Romanism Discussed, Treatise · Article 4 – Article 5
ARTIC. IV.
One Catholick Church not the Roman The Church of Rome is not that one Catholick Church, which in the Apoſtolick and Nicene Creeds is made the Object of Chriſtian Faith.
SECT. I.
Unity in non-fundamentals of Faith and Diſcipline is not eſſentially preſuppoſed to the Univerſality of the Church Militant.
H. T. to his fourth Article gives this Title, The true Church demonſtrated by her Unity and Univerſality; and then ſaith, Unity being eſſentially preſuppoſed to Univerſality, I thought it not improper to joyn theſe two in one Article.
Anſw. IF this Authour had meant to deal plainly, he ſhould have told us what Unity is eſſentially preſuppoſed to Univerſality, and how the true Church is demonſtrated by her Unity and Univerſality. Unity in general is ſo far from being eſſentially preſuppoſed to Univerſality in general, that the contrary ſeems more true, that one is not univerſal, Unity not conſiſtent with Univerſality, it being in effect as if i… were ſaid, One is many or all; yet I deny not ſome unity in ſpecial may be eſſentially preſuppoſed to ſome univerſality in ſpecial. There are many ſorts of unity which Logicians and Writers of Metaphyſicks reckon up, in reſpect of which it is certain, that the true Church of Chriſt cannot be ſaid to be one, as it cannot be ſaid to be one with generical or ſpecifical unity; for that is not eſſentially preſuppoſed to univerſality of time and place, but is abſtracted from it. But he ſeems to mean unity in Doctrine, Diſcipline, and Faith, by the words following. Univerſality likewiſe is manifold, as Logicians and Writers of Metaphyſicks ſhew, as there is an univerſality of predication, of eſſence, and exiſtence. Now this Authour ſeems to mean univerſality of exiſtence for time and place, and his meaning is this, that unity of Doctrine, Diſcipline, and Faith, is eſſentially preſuppoſed to univerſality of exiſtence for time and place: that is, that Church which hath not the ſame Doctrine, Faith, and Diſcipline, which all Churches of Chriſt in all times and places have had, is not the true Church of Chriſt, and that which hath is the true Church of Chriſt. Now theſe Propoſitions I grant, if meant of Doctrine, and Faith in the Fundamentals, but not if meant of meer outward Church-diſcipline, or Doctrine, and Faith in points not fundamental, having learned from the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 3. 11, 12, 13, 14. that ſome may build Hay and Stubble, that is, ſome errors upon the foundation Chriſt, who yet may be ſaved: which they could not be, if they were not of the true Church of Chriſt, or, that is no true Church of Chriſt, which conſiſts of ſuch. In like manner, the Apoſtle Rom. 14. 2. expreſly tells us in the Church of Rome, one did believe he might eat all things, and another did eat herbs, one eſteemed one day above another, others eſteemed every day alike, and yet God received them both, and they were Gods ſervants, v. 3, 4, 5. And that in Diſcipline there may be diſagreement, yea, Schiſm, and diſorder, is apparent from the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 1. 11, 12. & 51. & 6. 7. & 11. 17, &c. & 14. 26. & 15. 12. who are termed the Church of God, 1 Cor. 1. 2. And therefore without diſtinction and due limitation (which this Authour omits) his Poſition is not true. But let's view what he writes.
SECT. II.
The antiquity of H. T. his ſaying of the Roman Church its unity and univerſality is ſhewed.
Now, ſaith H. T. that the church of Rome is both perfectly one, and alſo univerſal for time and place is thus demonſtrated.
Anſw. HEre again this Authour deals ſophiſtically, putting the Roman church for the true church, as if they were the ſame, and not explaining what he means by the Roman church, which may either… ſignifie the church that is in Rome, which is the expreſſion of the Apoſtle, Rom. 1. 7. or the Church where ever it be, which holds the Roman faith. And this Roman faith may be either the faith in all points which now at this day the Biſhop, and Prieſts, and People, dwelling at Rome hold, or which the Chriſtians at Rome held in the days of Paul, and ſome Ages after. If it be meant in this this laſt ſenſe, the true Church is no more the Roman church than Corinthian, nor ſo much as the Hieroſolymitan, whence all churches received the faith: if in the former ſenſe, the term is not according to the ancient uſe either in Scripture or ancient Eccleſiaſtick Writers, though I conceive it ſo meant by this Authour. To be perfectly one is alſo ambiguous: it may be meant either that they have not the leaſt diſagreement in Doctrine, Diſcipline, and Faith, or they hold the ſame Faith and Doctrine in the main, or points fundamental. To be univerſal for time and place, may be either meant thus, that the perſons now termed the Roman church are univerſal for time and place. But this is contrary to ſenſe, it being known by it, that they were born within a certain definite time, at certain definite places, not in all times, and every place exiſtent: or that the faith which now the Romaniſts hold, is that which in all times and places the true church of God hath held. And this we deny if it be meant of the Articles in Pope Pius the fourth his Creed, and are willing to put all our controverſies to this iſſue. But H. T. looks quite awry from this, as will appear by viewing his diſpute, which is thus.
SECT. III.
Unity under one viſible bead without diviſion in leſſer points and diſciplin, is not proved from 1 Cor. 10. 17. Epheſ. 1. 22, 23. John 10. 16. 1 Cor. 1. 10. Act. 4. 32. John 17. 11. and the Nicene Creed.
H. T. ſaith The argument for unity. The church of Chriſt is one body, one fold or flock (of which he himſelf is the ſupreme inviſible head, and the Pope his deputy on earth the viſible or miniſterial) But the Roman Catholick church and no other is this one body, one ſold or flock; therefore the Roman Catholick church and no other is the church of Chriſt. The Major is proved, We are one bread and one body as many as participate of one bread. 1 Cor. 10. 18. He hath made him (Chriſt) head over all the Church which is his body. Epheſ. 1. 22, 23. There ſhall be made one fold and one Paſtor. John 10. 16. I beſeech you, that you all ſpeak one thing, and that there be no Schiſms among you, but that ye be perfect in one ſenſe and one judgement. 1 Cor. 1. 10 The multitude of believers had one heart, one ſoul. Act. 4. 32. Chriſt prayed that his Diſciples might be one. St. John 17. 11. I believe one holy Catholick and Apoſtolick church. The Nicene Creed.
Anſ. 1. THe thing pretended to be demonſtrated by her unity, was the true church, after he changeth it into this, that the church of Rome is both perfectly one, and alſo univerſal for time and place is thus demonſtrated, here the concluſion is the Roman Catholick church and no other is the church of Chriſt. By comparing of which it is apparent, that this Author ſuppoſeth the true church, the church of Rome, and the Roman Catholick church to be ſynonymous or diverſe names of the ſame thing, which is ſuppoſed but not proved, nor yeilded, nor can be true, as ſhall be ſhewed after. 2. This Author pretends to demonſtrate by this argument, the church of Rome to be perfectly one, which ſhould have been his concluſion, whereas not heeding his words he makes it the Minor. 3. He puts in by a parentheſis in the Major many words which are not in the Minor, though they belong to the middle term, which ſhould be the ſame in both premiſes: nor is any proof brought for them here; to wit, that the Pope is Chriſts deputy on earth, the viſible or miniſterial head of that church, which is one body, one fold or flock. 4. That the Major might be for his purpoſe it ſhould have been thus; that church which is one body, one fold or flock (of which he himſelf is the ſupreme inviſible head, and the Pope his deputy on earth the viſible or miniſterial) and no other is the church of Chriſt, but ſuch is the church of Rome, ergo. But as it is now framed it is in the ſecond figure of all affirmatives, which is againſt Logick rules, and makes the ſyllogiſm naught, as the very freſhmen know. But to it as it is now framed I anſwer. If the words [and the Pope his deputy on earth the viſible or miniſterial] be left out, the Major is granted in this ſenſe, that the univerſal church of Chriſt are one body by unity of one ſpirit and faith of the fundamentals, and one flock by unity of one head, and ſupreme Paſtor. But in H. T. his ſenſe it is moſt falſe, that it is one by the ſame faith in every point without any difference in leſſer points, or without any diviſions in rites and diſciplin, and in ſubjection to one univerſal Biſhop on earth, as Chriſts deputy and the churches viſible head. Nor do any of the texts prove it in this ſenſe. For the firſt doth not expreſs what all Chriſtians were in reſpect of their ſtate; but profeſſion, and the unity is not derived from either ſubjection to one univerſal Biſhop on earth, or agreement in all points, but from participating of one bread in the Lords Supper. For it is not to be read as this Author after the vulgar tranſlation reads it [as many as participate of one bread] but [for we all partake of one bread] it being in Greek foreign and in ſome copies of the vulgar [nam omnes] as in the Plantin edition by the Lovain Divines 1574. I finde it in the margin: ſo that the meaning is this, we do ſhew our ſelves one body, one bread, foraſmuch as we all partake of one bread in the Lords Supper.
The next text, Epheſ. 1. 22, 23. proves only that the church is one body by unity of one head, to wit Chriſt, as H. T. rightly interprets it. And the third text, John 10. 16. alſo makes the whole church one flock (as it ſhould be read) not one fold, in reſpect of one Paſtor, which the very words, ver. 11. 14, 15, 16. do ſhew plainly to be Chriſt himſelf, who gave his life for them, and no other; and therefore none of theſe texts derive the unity of the church from ſubjection to the Biſhop of Rome as viſible head or chief Paſtor. The next text, 1 Cor. 1. 10. doth only prove that the church ought to be of one mind and one judgement without Schiſms, not that they are, or muſt be, if they be the true church, but the text proves the contrary, that they may be a true church though there be Schiſms, and difference of judgement among them. The fifth, Acts 4. 32. only proves that the church at Jeruſalem once were ſo (at which time they had alſo all things common, which doubtleſs H. T. will not ſay muſt or doth agree to the whole church at all times) but not that the whole church ſhall be ſo ſtill. The laſt, John 17. 11. is a prayer of Chriſt that it may be ſo, and ſo will be accompliſhed, but by the words, ver. 21, 22, 23. it ſeems moſt likely not to be till they be conſummate in glory; or if afore, yet certainly the unity cannot be meant of unity in every thing; for ſo Peter and Paul did not agree, as Gal. 2. 11, 12, 13, 14. it appears, but of ſuch unity in communion with God, and aiming at his glory, as is only in the elect by vertue of Chriſts indwelling by his Spirit: which is nothing to the unity which H. T. here requires as peculiar to the Roman church. The paſſage of the Nicene creed proves only an unity of the church, but not an unity by agreement in all points and ſubjection to one Catholick Biſhop on earth. So that H. T. after his faſhion cites many texts, but not one for his purpoſe.
SECT. IV.
It is notoriouſly falſe that the Romaniſts are perfectly one, or have better unity, or means of unity than Protestants, and H. T. his argument for the truth of the Roman church from its unity proves the contrary.
H. T. adds. The minor is made evident (even to the weakeſt underſtanding) by the preſent manifold Schiſms and diviſions, which are now among Proteſtants and all other Sectaries, as well in doctrine as government, whereas Catholicks are perfectly one both in diſciplin and doctrine, all the world over, even to the leaſt Article or point of faith, being all united to one ſupreme inviſible head, Chriſt Jeſus, and all ſubordinate to one viſible and miniſterial head, the Pope his Vicar on earth; we all reſolve our ſelves in points of faith into one ſafe and moſt unchangeable principle, I believe the holy Catholick church, we look on her as the immediate and authorized proponent of all revealed verities, and the infallible Judge of controverſies; God himſelf being the prime Author, and his authority the formal motive and object of our faith.
Anſw. 1. The Proteſtants are not Sectaries nor divided from the Catholick church, but from the now Roman party, who are really a faction divided from the Catholick church holding a new faith never eſtabliſhed till the Tridentin council, though with an impudent face H. T. avouch a moſt palbable falſhood of the Romaniſts univerſality, and arrogates to the Roman the title of Catholick church. Nor are the now diviſions of Proteſtants in doctrine or government ſuch as cut them off from the unity of the Catholick church, they own Chriſt their head, and faith in him, which is ſufficient to ſave them, and even by this Authors next argument, enough to make them members of the Catholick church. 2. The Schiſms and diviſions of the Papiſts have been and are as great as the diviſions of the Proteſtants. In former ages there were many Schiſms even in the church of Rome between the ſeveral Popes at one time, and the factions among the people about Popes and Emperours and other quarrels. Onuphrius reckons up thirty. Bellarmin himſelf twenty ſix Schiſms one after another, ſometimes one Pope condemning what another had done, and excommunicating and perſecuting Emperours, Antipapes, and all that have adhered to them. Beſides the contentions about the Virgin Maries immaculate conception, about the ſuperiority of a council above the Pope, about Prieſts marriages, election of Popes, inveſtiture of Biſhops have been ſo great, and frequent, and of long continuance, as their own hiſtories ſhew, that they far exceed the Proteſtants diviſions. The diviſions in this laſt age, and ſome at this day, to wit, in and ſince the council of Trent between Catharinus, Soto, Vega, Andradius about certainty of ſalvation; Pighius and others about inherent righteouſneſs, the Spaniſh and other Biſhops and the Papalins about the divine right of Biſhops and their reſidence, not deriving their Epiſcopacy from the Pope; the French churches not acknowledging the Biſhop of Rome above a council, nor yet receiving the Trent council: the two Popes Sixtus the fifth and Clement the eighth, about the vulgar tranſlation both enjoyning each of their editions and no other, as the right copy to be received under penalty of a curſe, though one in many places contradict the other (as Dr. James in his Bellum Papale ſhews, from which no Papiſts have or can vindicate the two Popes) the diviſions in England and Ireland between the ſecular Prieſts and the Jeſuits about Epiſcopal juriſdiction and viſitations, between Papiſts in Italy, at Venice, and in England about the Popes power in temporal things over Princes, in France and England about the lawfulneſs of killing Kings excommunicated by the Pope, in England and France about Jeſuitical equivocation, at this day between Dominicans and Jeſuits, Janſeniſts and Mol…niſts about Gods predeterminations, efficacious and ſufficient grace, and mans freewill have been and are at this day as great or greater in reſpect of the things in which they differ, the continuance of them, the parties differing and their bitterneſs one to another, then the Proteſtants diviſions, and therefore the brag of H. T. concerning the Popiſh unity, that Catholicks are perfectly one both in diſcipline and doctrine all the world over, even to the leaſt article or point of faith, is a falſhood apparent to all well read ſcholars, though the ſimple Engliſh Papiſts, from whom the truth of theſe things is concealed, are made to believe by their Prieſts diſguiſes and pretences as if it were ſo. Nor doth that which H. T. here ſaith, ſalve the matter, and if it did, the Proteſtants have as good a plea for themſelves, notwithſtanding their diviſions, in reſpect of means for unity. For, 1. The Papiſts all the world over are not ſo ſubordinate to the Pope as to acknowledge his ſuperiority to a council, but that they have and think they may appeal from the Pope to a general council, which may judge the Pope an heretick and depoſe him, yea and take away the Pope altogether if they ſee it neceſſary, nor do the Janſeniſts acquieſce in the late Pope Innocents determination at this day, nor do the Sorboniſts in France acknowledge the Popes power in temporals, or the Venetians the Popes power to interdict their ſtate and meddle with their government in exempting Eccleſiaſticks from their juriſdiction. 2. That which he ſaith of the Catholick church as the immediate and authorized proponent of all revealed verities, and the infallible Judge of controverſies is either nonſenſe or falſe, or that which Papiſts reject in Proteſtants. If they mean by the Catholick church the Pope, or the Pope with his Cardinals, or a council, it is ridiculous nonſenſe to call any or all of them the Catholick church, which, according to their own Tridentin Catechiſm, contains all believers from Adam to this day, or that ſhall be hereafter, and according to this Author, p. 59. is coexiſtent with all times, and ſpread or diffuſed over all places: or if it be underſtood according to good ſenſe, it is moſt falſe. For the Catholick church properly ſo called as it is in the Creed, is neither mediate nor immediate proponent of all revealed verities, much leſs authorized thereto, nor do Papiſts ſo look on them. For many of the Papiſts go no further than the preſent Pope or council, or their Prieſts, (who only are to moſt the immediate proponents) but reſt in their determinations and adhere to what they determine with an implicite faith and blind obedience, never enquiring what all believers have held or done before them. Nor is it poſſible they ſhould have reſolution from the Catholick church properly underſtood as in the Creed it is believed: for it is inviſible, they never did together expreſs their determination in all points of faith, have varied in many, nor could it be known to others of their own time if they had, much leſs to the believers of this age. Nor is the Catholick church fit to be the mediate or immediate proponent of all revealed verities, nor fit for ſuch an authority as to be infallible Judge of controverſies: for to ſay the Catholick church is ſuch, is to ſay the univerſity of believers is ſuch, of whom a great part are women, a great part ignorant perſons altogether uncapable of ſuch an office: yea it is contrary to the Apoſtle Pauls reſolution, 1 Cor. 12. 28, 29. who tells us, that God hath ſet ſome in the Church, firſt Apoſtles, then Prophets, thirdly Teachers, not the church to be teachers, which is all one with proponents of revealed verities, but teachers in the church: and theſe are denied to be all the church, when he ſaith, ver. 29. Are all teachers? And to make them infallible is contrary to the Apoſtle. Rom. 3. 4. where he ſaith, let God he true, and every man a lyar, ſurely then not an infallible Judge of controverſies: yea ſhould this be granted, it would bring all confuſion into the churches of God. Nor can the ſpeech have any good ſenſe, that the Catholick church is Judge in controverſies, but this which Proteſtants indeed rightly teach, that every man is to judge for himſelf, not for others with a judgement of diſcerning what doctrine or points of faith he hears, and receives, yet requiring upon pain of damnation that they be careful in examining what they embrace, which the Papiſts do ſo much inveigh againſt falſly, as if it were a leaving every man to his private ſpirit, though they do in this no otherwiſe than Papiſts muſt of neceſſity, yeild to each man when the determinations of Popes and councils are ambiguous, as they were in the council of Trent, and are often in the Decrees, Breves and other edicts of Popes, as is manifeſt by the writers on the Canon law, and diſputes about the councils and Popes meaning, in which are ſo many ambiguities that there is ſcarce a point in which there are not many oppoſite opinions. If Pappus have overcounted, who reckons out of Bellarmin alone two hundred thirty ſeven contradictions in Popiſh writers; yet he that reads Bellarmins controverſies, ſhall finde very few queſtions, in which the Schoolmen and other Papiſts do not gainſay each other. And as for their reſolution into the principle, I believe the Catholick church. They are not agreed what the church is from whom they may have reſolution, whether the Pope, who is with them the church virtual, or a general council, which is either never, or very rare, which they call the church repreſentative, or the uniform conſent of the Fathers, according to which only the profeſſion of faith of Pope Pius the fourth requires all Papiſts to receive and expound the holy Scriptures: and yet this uniform conſent of Fathers is either a nullity, it being ſcarce found in any point, or it is impoſſible to be known. H. T. by his words pag. 108. reſolves his faith into the next precedent age and ſo upwards, and here pag. 30. into the church, and this church is, pag. 70. not the whole church (which yet is all one with the Catholick) but a council approved by the Pope, into whoſe authority they finally reſolve their faith; for though they pretend to reſolve it into the Scripture, yet as it is expounded by the church, pag. 109, 113. which is the Pope. So that whatever pretence they make of reſolving their faith into the church as the proponent, or God as the Author; in concluſion they acquieſce in what the Pope dictates by himſelf or with a council approved by him. As for the Scriptures the Papiſts are not all agreed which be the Canonical Scriptures, which not: nor can they ſet down certain rules to know what are the unwritten traditions of the church, which they are to admit and embrace with a like affection of piety as the written Word, as the Trent council decreed, ſeſſ. 4. nor can they have any bottom to reſt on by their principles; ſometimes one Pope and one council croſſing another, ſome having been condemned in general councils as hereticks: nor can they tell, but by information of others, as Prieſts or Carriers, of their Bulls or Breves (which are many of them not only fallible, but alſo falſe, as ſome of their own have complained) what the Popes determin, and what fraud is uſed in procuring Popes Bulls or Breves ſometimes is many ways teſtified, as that the Bull of Pius the fifth, wherein Queen Elizabeth was excommunicated and deprived, was gotten in a fraudulent way by Morton and Webb; Watſon quodlib. p. 252, 260, 343.there is no certainty from the reports of others what the Pope determins, except a man hear him preach, or pronounce ſentence, or ſee him write and ſeal, he muſt rely on the teſtimony of thoſe that may▪ and are like enough to deceive. Nor if a man ſee or hear the Pope decree, can he be certain whether he ſpake from Peters chair, or determine what is to be believed by the whole church (out of which caſe they ſay he is fallible) or give his opinion as a private Doctor. So that it is moſt falſe, that either Papiſts agree as H. T. ſaith, or reſolve themſelves into one ſafe and moſt unchangeable principle, or have any infallible judge of controverſies, or have God himſelf for the prime Author, and his authority the formal object and motive of their faith: but their faith in what they differ from us reſts only on mens ſayings, for the moſt part ignorant and wicked (for ſuch have been moſt of the Popes for a thouſand years) whom they follow againſt the plain and confeſſed words of the Scripture, as in their communion under one kinde, worſhipping of Images, and aſcribe to them power by their authority to declare new Scriptures and Articles of faith, and make the Scripture only to be believed becauſe of the churches determination, that is the Popes, which in reſpect of us they make of more authority than the Scripture, and ſo make the churches, not Gods authority, the formal motive and object of their faith. So that if unity be a note of the church, of all others the Popiſh church can lay leaſt claim to it, and H. T. his argument may be retorted. The Catholick church is one, the Roman church is not one, therefore the Roman church is not the Catholick church. On the other ſide the Proteſtants have better unity and means of unity than Papiſts. For however they differ in ceremonies and diſciplin, yet in points of faith they differ little, as may appear by the harmony of their confeſſions, which ſhews agreement in their churches; however in explication of points private Doctors differ, and they have a more ſure principle and ſafe in owning one Maſter even Chriſt, and one certain rule to know the minde of God, to wit the holy Scripture, which the Papiſts themſelves make the object of faith, and the tranſlation into the Engliſh tongue makes plain in the chief points to be believed, ſo that every ordinary man may be certain what it delivers concerning them, and this tranſlation appears to be certain in thoſe things, by comparing it even with the Papiſts own Engliſh tranſlation at Rhemes and Dow…y, which had they left out their corrupt Annotations and permitted it to be read (as God requires) by all ſorts of perſons, the falſhood and errors of Popiſh Prieſts would ſoon appear, and be rejected by all that love truth.
SECT. V.
The argument of H. T. from the unity of a natural body, is againſt him and for Proteſtants.
But H. T. adds a ſecond argument for the unity of the Catholick church thus. As a natural unity and connexion of the parts among themſelves, and to the head is neceſſary for the being and conſervation of a natural body: ſo the ſpiritual unity and connexion of the members amongſt themſelves and to the head, is neceſſary for the being and conſervation of a myſtical body. But the church of Chriſt (as I have proved) is a myſtical body. Therefore a ſpiritual unity and connexion of the members amongſt themſelves and to the head, is neceſſary for the being and conſervation of the church of Chriſt. The Major is proved by the parity of reaſon, which is between a natural and myſtical body; for as a natural body muſt needs dye, if all it's parts by which it ſhould ſubſiſt be torn and divided one from another; ſo alſo a myſtical body periſhes, if all it's members be divided from one another, and from the head (whence it hath it's ſpiritual life) by Schiſm and hereſie.
Anſw. THough it be that this argument is only from a ſimilitude, which doth only illuſtrate not prove, as Logicians ſay truely, and there be ſuch diſparities between a natural body and a myſtical, as are ſufficient to ſhew the weakneſs of this arguing; as namely, that there are no parts vital in the myſtical body beſides the head, as the heart, liver and lungs are in the natural, that ſome parts of the head it ſelf may be cut off, as the ears, and noſe, and yet the being, though not the integrity of the body continue, that there are ſome parts that have not life, as hair, and nayles, (as ſome conceive) that the parts receive not life from the head, but the head and the reſt from the ſoul: yet …ith the concluſion is true, and the argument with its proof many wayes againſt the Popiſh tenets, I grant it, and obſerve, 1. That the unity which is proved hence, is not of the univerſal viſible church; the truth of which Papiſts and this Author go about to demonſtrate by it's unity, but of the myſtical. For in this myſtical body the unity is ſpiritual by faith, and the members have ſpiritual life from the head. But in the Catholick church (of which the diſputes are) according to Bellarm. l. 3. de eccl. milit. c. 10 &c. are many dead members, ſecret infidels: ſo that this argument proves not the Catholick viſible by it's unity, but the Catholick inviſible of true believers. 2. This argument is not to prove the unity of the church by ſubjection to the Roman Biſhop, by which H. T. would demonſtrate the unity of the church, but by the unity to that head whence the body hath it's ſpiritual life and motion, which ſure is Chriſt only and not the Biſhop of Rome. 3. This ſimilitude, if by [head] were meant the Pope, cannot evince the purpoſe of this Author. For there have been Schiſms in the Roman church of one Pope and his party againſt another, and yet the unity of the Catholick church in the profeſſion of the …ame faith continued. Whence it follows, that Schiſm doth not take away the unity of the church Catholick without hereſie, but only diſorder, diſtemper and diſquiet it. And therefore though it were granted (as it is not) that Proteſtants were Schiſmaticks in dividing from the See of Rome, yet they might be united to the Catholick church, and it's being and conſervation continued as long as the unity of faith is continued, and until it be proved that Proteſtants have departed from the unity of faith once delivered to the Saints (which he can never do) in vain doth H. T. go about to prove they are not united, to the Catholick church.
SECT. VI.
The univerſality, which Matth. 28. 20. Eph. 4. 12, 13. Luk. 1. 33. John 14. 15, 16. for time, Pſal. 85. 9. Iſa. 2. 2. Matth. 28. 20. for place is meant, agrees not to the now Roman church, but better to the Proteſtants.
BUt H. T. proceeds thus. To be univerſal for time and place is nothing elſe but to be coexiſtent with all time, and to be ſpread or diffuſed over all places. But the church of Chriſt from the time he hath founded it hath been coexiſtent with all time, and ſhall be to the worlds end, and hath and ſhall be ſpread over all nations, therefore the church of Chriſt is univerſal (or Catholick) for time and place. The Major is proved becauſe the definition and the thing defined are convertible. The Minor is proved by Scripture for time, St. Matth. 28. 20. Epheſ. 4. 12, 13. St. John 14. 15, 16. St. Luke 1. 33. For place, Pſal. 85. 9. Iſa. 2. 2. St Matth. 28. 20.
Anſw. 1. The concluſion ſhould have been, the Roman Catholick church and no other is the church of Chriſt, and the argument thus. That church which is univerſal for time and place, and no other is the church of Chriſt. But the Roman Catholick church and no other is univerſal for time and place, therefore the Roman Catholick church and no other is the church of Chriſt. But ſo the Major had not been true of any church exiſtent in one age, nor the Minor true of the preſent Roman church▪ but it is contrary to all ſenſe and hiſtories which relate the occurrences of the world, ſpecially in the churches of Chriſt. 2. As the argument is framed here by H. T. the concluſion is granted being thus underſtood, that the church of Chriſt is not confined to Iſrael only, but extended to all Nations indefinitely and aptitudinally, though not definitely and actually extended to every Nation. For ſome nations never were actually the church of Chriſt, nor any church of Chriſt among them, though there was no reſtraint by Chriſts command of preaching to them. But if it be underſtood of actual coexiſtence with all times and all places ſo the Minor is not true: nor the Major, as I conceive the meaning of the term [Catholick] in the Article of the Creed, I believe the holy Catholick church: nor is that the definition of the church Catholick, that it is actually coexiſtent with all time, and to be ſpread or diffuſed over all places: but it is termed Catholick, becauſe it is not confined to one Nation, and comprehends all the believers of any Nation, Jew or Gentile: nor do the texts he brings prove any other univerſality. For Matth. 28. 20. proves not ſuch an univerſality, as that there ſhall be no interval of time or particular place, wherein the church ſhall not be exiſtent. But that Chriſt would be with them that preach the Goſpel all dayes till the end of the world, ſo as that they had liberty to preach the Goſpel in every place, and ſhould finde his aſſiſtance while they did preach, not that alwayes in each day there ſhall be a Church of Chriſt on earth, much leſſe that there ſhall be a church viſible conſpicuouſly to all in every Nation of the earth. The like is the ſenſe of Epheſ. 4. 12, 13. which is, that Chriſt hath given various gifts till all come to the unity of faith: but this proves not there ſhall be a continuance of the Church on earth in every age, much leſſe ſo conſpicuouſly viſible as that it may be known to all, much more leſſe in every place. John 14. 15, 16. is yet farther from the purpoſe as containing a peculiar promiſe to the Apoſtles: if it be meant of any Church it is the inviſible of true believers, not of every or any meer viſible Church, wherein many have not the ſpirit of Chriſt at all, much leſſe abiding with them for ever. The text Luke 1. 33. doth not prove that there ſhall be in every age or time a Church on earth, but that Chriſts dominion ſhall never end. The texts Pſal. 85. 9. Iſa. 2. 2. are thus meant, that not only the Jews, but alſo all Nations, that is, all other people by faith ſhall be admitted to the Church of God by faith as well as Jews; now this proves not, that there ſhall be in every place on earth a Church of Chriſt. But H. T. adds.
I reſume the Argument and make it thus. 1. That church which is not univerſal (or Catholick) for time and place is not the church of Chriſt. 2. But the Proteſtant church (and the like may be ſaid of all other Sectaries) is not univerſal (or Catholick) for time and place. 3. Therefore the Proteſtant church is not the church of Chriſt. The Major hath been proved before. The Minor is proved, becauſe before Luther (who lived little above …ixſcore years ago) there were no Proteſtants to be found in the whole world, as hath been proved by us, and confeſſed by our adverſaries. To which you may adde, they have never yet been able to convert any one Nation from infidelity to the faith of Chriſt, nor ever had communion with all nations, nor indeed any perfect communion among themſelves: therefore they cannot be the Catholick Church.
Anſw. The Major, That church which is not univerſal for time and place is not the Church of Chriſt, If meant of actual or aptitudinal univerſality is not true. For the church of the Jews afore Cornelius was converted by Peter had been no church of Chriſt, which was actually, yea and aptitudinally, that is according to Peters and other Chriſtians circumciſed their opinions and intentions to be confined to the Jews: and therefore no other church than on earth were or was believed by Peter and thoſe who contended with him, Act. 11. 2. and yet there was a Church of Chriſt before, as is manifeſt from Acts 2. 47. But if the Major be underſtood of univerſality of faith thus, That church which is not univerſal for time and place by holding the faith once delivered by the Apoſtles to the Saints is not the church of Chriſt, it is granted: but in that ſenſe the Minor is falſe, the Proteſtants church is univerſal for time and place: that is, holds the ſame faith, which was in all places preached by the Apoſtles and Apoſtolical teachers to believers. And in this ſenſe Proteſtants have been in every age before Luther, and have as really converted Nations from infidelity to the faith of Chriſt as the Popiſh church or Teachers, and have had more perfect communion with all Nations and among themſelves then Papiſts, as ſuch, have had, and the Papiſts have not been ſo, but have held a new faith, not embraced by a great part of Chriſtians, nor in all places received or known, nor for many hundreds of years taught in the churches, but lately by the Italian faction deviſed to uphold the Popes tyranny and their own gain. And therefore I retort the argument thus. That church which is not univerſal (or Catholick) for the time and place, is not the church of Chriſt. But the Popiſh Roman church is not univerſal (or Catholick) for time and place, but is of late ſtanding, therefore it is not the true church of Chriſt.
SECT. VII.
The words of Irenaeus, Origen, Lactantius, Cyril of Hieruſalem, Auguſtin are not for the univerſality of H. T. which he aſſerts the Catholiciſm of the Roman church, but againſt it.
AS for the words of the Fathers, which H. T. allegeth on this Article, they are not for H. T. his purpoſe to prove, that that is the only true church which is ſubject to the Biſhop of Rome, or that the Roman church is the Catholick church, but they prove the contrary. For the words of Irenaem l. 4. adv. haereſes c. 43. are theſe. Wherefore we ought to obey thoſe Presbyters which are in the church, thoſe which have ſucceſſion from the Apoſtles as we have ſhewed, who with the ſucceſſion of Biſhoprick have received the certain gift of truth according to the pleaſure of the Father: but to have the reſt ſuſpected either as hereticks and of evil opinion, or as renters and lifted up and pleaſing themſelves, or again as hypocrites working for gain and vain glories ſake, who depart from the original ſucceſſion and are gathered in every place. For all theſe fall from the truth. By which it may be perceived. 1. That H. T. omitted ſundry words which would have ſhewed that Presbyters and Biſhops were all one. 2. That Irenaeus requires that thoſe to whom he would have obedience given, be ſuch as have not only ſucceſſion of place, but alſo the certain gift of truth. Whence it follows. 1. That this ſpeech doth not prove that we are to obey only the Biſhop of Rome, or the Roman Church, but any Presbyters. 2. That the ſucceſſion required is not confined to Rome, but extended to any place. 3. That ſucceſſion to any of the Apoſtles as well as Peter is termed original ſucceſſion. 4. That Presbyters who in any place depart not from the truth are in the church. And therefore this place is ſo far from proving the neceſſity of unity with the Roman church, or that it is the Catholick church, that it proves the contrary.
The words of Origen are not for H. T. which require no other doctrine to be kept, but that which is by order of ſucceſſion from the Apoſtles, and remains in the church to his time. For neither do they ſay, the church is only the Roman church, nor that doctrine to be kept which remains in it, or that which is delivered from Peter only, or by order of ſucceſſion from his chair, or is delivered by unwritten tradition: but that which is delivered any way from the Apoſtles by ſucceſſion in any place.
The words of Lactantius are leſſe for H. T. which do not at all call the Roman the Catholick church, nor ſay in it only is Gods true worſhip and ſervice and hope of life, but in the Catholick church, that is the Church of true believers all over the world, as the words of Cyril of Hieruſalem next alleged do ſhew, in which is nothing for H. T. or againſt us.
And for the words of Auguſtin in his Book de vera religione, cap. 7. We muſt hold the communion of that church which is called catholick both by her own and ſtrangers, they are maimedly recited, Auguſtin ſaying, that we are to hold the Chriſtian Religion and communion of that church, not onelyonly which is named catholick, but which is catholick, and is named catholick; and cap. 6. he explains what is meant by Catholick church, per totum orbem validè latéque diffuſa, ſpread over the whole World firmly and largely, and of the Religion which he terms the Hiſtory and Prophecy of the temporal dispenſation of the divine Providence for the ſalvation of mankinde to be reformed and repaired unto eternal life. Whereby it may be perceived, that he neither accounted that Chriſtian Religion, which is about the Biſhop of Rome's power, or any of the Popiſh Tenets which Proteſtants deny, but the Doctrine of Salvation by Chriſt, nor the catholick church the Roman onelyonly, but the Chriſtian church throughout the World, which conſiſts of them, who are named Chriſtians, Catholicks, or Orthodox, that is, Keepers of integrity, and followers of the things which are right, as he ſpeaks cap. 5. And for the words of Auguſtine, Epiſt. 152. that whoſoever is divided from the catholick church, how laudable ſoever he ſeems to himſelf to live, &c. he ſhall be excluded from life, they are impudently appropriated to the Roman church. For a few lines before Auguſtine declares whom he calls the catholick church, that which is ſpread over the earth, which is deſigned by the divine teſtimonies of holy Scriptures, which beginning from Hieruſalem increaſed in places in which the Apoſtles preached, and have written the names of the ſame places in their Epiſtles and Acts, and was ſpread over the other Nations. So that clearly Auguſtine tells us it was not the Roman Church onelyonly which he meant by the Catholick, but alſo the Corinthian, Epheſian, Theſſalonian, and all the reſt in the world. And therefore it is apparent that neither this not any other Father underſtood by the Catholick Church, the Roman onelyonly, and thoſe who acknowledged the Biſhop of Rome's Supremacy, nor did they hold a neceſſity of union with it.
SECT. VIII.
That it is non-ſenſe or falſhood to term the Roman Church the Catholick Church, and the ſhifts of H. T. to avoid this Objection are diſcovered.
H. T. adds, Object. The Roman Catholick Church is a particular Church, therefore it is not Catholick or Univerſal. Anſw. I diſtinguiſh your Antecedent, the Roman Church as taken onelyonly for the congregation of Rome or Italy, is a particular Church, I grant: as taken for the whole collection of Churches holding communion with the See of Rome, I deny it. For ſo it is an univerſal Church containing all particular Churches, as all the parts are contained in the whole, and in this acception alſo it is called the Roman church, becauſe the particular Roman church is the mother church, and hath a power of headſhip and juriſdiction over all the reſt. Object. How can a church of one denomination be univerſal? Anſw. I have told you already by the extent and latitude of her power, which is over all. So a particular man is called a General, by reaſon of his power over all the Army.
I Reply, Proteſtants do rightly object, that the terming of the Roman church catholick, is according to the right ſenſe of words, to ſpeak contradictions, to call that the whole which is not the whole but a part, univerſal, which is onelyonly particular. The Anſwer is by a Diſtinction, which is meer non-ſenſe. The Church of Rome as taken onelyonly for the congregation of Rome or Italy is a particular C…urch, as taken for the whole collection of churches holding communion with the See of Rome, ſo it is univerſal. But was ever ſuch language uſed by any Apoſtle or Ancient to term the Church of Rome any other than the believers dwelling or being at Rome? Did ever any of the firſt Ages term the congregation of Italy, or the whole collection of churches holding communion with the See of Rome the Roman church? Paul when he wrote to the Church of Rome wrote to all that were in Rome, Rom. 1. 7. and Ignatius the Martyr when he wrote to the Church of Rome terms it, the Church which is ſeated in a place of the Region of Romans, and the old Councils termed the Biſhop of Rome, The Arch-biſhop of old Rome, to diſtinguiſh it from new Rome, and a Roman Synod is always meant of a Synod in the City of Rome. If the new-minted gibberiſh of theſe men be received, then the Church of Millain, of Paris, of Toledo, and the reſt are all one with the Roman Church, and the Biſhop of Millain, &c. the Biſhop of Rome. Who would not think that man crazed that ſhould talk or write ſo? By this kinde of talk the Roman Church ſhould not be one and the Corinthian another, but the Roman church, the Corinthian, Epheſian, and all, and the Apoſtle writing to the Corinthian ſhould write to the Roman Church, charging the Corinthian with Schiſms ſhould charge the Roman. But this new canting Language is fit for theſe Juglers, who have by ſuch terms bewitched ſilly Papiſts to receive their new Doctrine.
H. T. ſaith, As the Roman church is the collection of all churches holding communion with the See of Rome, ſo it is an univerſal church containing all particular churches as all the parts are contained in the whole.
I reply, Neither doth he ſhew any approved Authour for his ſpeech, nor what ſort of parts other particular Churches are as they are contained in the Roman as the whole. He will not make it an univerſal whole which is predicate or ſaid on more churches, in quid, that is, when the queſtion is what the more churches are? to ſay they are the Roman. For then it were true to ſay, the church of Naples is the Roman, and ſo of other churches. If any were asked who is in his wits, What is the church of Naples? Would he ſay, It is the church of Rome? Nor are other churches eſſential parts. For then the Roman church ſhould not be, if the churches of Naples, &c. were not: if they apoſtarize the church of Rome ceaſeth to be. Nor will it be ſaid, other churches are integral parts. For then the church of Rome ſhould be maimed, and be but half a church, if they revolted from the faith or obedience to the See or church of Rome. What other parts he means I underſtand not, nor do I think H. T. diſtinctly knows himſelf; but that he is uſed to this unintelligible Jeſuitical non-ſenſe of Roman catholick church. Sure before he made this the definition of catholick, that it is nothing elſe but to be coexiſtent with all time, and to be ſpread or diffuſed over all places: according to which, by terming the church of Rome catholick, he ſhould mean that the Roman church hath been in all places ſince Chriſt built this church, and in every place of the world: but both theſe are palpable Lies, contrary to all Hiſtories and ſenſe: nor in this ſenſe ſhould it be as a whole that hath parts, but be the onelyonly and an ubiquetary church.
But he gives two Reaſons of this Title, that it is the Mother Church, and hath power of headſhip and juriſdiction over all the reſt. I reply, 1. that both theſe are manifeſtly falſe. For the Roman Church is not the mother Church in any true ſenſe. It is a ſaying indeed, that God is a believers Father, and the Church his Mother. But however the Ancients have uſed it, yet the Scripture ſaith not ſo, nor is it in any good ſenſe true. For the church is but a congregation of believers, who are firſt ſuch a…ore they are a church: now then the ſenſe muſt be the church, that is, believers are the mother of believers, that is, the church, which is ridiculous. It is true, it is ſaid, Gal. 4. 26. The Jeruſalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all: but that is the Evangelical covenant, v. 24. not the church. Nor is there any thing done by the Church, or upon the church, from which in a meet reſemblance the church may be termed the mother of believers. They are the Preachers of the Goſpel not the church who bring forth ſouls to Chriſt. If the term [Mother Church] be from hence, that from it the Goſpel went forth, it can be meant of none but Jeruſalem, from whence the Goſpel went into all the world, not from the Roman church. Nor is it true, that the Roman church hath the power of headſhip over all the reſt, no not according to the Papiſts own opinion, which is that the Biſhop of Rome hath this power, and that it belongs to his paſtoral office: now I ſuppoſe they will not ſay the church hath the paſtoral office, or that they are Paſtors; if they ſhould, they muſt make Women, who are of the Church as well as Men, Paſtors, and all the Believers (who are the church) Paſtors as well as the Biſhop, aud if the church be Paſtors or have power of juriſdiction, who are the Sheep who are to be fed, and over whom this juriſdiction is to be exerciſed? But if they mean onelyonly by the church univerſal the Pope of Rome, then all that is to be enquired is who is the true Pope, when enquiry is made which is the true church, and when there is no Pope, then there is no church, and when the Pope is uncertain, it is uncertain which is the church. So ridiculous is the Papiſts talk and diſpute about the church, that there is no tolerable ſenſe can be made with truth of the Roman church being catholick, the mother of churches, having power of Headſhip and Juriſdiction over all churches. Nor is it true, that the Pope of Rome hath either of right or in poſſeſſion ſuch power; not of right, as ſhall be ſhewed art. 7. where it will appear that the claim to it is meerly impudent, and arrogant, without any colour of right; nor in poſſeſſion. For beſides the Proteſtant churches, the Greek churches neither now nor heretofore, when unqueſtionably orthodox, were ever ſubject to the Romiſh Biſhop. Yet were theſe things granted to H. T. that the Roman church were Mother and Head, is this a fit reaſon to term it catholick? Will any call a mother of twenty children all her twenty children? Will any man call Julius Caeſar, becauſe Dictator of Rome, or the Roman Senate, becauſe Rulers, all the Roman people, or all the people of that Empire? H. T. his inſtance is frivolous: Though men call the Rulers of an Army the Captain General, yet not a general man, or the univerſal Army; and ſutably, if it were allowed, that the Biſhop of Rome were univerſal Biſhop, yet in no good ſenſe could he or the Roman church be termed the univerſal church. But this talk about the Roman catholick church is manifeſtly ridiculous non-ſenſe or falſe.
H. T. adds, Object. You communicate not with us, and many others, therefore your communion is not catholick or univerſal. Anſw. I grant the Antecedent, but deny the Conſequent: For univerſal communion requires not communion with all particular ſects or perſons, but onelyonly with all true believers, no, A man that is an Heretick after the firſt and ſecond admonition avoid. Tit. 3. 10, 11.
Anſw. To catholick communion is requiſite communion with all Chriſtian churches, though not with all particular ſects. And that the Proteſtant churches are no Hereticks is manifeſt from their confeſſions, which agree with the Scripture Doctrine; although Papiſts do clamorouſly term them ſuch, and deſtroy them as ſuch, and therein ſhew themſelves Succeſſours to Nero, not to Peter; whereas Papiſts are the moſt manifeſt Schiſmaticks, and greateſt Hereticks that ever were. I paſs on to the next Article.