Romanism Discussed, Treatise · Article 1 · Section 14
SECT. XIV.
H. T. hath not ſolved the Proteſtants objection.
H. T. takes upon him to ſolve objections againſt the Churches continued ſucceſſion, and ſaith thus. Obj. Elias complained that he was left alone, 3 King. 19. therefore the church then failed. Anſw. He ſpake figuratively, for God himſelf told him in the ſame Chapter, ver. 18. that he had ſeven thouſand at that time in Iſrael (where he was) who had not howed their knees to Baal: and in the Kingdom of Juda there was then publick profeſſion of the true religion in Hieruſalem, paralip. 22. 14, 15. ſo that conſequence is falſe.
To which I reply, this author ſhews himſelf deceitful in ſetting down our tenet and argument, and ſlighty in his anſwer. For the tenet of the Proteſtants is not, that the Church hath failed, and that there is no continued ſucceſſion of men in the viſible Church, who have held forth the truth againſt Popiſh innovations. But that ſometimes they have been by perſecution ſo obſcured, as that however they have been diſcernable among themſelves, yet not ſo to adverſaries, and to others of their brethren at a farther diſtance; nor perhaps have they been ſo conſpicuous, as that a catalogue might be made of the ſucceſſion of Paſtors and people in the ſame place in every age, but ofttimes they have been ſo diſperſed, as to be in one age or time in one Country, and another time in another; and that the monuments of their being and doctrine, have been in part loſt and in part obſcured by inundations of barbarous nations, perſecutions of Popes and Popiſh Princes, and their knowledge and profeſſion hath been ſometimes larger, ſometimes leſs, and ſtill miſreported by adverſaries. Nevertheleſs, that is, though they have been in ſuch obſcurity, they have been true Churches of Chriſt; and notwithſtanding we cannot prove ſuch a ſucceſſion in any one City or Country of Paſtors and people in every thing agreeing with us, yet we may be a true Church as long as we hold the true faith once delivered to the Saints, and now upon record in the holy Scriptures, though we ſubmit not to the Pope as chief Paſtor, nor own the now Roman doctrin in the articles required in the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth to be profeſſed over and above the ancient Creeds. In a word this we aſſert, that the defect of a catalogue ſuch as H. T. requires, and the obſcurity of profeſſors nullifies not the verity of the Proteſtant Churches. And this is proved by the objection thus. If there were a true Church in Iſrael in Elias his days, which was ſo hidden as that Elias knew them not, and ſo could make no catalogue of them; then there may be a true Church, whoſe profeſſors may be ſo obſcure, as that neither in the ſame, nor in after ages a catalogue of them can be aſſigned. But ſo it was; as appears by Elias his complaint, and Gods anſwer, 1 King. 19. 10, 14, 18. Ergo, there may be a true Church whoſe profeſſors may be ſo obſcure, as that neither in the ſame nor in after ages a catalogue of them can be aſſigned. Now what doth he anſwer? that Elias ſpake figuratively, becauſe God ſaid there were ſeven thouſand non-Baalites left in Iſrael, and that there was a Church in Ju…ah then, and therefore the conſequence falſe.
But to ſhew the ſlightineſs of this ſhifter (for I cannot term him rightly a reſpondent) 1. He tells us not what figure he uſed, nor in what words, nor what ſenſe the ſpeech bears according to that figure, nor how it ſerves for his purpoſe to avoid the objection. I do not conceive what figure of ſpeech he or any man can imagin in that ſpeech [I am left alone] unleſs he meant Ironically, I am left alone, that is not left alone, which were a frantick conceit, or an Hyperbole, or a Synecdoche of a part for the whole, one for many: but ſuch an Hyperbole or Synecdoche would make the ſpeech non-ſenſe [I, that is a few or many are left alone] For this were non-ſenſe and ſelf contradicting, and contrary to the intent of the ſpeech, [I] being in the firſt perſon and that doubled, [few or many] in the third: to ſay [few or many are left alone] when [alone] excludes few, many, any more then one: to ſay [they ſeek my life, that is of few or many] when [my] notes only him that ſpake, to wit Elias, and no other: to ſay [I have been jealous, that is a few or many have been jealous] beſides the citation, Rom. 11. 3. foreign the occaſion, end of the ſpeech, and anſwer of God ſhew ſuch an expoſition would be the conceit of a man extreme ſhallow or impudent. And his reaſon is as ridiculous, God himſelf told Elias in the ſame chapter, ver. 18. that he had ſeven thouſand at that time in Iſrael (where he was) therefore Elias ſpake figuratively, when he complained he was left alone, 3 Kings 19. Nay the contrary follows, that he did not ſpeak figuratively, becauſe God corrects him, and ſhews his miſtake in ſaying he was left alone, that is, there were no more beſides himſelf left. 2. But yet if it were granted that the ſpeech is figurative, and the meaning as H. T. would have it, it no whit avoids our objection, that the Church of God, though conſiſting of ſeven thouſand, yet were ſo obſ…ure that they appeared ſo few to Elias, as that he took himſelf to be left alone. As for the other exception of the Kingdom of Juda, it takes not away the objection as the Proteſtants frame it, but as H. T. frames it, it is not our objection; and ſo though the conſequence be falſe, yet it hurts not us, who gather not hence the failing of the Church, but the obſcurity of it, and that there may be a true Church, which is ſo hidden, that it is not diſcerned at ſome times, no not by ſuch an eminent Prophet as Elias; and ſo though we cannot ſhew our Church in every age before Luther, yet there might be then, and we may be now a true Church for all that.
The next objection he brings is, that though Arian hereſie infected the whole world, Ergo, &c. and anſwers, you miſtake, the fury of that laſted not full fou… years, viz. from the council of Ariminum to the death of Conſtantine, and that only in the Eaſtern Churches, the Weſtern feeling little or nothing by it. St. Auguſtin anſwers the Donatiſts objecting the ſame; that even the canonical Scriptures have this cuſtome, that the word ſeems to be addreſſed to all, when it reaches home only to ſome few, Epiſt. 48.
To which I reply, If the Arian fury laſted but four years, and in the Eaſtern Churches only, yet it might have been more than one hundred, and then the ſucceſſion had ceaſed, and the Eaſtern Churches then were ſo obſcure, that a catalogue of profeſſors could not be given, though there were doubtleſs then true Churches in the Eaſt. But it is falſe which H. T. writes, that the Weſtern felt little or nothing by the Arian fury, for in Italy the Arians prevailed ſo far, as to bring Liberius Biſhop of Rome to ſubſcribe to the council of Ariminum. Nor do I know how the words of Auguſtin yeild any thing in anſwer to the objection, that in the time of the Arian prevalency the Church was ſo obſcured, that the whole world ſeemed to be Arians; therefore the Churches ſucceſſion may be ſo interrupted or obſcured at leaſt, as that a catalogue of it's paſtors and profeſſors at all times cannot be framed. For ſuppoſe the meaning of the ſpeech ſhould be, that the words concerning the number of Arians ſeem to be addreſſed to all, when they reach home only to ſome few: yet, if the words ſhew the number ſo great, as that the other part of the Church were obſcured ſo as not to be diſcerned, they ſerve to prove there may be Churches, which are ſo hidden as that a catalogue cannot be framed.
But the objection is further preſſed thus. Object, St. Hierom ſays, the whole world groan'd and admired to ſee it ſelf become Arian (in his book againſt Luciferius.) To which H. T. ſaith. Anſw. If ſhe wondred, ſhe knew not when it was done, if ſhe groaned, ſhe approved it not being done, therefore the major part were ſtill Catholick. To which I reply, if H. T. did not preſume he ſhould meet with ſilly readers, he would not have thus frivolouſly inferred from thoſe words which were delivered to ſhew the Arians to be the greater part, that the major part was ſtill Catholick. For who knows not that the expreſſion is Rhetorical and the meaning this, that Arians prevailed ſo much, that the whole world, that is all the churches of the Eaſt and Weſt were ſo infected, that they were burdened with Arians as a man that groans under a burden, and that on ſuch a ſudden, as that the accident was as it were a wonder? now from ſuch Catachreſtical metaphors to infer as if they were proper, that while the world was Arian, it knew not it was done, or approved it not, is all one as to ſay, when they were Arians they knew not, nor liked Arian doctrine; that is while they were Arians they were not Arians, which is to make Hieroms ſpeech ſelf-contradicting.
But H. T. adds, Let St. Hierom anſwer for himſelf. The Biſhops (ſaith he againſt Luciferius) that did the fact of Ariminum were deluded (viz. by the new Creed there made, which might have born a good ſenſe) few defending the fact, and ſome lamenting it. And St. Auguſtin tells us, that the church then appeared in her moſt conſtant members, Athanaſius and others, ep. 48.
To which I reply, It is true, that when they came to ſee their error they did lament it, yet were for the time Arians, and though Athanaſius did not yeild to ſubſcribe to it, yet Liberlus Biſhop of Rome did. And I believe H. T. his fellow Papiſts will not allow his ſpeech, that the decree made at Ariminum might have born a good ſenſe. It is added by H. T. thus. Obj. The church will fail in the time of Antichriſt according to that, unleſs there come a revolt firſt, &c. 2 Theſ. 2. 3. Anſw. No, ſhe will not; ſhe ſhall then ſuffer great perſecution, Apoc. 20. 8. and therefore ſhall be to ſuffer: many will revolt, all ſhall not.
I reply, that if the revolt be of ſo many and the perſecution ſo great, as that they ſhall be diſperſed and obſcured ſo as not to appear; it is ſufficient to prove the ſucceſſion to be then either ſo interrupted as not to be, or ſo obſcured as not to be diſcerned by enemies or brethren further off, and ſo as that the making a catalogue of Paſtors and profeſſors in that age, cannot be expected juſtly from the churches in after ages, which is enough for our purpoſe to ſhew, that the defect of ſuch a catalogue ſhews not the nullity of the Proteſtant churches, nor is with any juſtice or reaſon ſuch a catalogue of Paſtors and profeſſors in all ages required of them by Papiſts: Yet, however this Author conceives, his fellows the Rhemiſts, Annot. on 2 Theſ. 2. 3. think the Apoſtaſie ſhall be ſo great, as that Antichriſt ſhall pull down generally all kind of religious worſhip, ſaving that which muſt be done to himſelf alone: nor is that, Apoc. 20. 8. to the contrary. For neither is it certain that time is the time of Antichriſts reign, nor, if it were, doth it appear, that the thing done is afore the end of that reign.
But H. T. adds. Obj. What if men would not perſevere? how then? you hold freewill, I hope. Anſw. With St. Auguſtine to the Donatiſts, as if the holy Ghoſt were ignorant what would be the freewill of men, which yet foreſeeing, he foretold that the church of Chriſt ſhould endure for ever. de unit. Eccleſ. cap. 12.
I reply, what Proteſtant hath thus objected I know not. The poſſibility of the militant churches ceaſing, is ſufficiently proved by the holding of the acts of freewill to be undetermined, or undeterminable by God. Nor doth the anſwer avoid it. For though, if the anſwer be good, the futurition of the churches failing follows not from the holding of freewill; yet it ſhews not but that it may be, and perhaps it will be hard for him to avoid the objection, that if mans will be not determined by Gods decree, which is meant by freewill among that ſort of writers: then the Holy Ghoſt cannot foreſee that the church militant will endure for ever, it being in reaſon impoſſible, that there ſhould be certain foreſight of that which is not certain to be afore that act of freewill in man which God himſelf cannot determine: A certain preſcience of that which is purely contingent, may be or not be before it, notwithſtanding any purpoſe in God, is according to all principles of reaſon impoſſible. If this Author hold with many of the Romaniſts mans freewill, not to be determined by Gods decree and influx on the will of man, or the Jeſuits middle knowledge, he hath enough of Papiſts to oppoſe him. I have ſufficiently ſhewed the futility of his diſpute in the firſt Article of his Manual, the ſecond follows.