Romanism Discussed, Treatise · Article 5 · Section 6
SECT. VI.
Neither can the Church oblige men under pain of damnation to believe her Definitions of Faith, nor is there any ſuch judicature as H. T. aſſerts to be aſcribed to her: nor do any of the Fathers cited by H. T. ſay it is, but the words of Irenaeus, Cyprian, lib. 1. epiſt. 3. Auguſt. con…. Epiſt. Fund. cap. 5. &c. are ſhewed not to be for it, but ſome of them plainly againſt it.
H. T. hath one more Argument for his Delilah, the Churches infallibility, which is his fourth and laſt, thus, The Church hath a power from God to oblige all men under pain of Damnation to believe her in her Propoſals and Definitions of Faith. But ſhe could not have ſuch a Power from God unleſs ſhe were infallible in her Propoſals and Definitions of Faith. Therefore ſhe is infallible in her Propoſals and Definitions of Faith. The Major is proved by all thoſe Texts above cited in the firſt and ſecond Arguments, as alſo by the Councils of all Ages, which command all men under pain of Damnation to believe and ſubſcribe to her Decrees and Definitions of Faith, which hath accordingly been done by the Fathers and all true Believers. The Minor is proved by reaſon, becauſe it were not conſiſtent with the juſtice, mercy or veracity of God to give a fallible and erring Judge ſuch a power in things of that high conſequence.
Anſw. 1. THe concluſion is ſtill different from the tenet. 2. The Major is denied, and it is denied that the texts cited did prove it, no… doth the practiſe of the councils putting anathema to their canons prove it. For, 1. It is not proved they did well in ſo doing, except when their definitions agree with the holy Scriptures, and when they do ſo, they do not more then every believer may do, whom they will not ſay to be infallible. 2. Nor have all the Fathers or true believers ſubſcribed to the decrees of councils and their definitions of faith: nor do the Papiſts themſelves ſubſcribe to thoſe they call general councils; not to the Chalcedon which gave the Patriarch of Conſtan…inople equal power with the Roman in his Province, and aſcribed the Popes dignity not to any grant of Chriſt to Peter, but to cuſtome out of regard to Rome as the imperial city; not to the council of Baſil or Conſtance, which made the council above the Pope.
But H. T. adds an argument for the Churches ſupreme power of judicature. That is the ſupreme Judge in every cauſe, who hath an abſolute power to oblige all diſſenters to an agreement, and from whom there can be no appeal in ſuch a cauſe. But the Catholick Church hath an abſolute power to oblige all that diſagree in controverted points of faith, nor is there any appeal from her deciſion, therefore the Catholick Church is ſupreme Judge in controverted points of faith. The Major is manifeſt by induction in all courts of judicature; the Minor hath been proved above by the firſt, ſecond, and fourth arguments.
Anſw. It is denied that the Minor hath been proved, or that there is any other Judge beſides the ſentence of God in holy Scripture, which can ſo oblige diſſenters in thoſe points. Nor do a great part of Papiſts themſelves at this day, namely the French Papiſts make ſuch account of the Roman church o… Popes judgement, but that they do conceive they may, and ſometimes have appealed from them to a general council. Occham held that the Pope was haereticabilis, that is, might be an heretick, ſome of them being ſuſpected of hereſie have been fain to acquit themſelves to Emperours by Apologies, ſome of them have been condemned as hereticks by general councils, Fathers, univerſitie of Paris, Gerſon wrote a book de auferibilitate Papae, and the French churches conceive their churches may be without a Pope and well governed by a Patriarch of their own. It is but a new and late invented doctrine of Jeſuits and other flatterers of Popes, that the Roman church, or Pope, or a general council approved by him are infallible, nor is there a word in any of the Fathers cited by H. T. to that purpoſe.
The words of Irenaeus l. 3. c. 40. are cited maimedly by H. T. they are entirely thus. For where the Church is there is alſo the ſpirit, and where the ſpirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace, but the ſpirit is truth. By which it may appear, that truth is aſcribed to the Church by reaſon of the ſpirit, and that by the Church he means not only the Roman, but any where the Spirit of God is: and in the words before he ſets down the truth he means, to wit, that if one God and ſalvation by Chriſt, which he terms the conſtant preaching of the Church on every ſide, and equally perſevering having teſtimony from Prophets, and from Apoſtles, and from all Diſciples. By which it is manifeſt that he commends no other preaching of the Church then is in the Scriptures, not the definitions of any now exiſtent Church, or after Church without the Scriptures.
The next words of Irenaeus are not (as here H. T. cites them …. 1. c. 49. there being not in my book ſo many chapters) but l. 4. c. 43. and are alleged by H. T. art. 4. and anſwered by me before art. 4. ſect. 7. The other words of Irenaeus, The Church ſhall be under no mans judgement, for to the Church all things are known, in which is perfect faith of the Father, and of all the diſpenſation of Chriſt, and firme knowledge of the holy Ghoſt, who teacheth all truth, I finde not any where as he cites them. In l. 1. there are not ſixty two chapters, and in l. 4. c. 62. (which I ſuſpect by his former quotation he would have cited) the words are thus. After he had ſaid, ch. 53. ſuch a Diſciple (meaning who had read diligently the holy Scripture which is with the Presbyters in the Church, with whom is the Apoſtolical doctrine) truely ſpiritual receiving the Spirit of God, &c. judgeth indeed all men, but he himſelf is judged of none, in ſeveral following chapters ſets down various hereticks whom he ſhall judge, and ch. 62. ſaith, he ſhall judge alſo all thoſe who are without the truth, that is the Church, but he himſelf is judged of none. For all things conſtant are known or manifeſt to him, both the entire faith in one God omnipotent from whom all things are, and in the Son of God Chriſt Jeſus our Lord, and the diſpoſitions of him, by which the Son of God was made man; the firm ſentence which is in the ſpirit of God, who cauſeth the acknowledging of truth, who hath expounded the diſpoſitions of the Father and Son according to which he was preſent with mankind as the Father willeth. By which any one may perceive, that H. T. (if theſe were the words he meant) hath corruptly cited them, mangling them and perverting them to prove an infallibility and ſupreme judicature of the Roman Church, or Pope for others; which are meant of every true ſpiritual Diſciple and his private judgement for himſelf, and in the main points of faith, and according to and by means of the Apoſtolical doctrine of the Scriptures, which is the very doctrine of Proteſtants concerning the judgement, which each Chriſtian may have and hath in points of faith, and the certainty of it according to the Scriptures; which while he follows he is judged of none, nor needs any ones judgement, Popes or others, to define what he ſhall believe.
The words of Origen, That only is to be believed for truth which in nothing diſagreeth from the tradition of the Church. And in our underſtanding Scripture, &c. We muſt not believe otherwiſe than the Church of God hath by ſucceſſion delivered to us, prefat. in lib. periarch. Whether they be rightly cited I know not, having not the book to examine them by, and by his other citations, as by his citation of Origen, art. 4. where the ſame words, as I conceive, are cited ſomewhat otherwiſe (which are anſwered art. 4. ſect. 7. before) the words [from the Apoſtles] being here left out, and his &c. here I ſuſpect fraud. Yet if the words be as he cites them they prove not what he brings them for: there being no reſtriction to the Roman Church, much leſſe to the Pope: nor is the tradition of the Church ſaid to be that which is unwritten, and other then is in the Scriptures, and the faith which by ſucceſſion the Church is ſaid to deliver, is not meant of any of thoſe points, which the Pope would obtrude on the Church of God, and Proteſtants reject, but in probability the points of faith which were in the Apoſtles Creed profeſſed at baptiſm, which Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, &c. were wont to hold forth againſt the hereticks of their times, and Proteſtants do ſtill avouch.
The words of Cyprian de unitate Eccleſ. are not meant of the Roman Church, but of the Church throughout the whole world (as the words precedent ſhew) and the freedom from adultery and the uncorruptedneſſe, and chaſtity of the Church cannot be meant of every viſible Church as if it were free from error, but of the true Spouſe of Chriſt: nor is the true Spouſe of Chriſt free from error of any ſort, but that which is in the main points of faith concerning the Father, Son and holy Spirit, as the words following ſhew: nor is he ſaid to be ſeparated from the promiſes of the Father, or not to have God for his Father, who divides from the Church of Rome and hath not it for his mother: nor are all other Churches ſaid to be adultereſſes, who hold not with the now Roman church, but he who divides from the Catholick church, nor hath it for his mother, of whom he had ſaid, Illius faetu…naſcimur, illius lacte nutrimur, ſpiritu …jus animamur, whence it appears that he meant the church to be his mother, who is born again with the ſame birth, baptiſm or faith, nouriſhed by her milk, that is the Word of the Goſpel, and animated by the ſame Spirit. And of this it is granted, that whoever is ſo ſevered from the church of Chriſt; that is the multitude or number of believers throughout the world, who profeſſe and are baptized into the common faith, and are nouriſhed by the ſame Goſpel, and quickned by the ſame Spirit, they are divided from God, and have not him for their Father. But this proves not that he that is divided from the now Roman church is divided from God. But there are other words of Cyprian cited by him as found Epiſt. 55. in mine edition at Bafil 1558. l. 1. Epiſt. 3. as Bellar. alſo cites them l. 4. de Romano pontifice c. 4. which are thus ſet down by H. T. To Peters chair and the principal church, infidelity or falſe faith cannot have acceſs: in which he would inſinuate, 1. That the Roman church is the principal church. 2. That by reaſon of Peters chair there, no error in faith could come to that church. But the words being rightly and fully ſet down, and the Epiſtle being read throughout, it will appear that Cyprian had no ſuch meaning as this Author would put upon him. The words are theſe. After theſe things (which he had related before concerning the crimes of ſome excluded by him out of the church of Carthage) as yet over and above, a falſe Biſhop being conſtituted for themſelves by hereticks, they dare ſaile and bring letters from Schiſmaticks and profane perſons to Peters chair and the principal church, from whence ſacerdotal unity aroſe, and not think them to be Romans, whoſe faith the Apoſtle declaring is praiſed, to whom perfidiouſneſs cannot have acceſſe. I… which I grant the Roman church is called the principal church from whence ſacerdotal unity did ariſe, and the See of Rome Peters chair: the reaſon of which ſpeech is plainly ſet down by Cyprian himſelf in his book de ſimplicitate Pr…latorum, or de unitate Eccle…ae in theſe words. The Lord ſpeaketh to Peter, I, ſaith he, ſay to thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell ſhall not overcome it. I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and what things thou ſhalt binde upon earth ſhall be bound alſo in the heavens, and what things thou ſhalt looſe upon earth ſhall be alſo looſed in heaven. And to the ſame after his reſurrection, he ſaith, Feed my ſheep. And although to all the Apoſtles after his reſurrection he beſtowed equal power, and ſaith, As my Father ſent me I alſo ſend you, receive the holy Ghoſt: if ye remit ſins to any, they ſhall be remitted to him, if ye …old them to any, they ſhall be held: yet that he might manifeſt unity he hath diſpoſed by his authority the riſe of the ſame unity beginning from one. Verily the other Apoſtles were alſo that which Peter was, endued with equal allotment of honour and power, but the beginning comes from unity, that the church may be ſhewed to be one. And a little after, which unity we ought firmly to hold, and vindicate, chiefly Biſhops who are Preſident in the church, that we may prove alſo Biſhoprick it ſelf to be one and undivided. Let no man deceive the fraternity with a lye, let no man corrupt the truth of faith with perfidious prevarication. Biſhoprick is one of which by each entirely a part is held. By which words it is manifeſt, that Cyprian made the Roman church the principal church, not becauſe the Biſhop of Rome was above any other in honour and power, or that Peters chair was more infallible than other Apoſtles chairs; or that a ſupremacy over the whole church did belong to the Pope of Rome (for he expreſſely ſaith, that the other Apoſtles were the ſame that Peter was, that they were endued with equal allotment or fellowſhip of honour and power, and that in ſolidum, wholly and entirely (that is as much one as another) each Biſhop held his part in the one Biſhoprick:) but becauſe he made the unity of Epiſcopacy to have its original from Chriſts grant to Peter, Matth. 16. 18. that all Biſhops might be as one, none arrogating more to himſelf than another. And that this was Cyprians minde, appears, 1. By the words in his Epiſtle to Pope Cornelius preſently after the words which H. T. cites: where againſt the practiſe of thoſe that ſailed to Rome to bring thither letters of complaint againſt Cyprian, he ſaith, But what cauſe is there of their going and declaring their making a falſe Biſhop againſt the Biſhops? For either that pleaſeth then which they have done, and they perſevere in their wickedneſs, or if it diſpleaſeth them and they recede, they know whither they ſhould return. For ſ…h it is decreed by all us, and it is …qual alike and juſt that every ones cauſe ſhould be there heard, where the crime is admitted, and to ſeveral Paſtors a portion of the flock is aſcribed, which each Paſtor ſhould rule and govern, being to give account to the Lord of his own act; it is meet verily, that thoſ… over whom we are preſident ſhould not run about, nor break the cohering concord of Biſhops by their ſubdolous and fallacious raſhneſs, but there plead their cauſe where they may have both accuſers, and witneſſes of their own crime, unleſs to a few deſperate and w…etched perſons the authority of the Biſhops ſetled in Africa ſeem leſs, who have already judged of them, and by the weight of their judgement have damned their conſcience bound with the many ſnares of their ſins. Which words ſhew that Cyprian denied the authority of the Biſhops of Africa to he leſs th…n the Biſhop of Rome, and that perſons ſhould appeal from them to Rome; but aſſerts, that they ought to ſtand to the judgement of their own Biſhops, and that a portion of the flock is given to each Paſtor, which he ought to rule and govern, and thereof must give account to the Lord, not the whole to any one, no not to the Biſhop of Rome; and therefore he ought not to receive the letters and complaint of the divided party from Cyprian, nor to take on him to ju…ge their cauſe, but to remit them to their own Biſhops. 2. It appears by the fact of Cypri…n, who oppoſed St…phen Biſhop of Rome in the point of rebaptizing the baptized by hereticks (as his Epiſtle to Pompeius ſhews) and joyned with Firmi…anus and other Biſhops of Cappadocia, Cilicia and Galatia excommunicated by Pope Stephen, and ſo involved in the ſame cenſure, in which ſtate he died without repentance for ought is known, and therefore conceived not the Pope infallible, or his judge or himſelf ſubject to him: but counted Stephen an uſurper over his brethren by reaſon of his impoſing his decree on others, and cenſure of diſſenters. And for the words in the Epiſtle to Cornelius they are not as H. T. cites them, To Peters chair and the principal Church, infidelity or falſe faith cannot have acceſs: But to the Romans, meaning not only the Biſhop, but the reſt of the church, and by perfidia there is meant not any infidelity or falſe faith whatſoever, but thoſe perfidious perſons and their treacherous action in breaking from Cyprian: nor doth he ſay that perfidiouſneſs could have acceſs at no time, but not at that time, which he aſcribes, not to the priviledge of the place, but their conſtancy in the faith heretofore praiſed by Paul, and to the providence of Cornelius their Biſhop, and their own vigilancy, as the words in the end of the Epiſtle ſhew, Although I know there your fraternity, to wit, being fenced by your Providence, and alſo wary enough, by their own vigilancy, cannot be taken with the poyſons of hereticks, nor deceived, and that ſo much the magiſteries and divine precepts prevail with them, as the fear of God is in them, yet our over abundance of carefulneſs or charity hath perſwaded us to write theſe things to you, being indeed not altogether out of fear of Cornelius, of whom he takes notice in the beginning of the Epiſtle. Marvailing enough, when he obſerved by his letter that he was ſomewhat moved by the threats and terrors of them that came, and therefore doth earneſtly preſs him to take courage and to withſtand them. Which being rightly underſtood, the ſpeeches of Cyprian concerning the Roman conſtancy and the inacceſſibleneſs of perfidiouſneſs to them, appear only expreſſions of his confidence and good hopes, not of any certainty that it would be ſo, much leſs of any infallibility of their Biſhop or church; and this he did to engage them to withſtand the ſchiſmaticks, it being a great argument with perſons to be conſtant to thoſe who expreſs their confiding in them and their expectation thereof. And therefore he would have his Epiſtle read to the moſt flouriſhing Clergy there preſiding with Cornelius, and the moſt holy and moſt ample common people or Laity, that if any contagion of poyſoned ſpeech and peſtiferous ſowing had crept in, it might be all put off from the ears and breaſts of the brethren, and the entire and ſincere love of good men might be cleanſed from all filth of heretical detraction: which ſhews that he conceived them liable to ſuch contagion and pollution, and that he was not certain that they were then altogether free. All theſe things being conſidered, it will appear that theſe paſſages of Cyprian are ſo far from proving the infallibility and ſupreme judicature and ſupremacy of the Pope and church of Rome, which H. T. aſſerts, that they prove the contrary.
The words of Lactantius l. 3. c. ult. that it is only the Catholick Church that hath the true worſhip of God, this is the well-spring of truth, the dwelling place of faith, &c. are true, but nothing to the purpoſe, it being a meer dream that the Rom…n and Catholick church are the ſame; nor if they were, do they prove infallibility in all definitions of faith, or ſupreme judicature in controverſies of faith, but the enjoying for themſelves the true worſhip, truth and faith. The words of Cyril of Jeruſalem, that the Roman faith commanded by the Apoſtles cannot be changed, l. 3. c. 4 in apolog. cont. Ruffinum, we ſubſcribe to, who profeſs our ready reception of what faith the Apoſtles commanded. The words of Vincentius Lyrinenſis adv. hareſ. c. 41. are thus (not as H. T. cites them) In the antiquity of the Church two things are vehemently and ſtudiouſly to be obſerved, unto which they ought altogether to ſtick who will not be hereticks; the firſt if any thing were anciently decreed by the authority of an univerſal council from all the Prieſts of the Catholick Church: which is nothing to the later councils approved by the Pope, nor doth prove that the ancient councils were infallible, much leſſe that the church or Pope of Rome are infallible. Nor are the words of Auguſtin (which I finde not l. 4. de bapt. c. 4) I know by Divine revelation that the ſpirit of truth teacheth it all truth, if they be as H. T. cites them, for his purpoſe. For if by [it] he means the church, it follows not he means the Roman church, and if the ſpirit teach it all truth, it cannot be meant of all truth ſimply, nor at all times. But I finde theſe words l. 4. de bapt. contra Donat. c. 5. In vain ſome, when they are overcome by reaſon, object to us cuſtome, as if cuſtome were greater then truth, or that were not to be followed in ſpirituals which is to the better revealed by the holy Spirit. This is plainly true that reaſon and truth is to be put before cuſtome. The words of Augustin, epiſt. 118. c. 5. are not fully ſet down by H. T. They are thus, If the authority of divine Scripture preſcribe which of theſe (ſpeaking about offering and faſting) is to be don…, it is not to be doubted that that is to be done which we read. In like manner alſo if any of theſe things the whole Church through the world doth frequent. For to dispute whether we are ſo to do is of moſt inſolent madneſs. Where, 1. He means it of rites not determined in Scripture, not in points of faith. 2. Neither doth he count it madneſs to diſpute againſt the uſe of the Roman church; yea he makes it a rule which he had from Ambroſe to faſt as they did at Millan when he was there, and as they did at Rome when he was there, Epiſt. 86. ad Caſul. no nor to diſpute againſt the whole church of one age, but againſt the whole church in every age.
Other words of Auguſt. cont. epiſt. fundam. c. 5. are brought by H. T. and urged often by Romaniſts for the aſſerting the authority of the church above the Scripture, thus. And I my ſelf would not believe the Goſpel, were it not that the authority of the Church moves me to it. But the words are not thus rightly alleged. For, 1. The word [Catholick] is left out, which ſhews he meant it not of the Roman onelyonly, and ſome words following ſeem to extend it to the church comprehending the Apoſtles, or, if reſtrained to the church of that age, it is meant of thoſe that pre…ched the Goſpel to him. 2. The words [ego vero evangelio non crederem niſi me Catholicae Eccleſ…ae commoveret authoritas] are not well rendred by H. T. as if they did declare his purpoſe for the future, or that he would not believe the Goſpel or any other reaſon, but the Roman▪ or preſent univerſal churches authority. For this had been an impious ſpeech in this ſenſe, and unfit for a holy man, much more for a Biſhop, and contrary to many paſſages of the ſame Author; as particularly, lib. confeſ. 9. c. 5. in which he ſaith, that God would not have given ſo excellent an authority to the Scripture through all lands, unleſs he would that by it God ſhould be believed. But either he uſed the Imperfect tenſe for the Praeterperfect after the African dialect, as he doth in a like ſpeech in his book de beata vita, ſic exarſi ut omnes illas vellem anchoras rumpere, niſi me nonnullorum …ominum exiſtimatio commoveret: where commoveret is uſed for commoviſſet, which is the ſame word here uſed, and ſo the ſenſe is, I my ſelf verily had not believed the Goſpel unleſs the authority of the Catholick Church had moved me, noting thereby the occaſion of his firſt believing, not the ſole Reaſon or Motive of his preſent believing, and to this ſenſe the ſpeeches, Obt…mperavi dicentibus credite Evangelio, ipſi Evangeli… catholicis pr…edicantibus credidi, recte credidiſti catholicis laudantibus Evangelium, quibus prae ipientibus Evangelio credidi, per …os illi credideram; which expreſs the means by which he believed, and that was not authority of empire in the Church by reaſon of their infallible Function, and right to define what is to be believed, but the credit of their perſons by reaſon of their holineſs, honeſty, wiſdom, and ſuch other acts of Gods providence mentioned in the Chapter before, which held him in the Church.
3. Or elſe he ſpeaks upon ſuppoſition that the Goſpel is not believed by reaſon of its moſt ſincere wiſdom, unto the knowledge of which few ſpiritual men come in this life, then in that caſe nothing would move him to believe the Goſpel but the authority of the catholick church, unto which ſenſe the words chap. 4. and the ſeries of the Diſpute ſeem to lead, and Bellarmine lib. 4. de notis Eccleſ. cap. 14. to reconcile Auguſtine's words in his Diſpute againſt Donatiſts, that the Church is not demonſtrated by Miracles, but by the Scriptures; and yet againſt Manichaeus his Epiſtle of the Foundation, that the Church is demonſtrated by Miracles, not by the Scriptures, but the Scriptures by the Church, ſaith, that he ſpeaks upon ſuppoſition, becauſe the Manichees did admit Miracles, but deny the Scriptures, which countenanceth this laſt ſenſe. Any of theſe ways which have their probabilities the ſpeech may be right, but not for H. T. his purpoſe. Certainly they aſcribe no infallibility or ſupreme judicature in controverſies of faith to the Roman Pope or Church. If the ſpeech be not underſtood in the laſt ſenſe of not believing the Goſpel, but by the Churches authority on ſuppoſition of the excluding the innate evidence of wiſdom and truth therein, or if the ſecond ſenſe hold not, that he ſpeaks of, what he had not done at firſt converſion, it it certain the firſt ſenſe muſt be acknowledged, that he means it of the Catholick Church from the Apoſtles commending it by the authority of their univerſal tradition: in other ſenſe, ſpecially that in which the Papiſts allege it, it were an impious ſpeech, and contrary to many other places in his Works. Sure he that reades his firſt, ſecond, and third Chapters of his ſecond Book of Baptiſm againſt Donatiſts, will finde him after Cyprian fully againſt the aſcribing to any Biſhop on earth ſupreme judicature over other Biſhops, or making any Church or Council infallible; but aſſerting that the former fulleſt general councils may be mended by the later, and that there is no determination of any Pope, or Council, or Church to be reſted on as infallible in points of faith, but onelyonly the holy Scripture.
After all this empty ſcribling of H. T. he yet adds, I now reſume the pri… cipal Argument, and retort it thus upon our adverſaries, The Catholick Church is infallible in all her Propoſals and Definitions of Fai…h. But the Proteſtant Church (and the like of all other Sectaries) is not infallible in her Propoſals or Definitions of Faith, therefore the Proteſtant Church is not the Catholick Church. The Major hath been fully proved before. The Minor muſt be granted by our Adverſaries, becauſe they have no other way to excuſe themſelves from being Heretick… in the revolt from our Church, but by falſly pretending the whole Church errs in Faith, and taught Idolatry and Superſtition for nine or ten hundred years together, till they began their bleſſed Reformation: a moſt blasphemous evaſion as hath been proved before) by which they have excluded themſelves from all poſſible aſſurance of true faith or ſalvation; and therefore to arrogate infallibility to themſelves, which they deny to the whole Church, were a moſt frontleſs impudence. And then he adds his Note, whom he means by his infallible Church, which is ſet down in the firſt Section of the Anſwer to this Article.
Anſw. 1. Underſtanding by [the Proteſtant Church] that Church which hath been ſince the year 1517. termed Proteſtants from the proteſting againſt the Decree made at Spires, Anno 1529. (as Sleidan lib. 6. Com. reports) the Concluſion is granted: we yield the Proteſtant Church or Churches are not the Catholick Church, but Members of it, conceiving it would be indeed to hold the Errour of Donatiſts, if they ſhould appropriate the Title of the Catholick Church to themſelves, or count all out of it that are not of that party, as the Romaniſts do, who are in this Succeſſours to the Donatiſts. But if by [the Proteſtant Church] be meant the whole number of them, who held the ſame Faith in the Fundamentals, which now the Proteſtants hold, ſo it is the Catholick Church. 2. We deny that the Proteſtants are juſtly termed Sectaries, meaning by [Sectaries] a party which hath departed from the primitive Chriſtian faith, or doth ſeparate from the univerſal Church as it is or was at any time in its integrity. 3. We deny the Major to have been proved, underſtanding it of the univerſal Church of this or any Ages in which the Apoſtles were not, and did not concur in the Propoſals and Definitions of Faith. 4. We grant the Minor, but to the proof of it, we ſay it is utterly falſe, that we have no other way to acquit our ſelves from Hereſie, than by pretending the whole Church erred in Faith, and taught Idolatry and Superſtition for nine or ten hundred years together till the Reformation begun, 1517. yea, we ſay, that the Errours in Faith, the Idolatry and Superſtition we now accuſe the Roman Church of, … were many of them later than the time of Gregory the great, even in the Roman Church, and were oppoſed more or leſs, at leaſt ſome of them, by a conſiderable party of the Church of Chriſt, who were far better Chriſtians than the Popes or Roman Clergy, which condemned and perſecuted them as Hereticks. From which crime we are able to acquit our ſelves other ways than H. T. ſaith we can, chiefly by ſhewing the agreement of our Doctrine with the holy Scripture and firſt Churches after Chriſt's Aſcenſion, and the Orthodox Teachers in them, as will appear in anſwer to his ninth Article. It is a meer frontleſs impudence in him to charge us with any blaſphemous evaſion or excluding our ſelves from all poſſible aſſurance of faith or ſalvation, and to arrogate to himſelf as if he had proved either. The Reformation which was begun 1517. by Luther, and after by Zuinglius and others continued, hath been bleſſed by God, notwithſtanding the Perſecutions of the Papal party, and the Differences among Proteſtants. And the Reformation ſought in England ſince 1641. hath been bleſſed, notwithſtanding the Troubles and Differences fomented by the Popiſh and Prelatical parties, as the Preaching of the Goſpel by the Apoſtles and firſt Preachers was, notwithſtanding the Perſecutions, Hereſies, and Schiſms that followed it. Notwithſtanding what H. T. or any other Romaniſt have ſaid, the Roman Church and Pope have not proved infallible, but may be proved, and have been, falſe and heretical, which is in part proved by the Objections following.