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
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
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
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
Christ which they had before resisted 4. Your fourth text shews if it be any thing to our present purpose that the Spirit and your Roman Church are two Masters that cannot both be served and therefore it s not strange you have opposed the Spirit whilst you have stood for your Churches interest But Sir know that the Spirit of God and the true Church are not contrary Masters much lesse the Spirit of God in private persons and the same Spirit in publique Ministers The Spirit of God is in the Church and in every particular and reall member thereof revealing himself to each according to the capacity and need of every member 2. You affirm concerning the Scriptures that the Scripture is deficient which you prove by Scripture and by Reason 1. By Scripture for Scripture attesteth it in that it refers to the Church Answ 1. The Scripture never refers to the Church for the perfecting of it that so it may become a perfect Rule of Faith Azor. instit moral part 2. l. 5. c. 24. ad finem if it do shew me where for I know not 2. Your own Authors confesse that the Church cannot make an article of faith how then can she supply the Scriptures deficiency 2. You attempt to prove it by reason saying reason makes it good because it declares not all points that Christians are bound to believe which they acknowledg themselves bound to beleeve Answ 1. I could bring many testimonies to prove that Scripture is a rule your selves grant it to be a rule when you call it Canonical with exclusion of other writings now it s no rule if it be not perfect for the rule that faith requires ought to be as full and ample as the duty of faith 2. The Scripture asserts that whatsoever we are bound to beleeve as necessary to salvation to be beleeved is contained in Scripture that noted place 2 Tim. 3.15 16. makes it evident the abundant utility shews its sufficiency to instruct any to salvation that speech of Biel Quomodo anima hominis In Can. miss lect 7. f. 146. c. How can the soul of man live the life of Righteousnâ—sse and Grace unlesse it know Gods will and those things which according to it are just or unjust to be done or to be left undone to be loved or to be hated to be fear'd or to be attempted and what are to be beleeved and wâ—at to be hoped for with what ever else is necessary to our salvation all which sola docet sacra Scriptura the sacred Scripture alone tâ—acheth Indeed we grant that all things to be beleived are not expresly set down in Scripture nevertheless what is not expressed may be deduced from that which is expressed or analogically reduced thereunto But I come to your instances of points of faith which Scripture declares not 1. Instance concerning Scriptures You say they declare not that those books of Scripture which are received for Canonical are so indeed that some are Canonical other some Apocriphal that they are determinately these or others â—nsw 1. They do declare that those books which are received for Canonical by Protestants are such and the Apocryphal books are not such For 1. One part of Scriptures gives testimony of another The New Testament bears witness of those books that go under the name of Moses the Prophets and Psalms again they give testimony to the New Testament Yea the whole Scripture doth bear witness to it self that it is the Word of God haveing those intinsecal notes whereby it may be known thus it is with the book of the creatures which sets forth the wisdom power and goodness of God and is therefore a witnesse thereof Now if it be asked whence it appears that this is a witnesse it must be granted that it appears by that order which is in the Creation together with the profitablenesse and usefullnesse of all things in their places The harmony consent spiritual profit c. of Gods Word in Scripture doth evidence that it is Gods Word and sacred Scripture If it were not thus that Scripture gave testimony of it self how doth the Church it self know Scripture to be Scripture She cannot plead Enthusiasme and the humane testimony of Fathers is no sufficient ground for infallibility 2ly All things are written by the Apostles which are necessary to be beleeved by all men Bellarm. de suffis script c. 11. these are Bellarmines words but to beleeve the Scriptures to be the Scripture is necessary for all men say you therefore it must needs follow that its written by the Apostles that the Scriptures are Scriptures 3ly By way of retortion I pray Sir how do you know that this or the other is the true Church for this Bellarmine saith must be certainly known in as much as all opinions depend upon his testimonies The same way that you say the Church may be known even by it self the same way do we know the Scriptures they give evidence to themselves 4th The exact knowledg of what books are Canonical is not absolutely necessary to be beleeved I deny not but the knowledg of Gods Word is thus necessary and this may be where that knowledg is wanting It cannot rationally be denyed that Christians for some hundred years after the Apostles did know the Word of God yet wanted exact knowledg of what books were Canonical nor was the knowledg of them judged necessary to salvation 2. Instance concerning the Jewish Sabboth You say The Scripture declare not that the Jews Sabboth â—s to be neglected and laid aside and the sunday solemnized An w. The Scriptures declare both The first Col. 2.16 17. Let no man judg you in respect of the Sabboth days which are a shaddow of things to come but the body is of Christ Azorius saith the precept of the Sabboth Azor. inst tuor p. 2. l. 1. c. 1. if you consider the determinate and set time did belong to the ceremonial Law and therefore was abolished by the death of Christ Now the Scriptures are most clear and full for the abolishing of the ceremonies For the second the Scriptures expresly teach the solemnization of Sunday 1 Cor. 16. Apoc. 1. Calling it the Lords day Rhem. amot on Gal. 4.10 The Rhemists say In the Apoc. c. 1. There is plain mention of the Sunday that is our Lords day unto which the Jewes Sabboth was altered 3. Instance Concerning the Creed you say The Scriptures declare not that the Creed is authentique and truly the Apostles Answ 1. If you consider the matter of it the Scriptures declare that it is truly authentique and the Apostles for the articles thereof are Apostolique Doctrine contained in the Scriptures Every article may be proved by them 2ly If you consider the form or composure of it that the Apostles made it each one of them addding an article to it this is not necessary to be beleived being but grounded on humane fallible testimony 4. Inst Concerning things indifferent
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
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
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
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
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
Popes Legates sitting in it yet pleased not the Pope by their decree in the second Session That the Pope ought to be subject to a general Council This was also the decree of the Council of Constantinople which notwithstanding was called by John the 24. and confirmed by Martin the 5 two Popes 3. Infallibility is not subjected in the body of the faithful for it 's a clear truth which Dr Featly observed Whatsoever the Romanists say of the infallibility of the Church they resolve it at last into the Authority of the Church Indeed if we speak of the universal visible Church as comprehending all Beleevers in the world it 's not possible that all should err for then Christ should want a Church but for particular Churches it 's most evident they are subject unto error Papists profess it openly of other Churches and sometimes confess it of the Roman The Council of Trent decree to reform many things in manners and doctrine in that Church and there was great need so to do Cassander ingeniously acknowledgeth a defection from the primitive Church Cassand Cons Act. 7. p. 929. both in regard of integrity of manners and discipline and also in regard of sincerity of doctrine and further saith that this Church hath provoked her Husband multis erroribus vitiis with her many errors and vices From all this it 's most infallibly true that the Roman in none of their Considerations is infallible I will now come to examine his Arguments Pag. 12. he begins with a supposition saying Supposing it for granted that Christs knowledg of Gods revealed Truth and his power to convey the same to belief raised his preaching and teaching to the full height and perfection of a Rule of Belief to the first Christians it cannot in reason be denyed he having communicated his said knowledg and power to the Apostles and in them to the succeeding Churches as appears by his own words Joh. 15. Joh. 20. but she may challenge a like interest and right in respect of after-Christians whence it follows that all matters of Belief as well other Points as Scripture are to be taken up upon her account and credit and that whatsoever comes upon any other score is to be reputed Apocryphal and no way appertaining to the obligation of Belief In answer hereunto I will first consider the Supposition and afterwards the inferences and proofs of them There are divers things herein questionable if not simply false 1. 'T is said Christs preaching and teaching was a Rule of Belief Ans If by these acts you understand the materia circa quam the matter of his preaching viz. the Scripture or Word of God then it 's true that his teaching was the Rule of Faith i. e. that which he taught and discovered to them was the Rule of Faith but if you understand it of his transient preaching as if by these acts he propounded to them a Rule of Faith for so your words seem to import it 's false for Christ by his preaching did not propound a new Rule of Faith but did onely reveal that rule of Faith which was before laid and was contained in the Scriptures of the Old Testament Hence it was that Christ sent his hearers to the Scriptures John 5.39 and himselfe did preach out of the Scriptures Luk. 24.25.26 27 44. c. Luk. 4.16 and that for this end as Beda notes that he might manifest himself to be the same that spoke in the Prophets Beda apud Lyran. and that he might remove that sacrilegious conceit that there was one God of the Old another of the New Testament Yea further Thus did the Apostles after him Act. 26.22 they preached nothing but what was contained in the Law and Psalms and Prophets 2. 'T is said was a Rule of Beliefe to the first Christian◠Ans And is it not a Rule of Belief unto us who are after-Christians Had the primitive Christians one Rule of Faith and we another If there be one Faith why not one Rule of Faith to all Christians why doth the Apostle exhort the Philippians and in them all Christians to walk by the same rule In eadem regulâ fidei Phil. 3.16 Gloss interl If there were one rule doth that blessing Gal. 6.16 extend only to the Primitive Churches and not rather to all Christians who were to walk by the same rule that they walked The teaching of Christ doth not make one rule and of the Apostles another but both reflect upon and explain one and the same rule of Faith 3. Whereas you say Christs knowledg of Gods revealed truth and his power to convey the same to belief raised his preaching c. Pon might have done well to have explained what knowledg and what power this is you speak of which is sufficient to qualifie a person for propounding a rule of Faith I conceive its requisite 1. that this knowledg extend to whatsoever Faith is to belief for seeing the rule of Faith must be exact containing neither more nor less then Faith is to belief hence it will follow the Propounder of this rule must know what is the adequate object of Faith This universality of Christs knowledg is hinted in one of the Texts you mention viz. Joh. 15. All I have learned of my Father I have made known unto you Here is first an universal knowledg and then the proposal of a rule suitable to this knowledg 2. That this knowledg be most certain and infallible no teaching can be a rule of belief but that which is grounded on infallible knowledg conjectural knowledg may be a ground of opinion not of Faith Hence is that expression Joh. 19.35 He that saw it bare record and his record is true and he knoweth that he saith true that ye might believe Now this infallibility in the subject knowing ariseth either 1. from the Divine Nature in the person Thus the persons in the Trinity are only infallible and for this cause it is that many learned Papists do deny that our Faith is resolved into the authority of the Church and Azorius tells us that in his time it was the common opinion of your Divines that Faith was ultimately resolved into God Inter Cathol tres sunt opiniones una est asserentium primam rationem in quam fides nostra ultimò resolvitur esse Deum revelantem quae sunt fidei Deus enim est prima summa veritas quaé falli ullo modo nec fallere potest ac ratio credendi debet esse talis ac tanta ut ei falsum subesse non possit Haec opinio quam sequitur Cajetanus est communi consensu in Theol. Scholis modo recepta Azor. instit Moral parl 2. l. 5. c. 24. q. 2. the revealer of the objects of Faith and that upon this account because he could neither deceive nor be deceived being the prime and chief Verity and the reason of Faith must be such as cannot deceive and for this reason he rejects
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
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
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
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
that being Priests you tell the world though against your minds that in your contention with us you are Anti-spiritists Anti-scripturists Anti-christians which is your name given you in Scripture In your Chapter after a subtile distinction betwixt the spirits virtue which you say is in all and the effects of it which are confined within narrow limits you come to shew who they are that have the gracious effects of Gods Spirit or his favour in them in order whereunto you say To know and disscern who they be the only way is to see their warrant and examine their works If their warrant prove that of miracles and their works good doubtless they have the favour of Gods Spirit if otherwise they are at the best but pretence-makers and ushâ—rs of innovation Answ 1. How or upon what ground you distinguish warrant from works as marks of Gods Spirit I know not this is a warrant for my belief that I have the Spirits favourable presence with me because I have good works which cannot proceed from any other fountain And hereby Christ and St. Paul as you say taught us to try men by and it stands with reason upon those accounts that you give Yet 2. It s false that they that want miracles have not the favor of Gods Spirit Amongst all the marks of a reprobate or enemy to God I do not find want of miracles to be any nor is the having of miracles a sign of one peâ—taking of the Spirits favour have all your Catholiques the gift of miracles or have none of them that want it the favour of Gods Sp rit You had need to arm them with a cordial Epistle against this uncomfortable doctrine Nay further Are all your Popes workers of miracles if we should suppose their works good I have read of the miracles of many of your Saints but I find little of the miracles of Popes Monks and votaries carry away the bell for miracles and dare you say your Popes have not the favour of Gods Spirit Lastly Sir are your self and companions workers of miracles If you be pray what are they Can you drink poison and not be hurt why then did not your Monk of Winstead Abby live after his potion Can you tread upon scorpions and they not sting you Can you speak with strange tongues which you have not learned Can you raise the dead make the lame to walk and the blind to see I know not that any of you claim a power of doing these Your pretence of casting out devils is a Jesuitical delusion of poor credulous ideots as I shall perhaps hereafter shew 3. I suppose your meaning is this they that hold their doctrine to be true which truth of Doctrine is an effect of Gods Spirit must prove it by good works and miracles so as that Doctrine that is not thus confirmed is false Doctrine as you assert in your next section But this is also untrue For 1. Miracles are not absolutely necessary for confirmation of Doctrine or of their calling who deliver it Unlesse 1. That which is taught be such as cannot be believed without miracles in regard of the strangness and newness of it Such was that Doctrine or teaching that Jesus the son of Mary was the Messiah promised that the Jewish ecclesiastical policy should see altered The ceremonial Law cease and that such and such events should happen in after-times these were our Saviours and the Apostles Doctrines and being such as I have shewed they needed confirmation by miracles 2. Unless those who Preach pretend to extraordinary inspiration and mission thus the Apostles and Prophets though not all of them shewed their extraordinary calling by miracles 3. When the Gospel began to be first planted and a Gospel Church gathered out of the World which did not acknowledg the Scriptures for true and therefore needed conviction some other way Hence 't is that miracles were common in the infancy of the Church but are not so now Sedulius upon 1 Cor. 14.22 where 't is said Sedul apud Lyran. Wherefore tongues are for a sign not to them that beleive but to them that believe not hath this note hic ostendit c. Whereas it said that signs were given in the behalf of infidels its manifest that faith encreasing they cease to which your Rhemists consent saying that the extraordinary gift of Tongues was a miraculous sign in the primitive Church Rhem. on 1 Cor. 14.22 to be used especially in the Nations of the Heathen for their conversion Gregory saith What shall we not beli ve if we do no miracles These were necessary in the beginning that faith might be cherished with miracles Greg. Theoph. apud Lyran. in Mark 16.17 but now faith being confirmed they are not necessary but it sufficeth that Doctrine be confirmed by the good works of those who preach and publish it as Theophilact speaketh I conceive your conscience check'd you for speaking of miracles and therefore your proofs in the next Section make only for good works which we grant 2ly From your Doctrine you make this inference whence it is plain that the Spirit of Spiritists is a false imposture a meere figment and delusion Answ This is nothing but a Jesuitical goundless imputation raised upon three grosse lies 1. Inasmuch as its destitute of miracles Answ 1. The Doctrines we teach being the Doctrines of our Saviour and his Apostles hath been confirmed by miracles in the primitive times both in them that taught and in them also that beleived it Mark 16.17 and this sufficeth to intitle us to miracles to this purpose is that of Chrysostom Si quis dicat sed non vidâ—â—us haec signa nunc fieri c. If any say but we see not these signs to be done now Chrysost Tom. 5. de resur ser 33. p. 521. c It may be answâ—red there is no difference whether they be done now or were done in time past Indeed for present miracles as we have them not so we need them not Our ministers pretend to no extraordinary inspiration nor to any Prophetical or Apostollical mission we make no alteration of the state of the Church from what it was by Christs institution nor teach any thing but what we ground upon the Word of God When you ask us to shew miracles we answer you in the words of your St. Bâ—net when he was urged to raise up a countrymans son Recedite fratreâ— recedite haec nostra non sunt c. Go your waies brethren Gaz. in Cassian Collat. 15. c. 2. Aug. apud Gaz. ibid. go your waies from us miracles belong not to us bâ—t to the holy Ap stles why do yâ—u lay burdens upon us which we cannot bear It s no lesse than a tempting of God now to attempt them Notable is the speech of Augustin to this purpose Quando tibi hoc suggerit inimicus c. When the enemy suggests this to thee what a man art thou What a Christian Hast thou wrought
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
do is neither to men nor their fancies but unto God himself CHAP. X. Of the Protestant Church AFter an unconceivable distinction betwixt Protestants and Spiritists is Lutherans Zuinglians Calvinists in the first words of this Chapter you tell us That this Chapter pretends to lay open the many shapes Protestants put their Church into to make her passe for true Answ 1. The shapes you lay open are not many 'T is true you mention five but there are two distinct ones only to which al the rest may be reduced viz. lawfull Pastors and true Doctrine 2ly The shapes as you call them of Protestants or the notes of the truth of their Church as themselves propound them are not many but very few 3ly You lay not open what Protestants they are that form these several shapes that so your Reader might examine them himself and see what they say for themselves and whether you deal candidly with them in reporting their opinions Your dishonest dealing with Gods Word makes us suspect you deal no better with men Before I come particularly to the shapes I shall premise for the Readers information that there are ordinarily two only notes whereby Protestants prove their Church true viz. the pure preaching of Gods Word and the right administration of the Sacraments to which some few add as a third the use of right Eclesiastical Discipline But this man as if he had known nothing of Protestants judgment or had no mind to encounter with them in their way wholly omits the plea of right administration of the Sacraments and brings the other but in the last place spending the most of his Chapter about personal succession of Bishops thinking himself probably best able to encounter with us in this point both because of their bead-roll of Popes and Papists general conceit that there were no Protestant Pastors in the World before Luther's days which is also this mans misconceit so far as I know But I shall do him the favour to reduce his five shapes to the former of our notes supposing him to say as Stapleton Stap. princ doc l. 1. c. 22. That the preaching of the Gospel is a very clear note of the Catholique Church so it be done by lawful Ministers The question then is concerning the lawfulness of our Ministry which is asserted and confirmed according to the divers times in which it hath been questioned and contradicted particularly in the days of Luther and Queen Elizabeth of blessed memory together with the times preceding them Notwithstanding I will follow you in your method viewing the shapes and your answers to them in that order wherein you propound them SHAPE I. PRotestants are a company of Christians under the government of Bishops and Pastors that have power and authoritie from Christ and his Apostles to administer the Sacrament and preach the Word of God but such a companie is the true Church therefore Protestants are the true Church To which you answer Neither Christ nor the Apostles confer'd any power or authoritie on Protestant Bishops and Pastors they were dead and gone long before these had any being to give power and authoritie requires presence of the giver c. Rep. 1. The foundation of it is sandy it s not universally true that to give power and authority requires the presence of the giver for it may be otherwise especially in two cases 1. If the giver shall deliver some rules or directions for persons receiving power c. a person after his death by his will or testament gives power to another to be his executor A King by his Patten though himself be personally absent gives power and authority to his Commissioners who therefore acts by the Kings authority Your Popes derive not their power and authority from any but from Peter every Pope professeth he hath the keys from Peter that is by Peter's will or testament or some directions and rules of his for he is not I know always present when the Pope is ordained 2. If the prime-giver do invest some person present with him with power to give the same unto others his successors A King doth invest a Town or Justices of peace to ordain a Constable or some other officer in their circuit It s the Kings power that invests him in his office and by oath he promiseth fidelity to him yet the King is not present but as represented by his ministers Should I upon this ground infer that neither your present Pope Cardinals Priests Jesuits no nor present Church hath any of its power from Jesus Christ or his Apostles what could you say to it If you grant it you prejudice your Church for whatsoever spiritual power is not from Jesus Christ or his Apostles is usurped tyrannical if you deny it you cause an earthquake in your argument shaking yea overthrowing its very foundation that to give power and authority requires presence of the giver For Christ is not now present with your Pope c. as God was present with Moses Exod. 3. Or Christ with the Apostles Math. 28. To say they have a mediate presence will not serve your turn for you require personal presence like that Exod. 3. and Math. 28. where God and Christ did confer power immediately by themselves and not by others To apply this to our purpose by way of reply to your answer I say Protestant Bishops and Pastors have their power and authority from Christ both those ways I mentioned viz. 1. By deed and testament Thus Christ by himself and Apostles in Scripture authorize those who are qualified with gifts and abilities for the Ministry to exercise their gifts which they may do upon some occasions and in some times even without a solemn installment by Bishops and Presbiters as when God doth cast them amongst a people where the Gospel hath not before come or where Presbyterial ordination cannot be had in regard of the corruption and wickedness of such as have power to ordain or where Pastors are few and unable for the service of Christ in his Church Upon these and such like occasions that respect each one should have to the promoting of Christs Kingdom puts him so far as God qualifies him for it upon the exercise of this duty provided there be not a contempt or wilfull neglect of that tryal of these gifts which Christ hath committed to the Ministers of his Church whom he hath also intrusted with the power ordination of those who are gifted Thus it may be supposed to have been with Apollo's Acts 18.24 25 27. and you read of divers persons preaching whose ordination is not expresly mentioned thus though we should grant you that our first reformers had no ordinary exernal calling yet had they their authority from Christ being by him furnished with inward abilities which ordination is but a solemn reflection upon and an acknowledgment of You confess that Luther was a man of learning and parts pag. 47. Surius affirms of Bucer Sur comment in An. 1526.
will waver because of supposed want of succession and for stubborn mis-believers the proof of succession will not bend or make them supple they that will not believe Moses and the Prophets speaking in Scripture would not believe though one should rise from the dead Luke 16.31 But to what purpose bring you the Text 1 Pet. 3. there is nothing in it for succession in order to the bending of the minds of mis-believers unless you understand the wives being in subjection to their own husbands whereby they that obey not the Word may without the Word be won to be the wives proving their Episcopal succession But for the necessity of producing succession you urge testimonies and reasons which I shall now in order examine The testimonies are these viz. of Tertullian Bidding the Sectaries of his time let him see the beginning of their Church and unfold the order of their Bishops and Pastors Likewise Optatus lib. 2. Contr. Parmen The Origin of your chair shew ye that needs will challenge to your selves the Holy Church St. Augustine de vit credend ep contr Faust manich came not behind these in pressing the necessity of succession and derivation where he ingeniously acknowledgeth them to be of force to hold and keep him in the bosome of the Church There keepeth me said that great Saint in the Church the succession of Priests from the very sitting of St. Peter to whom our Lord after his resurrection committed the feeding of his sheep even oo this present Bishop Answ There is no necessity of producing succession for there may be true Apostolical Churches without personal locall succession as I shewed out of Tertullian and its confirmed by Azorius who gives these two only reasons why the Church is called Apostolical because it was propagated by the Apostles Azor. inst moral p. 2. l. 5. c. 21. 9. 4. and holds their faith and doctrine the former reason points out the primitive this latter succeeding Churches though without personall succession 2. There may be succession where there is no true Church as I shall shew hearafter 3. If the Fathers do demand succession of Bishops or Pastors it s in order to Doctrine which they account the main yea the foundation of the other thus doth Tertullian in the words I quoted and Gregory Nazianzen who saith that the succession of faith is the true succession for those that professe the same Doctrine of faith are partakers of the same Throne Naz. Orat. de Laud Athanas So Tertullian and Optatus the one requiring from Sectaries the beginning of their Churh the other the Origin of their Chair both which phrases refer to their agreement with the Apostles not to personal succession Fathers urged succession of Doctrine as necessary but not the succession of persons 2. It s of such as being an inconsiderable party yet excluded all others from being of the Church of God but themselves such were the Valentinians opposed by Tertullian and those whom Optatus speaks of Thus we might demand of the Romanists and say The Origin of your Church shew ye that needs will challenge to your selves the Holy Church When did you begin to be such When had your Pope his universal power as Emperor of the World c. Or 3. It s of some Churches not of all viz. 1. Of such as had begun with the Apostles not others which began long after and therefore could not shew such succession 2. Of such as were in their times not of after ages their demands extend not to us Present Churches are not so able to shew succession as those were in whose times heretical Bishops had no place in the Church as Austin shews for having reckoned up the Roman Bishops from Linus to Anastatius living then Ep. 165. he concludes that in the rank of this succession there was not one Bishop found that was a Donatist and also whilst there was a short space betwixt the Apostles and them the latest of them living within four hundred years after Christ in which time there were no expurgatory indices no â—â—opping of their mouths who wrote the truth The Fathers of the first centuries were few and not subject to Popish purgations whereas the case is now otherwise we are not much short of the 1700 years from Christ our Authors that might shew our succession abused by you Your argument therefore is not good succession must now be demanded and produced for so it was in the time of Augustine Optatus Tertullian 1300 years ago 4. They rather demand the Origin and beginnning of Churches than succession of Bishops leaving more to antiquity than to succession 2. You argue for the necessity of succession thus Derivation of succession is so proper to the true Church that it can not agree to any false as St Hierom in Micam 1. observeth assuring heretiques to have no such riches as come to men by plain inheritance from their Fathers Answ This is most untrue Bellarmine dare not affirm it that its necessarily inferd that where there is succession there is the Church to whom Mr. Hart consents Hart. confer c. 7. div 9. saying Indeed succession of Bishops in plaâ—e is no good argument unlesse it be joyned with succession of Doctrine The reason is this derivation of succession may agree to a false Church ex gr to the Church of Constantinople who reckon from Andrew the Apostle to the Bishop that sitteth now which Church notwithstanding you account unsound Stapleton pronounceth of the Greek Churches in general that they can shew a personal succession from the very Apostles yet you account them not true Churches for they are not under your Roman Pope but against him 2. Your testimony of Hierom makes nothing for you For 1. It grants that hereticks may have fathers whose children they are and what is this but succession 2. That which it denies is that they have such riches as come by spiritual inheritance i. e. divine and wholsome truth the riches of the Apostles successors It s a simple conceit to imagine that succession is the riches that men have by inheritance from their fathers their inheriting of their fathers riches is not succession but succession is the cause of their inheriting they are but poor children that have only this that they can tell you they proceed from their fathers and succeed them Such children are your Popes they can tell you who was their father grandfather and great-grrandfather and this is their riches much good may they do them Whilst Protestant Pastors have true doctrine the true riches of the Apostles To this Testimony of Hierom you add a reason to prove that derivation of succession is proper to the true Church saying Its evident in it self by reason the true Church was planted and established before any false began therefore must need be a non plus ultra a stop and bar betwixt whatsoever counterfeit Church and Christ to keep off the like continuation of succession Answ 1. If it
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
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
probably understood of persons brought unto Jesus Christ from among the Gentiles Rom. 15.16.12.1 Isa 66.20 and of their religious services as praise Psal 50.13.14 Hebr. 13.15 Prayer Rev. 8.3 The ordinary gloss understands Thymiama orationum the incense of Prayers so doth Paulus Burgensis Orationes c. The Prayers of innocent and holy persons are acceptable to me in every place Thus Irenaeus Hos quoque offerre vult c. He will have us to offer our gift at the Altar without ceasing Iren. ado haers l. 4. c. 34. ad fin Now the Altar is in Heaven thither our Prayers and offerings are directed Remigius calls these spirituall sacrifices which succeed the Jews carnall ones than which what can be more plain against the sasacrifice of the Mass which is a carnall sacrifice 1.3 We grant the Eucharist is a sacrifice in those respects that some of the Ancients call it so 1. In respect of the prayers and praises which we offer to God in the administration of it Thus Eusebius saith Itaque sacrificamus Euseb apud Lyran in Mal. 1. c. Therefore we sacrifice and offer incense celebrating the memory of that great sacrifice according to the mysteries delivered to us giving thanks unto God for our Redemption and offering to him Religious Hymnes and holie Prayers we Sacrifice therefore to the most high God the Sacrifice of Praise c. Hence is the name Eucharist given to the Lords Supper 2. In respect of Christs Sacrifice which is there represented and as it were renewed by the memory of it Cassand Consult Act. 24. p. 999. Thus Christ is said to be crucified before the Galatians eyes Gal. 3.1 Cassander sets it forth thus according to the judgment of Antiquity Non hic novum Sacrificium c. Here is no new Sacrifice but the same which was offered on the Cross and a mystical commemoration of that Sacrifice which was performed on the Cross and a representation of Christs Priesthood and Sacrifice continued in heaven whereby here is not wrought any new expiation or remission of sins but we desire that Sacrifice which was oce offered on the Cross may become effectual unto us To this purpose he brings in the testimony of Ambrose or Chrysostome saying In Christo semel c. They once offered up a Sacrifice Christ sufficient for our salvation Why then do we everie day offer Although we dailie offer it s onlie in remembrance of Christs Death In respect of the natures of Bread and Wine which were brought by the people and as it were presented to God In this regard so far as I understand him Irenaeus calls the Lords Supper a Sacrifice and he hath divers expressions to this purpose Lib. 4. c. 33. Christ gave counsel to his Disciples to offer up to God the first fruits of his creatures If you ask how we are to consider God when we offer to him he tells us a little after The Church in the whole world doth offer unto God who gives us food the first fruits of his gifts More fully to this purpose c. 34. It behoves us to offer unto God the first fruits of his creatures as Moses saith thou shalt not appear before the Lord emptie and the reason is Gods Dominion over us in regard whereof the Jewes had their Tythe consecrated to God and we that have obtained greater libertie then they ought freely to devote what we have to the Lords use as the poor Widdow gave her Mite into the Treasures Again in this same Chapter we ought to be thankful to our Maker offering unto him of the first fruits of his creatures and this Oblation the Church onlie offers to God in a pure manner offering unto him of his creatures with thanksgiving Now the Jewes they offer not because their hands are full of blood and they receive not the word by whom we offer unto God Mark it not said whom but by whom we offer unto God Now that this Father was ignorant of Transubstantiation is most evident by what he saith lib. 5. When therefore the Wine and Bread receive the Word of God they become the Eucharist of the body and blood of Christ of which our bodily substance is made and increased which cannot be said of meer species of bread or Christs body Erasmus ingeniously confesseth of him that he saith nothing clearly of Transubstantiation I have been longer in this Father because you seem to build much upon him 4. Inst Altars We have an Altar whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle Hebr. 13. Answ Although many Protestants dislike the name Altar Yet the thing it self is not disliked by any whether you understand by this text Christ as Theodoret apud Lyran and the glosse or that which the Apostle calls the table of the Lord. 1 Cor. 10.21 and which is called by Gregory Nissen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an holy table an Altar inviolable One and the same thing is an Evangelical Altar and an holy Table 5. Inst Power in Priests to forgive sins whose sins ye shall forgive they are forgiven them and whole sins ye shall retain they are retained John 20. Answ No Protestants do deny power of forgivenesse of sins to the Ministers of Christ The differenc betwixt you and us is not about the thing it selfe whether there be a power in them but about the quality of it as whether it be a judiciary or a Ministerial power whether they properly forgive or but declare Gods forgivenesses of penitent sinners We deny them a judiciary and proper power of forgiveness which belongs only to God but acknowledge their Ministerial 6. Confession Confesse your sins one to another Jam. 5. And many of them that believed came confessing their Sins Act. 19. Answ Protestants acknowledg the usefulnesse of confession when a Christian is troubled with the burden of some sin whether it be made to a Christian friend that is able to advise comfort or pray for him or to a Minister of the Word but deny the absolute necessity of set confession of all known sins in the ears of a Priest The Scriptures you urge prove not Popish confession Not the former for it bids us confesse one to another i. e. according to the glosse Coaequalibus to our equals but your Priests would be loath to be numbred among the common people as their equals only Nor the later for that speaks of some only that came and of their confession of their Deeds as the Rhemists only And it s very probable only their sorceries and witchcraft which they manifested their dislike of by the burning of their books whereby they had learned to practise their wicked deeds 7. Inst Justification by works Do you see that a man is justified by works and not by faith only Jam 2. Answ We own and subscribe to the truth of St James's assertion yet believe it must not clash with that of Saint Paul Rom. 3.28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified
by faith without the deeds of the Law They must therefore be reconciled which they may by saying that faith only doth properly justifie us before God and Works do justifie our faith to be a true faith for as much as true faith is productive of good works for we abhor those mens conceit who imagine that faith may suffice a man though he live ill and have no good works Or 2. By saying that good works do evidence our justification Aquinas confesseth that works in c. 3. ad Gal. are not the cause that any man is just before God but they are rather manifestations of Righteousnesse and Justification Certainly Abraham was justified in the sight of God before he offered up his son Isaac which is the foundation of Saint James's speech Papists are so much convinced of this that to evade Protestant Doctrine at least seemingly they invent a distinction of a first and second justification from that they exclude all works and attribute it only to faith and the other is not properly personal justification 8. Inst Prayer to Saints The Angel that delivered from all evils blessed the Children Gen. 48. Answ 1. Here is no mention of Saints much lesse of prayer to them not so much as an implicite hint of such a thing for I suppose Jacob was not of the mind of the Grecian Daemon worshippers who said it mattered not whether they called the souls of the defunct angells or gods 2. By Angel is meant Jesus Christ the Angell of the Covenant Mal. 3.1 who is true God and he who delivered Jacob out of all his evils Thus both Jewish and Christian Expositors understand it 3. I think you mistooâ— this for the latter part of the verse which Papists urge to prove invocation of Saints But seeing you doe not urge it I shall not at present answer it 9. Inst Prayer for the dead It is an holy and wholsome cogitation to pray for the dead 2 Maccab 12. A. 1. This book is not Apostolicall nor part of the Canon of Scripture the Hebrews keepers of the book of the Old Testament received it not as is generally confest and though some fathers commend this and other books of this nature to be read yet they commended them onely as profitable Treatises not as Canonicall Scriptures and therefore advise men to reade them with discretion and prudence Christ though he gives testimony to the Prophets and Psalms he gives none to these or in speciall to this besides there are divers things in this render it suspected 1. The Author of this book supposed to be Josephus professeth it to be onely an abridgement of Jason of Cyrene c. 2.23 and the Holy Ghost is not used to Epitomize profane Histories 2. He makes an excuse for himself and such a one as the holy Writers never used nor becomes a Divine History c. 15. 38. Answ 2. The Text you urge may be divers wayes oppugned 1. The words are not rightly translated by you the Greek is thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A holy and pious cogitation therefore he made expiation or satisfaction by sacrifice for the dead to free them from sin the words are not to be read without a middle distinction Vatablus who includes these words Piam et sanctam cogitationem in a parenthesis refers them neither to prayer nor sacrifice but to the resurrection of the dead saying it s an holy and pious thought to think that the bodies of them who have deserved well of their Country should rise again and not perish for ever 2. Supposing Sacrificing or Prayer seeing you will have it so for the dead were lawfull yet as to these persons it cannot be allowed For first they were Idolaters slain for their idolatry verse 40. Dying for any thing appears to the contrary in a mortall sin 2. They were not in Purgatory the onely place from whence Prayers bring souls for at this time Purgatory had not so much as an imaginary existence 3. Supposing Prayer for the dead and holy and wholesome cogitation and might be proved so from this place yet how can we be said to maintain a Doctrine clean contrary and opposite to that which the Apostles in plain and formall tearms expressed Though here be expressed the opinion of Judas or Jason of Cyrene yet neither Judas nor Jason were the Apostles of Christ nor yet any of the Prophets of God the last of whom was Malachi It is evident that you want spirituall proofs for your charitable devotion else you would not have urged against us those books you know we account Apocriphal and not bring one syllable of Scripture you must first prove unto us the Divine authority of the books of Maccabees and then prove our contrarietie to Scriptures in dissenting from them till then you beg the question 10. Inst Extream unction Is any body sick amongst you let him bring in the Priests of the Church and pray over him anoynting him with oyl in the name of our Lord. Jam. 5. Answ 1. Here are not the plain and formal tearms of extream unction nor do I think that you read them in any ancient Author the word Extream shews your extram abuse of this ordinance as Lorichius otherwise as much for this supposed Sacrament as any o-any other clearly demonstrates in these words Abusus vocbuli est quod dicitur extrema unctio c. It s an abuse of the word to call it extream unction For it s not a Sacrament of dying men but of those who are sick not relateing to their burial but conducing to their recovery Whence it was that in the primitive Church many when they were anointed did recover health And even at this day many wâ—uld be healed if this Sacrament were rightly used I observe that these Popish Authors who pretend to follow antiquity do avoid this tearm Extream calling this supposed Sacrament either sacramentum unctionis aegrotorum as Lorichius or simply Cass consult Art 22. p. 985. unctio infirmorum as Cassander who also shews that its of use for the sick in order to their recovery of bodily health 2. This text of the Apostle proves not your extream unction It speaks of that miraculous anointing which Saint Mark mentions Mark 6.13 and which Bellarmine saith was a sign used in miraculous healing of the diseased your Rhemists imply that it had a miraculous medicinal vertue to heal diseases which you will hardly say of your extream oyl Cajetan expresly denies that this text of James Cajet in cap. 5. Jac. proves extream unction and proves it by divers reasons 1. Saint James saith not if any man be sick unto death but absolutely if any man be sick 2. The proper effect of Saint James unction is recovery of health If he speaks of remission of sins onely conditionally whereas extream unction is not given but at the point of death and directly tends as its form stands to the remission of sins besides Saint James requires that many Elders be called to one sick person
liberty of interpretation absolutely but as to such times and places and there is none of us pleads for private mens interpretation of Scripture publickly 4. You confound construction of Law by right reason and by corrupt affection this latter no man that hath right reason can plead for in the behalf of any people for indeed that would bring confusion but the former cannot be denyed to any for the Law is founded upon right reason and so far as this takes place the expounding of the Law cannot be prejudicial to any Commonwealth though it be done by private persons 2. You infer If this be true as it is what an undervaluing must it be of Gods wisdome and providence to think in a Commonwealth of his own immediate establishing as the Church is he hath left indifferently to all a liberty to make what sence they will of his Law Answ 1. We allow not that the sence men give of Scripture should be after their own lusts or wills If any man give a sence contrary to the mind of God it deserves to be rejected God hath not left to any one man much lesse indifferently to all a liberty to make what sence he will of Gods Law The Pope can no more claim that liberty than the meanest Laick and therefore you either play the fool or worse to disprove a liberty which no Protestant in the World pleads for 2. Yet I say God hath not left any of his children without means in the use whereof they may attain to know what is the Will of God in his Word Rom. 12.2 Indeed God hath set certain select persons of integrity and ability to dispence his Law but this is not opposite to private study and meditation in Gods Law the very principal charecter of a blessed man Psal 1. and 119. and is not study and meditation in Gods Law in order to the interpretation of it The Saints of God have earnestly studied Gods Law Yet this was never thought to tend to bring the peace and safety of the Church into danger of shipwrack nor to be the source of jars and garboils of Seperatists as you wickedly suggest Misapplying and wresting of Scripture may have those effects you speak of but what is this to the reading and right interpretation of it Your reason for this your unsavory speech is say you clear because all men are not apt to understand alike for being for the most part of different tempers and composures they have various fancies which of necessity will beget a diversity of understanding Answ 1. You are Aesops man qui ex uno ore calidum promis frigidum in your fourth Chapter you proved the Churches infallibility by this argument viz. that it was framed up of men of several Nations different tempers and interests therefore neither could nor can meet or conspire to cheat themselves and posterity with a lye p. 15 16. But here the same argument proves the Churches fallibility the fruit of diversity of understanding 2. I say If Christians were considerable only as men of different tempers and composures as you represent them and that their different tempers and composures were the directive causes of understanding I beleeve what you say of seperatists would be true of all Christians yea of all men in the World and there would be nothing but jars and garboils in every place Yea it may as truly be said of your great Rabbies the only interpreters of Scripture for are not they of different tempers and composures and so according to your doctrine have various fancies which of necessity must beget a diversity of understanding If you answer that these have the Spirit of God to guid them in understanding I reply so have all true Christians as I have already proved I deny not but there is corruption in the best and darknesse in their understandings they but see through a glasse and that darkly and therefore may mistake a wrong exposition sometimes for a true one and thus it is not only with Luther Zuinglius Calvin whose names will survive Romes obloquy and reproach of them but with your own Doctors whose expositions are not always the same But we must believe if we will that only schismatical Protestants such as Luther Zuinglius Calvin have different understandings and expositions of Scripture for say you they made no lesse then three contrary and repugnant senses of those plain words this is my body this is my blood p. 70. Answ 1. You tell us not what these three contrary and repugnant sences are and I am perswaded they may easily be reduced to two for though Luther and Zuinglius differed about the sence of the words yet I find not that Calvin and Zuinglius did and I rather think they did not for the opinion that some appropriate to Zuinglius Bellarmine chargeth upon Calvin in these words Bellarmine saith the opinion of Calvin reverâ nihil differt a sententia Zuinglii de Ludib lib. 1. c. 1. Haeresis erat c. It was the Heresie of some that the Eucharist was onely a figure of Christs body this Heresie doth Calvin teach 2. If the words be so plain how comes it that Papists do so much differ in their Expositions of them every word almost brings variety of Popish sences If we were to learn what the Pronoun This the very first of those pain words means we might go unsatisfied away for any resolution we should have from you One tells us it signifies Nothing another The Bread presently to be transubstantiate A third an individuum vagum contained under the forms of Bread A fourth the Body of Christ And now Sir I dare be bold to say that there is less agreement amongst Popish Expositors who yet profess to follow the Church in all their Expositions then amongst Luther Zuinglius and Calvin There being but three rather two Expositions of these words given by Protestants whereas there is at least four amongst Papists of one of the words For conclusion you bring us in objecting for our selves thus Those selected Persons intrusted with the administring and dispensing of the Lawes utter by mouth what they understand and they understand no more then what their private reading and reasoning are able to inform them so that even this way men would be to seek To this you answer 1. Judges have not onely their reading and reasoning to inform and direct them but likewise the practice of former Courts from the very promulgation of the Law at which time the sence and meaning of the same was declared by the Law-makers themselves Reply 1. You unlearnedly distinguish betwixt their reading and their knowledge of the practice of former Courts as if the practice of former Courts were not known by reading whereas you cannot mention any other means thereof unless you can make out a constant unwritten Tradition from the Lawmakers themselves which hath been propogated from one to another and the particular cases of former Courts have been so various
is the Spouse of Christ and Mother of all Christians And he fully and expresly meets with your self and such like flatteries of the Roman Church who monopolize the word Catholick to be Non tamen ejus sedis c. Yet let not the governors of the Roman Church extoll themselves as if that Church only as they speak exclusively were the Catholick Church and that it behoved us presently without triall of it to approve of whatsoever comes from that See and that for all Doctrines and pontificall constitutions nothing should be brought but an ipse dixit If we attribute this to that See we shall expose the Catholick Church to all errours And the Church of Rome cannot have any more pestilent enemies than those flatterers who do make her not onely the chief but the onely Church and extolling her above the Word and Catholick sence of Scripture above all the Catholick Fathers yea above the Church triumphant and consequently above the spirit of God do make of her I know not what Idoll This root of Parasites are overthrown by that of Hierom The world is greater then a citie So that it is evident the Roman being but particular cannot be the Catholick Church But supposing your definition good I come to examine whether it can rightly be applied to the Roman Church in the severall particulars of it as you say it may 1. You say Its a societie of men this agreeth to the said companie for in that companie is to be seen Jerusalem descended from above Apoc. 4. A goodly Hierarchie or heavenly order and subordination of sub-Deacon to Deacon of Deacon to Priest of Priest to Bishop of Bishop to chief Bishop or Pope who is subordinate to none but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an exalter of himself above all that is called God 2. Thes 2. and of the Laitie to all Answ 1. I know not whether to pity or laugh at you seeing you will needs be so exact as to prove that Rome is a society of men I wonder you do not go more directly to work It s not a direct proof to say in the Church of Rome there are sub-Deacons Deacons Priests Bishops chief Bishop a goodly Hierarchy or chief heavenly order therefore the Church of Rome is a society of men for you would perswade us that the pattern of your Hierarchy was brought by Dyonisius from heaven and that amongst the Angels there is a goodly Hierarchy or heavenly order so that we cannot tell by your argument whether the Church of Rome be a society of men or Angels Why might you not as well argue thus In Rome there are common whores that bring in great revenues to his Holiness there are or have been divells incarnate conjurers Magitians Simoniacks Whore-masters therefore the Church of Rome is a societie of men I am sure it s as good an argument as yours to prove your Churches manhood What assurance have we that your heavenly orders are all men for the Porrphyry chair is only for the Pope and I have not heard of any other chairs of humanity for inferior orders But you urge further these degrees are so masterlike set that they do not hinder and trouble but as great and less strings musically tuned make and preserve the melodious harmonie of peace and concord Ergo the Church of Rome is a society of men Who that reads these arguments can forbear laughter I am sure they are neither musically tuned nor do they make melodious harmony by this argument you might prove your fidle strings to be a society of men but I grant your assertion to be true without your reasons 2. The second part is Linked together This agreeth to the said company for in that company there is no diversitie of belief but one as Monarch swayeth in Europe Asia Africa and America where one and the same belief is imbraced for one and the same motive Gods revelation proposed by the Church Answ 1. If to be linked together be the main thing applyed to your Church in this second part it may agree to Heathens and Jews as well as Romans If the faith wherein they are linked together with the use of the same Sacraments which you seem to forget this may also agree with the Greek and Eastern Churches or to the Protestants who as is evident by their confessions of their Faith do as nearly agree as any Churches subjected to the Roman 2. What you say of the same beleef that it s received upon the Churches account I have before confuted it and for further answer to it refer you to Lorichius in my last quotation of him Lastly your talk of your Monarchiall sway c. is but a Popish brag or if reall t is an usurpation for which you cannot plead Law nor antient possession as Aronius will inform you if you consult him about the Popes dominions 3. The third part is lawfully sent This agrees to the said company for in that companie no man clarifieth himself but one receiveth power from another the sub-Deacon Deacon and Priest from the Bishop the Bishop from the chief Bishop or Pope Answ 1. I hope you will not make the whole company of Popish Catholicks Preachers though no man can inferre any thing else from your words for you say To be lawfully sent agrees to the said company which company you define to be under the government of Bishops and Pastors p. 73. 2. Supposing you meant it of Bishops c. yet there receiving of power one for another the sub-Deacon Deacon and Priests from the Bishops the Bishops from the Pope doth not prove that the Bishops and Pastors are lawfully sent unless it were made manifest both that the power of sending were in the Bishops and Pope and that they used it lawfully the latter of which especially wil be difficult for you to prov considering that your Priests c. are ordained not to an Evangelicall imployment as preaching the Gospell and administring the seals of the Covenant of grace but rather to offer sacrifice and such as the Gospell knows not 4. The fourth part is able to shew c. This agreeth to the said company for in that company an exact succession of power and doctrine is faithfully and with clearness deduced Writers of severall ages and nations having put forth and published to the view of the wâ—rld authentick Schemes and Catalogues of Popes Bishops and Pastors succeeding each other from Christ and the Apostles and from time to time laid open their doctrine Answ 1. Personall succession as I have shewed is no mark of a true Church its agreeable to other Churches and this is the succession which your Authors do principally if not onely demonstrate 2. It s observable that there is no personall succession of Bishops and Pastors to whom you joyn sub-Deacons and Deacons distinct from the Pope mentioned in any of your authors that I have met with though particular Churches as Spain France c. have had Apostolicall institution
its probable his Monk Austin was not free In the life of Austin p. 511 512 and therefore when he came amongst the Brittains who had the Gospel and many Bishops and learned men amongst them he was rejected by them for which Hierom Porter calls them Schismaticks maintaining errors yea that held many things repugnant to the unity of the Catholick Church Therefore we may at least probably suppose them Orthodox being opposite to those innovations the Bishop of Râ—â—â—e by his Apostles would have brought upon them 2 To your minor Saint Austines Church and doctrine were the same with the now Roman or the Roman Church in Gregory the Great 's time was the same it is at thiâ— present I answer could you prove this it would make much for you but hic labor hâ—c opus est this is too difficult a work for you and therefore you pass it off with a reference of us to a company of quotations to no purpose There is no Protestant Writer that I meet with that affirms Austins Church and Doctrine were the same with the now Roman Perkins in his Exposition of the Creed as I can understand him doth not but rather saith the contrary for speaking of the present Church of Rome he saith They hold justification by works of grace they maintain a daily sacrifice of the b dy of Christ in the Mass for the sins of quick and dead they worship images c. Thus then it appears that the old Church of Rome is changed and is now at this day of a Spâ—use of Christ become an Harlot and therefore no more a Church of Christ indeed than the carkass of a dead man that wears a living mans garment is a living man though he look never so like him This same is the very judgement of all Protestants I meet with and is most fully and clearly demonstrated by the learned Doctor Morton in his above mentioned appeal where he largely shews what was the judgement of Saint Gregory in those main points of controversie betwixt Protestants and Papists and how far Rome at present is from that faith which Saint Gregory taught and all this he doth by the testimonies of the most learned Papists Your mention of all the English Cronicles is but a Popish vaunt be pleased in your next to mention the places where they affirm your doctrine to be the same with Saint Gregories and their words till then I suspend all further answer to this Argument which as it is the last it is the weakest and most evidently false in its propositions as I doubt not it will appear to the judicious Reader CHAP. XII Of certain Objections made against the Roman Church answered YOu begin your Chapter with a sad complaint of enemies of the Roman Church in these words The enemies of the Roman Church have not shewn more pride in contemning her power then malice in raising false and slanderous reports against her good name therefore I will endeauour in this Chapter to clear her fame mainly clouded and shot at by the ensuing objections Answ When you charge the Objectors with slander you seem to be ignorant of the nature and definition of slander There cannot be slander where there is no lying accusation or a charging of such things upon others whereof they are not guilty And this your Aquinas will tell you is true Now can you say that the Objectours charge you with that whereof you are not guilty If their accusation be false why do you not disown the things they charge you with but rather defend them You affirm that Christs Body may be in divers places at once that the Mass with Altars images and relicks are to be adored that Saints and Angels are Mediatours c. If it be true why do you charge the Objectors with slander in the reporting of them But let vs examine the Answers to the Objections 1 Objection THe first objection is The Church of Rome teacheth Christs body to be present in many places at once which implyeth contradiction Answ 1. The measure of Gods power is his will and his will is above the reach of our capacitie therefore no wonder if God oftentimes doth that we cannot dive into the understanding of I reply 1. If you speak of Gods absolute Power it s not measured by his Will God is able to do more then he hath done or will do Of this absolute power John the Baptist speaks Math. 3.9 God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham Thus we grant he is able to make more works and of a piece of bread to raise up an humane body he can turn one thing into another of a different kind This Power as it s not measured by Gods Will so it s not the foundation or reason of our faith whereby we believe the existence of any thing But 2 If you speak of Gods executive power which is the power measured by his Will whereof you speak then we affirme this presence is impossible to God because contrary to his will as I shall shew even now 3 Whereas you say Gods Will is above our capacity c. Rom. 11.34 Deutr. 29.29 I answer Gods Will comes under a twofold Consideration it s either secret or revealed that part of his will which is secret as it concerns not our knowledge so neither doth it call for our faith or obedience but his revealed will is for us to know and obey If then you speak of Gods secret will you shew your self presumptuous intruding into such things as you ought not but if onely of his revealed then you imply that this Politopie is expressed and revealed unto us Now this I utterly deny for evidence whereof I shall premise that there are two volumes of Gods will whereby it s fully expressed unto us viz. Reason and Scripture by the former its expressed more imperfectly and darkly by the latter most fully and clearly The former is subordinate to the latter and the latter is perfective of the former Whatsoever else testifies of Gods Will it s in subordination to these and is to be tryed by them Nor are we to account any mans dictate to be Gods will that doth not agree with one or both of these I shall therefore shew the dissonancy of your Doctrine 1. to Reason then 2. to Scripture 1. It s contrary to Reason Aquin. Suppl 3. part q. 83 Art 3. ad 4m. that one body should be present in many places at once without the destruction of that body Aquinas saith Vnum corpus c. One body cannot be at once locally in two places no not by a miracle and he gives this reason because to be in many places at once is repugnant to the very nature of an Individuum which is to be divided in it self for it would follow that it should be in a distinct posture whence it follows that for the same body to be locally at once in divers places includes contradictiion as for a
bread should become the body of Christ to us and that the Pascall Lamb or Manna should be so to the Jewes for Christ is called the Passover of Manna yea in these Sacraments Christ was truely and savingly received by them they did eat the same spirituall meat with us and drank the same spirituall drink for they drank of the Rock that followed them And that Rock was Christ What can be more express than these last words yet Papists will not here allow of Transubstantiation 2. That Bodies are the object of Sense yea and that the Senses cannot be deceived in judging of them whilest the Organ is rightly disposed the medium is convenient the distance equall the Sences of more then one concur in judgeing and that the phantasies be not hurt But here if the words be taken properly is a body which is not the object of Sense though the sences be rightly disposed the medium convenient the distance equall c. If you say it may be done by a miracle I answer first amongst the miracles of the Primitive Church this was never numbred by them or any others that I have read though its a greater miracle if a miracle than any others that are mentioned 2. In those miracles recorded in Scripture which were wrought by transmutation there was no deceiving of the Sense When Moses rod was turned into a Serpent as it was a true Serpent so the Senses did truely discern a Serpent When the waters were turned into blood the blood had the last colour effect of blood slaying the fish in it When by our Saviour the waters were turned into wine as it was true wine so it had sensible qualities as the last smell c. of wine It was the practice of the Sorcerers of Egypt to cause an appearance when there was no reall existance It s the practice of Papists to urge a bodily existence without the least appearance like their forefathers the Valentinians whom Irenaeus chargeth with saying of Christ Aliud erat aliud videbatur when some affirmed in the Sacrament there was no true fraction but onely in appearance Lorichius answers out of Ambrose Nihil falsum putandum in Sacramento veritatis c. We must not think of any falshood in this true Sacrament in the inchantments of Magitians the eyes are deceived that that seems to be which is not but it s otherwise in the Sacrament of Truth Gerrhard Lorich Instit Cathol de sacr Eucharist pag. 72. 2. To this I may adde that the materiall parts of Sacraments must be sensible objects such were the Sacraments of the Jewes and such without controversie is Baptisme where the materiall part is water which the Senses see feel c. Therefore it must be so in the Eucharist for there can no reason of a difference be given You cannot say that the materiall parts of it are bread and wine for you teach that in the Sacrament there is neither bread nor wine though there was before Consecration and the body of Christ cannot be it for it s not a sensible object being neither seen nor felt nor tasted and accidentall forms are distinct from matter Aquinas delivers this Conclusion Cum naturale sit homini c. Whereas its naturall for man to attain to the knowledge of intelligible objects by those which are sensible A Sacrament which signifies spirituall and intelligible good ought to be a sensible thing which how you will find it in your Sacrament I know not 3. That humane flesh is not to be eaten But if these words This is my Body be taken properly then Christs flesh should be carnally eaten which is doctrine for Cannibals not for Christians Saint Augustine upon this very ground understands those words John 6.53 Except ye eat the flesh c. figuratively and delivers this generall rule Aug. de doctr Christ l. 5. c. 16 Si aut facinus vel flagitium c. If the Scripture seem to command that which is hainous and wicked it s a figurative speech and instances in those words in S. John Papists give this reason of the invisibility of Christs body in this Sacrament because man abhors to eat humane flesh in the proper shape But what difference between one man seeing the shape of humane flesh and anothers hearing of such a thing to be humane flesh though he see it not It s the thing it self not the form or shape of it that is abominable a piece of humane flesh might be brought into such a form as it could not by the eye be distinguished from other flesh yet tell a man its humane flesh and he shall loath it upon that very report Though your seduced followers do not see flesh in thr Sacrament yet you tell and perswade them that the Host is humane flesh with its blood in it so that I must needs say they have either weak faith or strong stomacks To conclude Let me know to what end is this eating of Christs body for it s not turned into the substance of our body whereby it should nourish the body for then our bodies should consist of Christ which were a blasphemous assertion and for the soul it s not nourisht by carnal meat as flesh and blood spirits do not eat or drink nor are they capable of nutrition there is no Spirituall advantage comes by it Besides when our Saviour had been speaking so fully of eating his flesh and drinking his blood to prevent their carnall conceits of this spirituall Doctrine he addi this wholsome and seasonable doctrine that for his body it was to ascend up into Heaven where he was before and therefore his words were to be understood not carnally but Spiritually The words that I speak are Spirit John 6.63 You answer that these words do not run counter to your said truth in as much as these words were uttered to the Capernaits in answer to their question of Christs Power and not of the signification of his words Reply 1. I desire to know your ground for this Exposition I cannot finde that it is the Churches and I thought you an enemy to the private spirit 2. It s most evident that these words are uttered for explication of the words precedent for having told them that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood if they had life by him they question what he may mean by eating his flesh and drinking his blood and they seem to answer their own question by a carnall conceit which was as the Rhemists observe They imagined that he would kill himself and cut and mangle his flesh into parts and so give it them raw or rost to be eaten among them which could not be meant saith Augustine for that had contained an hainous and barbarous fact c. He tells them therefore they must understand his words spiritually of our abiding in him and he in us according to Augustine Tract 27. in Joan. tom 9. Lyra. in text Lyranus speaks very well to this purpose
us of nourishment by his Body so we ought to have the Cup to assure us of an interest in his blood bread it self being neither naturally nor Ex Instituto any representation of blood Cass supr And certainly from hence divers of the Fathers did conclude the use of the Cup necessary for the people See Origen and Augustine cited by Cassander to this purpose Lastly you say For Confirmation look up into the Primitive times even of the Apostles and Christ Act. 2.42.46 and you will find by their promiscuous Communion sometimes under one kinde sometimes under another and sometimes under both that they never understood of any Commandement of Communicating undâ—r both kindes Reply 1. The Councell of Constance acknowledgeth that as Christ did Institute and Administer it under both kinds so the Primitive Christians did use it 2. What reason can be given why in other Sacraments Jewish and Christians the materiall part should be determined and appointed and that in this it should be left to the discretion of a Pope 3. If it was such a matter of indifferency in the Primitive times whether Christians did communicate in either or both kinds How comes it now to be a matter of necessitie so as Christians may not Communicate under both kinds But 4. I challenge you to name one ancient and approved Author who asserts that the Primitive Christians did communicate in wine onely or in bread onely which will be as hard for you to do as for the Artotyritae to prove that they communicated in bread and cheese 5. The Text you urge proves not your assertion For first there is no mention of their communicating in wine onely which is one part of your assertion 2. Breaking of Bread doth not infer their Sacramentall receiving of Bread onely It s a noted Hebrew phrase and is as much as giving or eating of meat of what kind soever as Lament 4.4 Isai 58.7 Sanctius upon the Text you mention saith Omnis cibus c. All kinde of meat in Scripture languge is called Bread But beside how will it be proved to be meant of the Lords Supper Lyranus understands it of ordinary eating so do Chrysostome and Oecumenius and why may it not be understood of their Love-feasts which were means of preserving Charity amongst Christians or of the distribution of meat out of the common stock for the relief of poor Christians according to the custome of those times related by Sanctius And thus it very well answers the Hebrew phrase Isa 58. where you reade of breaking bread to the hungry Lastly supposing it to be understood of the Lords Supper it must give way to a Sonecdoche the Bread being put for both Elements else the Apostles did either not communicate with them which is against the Text or if they did they were sacrilegious in Communicating in one kind onely there being as you say a Command for them to Communicate in both 2. Else it was no Sacrament Commemorative of Christs death because this cannot be lively and fully set forth under one kind as your self have acknowledge It must therefore either not be meant of the Sacrament or if it be Bread must be taken for both Elements and either of these doth destroy the inferences you raise from the Text. To conclude Look you into the Primitive times of the Apostles and Christ and see if you find Communion under one kind an Article of Faith as now it is and if you find it not as I am sure you cannot ceas that loud cry of the antiquity of your Faith wherewith you fil the ears and puzzle the heads of illiterate and credulous persons The Epilogue I have done with the book The Epilogue only remains shuft up with fained and flattering words to deceive the simple Reader containing more Rhetorick than Logick more of words than reason and therefore not worthy any particular inquisition and confutation yet in imitation of it I shall address my self to the Reader by way of advice against the delusiv charms of this Syren Desiring thee to consider his assertions and my answers to them and weigh them by Scripture and reason and what thou findest according to these receive and intertain I would not with this Authour perswade thee to a groundless credulitie that thou shouldest receive a way without trying it whilest he cries out It behoves you to effect it with speed and not stand reasoning hâ—w this why the other replies beget delayes and delayes are seldome out of the ill company of danger Epil pag. 124. Himselfe delivers better Doctrine and safer for thee when he tells thee That Christianitie is not against reason and he is to be reputed silly and light that hastneth upon a truth Ecclus 19. however propoâ—ed without examination of its credibilitie and consistence with nature which must be the work of reason nay more Page 25. that belief is beholding to reason even for discerning and finding out her guide the true Church which sentences I leave this Doctor to reconcile Be not of those silly and light ones The Apostle bids us prove all things and hold fast that which is good That which is suddenly believed is as easily rejected as before received Deliberations are means of setledness Art thou out of the way of truth return and live Angels will rejoyce over thee though not in expectation of the reparation of their ruines as this Author speaks they being happy and from the beginning above the verge of a ruinous estate Seek the way to Sion peace is within her walls and prosperity within her palaces Hast thou received the truth hold it fast contend earnestly for it sell it not Let not the Images of Babylon the images of men pourtrayed upon the walls pourtrayed with vermilion girded with girdles upon their loyns exceeding in dyed attire upon their heads c. allure thee that thou shouldest commit Adultery with them and that the Babylonians should come into thy bed of love and defile thee with their whoredoms and thy mind be alienated from the true Church where the word of God is purely preached and the Sacraments rightly administred where is purity without pomp divine verities without humane traditions religious worship without superstition Finally where Christ Jesus is exalted in his Person Natures Offices and the Elect called edified comforted and out of which ordinarily there is no Salvation These are the Badges of the Reformed Churches in which thou mayest ride safely till at last thou be set on shore in that Country where thou shalt find an eternal and exceeding weight of glory the free reward of thy constancy prepared for thee and shalt for ever sing praises to God and to the Lamb that sits upon the Throne whom thou hast served FINIS Reader thou art desired to mend these Errata's with thy Pen there are some other litteral faults escaped which thou mayest discern in reading and so receive no prejudice PAge 6. l. 21. r. Christianis p. 10. l. 12. r. Cuivis p. 12. l. 1. r. Gospels p. 14. l. 22. r. you p. 16. l. 21. fo 1. r. 5. p. 19. l. 28. r. praelati p. 31. l. 5. for Church r. Pope p. 33. l. 26. r. not p. 52. l. 23. for men r. Pen p. 59. l. 27. r. Successors p. 65. l. 4. r. by p. 70. l. 19. r. Dowaists p. 76. l. 22. r. as if p. 81. l. 22. r. mendata 24. r. us p. 92. l. 1. for hope r. Pope p. 103. l. 1. r. are p. 105. l. 30. r. be p. 122. l. 24. r. its l testimony p. 130. l. 2. r. i. e. p. 133. l. 7. r. 1 trow p. 153. .27 r. mediation p. 136. l. 28. r. mediation 137. l. 18. r. valid p. 144. l. 12. r. leaning p. 170. l. 12. r. exorcise p. 178. l. 10. r. naming 185. l. 18. r. way p. 189. l. 2. r. gross carnal presence p. 215. l. 8. r. private 217. l. 25. r. Rom. 8.8 by Syricius p. 221. l. 1. are p. 222. l. 19. r. Azorius l. 30. r. Azorius p. 236. l. 1. r. omit p. 237. l. 16. r. in them p. 239. l. 24. r. to your selves p. 253. l. 22. r. unaccompanied p. 259. l. 24. r. seven p. 275. l. 20. r. individed p. 286. l. 9. r. he hath p. 291. l. 1. r. should not p. 292. l. 1. 5. r. taste p. 310. l. 23. r. not without p. 312. l. 1. r. again p. 317. l. 15. dele he p. 321. l. 2. 7. r. meanness p. 329. l. 11. r. she p. 343. l. 10. r. bring p. 347. l. 12. for three r. thirdly p. 351. l. 2. r. tearming l. 4. r. suppose
as well as Rome and it s your task to prove not onely that the Pope but Bishops and Pastors of the Church have a personall succession from the Apostles But 2. Rome is not now able to shew a personall and doctrinall succession from Christ and his Apostles though I grant that in the time of the first Fathers of the Church she was able as were also the Churches of Smyrna Ephesus of Asia the Churches in Germany in Spain in France Iren. adv haeres l. 1. c. 3. in the East Countreyes in Egypt in Lybia in the middle of the world as Irenaeus reckons them but she is now unable unable to shew either succession of persons or doctrine as I shall demonstrate by these following particulars 1. As to personal succession though she have a bed-role of names of Popes yet 1. She cannot affirm that none of her Popes came in by Simony Nay the contrary is evident by the testimony of Platina the Popes Library keeper Platin. in Bened. 4. et ser 30. Now I find her constitutions the one made by Julius the second made Anno 1505. which nullifies such Popes Election declaring him to be no Pope and that no one ought to account him Pope and further that without any further declararation he be devested of all his dignities and that it be lawful for any one to refuse obedience to his commands and the other constitution declares him excommunicate as Antichrist and an invader and destroyer of Christianity See both of these in Azorius's Morals Azo instuor p. 2. l. 4. c. 5. The like decree was made by Nicholas 2. In the Lateran Council mentioned by Caranza wherein such a one is declared to be a thief and one that may be thrust out of the Chair by any one that hath power 2. She cannot affirm that none of her Popes have come in by force and fraud Nay it s evident that many of her Popes came in this way I shall only give you the testimony of Caranza for many of them he tells us that Christopher 1. And Boniface 7. got the Popedome malis artibus by fraud and cousinage others of them have come in by force Damasus the third got the Popedom by force with out the Clergy or peoples consent Sylvester the third saith he was no true Pope but thrust in by popular tumult Clement 2. was created Pope by the compulsion of Henery the Third Iohn 13. took himself the Popedom through the assistance of his Father Leo the 8. was ordained by the Clergy but Otho the Emperour forced them to it after he had ejected Boniface Saint Iohn 18. did usurp the Chair whilest Gregory the fifth lived So common was this way of coming to the Popedom that the Author tells us that course became so common that any ambitious person would usurp the Chair Baronius acknowledgeth that men were thrust into Peters Seat by their potent Harlots false Popes c. Now that Decree of Pope Nicholas the second An. 912. meets with such as these for able entry nullifies the Popes right according to the former constitutions and makes him Antichrist 3. She is not able to affirm that all her Popes have been free from heresie I have shewed the contrary yet the constitution of Julius takes hold of Heretiques as of simoniacal Popes 4. She cannot shew that all her Popes have been Males before the Porphyry Chair there was no trial of the Popes humanity and that was occasioned by an Harlot gotten into the Popeal Seat Yet it s asserted and that truly that a woman is not capable of pontifical power and dignity 5. She cannot shew the order of her Popes It s not known where to place Clemens and for Boniface 6. Caranza saith its a great controversie amongst writers at what time he sate in Peters Chair Now this is inconsistent with the evident demonstration of Popeish succession 6. She cannot say but there have been great Chasma's wherein there have been no Popes There have been Vacancies not only for Months but years through the contentions of Cardinals or some other cause 7. She cannot deny but there have been many Popes at the same time and each had their parties joyning with them Caranza confesseth that about the time of Alexander the Third there was a Schism in the Church for almost twenty years There was three others at the same time with him viz. John 24. Benedict 4. Greg. 12 all three deposed by the Council of Constance This may suffice to allay the Popeish brag of personal succession and therefore I come to the next particular viz. Doctrinal succession 2. Then as to Doctrinal succession Rome is not able to shew Doctrinal succession from Christ and his Apostles There are two things concern her to prove as to this 1. That her present Doctrine is the same that the Apostles taught 2. That she hath held this in every age since the Apostles until now both which are too difficult for Popish heads Let any man reade but the Articles of Faith in that Epistle of Paul to the Romans and there will appear a vast difference betwixt the Apostle and them he taught justification by faith without the deeds of the Law Rom. 3.20.28 impossibility of perfect personall obedience c. 8. 3. 3. 9. and 7. 14. 15. That concupiscence is a sin in the regenerate c. 7. 7. 8. that sufferings of Saints are not meritorious c. 8. 18. That Prayer is onely to be made to the object of Faith which is God c. 10. 4. That the Roman Church may err and be broken off as the Jews are c. 11. 10. 21. 22. That every Roman ought to be subject to the civill Magistrate rendring honour tribute c. c. 13. 1. That the Scriptures are written for our learning c. 15. 4. Lastly that Religion consists not in difference of meats and drink c. 14. 17. nor of days ' Verse 5. 6. Again let Papists shew us so much as one Father that beleeved and propounded the late Articles of Pius's Creed as necessary to be beleeved in every age and then we shall beleeve succession of Doctrine till then we shall suspend our faith or belief of it 5. Your last part is without the least interruption c. this is manifestly overthrown by what I have already said and therefore I shall refer it to the judgment of Christians as sufficient to overthrow this first Argument 2. Argument That company composeth and maketh up the truh Catholique Church which doth acknowledge and imbrace a power generally claimed and a Doctrine generally professed by the Apostles and Christians ever since when any opposition was first made but the said Company acknowledgeth and embraceth a power generally claimed and a Doctrine generally professed by the Apostles and Christians ever since when any opposition was first made therefore that Company composeth and maketh up the true Cathâ—lique Church Answ 1. To your Major 1. It s obscure and doubtful what you mean by Power as distinct from the
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.