Romanism Discussed, Treatise · Article 1 · Section 1 – Section 2
SECT. I.
Of the Title Page of H. T. his Manual of Controverſies, in which is ſhewed to be a vain vaunt of what he hath not performed.
AMong the many Writings which have been diſperſed for the ſeducing of the Engliſh People from the Proteſtant Doctrine and Communion, to the imbracing of the Roman Tridentin opinions, a Book of H. T. that is, Henry Turbervile (at I am told) hath been inſtrumental thereto. It is ſtiled (as Becanus, Coſt…rus, and others before had done theirs) A Manual of Controverſies, in which he pretends to have clearly demonſtrated the truth of the Catholique Religion, by which he means the Roman opinions, branched by him into 28 Articles; the truth of which he hath no otherwiſe demonſtrated, than by ſhewing that there is no truth in them: Which will appear by conſidering that the two chief Points of the Roman Religion, diſtinct from the Proteſtant, are, the Biſhop of Rome's Supremacy, and Tranſubſtantiation of the Bread and Wine in the Euchariſt, into the very fleſh and blood of Chriſt which he had of the bleſſed Virgin. Now if he believe himſelf, that he hath clearly demonſtrated the truth of theſe by Texts of holy Scripture, Councils of all Ages, Fathers of the firſt 500 years, common Senſe and Experience: yet there is ſo little ſaid by him that carries a ſhew of proof of either; or rather there is ſo much in his own Writing as gainſays it, that were there not a ſpirit of error which doth poſſeſs men, they would not believe him. For, that he hath not clearly demonſtrated the truth of the Biſhop of Rome's Supremacy over the whole Church, is apparent, in that he hath not demonſtrated clearly Peter's Supremacy, there being no Texts brought by him, Art. 7. to prove it, but Epheſ. 2. 20. Matth. 16. 18. John 21. 16, 17, 18. Luke 22. 31. Matth. 10. 2. Mark 3. Luke 2. Acts 1. of which the very firſt proves, that other Apoſtles were Foundations as well as Peter, and therefore the term Peter, or rock, Matth. 16. 18. proves not the whole church ſo built on Peter, as that thereby he is declared Supreme viſible Head over them, or over the whole church, any more than other Apoſtles were. Nor doth feeding the ſheep of Chriſt, prove any other Supremacy than was in the Elders of Epheſus, commanded to do the ſame, Acts 20. 28. and by Peter himſelf, as a fellow-Elder with them, required of them, 1 Pet. 5 1, 2▪ And confirming the brethren, Luke 22. 31. is no more an argument of Peter's Supremacy, than the ſame thing is of the Supremacy of Paul and Barnabas, Acts 14. 22. The other Texts ſhew nothing but priority of nomination or ſpeaking; notwithſtanding which, H. T. p. 97. confeſſeth the Apoſtles to have been equal in their calling to the Apoſtl…ſhip, nothing at all of ſupremacy and rule over the Apoſtles and whole church is deducible from them. And for Tranſubſtantiation, or real ſubſtantial preſence of Chriſts body and blood in the Euchariſt, that which he alledgeth is the words of inſtitution, Marth. 26. 27, 28. Mark 14. 22, 24. Luke 22. 19, 20. 1 Cor. 11. 24, 25. which he would have it believed, are ſpoken without trope or figure of ſpeech, ſaying, p. 130. to whoſoever ſhall peruſe the Text, Matth. 26. 27, 28. there is no mention of any f…gure in it; and yet p. 154. confeſſeth there is a figure in the word [chalice.] And for the Councils of all Ages, ſaith, p. 7. that the ſecond and third Ages produced no Councils; and p. 25. he ſaith, In this tenth Age or Century I finde no General Council, nor yet Provincial, in which any controverſie of moment was decided. And for Fathers of the firſt 500 years, neither do any of the Fathers he cites aſcribe to Peter ſuch a ſupremacy over the Apoſtles and the whole church, as the Romaniſts aſſert; nor would any man imagine, that Iren…us, Cyprian, or Auguſtine, ſhould intend ſuch a ſupremacy to the Biſhop of Rome, who knows the controverſies about Eaſter between Polycarpus and Anicetus, Polycrares, Irenaeus, and the Aſian Biſhops, and Pope Victor; and about Rebaptization, between Cyprian and S…ephanus; between the African Biſhops, about Appeals to Rome, and Ca…leſtinus and other Biſhops of Rome. And for the point of Tranſubſtantiation, or real ſubſtantial preſence of Chriſts fleſh and blood in the Euchariſt, the ſayings of Fathers being well viewed, ſpeak not what he would have them; and Auguſtine's words cited by him, p. 185. denying Judas to have eaten the bread which was our Lord himſelf, muſt be underſtood as denying Tranſubſtantiation, ſith he acknowledgeth, he did eat the …read of our Lord. As for common ſenſe and experience, how it ſhould demonſtrate clearly the Popes ſupremacy, is beyond my apprehenſion, yea againſt it, ſith Hiſtories and Travellers tell me, that the Greek and other churches to this day deny the Popes ſupremacy. And that Chriſts real ſubſtantial bodily preſence or tranſubſtantiation, ſhould be demonſtrated by common ſenſe and experience, is ſo impudent an aſſertion as no man can believe, but he that hath tenounced common ſenſe aud experience. Nor can H. T. believe himſelf in that, if he believe what he ſaith, p. 203. The body of Chriſt in the Sacrament is not the proper object of ſenſe; p. 205. the evidence of ſenſe is not infallible in the Sacrament; which if there were no more ſaid, might ſatisfie an unprejudiced perſon, that this Author doth not eaſily deſerve belief, but deals like a Mountebank, that commends his Salves beyond their vertue; and when p. 72. he forbids us to try by the dead letter (meaning the Scripture) or …uman… reaſon, it is a ſhrewd ſign that what he ſaid in the Title Page of his Demonſtration, was but a copy of his countenance, no real thought of his own heart. Nevertheleſs for the undeceiving of thoſe who are willing to be undeceived, I ſhall examine his Writing, and ſhew that he hath not at all demonſtrated the Roman Doctrine to be true, nor anſwered the Proteſtants objections; and that the true Fathers, Prophets, and Apoſtles, and Teachers in the next Ages to them, have not taught the now Roman opinions, but the contrary.
SECT. II.
Of the Epiſtles before H. T. his Manual, in which too much is aſcribed to the Church, and the Churches Authority deceitfully made the firſt point of his Treatiſe.
LEtting paſs other things in the Epiſtles, with the approbation and commendation of thoſe of his own way, as being no better than a kind of complement of one Papiſt with another, of no moment but with that prejudiced party, I ſhall onelyonly take notice of that paſſage in his Epiſtle to the Reader, in which he ſaith, but not truly, It is agreed by all parties, that the Church founded in Chriſts blood, was the onelyonly miſtris of Divine Faith, and ſole repoſitory of all revealed truths, at leaſt for an age or two. For this is not true of the church, but of Chriſt his Apoſtles, and their preaching and writings. And therefore it is not true, which he thence infers, that the controverſies of the Church are the moſt important doubtleſs of all others, or that on the notion and eviction of her authority, all other points eſſentially depend for their knowledge and deciſion; which in effect is as if he had ſaid, Were there not a Pope and his council, the Scriptures would be ineffectual to know the revealed truths of God, and to decide any controverſies in Religion, which I count little better than blaſphemy; nor doth he well to begin with that point; were it that he intended to have cleared truth, he ſhould firſt (as Bellarmine and ſome others have done) have examined the points of the Scriptures ſufficiency, and the needleſneſs of unwritten Traditions, and thereupon have examined the particular points in difference, that thereby the Reader might have diſcerned whether the Roman church were the true church of God, ſith the truth of the church is known by the truth of faith, which they hold, as H. T. himſelf urgeth, p. 45. Succeſſion in the profeſſion of the ſame faith from Chriſt, and his Apoſtles continued unto this time, is it by which the Church is known; Eccleſia Chriſti eſt quae luſcipit à Chriſto doctrinam, ſeu cujus fides ſundatur authoritate Chriſti. Thomas Whitſonus Bucci, Tract. 1. Sect. 7.and therefore we muſt firſt know whether the Roman Faith be the ſame with that which Chriſt and his Apoſtles taught, before we can know the truth of their ſucceſſion, and of their Church. But H. T. after Becanus and others, conceives it beſt for their deſign, to foreſtall Readers with the Authority of the Roman Church; which being onc… ſetled in mens minds, no marvel if they ſwallow down ſuch groſs Doctrines as Tranſubſtantiation, half Communion, Invocation and Worſhip of Saints deceaſed, Angels, Reliques, Images, Crucifixes, and the reſt of their errors and abuſes, wherein any that reads the Scriptures may ſee how far they are gone from the Primitive ſaith taught by Chriſt and his Apoſtles; nevertheleſs having premoniſhed the Reader of this deceitfull Artifice, I ſhall examine his Book in the order he hath choſen.