Church doth what she can to cast them out of her These would be a plea for your Church if the supposition were true But you urge further thus Protestants Bishops and Pastors if mingled with Catholiques did neither beleeve nor profess their Doctrine but only concealed and covered their own for fear of the formidable rigour of Catholiques and such could neither be true nor make a saving Church Not true because the mission of true Bishops and Pastors being founded upon persecution and suffering Mat. 10. Luk. 11. it is proper to them to fear no Colours nor make up a saving Church by reason profession of faith is necessary to Salvation Rom. 10. Mat. 10. Repl. 1. It must not be granted that Protestant Pastors did meerly conceal and cover their own Faith and Doctrine there was much crying out against errors and disorders in the Popes Church by many though not without sufferings Gersom for speaking freely against the disorders of the Roman Church was deprived of his goods and dignities by the Pope and expulsed the University by the Sorbonists Laurentius valla was exiled by the Pope John of Vesalia a preacher at Worms was sharply handled by the inquisitors for opposing indulgences auricular confession Pilgrimages Merit c. Berengerius openly declared against Transubstantiation for which he was not well handled Read our Martirologies and it will evidently appear that Protestants did not only not conceal their own Doctrines but opposed yours 2. It s not simply unlawful nor altogether unsuitable to the true saving members of the Church to conceal or hide the truth Confession is a duty but the precept binds not ad semper there are some cases wherein it s not necessary viz. 1. When we are not brought before authority to be examined about our Faith but if we be brought before them our Sauiours precept Mat. 10 binds us to Confession 2. When by our profession there is no hopes of doing good or bringing any advantage to the truth Hos 4.4 Mat. 7.6 Thus Protestants might conceal the truth when they saw their Confession was not advantageous to the Truth or the Salvation of those with whom they were although when brought before authority they did still profess it and dye for it 3ly They might be lawful Pastors though they might conceal the truth from their enemies for a time else what think you of Peter who did more then conceal even deny his Religion Of Liberius who accepted of Arianism Certainly if these were not true Bishops your Chain of Succession will be a broken piece Your Priests in England at this day hide their persons and with them the open confession of their supposed Truth they preach not openly they administer not the Sacraments openly they exercise not their mortal Devils openly and that for fear of apprehension and punishment due to such Vagabonds and yet your ignoramusses depend upon their Benediction as Spiritual Fathers 4ly Your reason is divers ways peccant 1. It s improper to say the Mission of true Bishops is founded upon persecutions and sufferingse 1. Are persecutions the Bases of pastoral Mission then if persecution cease the Bishops and Pastors cease to be true Bishops and Pastors the building cannot stand when the Foundation is fallen then your Popes or Cardinals c. are no true Bishops or Pastors for they live in great pomp and ease and suffer nothing unless that by their intemperance they get bodily diseases which is nothing to Truth Indeed since through your freedom from persecutions your Chalâ—ces were of gold your Priests have been but wooden Images 2. You mistake the cause of their concealing the Truth which was not a distracting and a distrustful fear which looks mainly at torments as you imagine but their fear was a sober fear 1. Lest the Church of God should be deprived of them by reason of their profession of truth at such a time when there was no visible advantage accruing to it 2. Lest they should incur the guilt of their own deaths by unreasonable profession See Mat. 7.6 Whence Lyranus infers Lyran. in Mat. 7.6 that the secrets of Faith are not to be revealed to obstinate unbeleevers because hereby may ensue the derision of the Catholique Faith and the murder of the Ministers Our Saviour gives liberty to his Disciples if they were persecuted in one City to fly to another Mat. 10.23 Yet bids them not fear Ver. 26. Clemens Alexandrinus sets this forth very well speaking of flying in time of persecution Swadet fugere c. He perswades us to flee not as if it were evil to suffer persecution nor that we should fear death but he would not have us authors or abettors of evil either to our selves or him that persecutes or him that kills us for he warns us that we be cautelous but he that obeys not is audacious and rash and unadvisedly casts himself upon manifest dangers now if he that slays a Man of God sins against God he also is guilty of this murder who doth not avoid persecution but through audacity offers himself to be apprehended for in as much as in him lies he helps on the wickedness of the persecutor Otherwise our Protestant Bishops and Pastors have as couragiously professed the truth and for it undergone with patience and constancy as great torments from Popeish hands as ever any in any age of the world did So that were you not blinded with rage against Protestants you could not but blush to charge them with fearfulness of professing the truth For a conclusion of this I desire you look home to your English Priests those Hedghogs whose appearance is mainly in the night and in darkness who are so far from a voluntary and open profession of their faith that I do not know of any one that ever suffered upon this account viz. the open and publike profession of his faith though they pretend themselves guarded with power of miracles which might make them more valiant 5. If your self were of that stout Spirit you charge us with the want of what needed you to write Paris for London or L. B. for your concealed name 5ly You conclude your Answer to this Shape with an exposition of the parables of the Wheat and Chaff Mat. 3. and of the Fishes Mat. 13. to which you say The comparisons are ment of private men for matter of manners and not of any mixture of true and false doctrine Orthodoxal and Heretical Bishops and Pastors tâ—gether Rep. 1. It s most certain that these comparisons do set forth the mixture which is in the visible Church which your self even now contradicted Yea 2. These mixtures extends to mixtures of Doctrine and Teachers as well as of private Christians in manners the ordinary gloss understands Mat. 13.25 Of the mixture of Heretiques with the Elect. Augustin also by Cockle doth understand Heretiques who in this world are mingled with the Orthodox his words are ful against you Aug. Ap.
invent different Doctrines and new heresies Seperation from a Church cannot but suppose a different judgment in them that seperate The Donatists whom Bellarmine brings in to prove your argument go under the name of heretiques and did indeed hold doctrines different from the Apostles Doctrines To these arguments grounded on your assertions I will adde two more 1. Papists themselves urge consent of Doctrine with the Doctrine of the Apostles and ancient Church a note of the true Church this is Bellarmine's sixt note but it seemes Papists may make that a note of the true Church which Protestants may not 2. The Doctrine say some of you in answer to us is the form of the true Church therefore In inferre it cannot agree to any false one the form being intrinsecall and proper to that which it doth inform not common to others as Rationality cannot be predicated of beasts so neither can Profession of the true Apostolicall Doctrine agree to a fals and unsound Church according to your judgements But you urge two things viz. 1. Doctrine is as divers as there are divers seeming Churches and so not affording any determinate notion draweth in opposition of a mark of truth Answ 1. The question is not whether doctrine indefinitely be a mark of truth as you propound it but whether true Doctrine that is the doctrine of the Apostles clearly declaclared in the Scriptures and professed by Christians be a mark of the true Church we affirm it is 2. Though Doctrine in generall be divers yet true Apostolicall Doctrine is not divers but one and the same as there is one Lord one Spirit one Church so is there one faith which the Scripture reveals unto us 2. Doctrine supposeth Bishops and Pastors as the means whereby it is conveyed to us therefore it importeth as much to name Bishops and Pastors before may be given to mention Doctrine as it is necessary passing from one extreem to another to touch first the middle Answ 1. But that your memory is weak you might remember that we have been mentioning Bishops and Pastors and that before we mentioned Doctrine What else is the subject of the four precedent shapes 2. If you were acquainted with our judgement you might find that when we say True Doctrine is a mark of the true Church we explain our selves to mean the preaching of true Doctrine and this doth suppose Pastors and Teachers 3. Truth of Doctrine is a more proper note of the Church and more necessary than Bishops and Pastors That Doctrine which is consonant to the Apostles Doctrine is alwayes true but Pastors that succede them are not alwayes true Pastors but sometimes Wolves and therefore if you had not misled us we would first have begun with Doctrine as the more worthy 2. You answer It is no less untrue that Protestants maintain the Apostles Doctrine delivered in Scriptures they professing a Doctrine clean contrarie and opposite to that which in them is in plain and formall tearms expressed Rep. Prove this and you carry the victory but I know you cannot do it your instances are insufficient some of them being not in Scripture others not the Apostles Doctrine which you were to have proved not by consequence but expresly in plain and formall tearms Lastly some Texts are brought in against us with which we fully joyn But I will particularly examine your Instances 1 Inst Traditions 2 Thess 2. Hold the traditions whether it be by word or Epistle Answ 1. It s most evident that the Apostle by Tradition understands whatsoever he had delivered to the Thessalonians either by preaching or writings Tradition being then of a larger talent than now it is and it is no less evident that what the Apostle did preach was nothing but Scripture Act. 26.20.22 Especially see Act. 17.1 2 3 13. where you finde what Paul preached at Thessalonica even nothing but the Word of God contained in the Scriptures Annot. on Deutr. 4.2 Your Dowaists say unwritten traditions are contained implied included in the Scriptures such the Apostle preached 2. True and Apostolick traditions we willingly imbrace yea we account them worthy of Anathema who do not receive them That which Clemnitius saith is the judgement of Protestants Apostoli multa tradiderunt unâ voce c. The Apostles delivered many things by word of mouth which their immediate successours received from them Exam. Concil trident p. 1. d. trad p. 68. and delivered to their Disciples but all these as Irenaeus saith were agreeable to Scripture and we reject none of them but whatsoever are agreeable to Scripture we receive and reverence So another saith if Papists will prove their Traditions by the ancient and Apostolick Church and the universall Church since even till our time we receive them and this is Apostolicall Tradition according to Hierom. for conclusion I appeal to Medina Medri l. 6. de sacr hom Continent c. 106. whether we or not rather Papists be guilty of not holding Apostolicall Traditions of 84. Canons saith he gathered together by Clemens and the Disciples of the Apostles the Latine Church scarce observeth 6. or 8. 2 Inst Reall presence Joh. 6.51.55 56 57. Luk 22.19 Matth. 26.28 Ans This is a Jesuitical slander for protestants do not deny the Reall presence nor is the Controversie between the Papists and us about it Rivel sum Contr. Tan. 1. Tract 3. q. 18. Inst we both hold that the body and blood of Christ is truly and really present in the Sacrament as learned Rivet observes this is also affirmed by Dr. White in his reply to Fisher who objecting that Protestants hold not a true or reall presence but onely a presence by imagination and conceit is answered in these words His most excellent Majestie and all his orthodoxall people believe reall presence T is true we hold not a gross i. e. as the same Author explains it When the thing signified and presented is according to the naturall substance thereof contained under the shapes of outward signes and together with them conveyed into the mouth stomack and bodily parts but we maintain a true and effectuall presence of the body and blood of Christ so as man receiving the externall signes by his naturall parts receiveth also the thing signified and presented by the action of his spirituall facultie to wit by an operative faith and this is most evident by that 6. of John 3. Inst Sacrifice from the rising of the Sun to the going down great is my name among the Gentiles and in every place there is sacrificing and there is offered to my Name a clean oblation Mal. 1. Answ 1. This Text is in none of the Apostles writings however being Scripture I answer 2. The sacrifice of the Mass is not in plain and formall tearms expressed in it It s your fals reading that brings in the word sacrificing Vatablus reads it Incensum offertur Incense is offered Pagnin and Arias Montanus speake to the same purpose 3. It may be more
both to pray with him and to anoint him which is far from the ceremony of extream unction thus far Cajetan 3. Saint James's unction is no Sacrament it neither pretends to the name of Sacrament nor refers to any express institution of Jesus Christ which is the property of Evangelicall Sacraments but Popish unction assumeth to it self this name and that in a proper acception against both Scripture and antiquitie Scripture mentioning onely Christs institution of Baptisme and the Supper and antiquity when it speaks of proper Sacraments doing no more Rabanus Maurus who lived about 800 years ago acknowledgeth no more but Baptisme and the Lords Supper Hence I conclude that Protestants though opposite to Popish fopperies are not contrary to Apostolicall Doctrine 11. Inst The Bishop of Romes supremacie in spirituall matters Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my Church Feed my sheep To thee will I give the keyes of the kingdome of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven whatsoever thou shalt tie on earth shall be tied in Heaven Matth. 16. Answ 1. Why do you seperate the Popes Spirituall from his Temporall power for we deny both and they are alike expressed in Scripture but 2. The Popes Supremacy in Spirituall matters is not in plain and formall tearms here expressed for 1. Here is no mention of any Pope or his Supremacy in Spirituall matters here is mention of Peter but few of your Popes have had that name 2. What is commanded and promised to Peter is commanded and promised to him not as Bishop of Rome but as an Apostle and therefore the same is commanded and promised to other Apostles The other Apostles are foundations as well as Peter and I am sure he is not the corner stone The keyes are promised to them as well as to him John 20.22 23. the other Apostles are to feed Christs sheep as well as he yea it is the duty of all Pastors Act. 20.28 3. What reason can be given why Peters supremacy should descend upon his Successors at Rome rather then his successors at Antioch 4. If Peter had any supremacy it was in regard of Apostleship so as to be the prime Apostle and have power over the rest but Apostolike power is not derived by succession upon any The truth is Peter had no power over the rest from Christ for Christs gift of such a power would have prevented the Apostles contention about supremacy or would have answered the question better then those words wherewith Christ did answer He might easily have said why do you strive which should be greatest know you not that I have made Peter your Prince and have made him Supreme but Christ thought of no such matter Thus I have shewed that Protestants do not professe a Doctrine contrary to the Apostles and I further adde that the Apostles doctrine expressed in Scripture is fully received by them We believe all that the Apostles have taught so far as God reveals their Doctrine to us It s therefore a most false slander to say that Protestants refuse some points the Apostles beleeved p. 65. We hold the Catholique faith entire and inviolate in Athanasius's sence we fully believe all the Articles of its Creed It s true we deny divers points that Papists believe we dislike the new articles of your late Creed which Athanasius as well as we received not into his Creed nor were they believed by the Apostles But you object sect 5. It is evident they were there being the same ground to assure us thereof as of Scripture or any other point they believed and that without which under a miracle there would not be the least knowledg of the Apostles belief to wit the Churches constant tradition Answ 1. It s most evident that the points Protestants deny were not believed by the Apostles For 1. The Scriptures mention them not the writings of the Apostles approve not of communion in one kind private masse prayer in an unknown tongue imagined worship auricular confession pardons indulgences restraint of people from reading Scripture or Clergy-men from marriage Popes infallibility sumpreamacy of temporal and spiritual power purgatory prayer for the dead or to Saints departed c. 2. The ancient Creeds do not mention any of these points which they would certainly have done if the Apostles had beleeved them much lesse do they make them necessary articles of faith See Caranz de concil conc Nic. p. 51. Syrm. p. 89. Constant p. 102. Tollet p. 131. Ephes p. 151. Calced p. 181. Read the Creeds of the Apostles of the Nicen Fathers of Syrmium Constantinople Tolet. Ephesus which Caranza calls a summe of all Christian Doctrine of the Romans with divers others and you shall not find one of your new articles so much as hinted in any of them 2. The proof of your evident assertion contains divers falsities as 1. That the Scripture is known only by Tradition or humane testimony whereas it gives testimony to it self as I have before shewed 2. That without the Churches constant tradition there would not be the least knowledg of the Apostles belief For 1. God can make the enemies of his Church the publishers and propagators of his truth Thus Cajetan notes that by the Apostacy and obstinacy of the Jews we know which are the true books of the old Testament 2. The Scriptures might be preserved though there should be a general apostacy and these could testifie of the Apostles belief 2 Reg. 22.8 as that book found in the days of Josiah testified of Moses's commands and threatnings 3. Christians for a long time had not the Churches Tradition i. e. the testimony of a general Councill informing them what was the Apostles belief or which were the books of Scripture 3. Those points of yours I mentioned cannot be evidenced to be the Apostles belief by the Churches constant tradition you cannot name one Author in every age since the Apostles out of whose writings you can prove that the Apostles maintained those Doctrines which we reject much lesse are you able to tell us of any visible Church or national Councill that will affirm it Concil Const Sess 13. The Councill of Constance acknowledgeth that Christ administred the Sacrament under both kinds and that the Primitive Christians did receive it under both kinds Can we then think that the Apostles thought communion under both kinds unlawfull How then durst he so administer it Was his practise contrary to his belief This would be a great wickedness not to be imagined of an Apostle 4. We approve of the Churches tradition as a witness of what the Apostles believed but only in subserviency to Scripture which doth principally discover what was the Apostles belief if your Councills had told us that the Apostles administred not the Sacrament in both kinds or that they allowed of prayers in an unknown tongue we would not beleeve your Councills because the Scripture speaks contrary to them and
it is first to be regarded But you reply to this p. 67. As Scripture so what it contains would be as to belief hid and unknown but for the Churches information Answ This hath been formerly confuted Scripture gives a firmer and more convincing testimony to it self then men can give to it The efficacy of the word in the heart of him that reads and meditates in it is more powerfull to perswade him that its the Word of God then a 1000 Fathers or Popes the same may be said of the truth contained in it When the error of administring the Sacrament of the Supper was the Doctrine of the Church I appeal to any man to tell me whether the Scripture would not have manifested what was truth better then Pope Innocentius or any of his erring nephewes I 'm sure the Pope would not have informed what was truth according to Scriptures in that point and yet there were means of finding out the truth else all his Proselites had erred with him which would be dangerous to affirm It is the Scripture that declares and manifests the Church and therefore must be more mafest than the Church But you prove it thus The knowledge faith requires must be supernaturally certain and consequently an effect of the Holy Ghosts pâ—culiar assistance which is onely warranted to the Church and not to every private reading and reasoning Answ If you speak of the Holy Ghosts infallible assistance we grant the Apostles had it and therefore their knowledge was certain and their writings we ground our faith upon but this assistance is not now given to any You plead but for the Holy Ghosts peculiar assistance how this is warranted not onely to the Church but to private Christians For first Christ promiseth it to them Jer. 31.34 and assures them God will give it them if they ask Luke 11.13 2. Christ invites them to seek it Apoc. 3.18 3. The Apostle affirms that private Christians have it 1 John 2.27 The pride of Popish Prelates is intollerable they forsooth and none else have the peculiar assistance of Gods spirit to enlighten them Poore Christians must be robd of their spirituall Pastor that Popish Priests may be the onely teachers But I think your conscience struck you when you were penning this sentence and therefore to evade it in stead of saying Not to provide persons you say not to every private reading or reasoning which makes as much against your Popes and Priests as private Christians if those do ever reade and reason in private I grant that the Spirit is not given to every private person in every reading and reasoning No more as I said is he given to every or any Pope in every private reading or reasoning When the Pope speaks not ex Cathedra he 's as subject to ignorance and error as the poorest Christian and may erre by your own confession and he 's not alwayes in his chair But I dare affirm that private Christians in their serious reading of Gods Word joyned with Prayer and diligence may expect the peculiar assistance of God to lead them into the knowledge of Gods truth this is clearly promised Psal 25.9.12.14 upon our asking of him James 1.5 If any man want wisedom Spiritum illuminatorem saith the gloss Let him ask it of God c. The Psalmist prayeth that God would open his eyes that he may understand wonderfull things of Gods Law so should private Christians do through the want of spirit the Jews though they read the Scriptures they understand them not the vail is upon their eyes but it is to be done away in Christ by the Spirit of the Lord. Here is not a word of the Churches taking away this vail 2. You prove it by S. Paul S. Paul is plain Let men esteem us as the Ministers of Christ and dispensers of Gods mysteries 1 Cor. 4. Answ The words indeed are plain and easy to be understood but I know not how they make for you they do not prove that the Apostles had the peculiar assistance of Gods Spirit much less do they prove that private Christians are not capable of it All that they prove is this that the Corinthians ought not to contemn or vilifie Paul or any but account of them according to their calling as Christs servants and dispensers of divine mysteries 3. You prove it by experience saying Experience confirms no less in Seperatists who laying aside the Church and presuming upon their own readings and reasonings have vented as many absurd and extravagant impieties as they had base and exorbitant passions p. 68. A. 1. When men presume upon their readins and raesonings without having respect to the Spirit of God it 's no wonder if they err Reason is no sufficient guide in exposition of Scripture Flesh and blood reveals it not to us but the Spirit Hence it is that those Heretiques in Jude are noted by their want of the Spirit and this was the cause of their erring 2. The Church never put forth any Publike Commentary whereby the sense of Scripture might appear and therefore the Churches Exposition is a meer Chimera Suppose a Christian should desire to acquaint himself with Scripture as that which you say contains part of Gods Will but he dares not venture upon it himself and therefore desires to be guided by the Churches Exposition now he knows not where to meet with it I pray Sir could you direct him where he might find it The Fathers do not all of them alwayes agree and he finds their Expositions often rejected by your learned Doctors and somtimes they deserve not to be received Your Doctors of the Church are as different in their Expositions as can be as that Text of James some understand it of Extream Unction others deny that Extream Unction can be proved by it and for your Popes they seldome expound Scripture and when they do it their Expositions are oft irrational as that of Rom. 8.6 by Lyricus and seldom obvious In this case either the study of Scripture must be quite laid aside or else there must be some other guide thought of besides the Church which can be no other then the Spirit of God by which we are enabled to judg which is the true sense of Scripture Vid Can. loc Theol. l. 7. c. 3. Cajetan seems to approve of this when he adviseth that no man dislike a new sense of Scripture because it dissents from Ancient Fathers for God hath not confined the Exposition of Scripture to their sences but to Scripture it self Which way of finding out the sense of Scripture by comparing one place with another is done by the help of Gods Spirit principally though the advise of Pastors may come secondarily in as subservient thereunto 3. Those who have cried up the Church as some of them vented as absurd and extravagant impieties as any Schismatique What more absurd and extravagant Exposition can there be then that of Lyricus on Rom. 8. They that are married cannot
please God as if all the Saints of God who were married cannot please God or that of Harding that by Peters Sword is meant the Popes Civil Power or that of the Lawyers that by Cardines terrae 1 Sam. 2.8 are figured the Cardinals by whose Counsel the Church of Rome is governed See Willets third Pillar of Popish Doctrine yea and such as are grounded upon base and exorbitant passion as where they reject the Expositions of Fathers meerly in opposition to Protestants See Maldon in Joan. 9.62 and Bellarm. l. 1. de extr Vnct. c. 2. init both which reject a generally received Exposition because the Protestants entertain it 4. The Scripture it self rightly used and judged gives sufficient information of it's owne meaning especially in fundamental points which are plain and easie to him who useth discretion in searching of it If it were not thus to what purpose did holy Writers set Pen to Paper Yea and write not only to Bishops and Pastors but to private Christians also It were a vain thing to write so as that those they wrote to could understand nothing of their meaning besides it 's more then probable that the Apostles Preaching was of the same obscurity with their writing To this you give us this answer The Apostles did set Pen to Paper for a greater confirmation of the truth to bear witness to the sincerity and candor of the Churches teaching and preaching and not for every one to be his own carver and interpreter Repl. 1. Your answer is more for than against us for who are they that must have the truth confirmed to them and must have a witness to assure them that the Teaching and Preaching of the Church is sincere and candid are they not the People who are commanded to try the Spirits 1 Joh. 4.1 and are commended for searching the Scriptures to find whether what the Apostles Preached was the truth Act. 17.11.12 How can the Scriptures witness to them that the Pastors of the Church teach truth if they cannot understand the Witnesses language or what confirmation can we have of truth if we must not meddle with that which is the Rule and Touchstone of Truth The Apostle Peter commends Christians for giving heed to the Scriptures 2 Ep. 1.19 calling them a light shining in a dark place whereby he demonstrates their clearness and conspicuity even to private Christians giving heed thereto 2. Your words make much against your selves for they imply 1. That the truth is more confirmed by Scripture than by the Church therefore the Church as to confirmation of truth is inferiour to Scripture 2. That the Teaching and Preaching of the Church is not to be believed upon that account but because of it's consent with Scripture it receives its evidence of sincerity and candor from Scripture both which are certain truths but not agreeable to your Positions 3. That the Scriptures are to be translated into those Tongues People can understand else they cannot be assured of the truth by them nor can the Scriptures be a witness to them of the sincerity and candor of the Churches teaching and preaching Can an idiot know by Aristotles Greek works whether Expositors deal sincerely and candidly in their commenting on him or at his works a greater confirmation of Philosophicall truths to such a one than their Commentaries If you have any ingenuity you cannot affirm it 4. That the Scriptures are the rule of Faith whereby even the Churches teaching is to be tried 5. Whereas you say the Apostles did not set pen to paper For every one to be his own Carver and interpreter reply 1. The Apostles did therefore write that every one might hear Rev. 2.7.17.29 and give heed thereto 2 Pet. 1.19 and understand and beleeve John 20.31 yea and might teach them their children 2 Tim. 3.15 wtih 1.5 and others related to them Acts 18.24.26 Aquila and Priscilla instruct Apoâ—â—os in the way of the Lord which was done by interpreting Scripture to him concerning those points wherewith he was not well acquainted and yet Burgensis saith of them that they were simple persons persons of no great learning nor eminency in the Church excepting for piety 2 'T is true that the Apostles did not write with an intent that every one should wrest it as the Apostle saith some did 2 Pet. 3.16 which may be applied as well to Clergy men as private Christians but they intended an application of it to Christians particular use and that even by themselves privately and not onely publikely But you urge for this you have said It was ever held an effect of great improvidence and occasion of intollerable confusion for the people in any Common-wealth to have the freedom of construing the Law therefore wise Lawmakers to shew their care and foresight for the good and weal-publick as they caused their Laws to be written so they appointed certain select persons of integritie and abilitie to dispence the same If this be true as it is c. Resp. 1. It s most false that you say It was ever held c. Tholosanus tells you that Advocates are of little use in Poland Tholos syntag juris L. 49. c. 6. Sect. 29 Azor. inst Moral part 3. l. 13. cap. 29. dub 2. but every man is admitted to plead his own cause Himself and other Casuists when they tell who is prohibited from being Advocate do not exclude private men from pleading their own cause See Tholos and Ararius who are so far from holding it an effect of great improvidence c. that they allow it You finde the Apostle Paul pleading for himself Acts 24.12 13 18 19. and 25. and 10 11. in both which places the Apostle pleads for himself and that by Law which he interprets for himself Now he would never have done this had he thought it an effect of great improvidence or an occasion of intollerable confusion as you suggest it Advocates do not substantially but accidentally intervene in publick judicatories as Zorius speaks Sup. cap. 12. init Now that which onely accidentally intervenes may sometimes not intervene 2. The reason you give of Law-makers appointing certain select persons of integrity and ability to dispence the Laws it s an occasion of intellerable confusion c. Is not the proper reason of that appointment but rather the true and main reason is this All men are not able to understand the meaning and sence of Law though some may be able now a good Law maker doth consult the welfare of the meanest subject If some men should handle their own cause they would indanger it through their unskilfulness of Law and the subtilty of the adversaries So that the danger is not so much confusion and disorder as the prejudice of civil and particular rights every man not being able to deal with every adversary nor to understand every case in Law 3. All that you say makes onely against a publick pleading in Courts of Judicature which doth not take away private mens
the minor For proof whereof you give us a definition and then apply it to your Church that is first you suit your definition to the Roman Church and then you bring your Roman Church to the definition The definition is The true Catholick Church is a society of men linked together in the profession of one Faith in the use o◠the same Sacrament and under the government of Bishops and Pastors lawfully sent that are able to shew their personall and doctrinall succession from Christ and his Apostles without the least interruption Answ 1. It might rationally be expected from you that when you bring a definition upon the truth whereof the validity of your argument depends you should have fetcht it from some Fathers or other approved Authors and not out of your own brain It s not suitable for the seller to make himself a measure and then confine the buyer thereunto or for a subject to frame a definition of Law and according to that proceed against his neighbour as a breaker of the Law If it could be thus what man could not lay a foundation for suits yea and carry away anothers right by his new definition I challenge you or any other to shew me this definition of the Catholick Church in any of the Ancients or later Fathers either Greek or Latine till which time I might justly defer an answe◠The former part I confess is warrantable but desinit in piscem mulier formosa Supernè But you seem to say you prove it in every part of it by Scripture I shall therefore first examine whether it be in Scripture and then whether it such as it is be a pliable to the Roman Church 1. Say you A societie of men and he gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists others Pastors and Doctors A most necessary part of the definition you did well not to commit the poof of the Churches manhood because none denies it 2. Linked together under the government of Bishops and Pastors lawfully sent Eph. 4. Heb. 5. Rom. 10.4 this we grant 3. That are able to shew c. The mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of mountains and all Nations shall flow unto it Is 2. He hath placed his Tabernacle in the Sun Psal 118. Sir you are now gotten to Rome and the Scripture leaves you what sober man that reads these Texts would infer that the Bishops and Pastors of the Church are able to shew c. but it sticks in your teeth and therefore you stop at shew And truly I may well apply to you the words of the Psalmist Ps 39.6 with a little variation surely you walk in a vain shew surely you are disquieted in vain you heap up Scriptures and know not how to apply them The Scriptures you urge are not applicable to any thing you say Isa 2. Prove the amplitude of the Church under the Gospell by the access of the Gentiles by reason of whom also it shall be more glorious then formerly But what is this to the shewing of personall or doctrinall succession of the Churches Bishops Sure you do not understand by the Mountain of the House of the Lord onely the Bishops of the Church and by its being confirmed in the top of the mountains that all the Bishops of the Church shall be personally visible Herein you would surpass the very worst of doting Rabbins 2. In quoting Psal 118. you commit two errours one personall quoting Psal 118. for 19. The other vulgar reading after the Latine He hath placed his tabernacle in the Sun which is a most false reading as ingenious Papists confess Vatablus reads it thus Soli posuit tabernaculum in ipsis He hath placed a tabernacle in them i. e. the Heavens for the Sun that is as he notes Domicilium circumscripsit in coelis c. He hath made an house for it in the Heavens that there as in an high Theatre is might be better seen Lyranus tells us In Hebraeo c. In the Hebrew and in Hieroms translation according to the Hebrew it is thus He hath placed for them a tabernacle for the Sun Now do you think that either Vatablus Lyr◠Hierom or the Hebrews would infer that because the Sun is in the Heavens c. it s able to shew its own or Bishops personall succession I wonder you are not ashamed to reject the Hebrew and Hierom and produce a false translation to so little purpose as you do for suppose in both these Texts it were proved that the Church had a shew or were manifest yet it makes not for a successive visibilitie of an Hierarchicall Church Yea they clearly prove that the Church may be sometimes hid for the clouds may both make the mountains invisible and obscure the lustre of the Sun as common experience testifieth 3. Their Personall and Doctrinall succession He gave some Doctors and Pastors c. untill we all meet in the unitie of Faith Eph. 4 Indeed here is proved that there shall be Pastors in the Church till the end of the world God will still raise up some to preach his truth though there may be interruptions in particular Churches nor doth Matth. 28. prove a non interruption of succession of Bishops but only a non interruption of Christs presence But suppose Isa 2. Psal 19. Prove a visibilitie and Eph. 4. Prove a succession and Matth. 28. Prove a non interruption Yet to say therefore the Church must be able to shew a succession without interruption is fallacia compositionis And now let any man judge whether your definition be spirituall or no. 2. This definition is not a right definition according to the rules of Logick it s not adaequata definito not fitted to the Catholick Church For first it may agree to a particular Church as well as to the Catholick as is evident to any that examines it And secondly it doth not agree to the Catholick i. e. The universall Church For first Bishops and Pastors do not shew succession as Governours of the Catholick Church but as Bishops and Pastors in particular Churches The Popes shew their succession as Bishops of Rome The Patriarch of Constantinople shews his succession as Patriarch of that place thus the Bishops of England shew their succession in the Church of England He that shews a personall succession of government over the Catholique Church must produce not a Pstoral or Episcopal but Apostolical succession which Papists themselves lay no claim to 2. There are no such Bishops and Pastors as can shew a personal and doctrinal succession without the least interruption 3. This difinition comprehends not Popes and Bishops who are parts of it The Catholique Church as visible and distinct from particular Congregations is more truly defined by Lorichius in these words Sensus unitatis ecclesiae est c. The sence of the article of one Church is to believe that all the Congregations of the faithful are one Churche and that
profession of Doctrine In your next words you call it Apostolical power which may extend to jurisdiction as well as to Order to Government as well as Doctrine but in the confirmation of your assumption you only though frequently express it by a power to preach and inculcate the truth which is no more then profession of true Doctrine against errors and thus it must be understood if the Argument be good 2. Your felf overthrow the truth of this proposition 1. In saying Apostolicall power and doctrine where Communion is not wanting are sure evidences of the true Catholick Church whereby you declare then your enumeration of particulars in the proposition is unsufficient and may be where the true Church is not viz. where communion is wanting and this is more necessary with you than any thing you express 2. Whereas in the former Chapter we asserted the profession of true doctrine to be a mark of the true Church you vehemently opposed it as an error how comes it then to be a truth in this Chapter Is it a truth or no truth a Popish truth and a Protestant error 3. These marks or rather this mark may agree to particular Churches and have rather agreed to any particular Church than the now Roman Yea they may agree to particular Christians of other Churches as to Chrysostome Bishop of Constantinople Athanasus Bishop of Alexandria Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem whom you mention and were distinct Patriarchs from the Bishop or Patriarch of Rome yea every private Christian hath a power from Christ to embrace true Doctrine and to make profession of it and to contend earnestly for it against all false doctrine Answ 2. To your minor I deny it to be true your proof of I shall mainly examine The second Proposition say you I clear by instances in and from the Apostles down to Luther Zuinglius and Calvin and those of such points as Catholicks and Protestants mainly differ in Parturiunt montes c. Who would not here expect some great matter from this Doctor yet who ever examines his instances shall finde nothing but a heap of lies and fopperies For my discovery hereof I shall shew particularly what this man undertakes and how he swerves from his undertaking 1. He undertakes things 1. To produce a Catalogue of such points wherein Catholicks and Protestants mainly differ So that to bring instances of such doctrines as Protestants disclaim as well as Papists is to lie grosly and to befool the Reader 2. To produce the generallity or universall company of Christians as appears by those words Christians generally maintained so often repeated in the following instances 3. To produce this company professing c. when any opposition was first made whereby is implied that when the Protestant supposed errors did arise in severall ages these Authors and Councels did then arise and oppose them 4. To bring in the testimony of Roman Catholicks for he proves that the Roman Church is Catholick because of their constant opposition of Heresies in all ages since Christ 2. The frothiness of his undertaking appears in his swerving from it which comes not to be delivered 1. As for his instance of such points c. who that read his Profession but would expect a Catologue of Protestant errors from the Apostles down to Calvin but behold a Catalogue of such Doctrines as Protestants and Papists comply in the opposition of Here are fifteen instances of which the six first together with the eighth tenth eleaventh and twelfth as he delivers it fourteen and part of the fifteenth we utterly disclaim as none of the doctrine of the Protestant Churches but a dead bastard which the whore of Rome hath laid at our side insteed of our own living child which this author hath carefully hid from the eyes of his followers making shew onely of hâ—s own deformed bastard But lest I should seem to affirm rather then prove Our disowning of them I shall take a little liberty to demonstrate what is the judgement of the Protestant Churches in those points that this Author mentions as errors only first I will advertise the reader of a jugling feat of this Romish artist 't is this when he brings in Fathers or Councels in opposition to some errors he turns them from opposing those erors to assert some doctrines not directly contrary to those errors but rather to the true doctrine of Protestants as S. 2. in opposition to S. Magus opening Heaven to Faith unaccompanied with good works he brings in the Apostles and Austin asserting that good works are Absolutely necessary to salvation Sect. 3. in opposition to Eunomius attributing Justification to a simple act of faith he brings in Irenaeus and Austin affirming that Faith alone doth not justifie Sect. 4. Whereas Florinus blasphemed God to be the Author of sin he brings in Tertullian Origen and the Trent Councell asserting that God doth no more but permit as if God could do no more about sin but he must be the Author of it Having premised this I come to his instances 1. Instance Simon Magus took upon him to open Heaven to Faith unaccompanied with good works Ans Is this the doctrine of Protestants or do they open Heaven to Faith accompanied with good works Do not all Protestants require that the Faith which justifies be an active or operative Faith and proclaim other Faith dead read concerning the necessitie of works the English Confession Non tamen dicimus c. Yet we say not that men may live dissolutely as if it were sufficient for a Christian onâ—ly to be dipt and to believe and nothing else expected from him true Faith is living and cannot be idle Read the Articles of the Church of England especially Act. 12. Albeit that good works which are the fruits of Faith and follow after Justification cannot put away our sins and endure the severitie of Gods judgement yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith c. Again Act. 17. They which are predestinated they walk religiously in good works c. To all this the reverend Assembly of Divines consent saying Good works are the fruit and evidences of a true and lively Faith that believers are created thereto that having their fruit in holiness they may have the end Confess of Faith c. 16. Sect. 2. eternall life If you say Protestants hold they are not absolutely necessary I answer this was not the error of Simon Magus nor is the contrary opinion the professed Doctrine of the Church of Rome as appears to any that reads the Councel of Trent Session 6. or of her children see the Rhemists on Lu. 23.43 2. Inst Eunomius attributed to a simple act of faith virtue and efficacie to cleanse and wash a-away whatsoever ordure and spots of sins Tolet. in c. 3. ad Rom. This is no Protestant doctrine We fully consent to the speech of the Jesuite Tolet. Advertendum est c.
he will gather strength by observing that the above named Luther Zuinglius Calvin c. But few days or months before their opposition held as the rest of Christians did in alâ— points with the said Company and that neither they nor any of them have left to posterity the least mention of any number of men in being before their opposition with whom to joyn and side to make good the same c. Ans 1. How this strengthens your proof I see not Should the Jews have objected against our Saviours and the Apostles Converts that their Jewish Doctrine was generally received and preached yea and that these Converts as Paul c. but a few days or months before their opposition held as other Jews did Would this think you make for them that they were the true Church The Gentiles the greatest part of the World profest against Christ and his truth and those who were called out of them to receive the truth did but a little before comply with the Gentiles against Christ Must this therefore strengthen the Gentiles cause against the truth It may be your self and others who have apostalized from the true religion but a few months before your opposition held as the rest of true Orthodox Christians did yet this will not even in your conceit advance your cause 2. It s questionable whether Luther Zuinglius and Calvin did hold with you in all points and that but a few days or months before their publique opposition of you The Speech of Alphonsus à Castro seems to import the contrary when he tells us that a great company seemed to wait for Luther and joyned with him as soon as he appeared I cannot think but that Luther was against the sale of indulgencies longer then a few weeks or months before his opposition 3. It s a gross lye that there is not left the least mention of any number of men in being before their opposition with whom to joyn and side I have fully shewed the contrary to this and therefore remitting the Reader to what I have formerly said I come to his next Argument Arg. 3. That Company composeth and maketh up the Catholick Church which is acknowledged even by their adversaries to be Apostolical but the above mentioned Company is acknowledged even by their adversaries to be Apostolical therefore that Company composeth and maketh up the Catholick Church The first Proposition say you is evident forasmuch as Apostolical in a right and genuine sence signifieth to believe as the Apostles believed which is to be Catholick Arg. 1. It seems now that profession of Apostolical Doctrine is a convincing argument to prove a Company to be the Catholick Church But Sir why did you not approve of this argument when we brought it for the Protestant Church Or how could you without blushing tell us That true Doctrine which is none other then Apostolical doctrin they being reciprocal is no mark of a true Church it being often found among Schismaticks who for want of Communion cannot make a true Church pag. 60. If Protestants can prove they believe those doctrines the Apostles believed will you acknowledge them the true Apostolical and Catholick Church We desire no more but that leaving humane constitutions and traditions you would examine our Doctrines by Scripture the true Epitome of Apostolical Doctrines and if we consent not hereunto proclaim us Hereticks 2. Your Explication of the word Apostolical is good and it evidently shews that Personal Succession is inferiour to Doctrinal in denominating a Church Apostolical and Catholick and that the Protestants supposed want of Personal uninterrupted Succession is no hinderance to their being the Catholick Church All which doth extreamly weaken your former doctrines 3. I deny your Minor Proposition and come to examine your proof of it You say It appears no less clear in several Protestant Writers who expresly account that the Apostles first planted the Christian Faith in England that the same was retained by Bishops and Pastors from the first Plantati n to S. Austine that in substance it differed not from that which S. Austine brought in that S. Austine was sent by Gregory the Great Bishop of Rome to convert the Saxons in England to the Roman Faith that the Roman Church in Gregory tâ—e Greats time was the same it is at this present c. All which you reduce to this Syllogism S. Austins Church and Doctrine were Apostolical S. Austins Church Doctrine were the same with the now Roman therefore the Roman Church and Doctrine are Apostolical I answer 1. By S. Austins Church I suppose you mean the Roman Church in S. Austins time as when you say The Roman Church in Gregory the Great 's â—ime was the same it is at this present Hereupon I particularly answer Gregory 1. To your Major That the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the time of Austin and Gregory was the same with the Doctrine of the Apostles 1. The Apostle tells us That even in his time the mystery of iniquity did begin to work and succeeding Ages discover its progress Most Ages did contribute some materials towards Rome's Temple though the nearer to the Apostles were more opposite and so more sparing in their contributions to it Hence it was that in the first five hundred years there is little to be found tending to Popery and that which is is rather in notions and terms then propositions as in most ancient Fathers we read the words Altar Sacrifice Merit c. yet it will never be proved that they used them for that which Papists now will have theÌ„ to signifie In the next age there was a greater decay of purity than before ignorance did much aboudd superstitioÌ„ attendant on it In this age did Gregory Austin live the former being sirnamed Rainold praelect de lib. Ap c. tom 1. prael 39. p. 365 Sixt. Senen bill Stae l. 5. Au. 137 F. Hier. Porter in the life of S. Gregory p. 266. Chronic. Carion lib. 4. p. 552 The Great indeed he was great as learned Rainolds observeâ— in comparison of those who succeeded him some of them who were before him yet was he short of apostolical purity being guilty of superstition and errour in divers points as the adjudging of children unbaptized to the torments of Hell extending Gods promise of Salvation even to Reprobates making Gods decree mutable and praying for such as are already damned as in the Case of Trojan Carion in his Chronicles attributes to him divers errours as Invocation of Saints and dedication of Temples to them a wrong perswasion of Monkish profession Works of Supererrogation Satisfactions Vows Virginity an opinion of sacrificing Christs body and blood for the dead whereunto he was moved by the report of Apparitions And besides all these he is noted as superstitious in imposition of Ceremonies and those some of them Jewish which are not fit to be imposed on the Church of Christ And as Gregory was guilty so
us Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law being made a curse for us that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles Surely he hath born our griefs carried our sorrows He was wounded for our transgressions he was bruised for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace was upon him and with his stripes we are healed All which refer to this state of humiliation from which we have long since passed I would have L. B. or any Papist to shew me what benefit we have by these sufferings or how they tend to our redemption and salvation When dogs cats mice eat and tare in pieces Christ's body or a weak stomackt Priest spues up the body of Christ into some filthy place are we advantaged hereby or can we glory in these sufferings in this Cross of Christ 2. There may be other things infer'd as 1. That the Priest that either through negligence suffers Christs body to be torn in pieces of dogs cats mice or that willingly deliver it to wicked men and miscreants is a Judas a betrayer of Christ and you may know him by his sop dipt in the wine which none of the people partake of 2. That the Jews and heathenish Romans were more mercifull to Christ then the present Priests and Pharisees of Rome Antichristian Those delivered him into the hands of men these give him into the mouths of dogs cats mice Those preserved him whole not breaking a bone of him these tare him in pieces by wild beasts Those gave him an honourable interment He made his grave with the rich these buried him in the bellyes of beasts or cast him into the draught 2. I come to shew the contrariety of this Doctrine to Scripture 1. Some Scriptures affirm that Christ is in Heaven and must be contained there till the restitution of all things Acts 3.21 That the Apostle Heb. 9.24 gives the reason of it He is entred into Heaven it â—elf now to appear in the presence of God for us which is the work of the High Priest within the vaile and Primasius to this purpose saith Introire autem Iesum c. We say that Jesus is entred into Heaven according to his Manhood Primas apud Lyr. in Heb. 9.12 for as God he is every where Again Joh. 16.28 I come forth from the Father and am come into the world again I leave the world and go to the Father If you ask how he left the world the Interlineary truely tells you he did it Corporali discessione non gubernatiâ—ne presentiae By a removall of his body c. He speaks of his local removing not of his lying hid in the world Indeed ver 16. he speaks of his invisibility A little while and ye shall not see me but the reason was not because he would goe up and downe hid under the forms and species of bread and wine but because he went to the Father as Theophilact from the Text doth truely note Yea further we finde the Scripture expresly denying his presence on earth and that by a weightie reason Heb. 8.4 If he were on earth he should not be a Priest is he could not perform all the rites of his Priesthood For some of them require his presence in the Holy of Holies and there he could not be if he were on earth this is clearly the Apostles Argument Christ could not be in the state of humiliation and exaltation at one and the same time if he be in that state he is not in that too 2. We finde the Scriptures expresly denying that Christs corporall presence is in divers places at once Matth. 28.6 He is not here for he is risen which were no reason if your Doctrine were good for he might be there and risen too To conclude there is not any part of Gods Word which gives the least countenance or incouragement to this Popish absurditie You answer The Word of God is plain and express for the presence of Christs body in the Sacrament and consequently in many places at once Reply You truly infer that if Christs body be really present in the Sacrament it must needs be in many places at once but this presence is not plainly and expresly delivered in Scripture The word This is my body which you mention do neither plainly nor expresly deliver it There are two things oppose your exposition of those words 1 The judgement of Fathers Tertul. lib. 4. contr Marc. c. 40. L. 3. c. 19. Theod. Dial. 1. 2. Aug. c. 12. contr Adimant Ep. 23. ad Bonif Concil Carth. 3. Can. 24. Bellarm. l. 3. de Eucharist cap. 23. Vasq in 3. part Thom. disp 180. t. 5. Cajet in 3. Thom. q. 75. Schoolmen and others Tertullian Theodoret and Augustine understand the words figuratively The third Councill of Carthage saith that here is in the Sacraments no more offered to God than bread and wine mingled with water c. Scotus affirms Non exstare c. That there is not any place of Scripture so express that without the Churches Declaration it can evidently compell us to admit Transubstantiation And this saith Bellarmine is not altogether improbable Yea Vasques further tells us that Scotus affirmed That the truth of these words of Consecration may be retained although the substance of bread and wine should remain in the Eucharist and blames certain professours of Divinitie that side with him and in speciall Cardinall de Alliaio for affirming that this way is possible and neither contrary to reason nor the authority of Scriptures yea its easier to be understood and more rationall than any other of this judgement is also Cajetan 2. Reason which teacheth first that neither one desperate can predicate of another i. e. as you express it when two distinct things of different kinds are affirmed of each other which you say cannot be true nor one thing of it self in the same consideration or respect and whereas you say that the body of Christ out of the Sacrament before the words began is affirmed to be in the Sacrament after they are ended This is not plainly or expresly delivered in the words of Christ for he must either have said That which was my body before the Sacrament is now my body in the Sacrament or this was my body before the Sacrament In saying This and is he informs us that he speaks of the Subject in its present capacity and therefore some by This understand Bread which is most agreeable to the context Christ took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples saying Take eat This is my body That which Christ took blessed brake and gave to them was Bread 1 Cor. 10.16 Now this is predicated improperly of Christs body Thus Christ is called a Doore John 10.7 a Rocke 1 Cor. 10.4 Circumcision is called the Covenant Gen. 17.10 The Sacramentall Cup is called the New Testament in Christs blood Luk. 22.20 I pray satisfie me what may be the reason why
Tradition Hence it was that some Jesuits of Ratisbone asserted it to be an Article of Faith That Toby's dog wagged his tail and your self say page 65. All points of Faith being equally founded on Gods Revelation are fundamentall and substantiall which Revelation is by the Word or Tradition Now I conceive you will at least urge Tradition for Gods Predetermination and the Virgins impeccable or sinless Conception 2. The determination of your Church in some Councell or by some Pope Extrao Commun l. 3. tit 12. c. 2. apud Azor. part 2. lib. 1. c. 21. Bin Tom. 4. p. 743. Now it s most evident that Sixtus the Fourth did decree them Hereticks who affirmed the Virgin Mary to be conceived in sin Concil Trin. sess 5. Concil Basil sess 36. apud Bin. though I deny not but he also disallowed the preaching of her purity because of the too great zeal in the Preachers of it Upon this decree of Sixtus The Councell of Trent having declared the universality of Originall sin in regard of persons doth make a formall exception of the Virgin Mary But before either that Pope or Councell The Councell of Basil is most clear for it decreeing it to be A pious Doctrine and agreable to Ecclesiasticall worship the Catholick Faith right reason and the Holy Scriptures and that it shall not be lawfull for any one to preach or teach any thing contrary to it nor is the other point of lesser concernment than this 2. Those that hold the opinions of the Dominicans are by you counted Hereticks for the former opinion they are judged to make God the Author of sin with Florinus or being a force upon the will with Origen for these are the inferences you raise from our Doctrine of Predetermination nor are you more charitable to us in regard of the other opinion of the Virgins Conception See the above mentioned Constitutions of Sixtus the Fourth where he brands the Dominicans with Heresie now Heresie is a rejection not of a mere opinion but of a point of Faith 3. If they be onely School nicities why do your Priests so much instill at least the latter of them into simple peoples ears as a matter of Faith why do they injoyn the observation of an holy day for her immaculate Conception Why doe they indanger Christs honour by making his mother equall with him in impeccability and that by a School nicitie which if such might be well rejected Secondly you Answer It is as untrue that generall and approved Councells have contradicted one another in matters of Faith or oecumenicall Decrees they have indeed talked and discoursed contrary yea later Counsels have altered and changed Lawes and Constitutions of Government made and established by former but this only proves that Counsels admit a liberty and freedom to debate matters of Religion and that what was once good and convenient may prove afterwards circumstances varying bad and inconvenient which no way prejudiceth belief Reply 1. You speak something fearfully as if you were afraid to lie yet would not prejudice your Church by acknowledging the truth You say They have talked and discoursed contrary and that because They havâ— freedome to debate matters of Religion yet they do not contradict one another in matters of Faith Here is strange stuffe yet may well serve a credulous Papist But tell me if the determinations of former Councells be unalterable as to Religion as it must be if they be infallible How come later Councells to have a liberty to debate those matters which have formerly been determined or to discourse and talk contrary to them Is it because former Decrees are obscure or later Councels ignorant or that these later Councels meet oneâ—y to see who is the best disputant amongst them Nay rather according to truth is it not in order to the disquisition of truth and to a Decree contrary to former Decrees if they be found faulty this seems granted by a Councel which saith That the Church doth propound divers Concil Senen apud Bin. Tò 4. part 2. pag. 150. and sometimes contrary decrees It cannot be only in order to ratification of the former decree for the former Councels infallibility is sufficient for that Or if the succeeding Councels ratification were useful it ought to be given without talking and discoursing contrary meerly upon the former debate and establishment So then their talk is either vain jangling to no purpose or it tends to alteration and amendment of that which hath been formerly decreed according to Augustines speech mentioned by you That often the precedent general Councels are mended by the following But you say They have altered and changed Laws and constitutions of Governments made and established by former and a little after Councels admit a liberty to debate matters of religion and that what was once goâ—d and convenient may prove afterwards circumstances varying bad and inconvenient Reply 1. If by Constitutions of Government you understand Government it self this will not agree with what you said against Calvin That Christians generally maintained and professed that the Government of the Church was unalterable by any mortal But if you mean onely such rules as concern the Execution of Government I say the alterations made by Councels have not been only of these nor does Augustin intend such things as will appear to any that considers the place you cite for it a Book of his against the Donatists in which his main drift is to prove against them that Baptisme was but to be administred once Now whereas the Donatists objected that Cyprian and the Bishops of Africk in a Councell did determine the lawfulnesse of re-baptization Augustine answers That the Scriptures cannot be doubted of but the writings of Bishops may be reprehended by others more prudent yea Provincial Councels must give way to General and the former general Councels themselves may be amended by the latter 2. It s most evident that the Alterations of succeeding Councels have been about matters of faith I suppose these are matters of faith 1. The Popes Supremacy his universal Headship and Lordship over other Patriarcks and Councels Bellarmine calls this one main pillar of Catholick Religion and one of the chiefe Heads of your faith for this you urge Councels yet there are many Councels contradict this as Concil Carthag 3. Can. 26. Concil Nic. 1. Can. 6. Concil Constantin 3. Can. 36. Concil Basil Sess 2. Where it is decreed that the Pope ought to be obedient to the Councel which decree hath beene freely imbraced and maintained by the French Papists against the Trentists 2. Communion under one kind is decreed by your latest Councels yet Cassander tells us that Communion in both kinds was by our Lords institution Apostolical tradition publick and perpetual custome of all times and further was confirmed by the Decrees of Popes and Councels 3. Worship of Images is established by later Councels yet the Councel of Eliberis Can. 36 and the seventh General Councel of