A Key for Catholics, Treatise 1 · Chapter 24

A Key for Catholics · Treatise 1 · Chapter 24

p. 115CHAP. XXIV.

Detect. 15. ANother fraud of the Papiſts, which they place not the leaſt of their confidence in, is this: They perſwade the people that our Church and Religion is but new, of the other dayes 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?

p. 116To 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 Goſpell) that we are contented that our whole cauſe do ſtand or fall by this tryall. 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 dayes 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 marvailouſly increaſe in a ſhort time; which is called Evangelicall, 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 antient 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 Scriture 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 p. 117true: They acknowledge Scripture to be the true word of God; So that the Truth of our Rule is Juſtified by themſelves. 2. Let them ſhew 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 Apoſtolicall: 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 meer Hereticall or Erroneous forgeries, and they can give us no proof that ever they were Apoſtolicall. 2. The Scripture affirmeth its own ſufficiency; and therefore excludeth their Traditions. 3. I ſhewed you how in their own General Council at Baſil, the Scripture ſufficiency was defended. 4. I have ſhewed 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 Catholick Church: the far greater part of Chriſtians being againſt them. 6. We are able to ſhew 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 Controverſie mantained 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 Apoſtolicall or true that is contrary to them: For example: the Papiſts Tradition is, that the Clergy is exempt from the Magiſtrates judgement: But the holy Scripture ſaith [Let every ſoul be ſubject to the higher power, Rom. 13. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. The Papiſts Tradition is for ſerving God publickly in an unknown tongue. But the holy Scripture is fully againſt it. Their Tradition is againſt Lay mens 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 wayes we know their Traditions to be p. 118deceitfull; becauſe they are 1. Unproved. 2. Againſt the ſufficiency of Scripture. 3. Againſt their own former confeſſions. 4. Againſt the concent of the Fathers. 5. Contrary to the judgement of moſt of the Catholick 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 ſhew which of us is neereſt the doctrine and practice of the Apoſtles, then the controverſie 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 fullyer cleared in that which followeth.

II. And that our Church and Religion hath been continued from the dayes 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 Catholick Church hath continued from the dayes of Chriſt till now. But ours is the Chriſtian Religion, and Catholick Church: therefore ours hath continued from the dayes 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 neerer 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 generall 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 Catholick Church, whereof Chriſt is the head, and all true p. 119Chriſtians are members, are of the true Church: (For there is but one Catholick 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 Catholick 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 Catholick Church of our own; for there is but one, and that is our Church: Wherever the Chriſtian Church was, there was our Church. And whereever any Chriſtians were congregate for Gods 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 Manuall, that names you ſome Popes, and about twenty profeſſors of their faith in each age, as if twenty or thirty men were the Catholick Church: Or as if thoſe men were proved to be Papiſts by his naming them? This is eaſie, 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 implicite and actuall explicite 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 implyed Negatives; and the expreſs Articles themſelves, from their implyed 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 dayes of Chriſt and his Apoſtles our Church was where they and all Chriſtians were: And our Religion was p. 120with 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 dayes of the A poſtles themſelves, the Conſectaries, and implied Verities, and Rejections of all Hereſies were not particularly and expreſly delivered either in Scripture or Tradition (as the Papiſts will confeſs.)

3. In the next ages after the Apoſtles, our Church was the one Catholick 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 Publick 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 implyed in the Apoſtolical Scripture doctrine which they preſerved.

4. By degrees many errors crept into the Church: yet ſo, that 1. Neither the Catholick 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 it ſelf, and ſo had a perfect General or Implicite belief; even while by evill conſequences they oppugned many parts of their own profeſſion.

5. When in proceſs of time by claiming the univerſall Soveraignty, Rome had introduced a new pretended Catholick Church, p. 121(ſo far as their opinion took) by ſuperadding a New Head and form, there was then a two fold 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 endeavoured 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 Catholick 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 ſeverall 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 Lords 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 it ſelf was not ripe for a corruption of the Chriſtian faith profeſſed, till Luthers oppoſition heightned them. For the Scripture was frequently before, by Papiſts held to be a moſt ſufficient Rule of faith, (as I ſhewed 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 equalled 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, p. 122Greeks, 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 Governour of the Univerſall 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 Catholick 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 Catholick Monarchy, the pretended Infallibility of the Pope or his Councils: the new form of the Papall Catholick Church, as Headed by him, with other ſuch points; which are the very fundamentall controverſies between us and the Papiſts. So that (beſides that the Papiſts themſelves profeſs our Religion) the major part of the Catholick Church did profeſs it, with the Rejection of the Papacy and Papall Church; and ſo you may as eaſily ſee where our Religion was before Luther, as where the Catholick 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 it ſelf, and under the Popes noſe, and oppoſed him in many of his ill endeavours 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 ſubtilty of the Papall 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 Emperours 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 Emperours and Princes, and againſt his doctrine and tyranny: ſome ſtore of them Goldaſtus hath gathered: And intimations of more you have p. 123in 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 coutinued ſince the Apoſtles, and no other Originall of them is proved. 4. Particular evidence unanſwerable is given in by Biſhop Uſher de Succeſ. & ſtatu Eccl. and Anſwer to the Jeſuites, and the Ancient Religion of Ireland, and in Dr. Field, and Morneyes Myſterie of Iniquity, and of the Church, and Illyricus, and many others. 5. Even Generall Popiſh Councils have contended and born witneſs againſt the Popes ſuperiority over a Councill. 6. And in that and other points whole Countreyes 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 Jeſuites 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 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 Governours 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 medled 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.

p. 124So that in ſumm, our Religion was at firſt with the Apoſtles, and the Apoſtolick Church: and for divers hundred years after, it was with the univerſal Chriſtian Church: And ſince Romes uſurpation, it was even with the Romaniſts though abuſed, and with the greater part of the Catholick 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, Abaſsines, and moſt of the Chriſtian world, (yea all that is truly Chriſtian) I eaſily prove it. 1. They that are Chriſtians joyned 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, Abaſſines, &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 Catholick Church, and the true Chriſtian Religion: but ſuch are all that are ſincere, both of the Greeks, Abaſſines, &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 Jeſuites in the world cannot perſwade 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 then I do.

4. If Chriſt Conſent to it, and we Conſent to it, then we are p. 125all (that are ſincere in their profeſsion) of the true Catholick 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 Baptiſme, 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 Catholick Church: (For it is the very nature and uſe of Baptiſme to enter us into that Church:) But Greeks, Abaſſines, Georgians, Armenians, &c. and Proteſtants, are all truly Baptized, and own their Baptiſmal Covenant: therefore we are all of the true Catholick 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 Manuall 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 (pag. 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 Schiſme, 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 deſtroyes your Argument and Cauſe. Me thinks you ſhould not ask them, where their Church was before Luther?

p. 1262. But how doth this Diſputer prove his Minor, that we have no Succeſſion? Only by a ſtark falſhood: 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 Catholick, 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 labour of writing his Book, and have as honeſtly at once have perſwaded his Diſciples, that his Adverſaries unanimouſly conſeſs 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 perſwade 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 Calvins [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 deales with Dr. White, who expreſly in the words before thoſe which he citeth, affirmeth the viſibility of the Churches of Greece, Ethiope, 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 ſhew 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.

p. 127His ſecond is this. Without a continued number of Biſhops, Prieſts, Laicks, 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 withall gives us certain Laws, which we will obey when they grow up to the honour of being reaſonable. His firſt Law is, that [We muſt name none but only ſuch as held explicitely the thirty nine Articles, all granting and denying the ſame points that the late Proteſtants of England granted or denyed—for if they differ from them in any one materiall 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 Eſſentiall to Chriſtianity, we grant your impoſition to be neceſſary. But there is not the leaſt Chronologicall, or Geographicall, or other truth in Scripture, but is a Materiall 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 materiall, 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 Materiall, are not of the eſſence of Chriſtianity.

Argum. 2. The Apoſtle Thomas erred in a Materiall point (which is now an eſſentiall) when he would not believe Chriſts 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: p. 128Are none of the points Material that have been ſo hotly agitated between the Jeſuites, and Dominicans and Janſeniſts? the Papall party, and the Councill party? The Thomiſts, Scotiſts, Ockamiſts, &c. At leaſt review the Jeſuite Caſuiſts cited by the Janſeniſts Myſterie 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 perſwade 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 falſly with mentall 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 murthering 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 Millenarie: Numbered divers 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 Gyants of them, &c. Irenaeus hath the like: Theophilus Antioch. worſe: Tertullian and Orrigen 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 hereticks; 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 fourty more of them at the leaſt. And yet p. 129all 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 cap. 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 Hereticks. Cyprian he ſaith did ſeem to ſin mortally: de Rom. Pont. lib. 4. cap, 7. Auguſtine is accuſed by many Jeſuites for going too far from Pelagius. Hierom is oft pluckt 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 explicitely hold the thirty nine Articles? 1. I pray you tell us, whether all your own Church do explicitely 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 explicitely believe all this? And why then is it neceſſary in our caſe that all muſt explicitely 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, Reignolds, Perkins, or ſuch other have written p. 130in their whole works. 3. Its eaſie 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 our ſelves 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 our ſelves [Chriſtians] only; But it is a title that accidentally accrewed 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 judgement: 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 unlawfull 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 faſtned p. 131on them, was much elder, as Raynerius may ſatisfie 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 Binnius 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 mortall ſin to reject the Sacraments of Confirmation, extream unction and marriage.] And yet now Huſs is burnt for it, the poor lay-Papiſts are perſwaded 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 Hierom burnt after they had a ſafe conduct, doth ſhew that the faith of Papiſts is perfidiouſneſs, (for why ſhould the people be more juſt then a General Council?) but it ſhews 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 neer kin.

But H. T. proceeds with his precepts [Let him not name the Albigenſes: for they held all marriages to be unlawfull, and all things begotten ex coitu to be unclean: They held two Gods &c.] Anſw. Theſe are not only ſuch falſhoods 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. p. 132cap. 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10. who hath given you enough out of your own writers to have ſatisfied you; and ſhewed you, that it was from the Arrians and Manichees, inhabiting thoſe Countreyes 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 ſpoak 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 fatall neceſsity; That Princes and Magiſtrates fell from their dignity and power by mortall ſin.] Anſw. We know by many of Wicklifs own books printed and manuſcript what his judgement was, what ever 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 Jeſuites 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 Lords that will not root out ſuch as the Pope cals Hereticks muſt be caſt our, and their Countrey given to others. It ſeems you take Wicklife to be ſome kin to your ſelves. But we doubt not but he was of the Catholick 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 Patriark, or twenty men reject our Communion, p. 133whats that to the Millions of Greek Chriſtians that never rejected it? And whats that to all Patriarcks 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 falſly accuſed to the Turks by the Jeſuites, 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 Patriark dyed? and how the Greeks reſented his fact? and what a return they made to your Church? I pray perſwade your ſelves 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 neighbour 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 Jeſuites on earth that can prove the Greeks and us to be ſo diſtant, as not to be of the ſame Catholick 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 denyed the proceſſion of the Holy Ghoſt from the Son, and held but one will in Chriſt. Godignus de reb. Abaſ. lib. 1. cap. 28.] Anſw. 1. Godignus talks not of the Egyptians but the Abaſſines. 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 Abaſſines: He is likely to know well the true Catholick 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 your ſelves. An Ethiopick 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 p. 134Hoc 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 groſly 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 denyal 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 Copties to be of the ſame Catholick 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 Catholick Church. Binnius in the life of Eugenius the third ſaith, their Catholick (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. cap. 53. And divers 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, 27, 28, 29, 30. &c. 2. That they change the humane nature of Chriſt into the Divinity, is your ſlander, and therefore no good argument. 3. That they were condemned by (the five Acts, 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 falſhoods. But the beſt is, your ſimple Papiſts know not but all is true: they muſt believe p. 135you, and cannot diſprove you. The Armenians then and we are of one Catholick Church and Religion, notwithſtanding all your forgeries and vain exceptions. I know that one or two petty Councils chid them for not mixing water with wine in the Euchariſt; and more then 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 Saturdayes and Sundayes in Lent. But 1. We fear not to ſay that we are of the ſame Church with men that err more then 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 priviledges 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 mans ſoul and body are two Natures or but one, its ten to one but it would have made another hereſie, and yet perhaps the real difference have been no more then it is now there is no Controverſie about it. But H. T. addeth [Proteſtants pretence 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 an univerſal Monarchy to Proteſt againſt, they were not to be called Proteſtants. 2. It is an idle pretence 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 pretences 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 p. 126enough 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 then 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 Hereſie if he underſtood Greek or Hebrew, and of Magick or Conjuring, if he medled with Mathematicks? 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 Auguſtines, p. 137Epiphanius, Chryſoſtomes, &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 mens 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 it ſelf 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 judgement.

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 Hereticks or corrupters, you will not ſay your ſelves. Well then! the far greateſt part of the Catholick 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 Catholick Church ſucceeding to this day, and you to an uſurper that then was newly ſet on the Throne of univerſal Soveraignty. So that your chief Argument treadeth Popery in the dirt: becauſe the greater part of the Catholick Church not only in the fifth and ſixth age, but in the ſeventh, eighth, nineth, tenth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth and ſixteenth ages, have been aliens or enemies to the Roman univerſal p. 138Monarchy: therefore if one age of the Church knew the mind of the former age, better then 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 ſhewed the ſucceſſion of our Church: and continuation of our Religion from the Apoſtles, and where it was before Luther, and given you the Catholick Church inſtead of a dozen or twenty names in each age, which it ſeems will ſatisfie 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 Catholick 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 Sea 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 p. 139prove 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 decieving them. The Ancient Church of Rome had the Church of Hieruſalem, 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 univerſall 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 meerly becauſe they are liſted here by H. T? Or might he not to as good purpoſe have ſaved his labour, and ſaid nothing of them?

6 But what need we go any further? we will begin with him at lis firſt Century, and ſo to the ſecond, and if he can prove that Jeſus Chriſt, or the Virgin Mary, or John 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 unreverent laughter about this abuſe of holy things, one would think he ſhould not have named John 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 p. 140his Commiſsion, to be the univerſall 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 Catholick Church was not then Papiſts. Why elſe do we ſtill appeal to Scriptures, and they refuſe to ſtand to the tryal 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 Councill. So that the ſumm 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 Romane, as to Biſhops; And poor Bellarmine after all is fain to give up this Mark as inſufficient to prove a true Church. Lib. …. de Eccleſ. cap. 8. Dico ſecundò, Argumentum à ſucceſsione legittna adferri à nobis praecipuè ad probandum non eſſe Eccleſiam ibi non eſt haec ſucceſsio, quod quidem evidens eſt: ex quo tamen n… 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 Catholick Church, for my part, I am ſo far from declining it, in argumentation, that I here ſolemnly profeſs to all the Papiſts p. 141that ſhall read theſe words, that, AS SOON AS I SHALL SEE ANY CERTAIN PROOF, BY CATALOGUE OR ANY OTHER WAY, THAT THE CATHOLICK 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 Catholick Church were Papiſts, I am am reſolved to turn Papiſt: Nay I am moſt confident they cannot prove that in any one age to this day, the Catholick Church were Papiſts.

And as to H. Ts. 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.