CHAP. XXIV. Their plea that our Church and Religion is new, and theirs old; and their calling for a
CHAP. XXIV. Their plea that our Church and Religion is new, and theirs old; and their calling for a Catalogue, and proof of the Succession of our Church before Luther.
D etect. 15. Another fraud of the Papists, which they place not the least of their confidence in, is this: They persuade the people that our
Church and Religion is but new, of the other days invention: and that theirs is the only old Religion. And therefore they call upon us to give them a Catalogue of the professors of our Religion in all ages; which they pretend we cannot do: and ask us where our Church was before Luther?
To this we shall give them once more a brief, but satisfactory answer. I.
We are so fully assured that the oldest Religion is the best, (since the date of the Gospel) that we are contented that our whole cause do stand or fall by this trial. Let him be esteemed of the true Religion, that is of the oldest
Religion. This is the main difference between us and the Papists: We are for no Religion that is not as old as the days of the Apostles: but they are for the Novelties and Additions of Popes and Councils. Their own Polidore Virgil de Inven. Rerum, p. 410, lib 8, c. 4, calling us a Sect, doth give you a just description of us [Ita licentia pacta loquendi, &c. i.e. Having once got leave to speak, that sect did marvelously increase in a short time; which is called
Evangelical, because they affirm that no Law is to be received which belongeth to salvation, but what is given by Christ or the Apostles.] Mark what they confess themselves of our Religion: And yet these very men have the face to charge us with Novelty; as if Christ and his Apostles were not of sufficient Antiquity for them. Our main quarrel with them is, for adding new inventions in Religion, and their principal business against us is to defend it, and yet they call theirs the old Religion, and ours the new.
Our Argument lieth thus. That which is most conform to the Doctrine and Practice of Christ and his Apostles, is the truly Antient Religion and Church. But our Religion and Church is most conform to the doctrine and practice of the Apostles: therefore it is the truly ancient Religion and Church. The Major they will yield: For no older Religion is desirable, further then as the Law of Nature and Moral Determinations of God are still in force. I suppose they will not plead for Judaism. For the Minor, we lay our cause upon it, and are ready to produce our evidence for the Conformity of our Religion and Churches to the doctrine and practice of the Apostles.
That Religion which is most conform to the Holy Scripture is most conform to the doctrine and practice of Christ and his Apostles: But our
Religion (and Churches) is most conform to the holy Scriptures: therefore, &c. They can say nothing against the Major, but that the Scripture is
Insufficient without Tradition: But for that, 1. We have no Rule of faith but what is by themselves confessed to be true: They acknowledge Scripture to be the true word of God; So that the Truth of our Rule is Justified by themselves. 2. Let them show us as good Evidence that their Additional
Articles of faith or Laws of life came from the Apostles, as we do that the Scriptures came from them, and then we shall confess that we come short of them: Let them take the Controversies between us point by point, and bring
their proof, and we will bring ours, and let that Religion carry it that is Apostolical: But we are sure that by this means they will be proved
Novelists. For 1. Their Traditions in matter of faith superadded to the Scripture, are mere Heretical or Erroneous forgeries, and they can give us no proof that ever they were Apostolical. 2. The Scripture affirmeth its own sufficiency; and therefore excludeth their Traditions. 3. I shown you how in their own General Council at Basil, the Scripture sufficiency was defended.
4. I have shown you in my Book called the Safe Religion, that the ancient Fathers were for the sufficiency of Scripture. 5. Their Traditions are the opinions of a dividing sect, contrary to the Traditions or doctrine of the present Catholic Church: the far greater part of Christians being against them. 6. We are able to show that the time was for some hundred years after Christ, when most of their pretended Traditions were unknown or abhorred by the Christian Church, and no such things were in being among them. 7.
And we can prove that the chief points of Controversy maintained against us, are not only without Scripture, but against it, and from thence we have full particular evidence to disprove them. If the Scriptures be true, as they confess them to be, then no Tradition can be Apostolical or true that is contrary to them: For example: the Papists Tradition is, that the Clergy is exempt from the Magistrates judgment: But the holy Scripture saith [Let every soul be subject to the higher power, Rom. 13:1-5. The Papists
Tradition is for serving God publicly in an unknown tongue. But the holy Scripture is fully against it. Their Tradition is against Laymen's reading the Scripture in a known tongue, without special License from their ordinary:
But Scripture and all antiquity is against them. The like we may say of many other Controversies.
So that these seven ways we know their Traditions to be deceitful; because they are 1. Unproved. 2. Against the sufficiency of Scripture. 3.
Against their own former confessions. 4. Against the consent of the Fathers.
5. Contrary to the judgment of most of the Catholic Church. 6. We can prove that once the Church was without them. 7. And they are many of them contrary to express Scripture.
And if Scripture will but show which of us is nearest the doctrine and practice of the Apostles, then the controversy is ended, or in a fair way to it:
For we provoke them to try the cause by Scripture, and they deny it: we profess it is the Rule and test of our Religion; but they appeal to another
Rule and test. And thus you may see which is the old Religion: which will be somewhat fuller cleared in that which followeth.
II. And that our Church and Religion hath been continued from the days of Christ till now, we prove thus. 1. From the promise of Christ, which cannot be broken. Christ hath promised in his word, that that Church and Religion which is most conform to the Scripture, shall continue to the end:
But our Church and Religion is most conform to the Scripture: therefore Christ hath promised that it shall continue to the end.
2. From the event. The Christian Religion and Catholic Church hath continued from the days of Christ till now. But ours is the Christian
Religion, and Catholic Church: therefore ours hath continued from the days of Christ till now. The Major they will grant: the Minor is proved by parts; thus. 1. That Religion which hath all the Essentials of Christianity, and doth not deny or destroy any Essential part of it, is the Christian Religion: but such is ours: therefore, &c. 2. That Religion, which the Apostles were of, is the Christian Religion: But ours is the same that the Apostles were of: therefore, &c. 3. That Religion, which is nearer the Scripture then the
Romish Religion, is certainly the Christian Religion: But so is ours: therefore, &c. 4. They that believe not only all that in particular that is contained in the Ancient Creeds of the Church, but also in general all that is besides in the holy Scripture, are of the Christian Religion: But thus do the Reformed Churches believe, &c.
2. And for our Church; 1. They that are of that one holy Catholic Church, whereof Christ is the head, and all true Christians are members, are of the true Church: (For there is but one Catholic Church:) But so are we: therefore, &c.
2. They that are Sanctified, Justified, have the love of God in them, are members of the true Catholic Church: But such are all that are sincere
Professors of our Religion: therefore, &c.
But all this will not serve them without a Catalogue, and telling them where our Church was before Luther: To this we further answer; we have no peculiar Catholic Church of our own; for there is but one, and that is our
Church: Wherever the Christian Church was, there was our Church. And where ever any Christians were congregate for God's worship, there were
Churches of the same sort, as our particular Churches. And wherever Christianity was, there our Religion was: For we know no Religion but Christianity. And would you have us give you a Catalogue of all the Christians in the world, since Christ? Or would you have us as vain as H.T. in his Manual, that names you some Popes, and about twenty professors of their faith in each age, as if twenty or thirty men were the Catholic Church:
Or as if those men were proved to be Papists by his naming them? This is easy, but silly disputing.
In a word, Our Religion is Christianity. 1. Christianity hath certain Essentials, without which no man can be a Christian; and it hath moreover
many precious truths, and duties necessary necessitate praecepti, and also necessitate medii, to the better being of a Christian. Our being as Christians is in the former; and our strength and increase and better-being is much in the latter. From the former, Religion and the Church is denominated.
Moreover, 2. Our implicit and actual explicit Belief (as the Papists call them) must be distinguished; or, our General and our particular Belief. 3.
And also the Positives of our Belief must be distinguished from the implied Negatives; and the express Articles themselves, from their implied
Consectaries.
And now premising these three distinctions, I shall tell you where our Church hath been in all Ages since the birth of Christ.
1. In the days of Christ and his Apostles our Church was where they and all Christians were: And our Religion was with them in all its parts, both
Essential and perfective. That is, we now Believe 1. All to be true that was delivered by the Apostles as from God, with a General faith, 2. We believe all the Essentials and as much more as we can understand, with a Particular faith. 3. But we cannot say that with such a particular faith we believe all that the Apostles believed or delivered; for then we must say that we have the same degree of understanding as they; and that we understand every word of the Scriptures.
2. In the days of the Apostles themselves, the Consectaries, and implied Verities, and Rejections of all Heresies were not particularly and expressly delivered either in Scripture or Tradition (as the Papists will confess.)
3. In the next ages after the Apostles, our Church was the one Catholic Church, containing all true Christians, Headed by Jesus Christ: and every such Christian (too many to number) was a member of it. And for our
Religion, the Essential parts of it were contained both in the Holy
Scriptures, and in the Public Professions, Ordinances, and Practices of the Church in those ages, (which you call Traditions:) and the rest of it, even all the doctrines of faith and universal Laws of God, which are its perfective parts, they were fully contained in the holy Scriptures. And some of our
Rejections and Consectaries, were then gathered and owned by the Church, as Heresies occasioned the expressing of them: and the rest were all implied in the Apostolical Scripture doctrine which they preserved.
4. By degrees many errors crept into the Church: yet so, that 1. Neither the Catholic Church, nor one true Christian (in sensu composito at least) did reject any essential part of Christianity. 2. And all parts of the Church were not alike corrupted with error, but some more, and some less. 3. And still the whole Church held the holy Scripture itself, and so had a perfect
General or Implicit belief; even while by evil consequences they oppugned many parts of their own profession.
5. When in process of time by claiming the universal Sovereignty, Rome had introduced a new pretended Catholic Church, (so far as their opinion took) by superadding a New Head and form, there was then a twofold
Church in the West; the Christian as Christian headed by Christ; and the Papal as Papal Headed by the Pope; yet so as they called it but one Church; and by this usurped Monarchy as under Christ endeavored to make but one of them, by making both the Heads Essential, when before one only was tolerable. And if the Matter in any part may be the same, and the same Man be a Christian and a Papist, and so the same Assemblies: yet still the forms are various: and as Christians and part of the Catholic Church, they are one thing: and as Papists, and members of the separating sect, they are another thing. Till this time there is no doubt of our Churches Visibility.
6. In this time of the Romish Usurpation, our Church was visible in three degrees, in three several sorts of persons. 1. It was visible in the lowest degree among the Papists themselves, not as Papists, but as Christians. For they never did to this day deny the Scriptures, nor the Ancient Creeds, nor Baptism, the Lord's Supper, nor any of the substance of our Positive
Articles of Religion. They added a New Religion and Church of their own, but still professed to hold all the old in consistency with it.
Wherever the truth of holy Scriptures and the ancient Creeds of the Church were professed, there was our Religion before Luther: But even among the Papists the holy Scriptures and the said Creeds were (visibly) professed: therefore among them was our Religion.
And note here that Popery itself was not ripe for a corruption of the Christian faith professed, till Luther's opposition heightened them. For the Scripture was frequently before, by Papists held to be a most sufficient Rule of faith, (as I shown before from the Council of Basil:) and consequently,
Tradition was only pleaded as conservatory and expository of the Scripture; but now the Council of Trent hath in a sort equaled them. And this they were lately driven to, when they found that out of Scripture they were unable to confute or suppress the truth.
2. At the same time of the Churches oppression by the Papacy, our Religion was visible (and so our Church:) in a more illustrious sort, among the Christians of the most of the world, Greeks, Ethiopians, and the rest, that never were subject to the usurpation of Rome, but only (many of them) took him for the Patriarch primae sedis, but not Episcopus Ecclesiae
Catholicae, or the Governor of the Universal Church. So that here was a visibility of our Church doubly more eminent then among the Romanists: 1.
In that it was the far greatest part of the Catholic Church that thus held our
Religion, to whom the Papists were then but few. 2. In that they did not only hold the same Positive Articles of faith with us, but also among their
Rejections, did Reject the chief of the Popish errors as we do. Besides many particular points named in my Safe Religion, they Rejected with us, the Popes Catholic Monarchy, the pretended Infallibility of the Pope or his
Councils: the new form of the Papal Catholic Church, as Headed by him, with other such points; which are the very fundamental controversies between us and the Papists. So that (besides that the Papists themselves profess our Religion) the major part of the Catholic Church did profess it, with the Rejection of the Papacy and Papal Church; and so you may as easily see where our Religion was before Luther, as where the Catholic
Church, or most of Christians were before Luther.
3. And beside both these, our Religion was professed with a yet greater Rejection of Romish corruptions, by thousands, and many thousands that lived in the Western Church itself, and under the Popes nose, and opposed him in many of his ill endeavors against the Church and truth, together with them that gave him the hearing, and were glad to be quiet, and gave way to his tyranny, but never consented to it.
Concerning these we have abundant evidence, though abundance more we might have had, if the power and subtlety of the Papal faction had not had the handling of them. 1. We have abundance of Histories that tell us of the bloody wars and contentions that the Emperors both of East and West have had with the Pope to hinder his tyranny; and that they were forced by his power to submit to him, contrary to their former free professions. 2. And we have abundance of Treatises then written against him, both for the Emperors and Princes, and against his doctrine and tyranny: some store of them Goldastus hath gathered: And intimations of more you have in their
own expurgatory Indices. 3. And we have the histories and professions of the Albigenses, Waldenses, Bohemians and others that were very numerous, and if Raynerius say true, they affirmed (about the year one thousand one hundred) that they had continued since the Apostles, and no other Original of them is proved. 4. Particular evidence unanswerable is given in by Bishop Usher de Succes. & statu Eccl. and Answer to the Jesuits, and the Ancient Religion of Ireland, and in Dr. Field, and Morneyes Mystery of Iniquity, and of the Church, and Illyricus, and many others. 5. Even General
Popish Councils have contended and born witness against the Popes superiority over a Council. 6. And in that and other points whole Countries of their own are not yet brought over to the Pope. 7. They have still among themselves Dominicans, Jansenists, &c. that are reproached by the Jesuits as siding with Calvin in many Controversies, as Catharinus and many more in others. Most points of ours which we oppose to Popery, being maintained by some or other of them. 8. But the fullest evidence is the certain history or knowledge of the case of the common people and Clergy among them, who are partly ignorant of the main matters in Controversies between us (as we see by experience of multitudes for one, to this day) and are generally kept under the fear of fire, and sword, and torments; so that the truth of the Case is this: the Roman Bishops were aspiring by degrees to be Arch-bishops, and so to be Patriarchs, and so to have the first seat and vote, and to be called the Chief Bishops or Patriarchs, and at last they made another thing of their office, and claimed (about six hundred years or more after Christ) to be universal Monarchs or Governors of all the Church: But though this claim was soon laid, it was comparatively but few, even in the West, that made it any Article of their faith, but multitudes sided with the Princes that would have kept the Pope lower, and the most of the People meddled not
with the matter, but yielded to necessity, and gave place to violence, except such as the Albigenses, Bohemians, Wicklefists and the rest that more openly opposed. So that no man could judge of the multitude clearly, which side they were on, being forced by fire and sword, and having not the freedom to profess their minds.
So that in sum, our Religion was at first with the Apostles, and the Apostolic Church: and for diverse hundred years after, it was with the universal Christian Church: And since Rome's usurpation, it was even with the Romanists though abused, and with the greater part of the Catholic
Church that renounced Popery then, and so do now; and also with the opposers of the Pope in the West under his own nose. You see now what
Succession we plead, and where our Church and Religion still was.
If any deny that we are of the same Church and Religion with the Greeks, Abyssinians, and most of the Christian world, (yea all that is truly
Christian) I easily prove it. 1. They that are Christians joined to Christ the Head, are all of the same Church and Religion (for none else are Christians or united to Christ, but the Church which is his Body) But the sincere
Greeks, Abyssinians, &c. and we are Christians united to Christ the Head: therefore we are all of one and the same Church and Religion.
2. They that believe the same holy Scripture, and differ in no essential part of the Christian faith, are of the same Church and Religion: but so do both we and all true Christians: therefore we are all of one Church and Religion.
3. They that are truly regenerate, and Justified, hating all known sin, longing to be perfect, Loving God above all, and seeking first his Kingdom and Righteousness, and accounting all things but as dung in comparison of Christ, these are all of the true Catholic Church, and the true Christian
Religion: but such are all that are sincere, both of the Greeks, Abyssinians,
&c. and the Reformed Churches; as we prove, 1. To others by our Profession and Practice, by which only they are capable of judging of us. 2.
To ourselves infallibly against all the Enemies of our salvation in Hell or Earth, by the knowledge and acquaintance with our own hearts, and the experience of the work of God upon them. All the Jesuits in the world cannot persuade me that I love not God, and hate not sin, and prefer not the Love of Christ before all the world, when I feel and know that I do; till they can prove that they know my heart better than I do.
4. If Christ Consent to it, and we Consent to it, then we are all (that are sincere in their profession) of the true Catholic Church and Religion (for if he consent and we consent, who is there that is able to break the match?)
But Christ consenteth, and we consent: as we prove by parts. 1. His consent is expressed in his Gospel, that whoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life; and whoever will, may drink of the water of life freely. 2. And our consent we openly professed at Baptism, and have frequently renewed, and our own souls are acquainted with the sincerity of it, whatever any that know not our hearts may say against it.
5. All that are truly Baptized, and own their Baptismal Covenant, are visible members of the true Catholic Church: (For it is the very nature and use of Baptism to enter us into that Church:) But Greeks, Abyssinians,
Georgians, Armenians, &c. and Protestants, are all truly Baptized, and own their Baptismal Covenant: therefore we are all of the true Catholic Church.
What is ordinarily said against this succession of our Church, I have answered in my safe Religion. I now add an answer to what another, viz H.
Turbervile in his Manual saith against us in the present point. The easiness of his Arguments, and the open vanity of his exceptions, will give me leave to be the shorter in confuting them.
His first Argument (p. 43.) is this. [The true Church of God hath had a continued Succession from Christ—But the Protestant Church, and so of all other Sectaries, hath not a continued Succession from Christ to this time: therefore, &c.] Answ. 1. I pray thee Reader be an impartial Judge what this man or any Papist ever said with sense and reason, to prove that the Eastern and Southern Churches have no true Succession. Let them talk what they please of their Schism, the world knows they have had as good a Succession as Rome. Are they not now of the same Church and Religion as ever they have been? All the change that many of them have made, hath been but in the entertaining of some fopperies, common to Rome and them.
And if any of these (which you call Sectaries) can prove their Succession, it destroys your Argument and Cause. Me thinks you should not ask them, where their Church was before Luther?
2. But how doth this Disputer prove his Minor, that we have no Succession? Only by a stark falsehood: forsooth [by the Concession of the most Learned Adversaries, who freely and unanimously Confess, that before Luther made his separation from the Church of Rome for nine hundred or one thousand years together, the whole world was Catholic, and in obedience to the Pope of Rome.
Answ. O horrid boldness! That a man that pleads for the sanctity of his Church, dare thus speak so notorious an untruth in the face of the world! At this rate of Disputing, the man might have saved the labor of writing his
Book, and have as honestly at once have persuaded his Disciples, that his Adversaries unanimously confess that the Papists cause is best. What if the fifteen cited by him had said so, when I can bring him one thousand five hundred of another mind, and cite him fifteen for one of another mind, is that the unanimous confession of his Adversaries? But unless his
Adversaries were quite beside themselves, there is not one of them could say as he feigneth them to say. For doth not the world know, that the Eastern and Southern Churches, far exceeding the Romanists in number, did deny obedience to the Pope of Rome? Would this persuade his poor
Disciples that we all confess, that there are, or were no Christians in the world but Protestants and Papists? His first cited Confession is Calvin's
[that all the Western Churches have defended Popery] A fair proof! Doth this Disputer believe in good sadness, that the Western Churches are all the world, or a sixth part of the world? But this is the Popish arguing. What
Calvin speaks of the Western Churches, that is, the prevailing power in each Nation of them, he interprets of all the world. So he deals with Dr. White, who expressly in the words before those which he citeth, affirmeth the visibility of the Churches of Greece, Ethiopia, Armenia, and Rome; but only saith, that at all times there hath not been visible distinct companies free from all corruption: which one would think every penitent man should grant that knows the corruption of his own heart and life. It would be tedious to stand to show his odious abuse of the rest: when they that say most of the word [world] but as it is used, Luk. 2:1, so much of his first argument.
His second is this. Without a continued number of Bishops, Priests, Laics, succeeding one another in the profession of the same faith from Christ and his Apostles to this time, a continued succession cannot be had: But Protestants have no continued number, &c.
Answ. And how proves he the Minor? No how at all; but puts us to disprove it; and withal gives us certain Laws, which we will obey when they grow up to the honor of being reasonable. His first Law is, that [We must name none but only such as held explicitly the thirty-nine Articles, all
granting and denying the same points that the late Protestants of England granted or denied—for if they differ from them in any one material point, they cannot be esteemed Protestants] Answ. A learned Law! And what call you [a material point?] You may yet make what you list of it. If they differ in any point Essential to Christianity, we grant your imposition to be necessary. But there is not the least Chronological, or Geographical, or other truth in Scripture, but is a Material Point, though not Essential. Must you needs know which these Essentials are? In a word: Those which the Apostles and the ancient Church pre-required the knowledge and profession of, unto Baptism. And because all your fond exceptions are grounded on this one point, I shall crave your patience, while I briefly, but sufficiently prove that Men that err, and that in points material, may yet be of the same
Church and Religion.
Argum. 1. If men that err in points material (that is, precious truths of God, which they ought to have believed.) may yet be true Christians and hold all the Essentials of Christianity: then may they be of the same true
Church and Religion: But the former is true: therefore so is the later. The Antecedent is proved, in that all truths which may be called Material, are not of the essence of Christianity.
Argum. 2. The Apostle Thomas erred in a Material point (which is now an essential) when he would not believe Christ's Resurrection: and yet was a member of the true Church: therefore, &c.
Argum. 3. The Papists err in material points, and yet think themselves of the same true Church: therefore they must confess that differing in Material points may be the case of members of the same true Church. For proof of the Minor, I demand: Are none of the points Material that have been so hotly agitated between the Jesuits, and Dominicans and Jansenists? The
Papal party, and the Council party? The Thomists, Scotists, Ockamists, &c.
At least review the Jesuit Casuists cited by the Jansenists Mystery of Jesuitism; and tell us whether it be no whit Material Whether a man may kill another for a Crown? Or may kill both Judge and witnesses to avoid an unjust sentence? Or whether a man should go with good meanings into a Whorehouse to persuade them to penitence, that hath found by experience that when he comes there he is naught with them himself? Or whether a man may lawfully lie and calumniate to put by a calumny? Or speak falsely with mental reservations? Or forbear loving God many years together, if not all his life? Are these points no whit Material? You know that one part of you (with a Pope and General Council) are for deposing Heretical Kings, and murdering and stabbing them, and others of you disavow it: Is this no whit material? And yet you are all of one Church and Religion. A hundred more of your differences I could name.
Argum. 4. From instances of the Fathers that have erred in Material points, and yet are taken to be of the same Church and Religion. How many
Churches differed about Easter day? What abundance of errors are in your Clementines, and other such writers owned by you? Justin Martyr was a Millenary: Numbered diverse Infidels with Christians; thought that Angels lived by meat, and generated with Devils, &c. Athenagoras thought that second Marriages were comely Adultery and that the Angels fell by the love of women, and begot Giants of them, &c. Irenaeus hath the like: Theophilus
Antioch. worse: Tertullian and Origen you will confess had yet worse, Clem. Alexand. was for the salvation of Infidels and Heathens: against swearing and many such, besides those before mentioned. Greg.
Thaumaturgus hath divers, if the confession and other works be his that are ascribed to him. Cyprian, Firmilian, and the whole Council at Carthage
were for rebaptizing those baptized by heretics; Against all Wars and Oaths Lactantius (with many more) was a Millenary, and hath too many great errors. I have no delight to rake into their faults; but if it be necessary I shall quickly prove many and great errors by forty more of them at the least. And yet all these or most, are confessed by you to be of one Church and Religion.
Argum. 5. From your own Confessions. Bellarmine, lib. 1, de Beat. SS c.
6, faith that he seeth not how the sentence of Justin, Irenaeus, &c. can be defended from error. Of Tertullian he saith, There's no trust to be given to him: lib. 4, de Rom. Pont. c. 8. Eusebius he saith was addicted to the Heretics. Cyprian he saith did seem to sin mortally: de Rom. Pont. lib. 4, cap, 7. Augustine is accused by many Jesuits for going too far from Pelagius. Jerome is oft plucked by you. And so are many more of the Fathers. And yet you confess some of them at least were of the true Church and Religion.
Argum. 6. If there be no perfect concord to be expected till we come to the place of perfect knowledge and happiness, then it is not perfect concord, that is necessary to prove us of the same Church or Religion. But the Antecedent is alas too far past doubt. Therefore, &c.
Argum. 7. If the godly and learned Doctors of the Church (and all men) have some (alas how many) culpable errors in matters of Religion (yea of faith, if you call that de fide, which we are obliged to believe) then those that have such errors may be of the same Church and Religion: But the Antecedent is so true and evident that I think none but a blind proud
Pharisee will deny himself to beg of God daily to pardon and heal his culpable errors. So much to prove that men of errors and differing minds (if not about the essence of the Church) may be of the same Church.
2. But why is it that they must all needs explicitly hold the thirty-nine Articles? 1. I pray you tell us, whether all your own Church do explicitly hold and believe all your Articles? That is, all that Popes and General
Councils have defined or declared. Dare you say that one of five hundred, of five thousand, doth explicitly believe all this? And why then is it necessary in our case that all must explicitly believe all those Articles? 2.
Yea with us it is far more unnecessary. For we take not those Articles for the Rule of our faith, but only the holy Scripture: And therefore you may as well tell us that no man is of our Religion, that did not write or speak all the same words that Jewell, Reynolds, Perkins, or such other have written in their whole works. 3. Its easy to prove for all that, that the sense and substance of those Articles have been owned by the Churches in all ages.
3. But what if we grant your conclusion, that [else they cannot be esteemed Protestants] what of that? As if none but Protestants were of the same Church and Religion with us. Sure you think we make a sect of ourselves like you, and exclude all others from the Church and Salvation as you do! The word [Protestant] is not the first denomination of our Religion from its essence; for so we call ourselves [Christians] only; But it is a title that accidentally accrued to our Religion, from our Protesting against your innovations and corruptions; and our Rejecting the errors contrary to our
Religion which you had introduced. Now those that were not involved in your errors as our forefathers were, but lived at a further distance from you, might have no occasion to make such a Protestation; and yet be of the same
Church and Religion as we are.
Now to your particular Laws. 1. Saith H.T. [Let him not name the Waldenses: for they held the Real presence, that the Apostles were Lay men, that all Magistrates fall from their dignity by any mortal sin, that it is
not lawful to swear, &c. and Waldo lived but in one thousand one hundred and sixty.
Answ. 1. We have better assurance of the faith of the Waldenses in their own published Confessions, then from the mouth of their Adversaries. 2.
The Lutherans hold the real presence, and yet are of the same Religion and Church with us. 3. The Apostles were Lay-men in the Jews account and sense, as not being Priests or Levites, but not in Christians account that believed their mission: and thus thought the Waldenses. 4. They thought that Magistrates and Ministers do by Mortal sin forfeit all the right and title to their office, from which themselves may have comfort and justification in judgment: But they never thought that they were not to be obeyed by others, or that their actions were not valid for the Churches good. 5. Many of the ancientest Fathers thought it unlawful to swear at all, that yet are cited by you as of your Church. But the Waldenses are slandered in these points. 6.
Though Waldo was but about one thousand one hundred and sixty, yet the same Religion and Church under other names, and before those names were fastened on them, was much elder, as Raynerius may satisfy you. So that for all this, the Waldenses and we are of one Church and Religion.
He adds [Let him not name the Hussites, for they held Mass, Transubstantiation and seven Sacraments, that the universal Church consisted only of the predestinate, &c.] Answ. O what a sort of men have we to deal with? The Council of Constance burnt John Huss to ashes for saying that there remained the substance of Bread and Wine after Consecration and that Transubstantiation was a new word to deceive men with] as Binius himself expresseth among their accusations of him: And among the articles for discovery of the Hussites, one was Whether they take it to be a mortal sin to reject the Sacraments of Confirmation, extreme unction and
marriage.] And yet now Huss is burnt for it, the poor lay-Papists are persuaded by their deceivers, that the Hussites were for Transubstantiation and seven Sacraments. Why then did a General Council accuse or receive accusation and witness against him for the contrary? 2. That the universal
Church as invisible, and as taken in the first signification, containeth none but the truly sanctified (and so predestinate) we believe as well as Huss: though in the second Analogical signification, the Church as visible, containeth all the Professors of faith and Holiness, whether sincere or not.
3. And that they were condemned by the Council of Constance, and Huss and Jerome burnt after they had a safe conduct, doth show that the faith of Papists is perfidiousness, (for why should the people be more just then a General Council?) but it shows not that we and they are not of the same
Church or Religion: you condemned and burnt those of our Religion too: therefore you thought at least that we are near kin.
But H.T. proceeds with his precepts [Let him not name the Albigenses: for they held all marriages to be unlawful, and all things begotten ex coitu to be unclean: They held two God's &c.] Answ. These are not only such falsehoods by which you uphold your cause, but the more inexcusable and shameless, by how much the more frequently and fully detected long ago, and yet continued in. Perrin, Viguerius and many others might have prevented your error: especially Bishop Usher de Succes. Eccles. c. 6-9, and 10, who hath given you enough out of your own writers to have satisfied you; and shown you, that it was from the Arians and Manichees, inhabiting those Countries among them, that the heavy charges of Bernard, Eckbertus
Schonaugiensis and others were occasioned. And see by him there cited what the same Bernard saith against your Church of Rome, and then judge which he spoke hardlier of.
As for the Catharists next added, they were not the Puritan Waldenses as you speak, but part of the Manichees: and if such as they are described, we are content to lose their names, and are not ambitious to be reputed their
Successors.
He adds [Let him not name the Wicklifians: for they held; that all things came to pass by fatal necessity; That Princes and Magistrates fell from their dignity and power by mortal sin.] Answ. We know by many of Wicklifs own books printed and manuscript what his judgment was, whatever your
Council at Constance accuse him of. It was a Divine Necessity opposed to uncertainty, and to the determination of an unruled will, that he mentioneth.
And do not your Jesuits lay as heavy a charge on the Dominicans sometimes? And with as great cause may many of your Schoolmen be disclaimed for this as Wicklife, if you will understand him, and them.
Wicklife was known to obey and teach obedience to Magistrates. But is it not a fine world, when Wicklife must not be of our Church because he is supposed to deny the power of Magistrates in mortal sin? And yet the Pope and his Council determine that Princes or Lord's that will not root out such as the Pope calls Heretics must be cast out, and their Country given to others. It seems you take Wicklife to be some kin to yourselves. But we doubt not but he was of the Catholic Church and Religion, and therefore of the same with us.
H.T. adds [Let him not name the Grecians: for they rejected the Communion of Protestants. Censur. Eccl. Orient. They were at least seven hundred or eight hundred year in Communion with the Church of Rome. — they were united to the Church of Rome again in the Council of Florence:
They held Transubstantiation, seven Sacraments, unbloody Sacrifice, Prayer to Saints, and for the dead.]
Answ. If one Patriarch, or twenty men reject our Communion, whats that to the Millions of Greek Christians that never rejected it? And whats that to all Patriarchs before and after that rejected it not? Did Cyril reject our
Communion, that hath published a Protestant confession, and was so maligned, and treacherously dealt with to the death, and falsely accused to the Turks by the Jesuits, for his constancy? 2. Do you think the world knoweth not by what inducements you drew a few poor men at Florence to subscribe to a certain union with you? And what death the Patriarch died?
And how the Greeks resented his fact? And what a return they made to your Church? I pray persuade yourselves that they and we and all are Papists. 3.
If the Greeks did disclaim Communion with us, they are nevertheless of the same Church and Religion with us, for all that. Paul and Barnabas were both Christians when they parted in dissention. If one neighbor in anger call another Traitor unjustly, and say he will have no Society with him, they may be both the Kings subjects and members of one Common wealth for all that. 4. As to the Greeks opinions, and the Papists false accusations of them,
I have spoken already against pretended Veridicus in my Safe Religion. It is not you nor all the Jesuits on earth that can prove the Greeks and us to be so distant, as not to be of the same Catholic Religion and Church.
You add [Let him not name the Egyptians: for they held Transubstantiation and unbloody Sacrifice, as is manifest by their Liturgies; but denied the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, and held but one will in Christ. Godignus de reb. Abas. lib. 1, c. 28.] Answ. 1. Godignus talks not of the Egyptians but the Abyssinians. This learned man it seems, is so home-bred, and confined to the Roman Church, that he little regardeth the rest of the Christian world; or else he would have known a difference between the Egyptians and Abyssinians: He is likely to know well the true
Catholic Church that while. 2. You cannot prove that they hold Transubstantion. Nor shall your bare naming their Liturgy make us believe it. The Egyptian Liturgy you tell us not where to find, nor I suppose do you know yourselves. An Ethiopic Liturgy your compilers of the Bibliotheca
Patrum have given us, Tom. 6. But 1. It hath no mention of Transubstantiation in it, that I can find, but only a Hoc est Corpus, &c. which we say in our Administration as well as they. 2. And I find that Liturgy so contrary to the reports of your own writers concerning the practice of the Ethiopians, (as about the Elevation, Confirmation, &c.) that I must needs conclude, that either the Liturgy or much of it is forged, or that the generality of your own Relators of their practice are grossly deceived, and do deceive, (which is not likely, because they are many, and write at several times, and it is against themselves.) 3. And as for the procession of the Holy Ghost, and the denial of two wills in Christ, some of your own writers profess, that the former in the Greeks, and the later in many others, is found to be but a verbal difference, the same words not signifying the same thing in their esteem as in ours. 4. However, if they would but become the subjects of the Pope, they might be of your Church for all this: and therefore seeing they are the subjects of Christ, we shall take both
Ethiopians and Coptic's to be of the same Catholic Church with us, for all these and many other of their errors.
Lastly saith H.T. [Let him not cite the Armenians: for they hold but one nature in Christ, and that his flesh was changed into his Divinity, and were condemned by the Council of Calcedon.] Answ. The Armenians are a considerable part of the Catholic Church.
Binius in the life of Eugenius the third saith, their Catholic (so call they
their chief Bishop) hath infinite, that is, above a thousand Bishops under him. Oth. Frisingensis hath the like.
1. Though they held but one nature in Christ, it was not by permixtion or confusion of the natures, as Eutiches imagined, but Conjunction or Coalition: Nicephor. Hist. Eccles. lib. 18, c. 53. And diverse of your own writers say the difference is found to be but in words. And even all this they now deny, as you may see in their own Confession published not eighty years ago, Artic. 26-29,30. &c. 2. That they change the human nature of Christ into the Divinity, is your slander, and therefore no good argument. 3.
That they were condemned by (the fifth Act, or in any Act of) the Council of Calcedon, is another untruth: sure you go much upon trust, that dare venture to stuff your book with such falsehoods. But the best is, your simple
Papists know not but all is true: they must believe you, and cannot disprove you. The Armenians then and we are of one Catholic Church and Religion, notwithstanding all your forgeries and vain exceptions. I know that one or two petty Councils chide them for not mixing water with wine in the Eucharist; and more than that, the Canons of the General Council called
Quinisexti do condemn the same error as theirs, and also their deputing the Sons of Priests successively to the Priesthood, and not shaving their hair: and their eating eggs and cheese on Saturdays and Sundays in Lent. But 1.
We fear not to say that we are of the same Church with men that err more than not shaving, or then eating eggs and cheese comes to, or any of this. 2
And remember that this is one of your Reprobate Councils. 3. And one that the third time (when two General Councils before had done it) did Canon.
36, give aequalia privilegia, equal privileges to the Seat of Constantinople as Rome had. So that I think you will have no mind of this General Council.
And if any other have judged them Eutichians, though I renounce that
opinion, yet I must tell you, that my Charity covereth far greater errors in the Papists, or else I could not take them for Christians. If the Question had ever been started in a Council, whether man's soul and body are two
Natures or but one, its ten to one but it would have made another heresy, and yet perhaps the real difference have been no more than it is now there is no Controversy about it. But H.T. addeth [Protestants pretense to the Fathers of the first five hundred years, is very idle; because were it true, as it is most false, that those Fathers were Protestants, yet could not that suffice to prove them is continued Succession of one thousand six hundred years.] Answ. 1. It sufficeth us if those Fathers were Christians, as we are, though having no usurper of a universal Monarchy to Protest against, they were not to be called Protestants. 2. It is an idle pretense indeed, to go about to prove a Succession of one thousand six hundred years, by the bare instance of five hundred years: but your idle head hath forged more idle pretenses then this, by way of calumniation. But yet we may prove the Antiquity of our
Religion from those Fathers, and the Novelty of yours, and a Succession for those five hundred years: and for the rest, if the whole Christian world had been big enough for you to see, you might have discerned our Evidence of a further Succession.
He adds [2. Because those of the sixth age must needs know what was the Religion and Tenets of them that lived in the fifth age, by whom they were instructed, and with whom they daily conversed better than our Protestants can now do; who have Protested on their salvation, that it was the very same with theirs, received from them by word of mouth &c.]
Answ. 1. Any thing will serve for the simple that will believe you. But I pray you tell us whether it were all or some of the sixth age that made this
solemn Protestation that you mention. If all or most, or the ten thousandth man, tell us where we may find that Protestation. If a few, they were not the sixth age. 2. If Pope Boniface alone was not the sixth age, tell us where that age did Protest on their salvation, that the Bishop of Rome was taken by their Fore fathers for the universal Monarch and Head of the Church
(beyond his bare Primacy of order) 3. What age hath protested on their salvation, that the Roman prohibition of reading Scriptures, or of receiving the Eucharist in both kinds, or other points anon to be mentioned, were the Religion of their Fore-fathers, and so from age to age? 4. I pray you tell us where to find this Protestation of the tenth age, which Genebrard,
Bellarmine, and others of your own so complain of, as having not learned men, nor any Council, but Apostatical Popes and an ignorant wicked
Clergy, that suspected a man of Heresy if he understood Greek or Hebrew, and of Magic or Conjuring, if he meddled with Mathematics? 5. It is legible in the writings of the sixth Age, that they did fetch the doctrine of the fifth age from their writings, and not only from word of mouth. What else mean the preservation of those writings and those numerous citations out of them? Nay more; they would not trust their memories in a General Council for the Canons of the Church: no nor for the Canons of the next preceding
Council, no nor for the Common Creed; but had all read and repeated out of the writing before the Council when there was occasion. And let
Conscience be free to speak truth for a few sentences, and tell us in good sadness, whether you believe that the Oral Tradition of all the Church did preserve the Knowledge of Augustine's, Epiphanius, Chrysostom's, &c. doctrine, so much as their writings do? Is the doctrine of Aquinas, Scotus,
Gabriel, &c. yea the Council of Trent preserved now more certainly in men's memories, then in writing? If so, they have better memories then
mine that keep them, and they have better hap then I that light of such keepers. For I can scarce tell how to deliver my mind so, in any difficult point, but one or other is misunderstanding and misreporting it; and by leaving out or changing a word, perhaps make it another matter: so that I am forced to refer them to my writings: and yet there by neglect they misinterpret me, till I open the book itself to them.
6. Either the Fathers of the fifth age are intelligible in their writings, or not. If they be, then we may understand them I hope with industry. If they be not, then 1. Much less were their transient speeches intelligible. 2. And then the writings of the sixth age be not intelligible, nor of any other: and so we cannot understand the Council of Trent (as the Papists do not that controvert its sense voluminously,) nor can we know the Churches judgment.
7. By your leave, the Roman Corrupters take on them so much Power to make new Laws and new Articles of Faith quoad nos, by definitions, and to dispense with former Laws, that unless they are all Knights of the Post, they can never swear that they had all that they have from their Fore-fathers.
8. Well! But all this is the least part of my answer. But I grant you that the sixth age understood and retained the doctrine of the fifth age, and have delivered it to us. But that there were no Heretics or corrupters, you will not say yourselves. Well then! The far greatest part of the Catholic Church did not only receive from the fifth age the same Christian Religion, but also kept themselves from the grossest corruptions of the Pope and his flatterers, that were then but a small part: And thus we stick to the Catholic Church succeeding to this day, and you to a usurper that then was newly set on the Throne of universal Sovereignty. So that your chief Argument treadeth
Popery in the dirt: because the greater part of the Catholic Church not only
in the fifth and sixth age, but in the seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth ages, have been aliens or enemies to the Roman universal Monarchy: therefore if one age of the Church knew the mind of the former age, better than the Pope did, we may be sure that the Pope is an usurper.
The third Argument of H.T. is, that the Fathers of the first five hundred years taught their tenets: therefore its impossible they should be for the Protestants. Answ. 1. Protestants are Christians, taking the Holy Scriptures for the Rule of their faith. If the Fathers were Christians, they were for the Protestants, but its certain they were Christians. If you could prove that they were for some of your mistakes, that would not prove them against the Protestants in the doctrine of Christianity, and the holy Scriptures; and so that we are not their Successors in Christianity, and of the same Church, which was it that you should have proved, but forgot the question. And of this we shall speak to you more anon.
Well! By this time I have sufficiently shown the succession of our Church: and continuation of our Religion from the Apostles, and where it was before Luther, and given you the Catholic Church instead of a dozen or twenty names in each age, which it seems will satisfy a Papist; but yet we have not done with them, but require this following Justice at their hands.
Seeing the Papists do so importunately call to us for Catalogues and proof of our succession, Reason and Justice requireth that they first give us a Catalogue of Papists in all ages, and prove the succession of their Roman
Catholic Church: which they can never do while they are men.
And here I must take notice of the delusory ridiculous Catalogue wherewith H.T. begins his Manual. His Argument runs thus [That is the only true Church of God, which hath had a continued succession from
Christ and his Apostles, to this day, (very true:) But the Church now in Communion with the See of Rome and no other, hath had a continued succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time: therefore, &c.—] For the proof of the Minor he giveth us a Catalogue. And here note the misery of poor souls that depend on these men, that are deluded with such stuff, that one would think they should be ashamed the world should see from them.
1. What if his Catalogue were true and proved, would it prove the Exclusion, that [no other Church:] had a succession? Doth it prove that Constantinople, or Alexandria had no such succession, because the Romanists had it? Where is there ever a word here under this Argument to prove that exclusive part of his Minor?
2. And note how he puts that for the Question that is not the Question between us. A fair beginning! The Question is not about Churches in Communion with you, but about Churches in subjection to you: But this is but a pious fraud, to save men by deceiving them. The Ancient Church of Rome had the Church of Jerusalem, Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, and many a hundred Churches in Communion with her, that never were in subjection to her.
3. And if the Papists can but prove themselves true Christians, I will quickly prove that the Protestants are in Communion with them still, as Christians, by the same Head (Christ) the same spirit, baptism, faith, love, hope, &c. though not as Papists, by subjection to the same usurper.
4. Our question is of the Universal Church: And this man nameth us twenty or thirty men in an age that he saith were professors of their
Religion: And doth he believe in good sadness that twenty or thirty men are either the universal Church, or a sufficient proof that it was of their mind?
5. But principally, did this man think that all, or any besides their subjects had their wits so far to seek, as to believe that the persons named in his
Catalogue were Papists, without any proof in the world, but merely because they are listed here by H. T? Or might he not to as good purpose have saved his labor, and said nothing of them?
6. But what need we go any further? We will begin with him at his first Century, and so to the second, and if he can prove that Jesus Christ, or the Virgin Mary, or John the Baptist, or the Apostles, or any one of the rest that he hath named, were Papists, (much more all of them) I am resolved presently to turn Papist. But unless the man intended to provoke his reader to an irreverent laughter about this abuse of holy things, one would think he should not have named John the Baptist, that was dead not only before Rome had a Church, but also before the time that Bellarmine and his
Brethren pretend that Peter received his Commission, to be the universal Head. And did not this writer know that Protestants can give him the same names as for them? And if printing them be proof, their proof is as good: If it be not, what proof shall we have? Our proof is the Holy Scriptures, written by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost in those times. Thence we prove that the first Church held the same belief as we have: yea, though it be not incumbent on us, we will thence prove that the Catholic Church was not then Papists. Why else do we still appeal to Scriptures, and they refuse to stand to the trial of it any otherwise then as expounded by the Pope, but that we are confident, and they diffident of them. We know the Apostles faith from the Apostles; but the Papists will not know it but from the present
Church of Rome. They tell you the Apostles were for them: but how know we that? Why by the testimony of the next age: and where is that testimony? Why the third age received it; and how is that proved? Why
because the fourth age was of their mind; And how prove you that? Why in the upshot, because the present age is of their mind: Why but most
Christians of the present age, are against them: yea, but they are none of the Church: It is only the present Church of Rome. Well! But the present
Church of Rome represented in a General Council may err. I, but the Pope cannot in Cathedra and in approving a Council. So that the sum is this: If the Pope himself may be judge, the Apostles were Papists: But if the Apostles may be heard themselves, they were none.
I make no doubt (though Bellarmine deny it,) but other Churches can prove as good a succession as the Roman, as to Bishops; And poor
Bellarmine after all is fain to give up this Mark as insufficient to prove a true Church. Lib. 3. de Eccles. c. 8. Dico secundo, Argumentum à succession legittna adferri à nobis praecipue ad probandum non esse
Ecclesiam ibi non est haec successio, quod quidem evidens est: ex quo tamen non colligitur necessario, ibi esse Ecclesiam ubi est successio. By his own confession then, succession will not prove the Romanists a true
Church.
But as to a succession of Religion, and a continuation of the Catholic Church, for my part, I am so far from declining it, in argumentation, that I here solemnly profess to all the Papists that shall read these words, that, As Soon As I Shall See Any Certain Proof, By Catalogue Or Any Other Way,
That The Catholic Church, Hath Successively From Age To Age Been Papists, I Will Turn Papist Without Delay: And I Challenge Them To Give
Us Such Proof If They Can.
Nay if they will prove that in the first age alone, or the second, or third alone, the Catholic Church were Papists, I am resolved to turn Papist: Nay I
am most confident they cannot prove that in any one age to this day, the Catholic Church were Papists.
And as to H.T.s Catalogue, I return him further answer, that no one named by him in the first age had any one of their errors: And no one named by him to the year four hundred, (I may add, to the year six hundred, if his false catalogue be truly corrected) was a Papist; so well hath he proved the Popish Succession.
But for the plainer opening of this, I shall add the discussion of another of their deceits.