The True Catholic and Catholic Church Described, Part 6

The True Catholic and Catholic Church Described · Part 6

p. 843. The principal Sect that appropriate the Church to themselves, is the Papists. And to them I shall more largely open my mind. They make a great noise against all other parties with the name of the Roman Catholick Church, and the confident ostentation that it is only they. They make the Pope the visible Head of it, and exclude all from the Church, besides his Subjects: and all that are not of that Church they exclude also from salvation, with an extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. What p. 85shall we say to these things?

1. Sure it must needs be some admirable qualification that must thus advance the Church of Rome, to be the whole and only Catholick Church? And what should this be? Is it their extraordinary holinesse? I know they talk much of the Holiness of their Church: But they dare not put it upon that issue, and let us take that for the Church which we find to be most holy. On those terms I think we should soon be resolved, by a little observation and experience. However it would not serve their turn, unless they could prove that none are Holy at all but they. What then is the ground of this pretended Priviledge? Why because they take the Bishop of Rome for the Universal Bishop, and are under his government. And is this it p. 86that salvation is confined to.

2. And sure it must be some very hainous matter that all the rest of the Christian world must be unchurcht and damned for: And what is that? Is it for denying any Article of the faith? Which is it that we deny? When they would set them against Protestants, they boast that the Greeks are in all things of their mind, except the Popes Supremacy: And therefore this is the only Heresie that might unchurch and damn them. And it is not for ungodlinesse; for we are ready to joyn with them in severer censures of ungodlinesse, then we know how to bring them to. The damning crime is, That we believe not the Church of Rome to be the Mistress of all the Churches, and the Pope to be their Head. And indeed, is this a damning sinne, and inconsistent p. 87with Christianity, or Church-membership? I prove the contrary, That the Catholick Church is not confined to the Romane, but containeth in it all that I have mentioned before.

Argum. 1. If many are true Christians that believe not in the Pope, or Romane Church, as the Ruler of the rest, then many may be Church-members and saved, that believe not in them: But the Antecedent is certain. For

1. He that truly believes in God the Father, Sonne and holy Ghost, renouncing the flesh, the world and the Devil, is a Christian: But so do many millions that believe not in the Pope or Romane Sovereignty.

2. He that hath the sanctifying Spirit of Christ is a Christian: For Christ giveth it to no other: But so have millions that p. 88believe not the Romane Sovereignty, as I shall further shew anon.

3. Those that have all that's essential to a Christian, are true Christians: But so have millions that believe not the Romane Sovereignty. For they have Faith, Hope, Charity, Repentance and sincere Obedience: and therefore are true Christians. If you say, That the belief of the Romane Sovereignty is essential to Christianity, you must well prove it, which yet was never done.

I prove the contrary by many Arguments:

1. No Scripture tels us, that your Sovereignty is a truth, much lesse of the essence of Christianity. Therefore it is not so to be believed. What Bellarmine brings but to prove the truth of it, I have manifested to be utterly p. 89impertinent in my Book against Popery.

2. If it had been essential to Christianity, and necessary to salvation, to believe the Sovereignty of the Church of Rome, the Apostles would have preached it to all the people, whose conversion they endeavoured, and have stablished the Churches in it: But there is not a word in Scripture, or any Church History that ever the Apostles, or any Preachers of those times, did teach the people any such Doctrine: much lesse that they taught it all the people. And sure they would not have omitted a point of necessity to salvation.

3. If the Sovereignty of the Pope, or of Rome, is of necessity to Christianity and Salvation, then the Apostles and Pastors of the Primitive Church, would either have baptized men into the Pope p. 90and Romane Church, or at least have instructed their Catechumens in it, and required them to professe their belief in the Pope and Romane Church. But there is not a word in Scripture, or any Church records, intimating that ever such a thing was once done either by Orthodox or Hereticks; that ever any did baptize men into the name of the Pope or Romane Church, or did require of them a confession of the Romane Sovereignty; no nor ever taught any Church or Christian to obey the Church of Rome, as the Ruler of other Churches. Paul was more certainly an Apostle at Rome (a Bishop they call him) then Peter, and you may know his practice by 1 Cor. 1. 14, 15. [I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius, lest any should say, that I baptized in my p. 91own name.] The ancient forms of Baptism are recorded in Scripture and Church History: but this is never in. He that believed in God the Father, Sonne and holy Ghost, for R…mission, Justification, Sanctification, and everlasting life, was baptized as a Christian.

4. If the Sovereignty of the Romane Church were necessary to Christianity and salvation; we should have had it in some of the Creeds of the Primitive Church, or at least in the Exposition of those Creeds. But there we have no such thing. For their affirmation, That the word [Catholick Church] in the Creed, signifieth as much as [the Romane Catholick Church] doth signifie no more to us, but the dreaming ungrounded confidence of the affirmers.

5. Thousands and millions were p. 92saved in the Primitive Church without ever believing or confessing the Romane Sovereignty: Therefore it is not essential to Christianity. No man can prove that one Christian believed Rome to be the Mistress of other Churches for many an hundred year after Christ, much less that all believed it.

6. If it be an Article of Faith, and so essential to Christianity, that Rome is the mistresse of other Churches, then either it was so before there was a Church at Rome, or else it begun after. Not before: For when there was no Church, it could not be the mistress of all Churches: Not after: For then Christianity should have altered its specifick nature, and become another thing, by the adding of a new essential part. But Christianity is the same thing since there p. 93was a Church at Rome, as it was for many years before. And the Catholick Church is the same thing. It was many years a Catholick Church before there was any Church at Rome at all.

7. If it be necessary to Christianity or Salvation, to believe that Rome is the Mistresse and Head of the Catholick Church, then it is as necessary to know who it is that is this Head and Mistresse; whether it be the Pope, or the particular Church of Rome, or the General Council. For else the bare name of Rome should be the thing of necessity. But if we know not what that name doth signifie, it's no more to us then a non-sense word, which a Parrot may utter. But what it is that is this Head or Sovereignty the Papists themselves are utterly disagreed in. The Council p. 94of Constance and Basil defined, That the General Council is the Head, above the Pope, and may judge and depose him, as they did divers. The Laterane Council thought otherwise: And Bellarmine saith, the foresaid Council [judged the Judge of the whole world] and maintains the Pope to be the Head and Seat of Sovereignty. The Italians go one way, and the French another. But if these be true General Councils, then the matter is determined against the Pope, and therefore is is an Article of Faith, to be believed on pain of damnation, that the Council is above the Pope: And yet it is also an Article of Faith to be believed on the same penalty, that the Pope is above the General Council: for the Council at the Laterans under Leo 10. hath determined it, p. 95Sess. 11. So that Councils are contrary, and Articles of Faith are contrary, and he that will be a Papist must believe contradictions. If to evade this any say, That either the Council of Constance, or that at the Laterane were not true General Councils, or not approved by the Pope: For that of Constance, Bellarmine answers after Turr… cremata, Campegius, Sanders, &c. That it was a true and approved Council (Lib. 2. de Concil. cap. 19.) But they say, That it determined only that the Council is above the Pope in case of a Schism, when the true Pope is not known. But Bellarmine durst not stand to this answer: For the express words of the Council are, that [A General Council hath immediate Authority from Christ, which all are bound to obey, though of Papal Dignity.] Can plainer p. 96words be spoke? But Bellarmines other shift is worse [That P. Martin 5. confirmed all that was done in this Council, conciliariter; but this (saith he) was not conciliariter.] See what jugling the Articles of the Romish Faith are liable to, and how clear an interpreter of Scriptures, and decider of controversies we have, that speaks so enigmatically, when he seems to speak most plainly, even in confirming a General Council, that his own Cardinals, nor the Council it self, are not able to understand him. But perhaps the Council at the Laterane was false, that determineth of the contrary, That the Pope is above Councils: No, not in the judgement of Bellarmine and his party. For (Lib. 2. de Concil. cap. 17.) he saith, That Vix dici potest, it can scarce be said that the p. 97Council was not General. And the Pope was in it and confirmed it, and the non-reception of it by others, he saith is nothing, because Decrees of faith are immutable, and the not receiving cannot change them. What a case then are they in, that must needs be damned? Whether they believe the Pope to be the supream, or the Council to be the supream? One Council is against one way, and the other against the other way, and both Councils confirmed by undoubted Popes. But yet they have a remedy, and that is, That yet the matter is doubtfull: And where is the doubt? Why it is, whether the Council defined this as an Article of faith, or no? And therefore saith Bellarmine, [They are not properly Hereticks that hold the contrary, but cannot be excused from great p. 98timerity.] So that you see what certainty the Papists are at in their faith. It cannot be known, nor will any succeeding Popes determine it, when a Council hath decided a point, whether or no they intended it as an Article of Faith (And yet in the Trent Oath they are to swear obedience [To all things defined and declared by the sacred Canons and Oecumenical Councils.)] One Council Decrees, That the Pope is highest, and another or two Decree, That the Council is highest, and the Pope must obey them: yea both these are confirmed by the Pope. The Subjects are sworn to obey both contradictories: And yet after this contrary decision, the case is still undecided with them, and for fear of losing half their party, they dare not say, that either are Properly Hereticks p. 99(mark Properly.) Yea (saith Bellarmine, de Concil. lib. 2. c. 13.) [Though afterwards in the Florentine and Laterane Council the Question seems to be defined (having before been contrarily defined at Constance and Basil) yet to this day it remaineth a Question among Catholicks, because the Council of Florence seems not to define it so expresly: and of the Council of Laterane, which most expresly defined it, some doubt.] So that as there's no understanding their Councils in their highest Decrees, so we have the Confession of the Papists themselves, that it is yet undetermined, and no point of faith, which is the Sovereign Power in the Church: And if it be not so much as determined, then much lesse is it essential to Christianity. And if it be not necessary to know, Who hath p. 100the Sovereignty, then it cannot be necessary to know, that it is in the Church of Rome: For the name of the Church of Rome is nothing but a sound, without the thing that's signified by it. Moreover, the Pope is not the Church of Rome. For it was never heard that one man was call'd a Church: And a general Council is not the Churches of Rome. For if there be such a thing, it representeth all Churches as much as Rome. And therefore which ever be the Sovereign, it cannot be the Church of Rome. And as for the particular Romane Clergy or people, no man that ever I heard of did yet affirm, that it was the Sovereign Ruler of the Churches. It is only the Pope and Council that are competitors.

If any say, That it is the Pope and Council only conjunct. I p. 101answer, 1. That two that are both fallible, set together, will not make one infallible power. 2. Then the farre greatest part of the Papists are erroneous in holding the contrary. For almost all make either the Pope, or the Council to be the seat of Supremacy and Infallibility. 3. Then what is become of the Church, when these two disagree, as frequently they have done. 4. The Pope and Council agreeing do oft contradict a former Pope and Council agreeing do oft contradict a former Pope and Council agreeing. 5. Then the Church is without a Head, all this while that there is no Council in being. See Bellarmines Arguments against this opinion.

8. Another Argument to prove, that it is not essential to Christianity to believe the Sovereignty of the Pope or Church of Rome, is this, It is not necessary p. 102to salvation to know that there is such a place as Rome in the world, or whether there be one or two, or ten places of that name, or which of them it is that hath the Sovereignty: and therefore it cannot be necessary to believe that it is the Catholick or Mistress Church: would God lay mens salvation upon the title of a City, many thousand miles from some parts of his Church, which they have no knowledge of? Many Papists say, That Heathens have sufficient means of salvation, that never heard of Christ; and yet will they damn Christians that never heard of the City or Pope of Rome? For about three hundred years after Christ, it was the seat of the greatest Idolatry, impiety, and persecuting cruelty in the world. And would God all that while so advance that p. 103wicked place, as to make it essential to Christianity to believe Rome to be the seat of the Sovereignty of the Church.

9. We have no certainty of faith that Rome shall not be burnt, or be possessed by Mahometanes, or turn to Infidelity: Therefore we have no certainty that it shall be any Church at all, much less the true Ruling, or Catholick Church.

10. If it were necessary to salvation to believe Romes Sovereignty, God would afford the world sufficient evidence of it, and commission Preachers to preach it to the world: For how should they believe without a Preacher, and how shall he preach except he be sent? But no such Commissions are proved to be given to any from the Lord.

Having thus backt my first p. 104Argument, and proved others besides Papists to be Christians, and consequently members of the Catholick Church, I may proceed to the rest.

Argum. 2. If millions besides Papists have the Spirit of God, and true saith, and charity, and holiness, then are they members of the Catholick Church. For out of the Church is no salvation: but all that have the Holy Ghost and charity, shall be saved, as the Papists confess, if they continue in it. But that many besides Papists have charity and Sanctification, we have large experience to perswade us to conclude: For though no man can know the certain truth of another mans profession or heart; yet as far as men can know by one another, we have ground to be exeeeding confident of the Sanctity and Charity of multitudes p. 105among us. I profess if it were but this one thing that hindered me, I could not be a Papist upon any terms. I live among humble, holy, and heavenly people, that live in continual breathings after God, hating a sinfull thought, in great mortification, and willingness to know Gods will, that they may obey it; and accordingly abundance have ended their lives in peace and joy in the holy Ghost: none of these were Papists: And now it is impossible for a man to be a Papist, that will not conclude all these to be out of the Catholick Church, and consequently to be unsanctified and cond…mned. And if so, I am resolved never to be Papist. If I cannot be a Papist without condemning a multitude of the Heliest persons that ever I could meet with, and shutting my eyes p. 106against the admirable lustre of their graces, let them be Papists that will for me.

Argum. 3. The Lord Jesus shed his bloud for all Christians as well as Papists, with a special intent to sanctifie and save all that are such indeed. Therefore they are members of the Catholick Church, Ephes. 5. 25, 26, 27.

Argum. 4. All Christians are subject to Christ, though they be not subject to the Pope: Therefore they are the Church of Christ, Eph. 5. 24.

Argum. 5. Those that are loved of the Father and reconciled to him, are to be taken for members of the Church. But all that believe in the Sonne, and Love him, are Loved by the Father, and reconciled to him, Joh. 16. 27. Rom. 5. 1, 2.

Argum. 6. All that are justly p. 107baptized, are visible members of the Church: But many are justly baptized that believe not the Sovereignty of Rome. Therefore, &c. The minor is evident by the Scripture direction for Baptizing, and examples of it; and millions at this day in the Church of God confirme it to us.

Argum. 7. They that have a promise of pardon, and are the adopted sons of God, and heirs of Glory, are members of the Church (beyond all Question) But so are all that believe in Christ, and Love God, whether they believe in the Pope or not. As you may see expresly, John 1. 12. & 3. 15, 16, 18. & 17. 20, 21, 22, 24. Mark 16. 16. Joh. 3. 36. & 5. 24. & 6. 35, 40, 47. & 7. 38. & 11. 25, 26. & 12. 46. Rom. 3. 22, 26. & 4. 11, 24. & 9. 33. & 10. 9. Gal. p. 1083. 22. 2 Thess. 1. 10. Heb. 4. 3. Act. 5. 14. 1 Pet. 2. 6. 1 John. 5. 1, 5, 10. Acts 13. 39.

Argum. 8. If they must live in Heaven with us, we have reason to take them for members of the Church on earth. But all that truly love God and believe in Christ shall live in Heaven with us, though they never believed in the Pope. Therefore, &c.

Argum. 9. They that are united in all the twenty particulars in the beginning expressed are certainly members of the Catholick Church: But so are many that believe not in the Pope. Therefore.

Argum. 10. The Papists Doctrine goes against the certain experience of the sanctified. Some measure of Assurance I have my self, of the Love of God in me; p. 109and much more many others have, as I see great reason to believe. Now Popery binds me to conclude that I am void of charity and all saving special Grace, because I believe not in the Pope, that is, to renounce the experience of Gods grace in my soul, and unthankfully to deny all these mercies of God. So that as sure as any Protestant can be of charity or saving grace in himself, so sure may he be that Popery is false Doctrine, and that's enough.