Romanism Discussed, Treatise · Article 2
ARTIC. II.
Proteſtants Succeſſion ſufficient.
Proteſtants have that Succeſsion, which is ſufficient to demonſtrate them to be a true Church of God.
SECT. I.
Proteſtant Churches need not prove ſuch a Succeſſion as Papiſts demand.
ART. 2. H. T. thus diſputes, The true Church of God hath had a continued Succeſſion from Chriſt to this time, and ſhall have from hence to the end of the world, as hath been proved. But the Proteſtant Church (and ſo of all other Sectaries) hath not a continued Succeſſion from Chriſt to this time. Therefore the Proteſtant Church is not the true Church of God. The Minor (which onelyonly remains unproved) is cleared by the conceſſion of our moſt learned Adverſaries, who freely and unanimouſly confeſs, that before Luther made his ſeparation from the Church of Rome for nine hundred or a thouſand years together the whole world was Catholick, and in obedience to the Pope of Rome, there being no Proteſtants any where to be found, or heard of. Let therefore our Enemies be our Judges, Calvin, Hoſpinian, White, Norton, Bancroft, Jewel, Chamier, Brochard, Whitaker, Bucer, Perkins, Bale, Voyon, Bibliander.
Anſw. IT hath not been proved, that every true Church of God hath had a continued Succeſſion from Chriſt to this time: many true Churches have had no Predeceſſors, and ſo no Succeſſion, the Primitive Churches certainly had not Succeſſion, there being none before them, they had not been primitive if there had been precedent, and ſundry Churches have been true Churches, who have had none after them in the ſame place, when their Candleſtick hath been removed. And therefore it is moſt falſe, which he here vainly ſaith he hath proved, that the true Church of God (meaning every true Church of God, without which his Major is not univerſal, and ſo his Syllogiſm naught) hath had a continued ſucceſſion; (meaning without interruption of perſons, which may be named in the ſame place, profeſſing the ſame Faith with the now Roman Church in every point, which is his meaning and is onelyonly for his purpoſe) from Chriſt to this time▪ he hath not proved it, no not in the Roman Church, nor in thoſe that are in communion with it under the Pope. Nor hath he proved at all that every true viſible Church on earth ſhall have ſuch a continued Succeſſion from hence to the end of the world. The prophecies he alleged are ſhewed not to ſpeak what he averres. And for his Minor, though it is granted, that the Proteſtant Church under that name, as ſo termed, hath not been ancient, yet the Proteſtant Church in reſpect of that Faith they hold hath been from the beginning, and hath continued as the Church of God in perſecution ſometimes more, ſometimes leſs pure, ſometimes larger, ſometimes ſmaller, ſometimes more obſcure, ſometimes more conſpicuous, ſometimes in one place, ſometimes in another, and in reſpect of their Proteſtation againſt popiſh Doctrines, the Popes Supremacy, Tranſubſtantiation, half-communion, propitiatory Sacrifice of the Maſs, prayer in an unknown Tongue, Worſhip and Invocation of Saints, and other popiſh Errours, it hath had Churches and perſons who have, as they have been urged on them, oppoſed them, ſometime more, ſometime fewer, ſometimes in a more open, ſometimes in a more ſecret way, as perſecution permitted, and God ſtirred up their ſpirits. It is moſt falſe, that the moſt learned Adverſaries of the Romaniſts do freely and unanimouſly confeſs, that before Luther made his Separation from the Church of Rome, for nine hundred or a thouſand years together, the whole World was Catholick, and in obedience to the Pope of Rome, there being no Proteſtants any where to be found or heard of. Sure the Grecians were part of the World, and H. T. himſelf confeſſeth here pag. 48. there was a Revolt of them from the Roman Church after ſeven or eight hundred years, and they were united again to the Church of Rome in the Council of Florence, Seſſ. laſt, which himſelf ſaith, p. 34 was in the year 1439. ſo that by his own account their Revolt was ſix hundred years at leaſt, beſides what is manifeſt of the Arminians and others. And ſure the Huſſites, Wickleviſts, Waldenſes, and thoſe who went before them (whom Rainerius ſaith, Some counted to have been from Pope Sylveſter's time, ſome from the Apoſtles) were a part of the whole World, and many Proteſtants: Illyricus, Fox, White, with others, deny to have obeyed the Pope of Rome afore Luther, and averre that they were, though not in name, yet in truth Proteſtants in ſome at leaſt of the chief points againſt the now popiſh Doctrine. And therefore that which H. T. hath recited in this Speech is manifeſt untruth. Yea Dr. Richard Field a learned man, in his Appendix to his third Book of the Church, hath proved it notwithſtanding Brerely his wonderment, that the Weſtern Churches afore Luther were Proteſtant, and the maintainers of the now Roman Faith onelyonly a Faction in it. And Mr. Perkins hath demonſtrated in his Demonstration of the Probleme this Poſition, No Apoſtle, no holy Father, no ſound Catholik for twelve hundred years after Chriſt did ever hold or profeſs that Doctrine of all the Principles and Grounds of Religion, that is now taught by the Church of Rome, and authorized by the Council of Trent. Nor do the Speeches of the Proteſtant Writers amount to that which he produceth them for. He himſelf allegeth p. 41. out of Auguſtin Epiſt. 48. that even the Canonical Scriptures have this cuſtome, that the word ſeems to be addreſſed to all, when it reaches home onelyonly to ſome few, and thereby he would interpret the complaints that were made of the whole world becoming Arian, when Athanaſius, and others were not. And he might have ſo interpreted the Speeches he allegeth of Hospinian and the reſt. I have not all the Books he citeth; but ſome of their words I finde not as this Author would have them. Biſhop Jewel having ſaid, pag. 208. And to be ſhort, all the World this day crieth and groaneth after the Gospel, adds, And all theſe things are come to paſs at ſuch time as to any mans reaſon it might ſeem impoſſible: when all the World, the People, Prieſts, and Princes were overwhelmed with ignorance: when all Schools, Prieſts, Biſhops, and Kings of the World were ſworn to him, that whatſoever he took in hand they would uphold it. Which Speeches are to be underſtood onelyonly of the Weſtern Empire, as when it is ſaid Luke 2. 1. A Decree went out that all the World ſhould be taxed, it is meant onelyonly of the Roman Empire; and when John 12. 19. The World is gone after him, it is meant by an Hyperbole, of a great part, ſo the words of Biſhop Jewel are to be underſtood as is uſual in ſuch rhetorical expreſſions, though the words are not as this Authour ſets them down, that the whole World, Princes, Prieſts, and People were bound by Oath to the Pope, Jewel Serm. on Luke 11. In like manner when Calvin ſaith, lib. 4. inſtit. c. 18. ſect. 18. that the abominations of the Maſs preſented to drink in a golden Cup hath ſo made drunk all the Kings and People of the Earth, from the firſt to the laſt, he alluding to the words Revel. 18. 3. is to be conceived, as in that Scripture and many more, to be underſtood by an exceſs of Speech a great part, in compariſon of whom the reſt are as if they were not. To the ſame purpoſe were the words of Perkins Expoſition of the Creed, vol. 1. pag. 260. col. 2. c. as the whole period recited ſhews, which is this, And during the ſpace of nine hundred years from the time of Boniface, the Popiſh Hereſie, to wit, of the Popes Supremacy, ſpread it ſelf over the whole Earth, and the faithfull Servants of God were but as an Handfull of Wheat in a Mountain of Chaff, which can ſcarce be diſcerned. The next words of Dr. White himſelf in the ſame period ſhews his meaning to be of freedom wholly, and of appearing conſpicuouſly, and to the World viſibly to be ſeen by all, and ſeparated from the reſt. For thus it follows, And whether any company at all, known or unknown, were free from it wholly or not, I neither determine nor greatly care. Nor do I queſtion but that the ſame is the meaning of the reſt, if their words were rightly cited, and the Reader might perceive how they are wreſted by H. T. againſt their meaning: and they wrote thoſe expreſſions in like meaning with thoſe paſſages of holy Scripture which complain of corruption as univerſal, when the greateſt or moſt conſpicuous part are ſo, as Pſalm 12. 1. Micah 7. 2. Phil. 2. 21.
SECT. II.
The Argument of H. T. to prove the nullity of the Proteſtant Churches for want of Succeſſion is turned againſt the Roman Church.
H. T. further argues thus, Without a continued number of Biſhops, Prieſts, and Laicks ſucceeding one another in the profeſſion of the ſame Faith from Chriſt and his Apoſtles to this time, a continued Succeſſion cannot be had. But Proteſtants have no continued number of Biſhops, Prieſts, and Laicks, ſucceeding one another from Chriſt and his Apoſtles to this time in the profeſſion of the ſame Faith or Tenets, the nine and thirty Articles, or any other ſet number of Tenets expreſly holding and denying all the ſame points. Therefore Proteſtants have no continued Succeſſion from Chriſt and his Apoſtles to this time. The Major is manifeſt, becauſe it proceeds from the Definition to the thing defined. The Minor is proved, becauſe Proteſtants have never yet been able, nor ever will, to aſſign any ſuch number of men whom they have ſucceeded in their nine and thirty Articles, or Luther in his Auguſtan Confeſſion, when he revolted from the Catholick Church, no nor yet any one ſingle Dioceſe or Biſcop.
Anſw. 1. THis Argument is thus juſtly retorted; Without a continued number of Biſhops, Prieſts, and Laicks, ſucceeding one another in the profeſſion of the ſame Faith from Chriſt and his Apoſtles to this time a continued Succeſſion cannot be had. But Papiſts have no continued number of Biſhops, Prieſts, and Laicks, ſucceeding one another from Chriſt and his Apoſtles to this time in the profeſſion of the ſame Faith or Tenets, the Canons of the Trent Council, the Articles in the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth, or any other ſet number of Tenets expreſly holding and denying all the ſame points: therefore Papiſts have no continued Succeſſion from Chriſt and his Apoſtles to this time. The Major is manifeſt, becauſe it proceeds from the Definition to the thing defined. The Minor is proved, becauſe Papiſts have never yet been able, nor ever will, to aſſign any ſuch number of men, whom they have ſucceeded in their Trent Canons, and the Articles of the Creed injoyned to be profeſſed and ſworn to in the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth. If any man pretend to ſuch a Catalogue, let him name none but ſuch as held explicitely the Doctrine of the Tridentin Canons, the Roman Catechiſm, the Articles of the Creed injoyned by Pope Pius the fourth his Bull, all granting and denying the ſame points, that the late Faction of Romaniſts or Italian popiſh Sectaries granted and denied, or that our new Reformers the Jeſuites deny and grant; for if they differ from them in any one material point they cannot be eſteemed Catholiks. Let him not name Chriſt, John Baptist, Peter, Paul, or any the Apoſtles, or the Roman Church in their days. For they did not admit and embrace the now called Apoſtolick Eccleſiaſtick traditions unwritten, and other obſervances and conſtitutions of the Roman Church, nor held it the right of the Roman Church to define the true ſenſe and interpretation of holy Scripture to be received by all, nor truly and properly ſeven Sacraments of the new Law inſtituted by our Lord Jeſus Chriſt; and neceſſary to the ſalvation of mankinde, nor allowed the received Rites of the Roman Church uſed in ſolemn adminiſtration of all the Sacraments, nor all the things which concerning original ſin and juſtification were defined and declared in the Council of Trent, nor did acknowledge that in the Maſs is offered to God a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and the dead: and that in the holy Euchariſt is truly, really, and ſubſtantially, the body and blood with the ſoul and Divinity of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt; and that there is made a converſion of the whole ſubſtance of the bread into his body, and of the whole ſubſtance of the wine into his blood, which converſion the Roman Church calleth Tranſubſtantiation, nor that under one kinde onelyonly all and whole Chriſt, and the true Sacrament is received, nor that there is a Purgatory, and the ſouls detained there are holp by the Suffrages of the faithfull, nor that the Saints reigning with Chriſt are to be worſhipped and prayed unto, nor their Relicks to be worſhipped, nor that the Images of Chriſt and the Mother of God, always a Virgin, and other Saints are to be had and retained, and that to them honour and veneration is to be given, nor that the power of Indulgences (ſuch as the Pope grants) was left by Chriſt in the Church, nor that the uſe thereof is moſt wholeſome to Chriſt's people, nor that the Roman Church is the holy Catholick and Apoſtolick Church, nor the Mother and Miſtreſs of all Churches, nor that true obedience is to be vowed and ſworn to the Biſhop of Rome, nor that he is the Succeſſor of Peter, nor that Peter is the Prince of the Apoſtles, and Vicar of Jeſus Chriſt. Neither let them name the Popes Councils or Fathers for the firſt five hundred years, for they held not theſe points. Papiſts pretence to the Fathers of the firſt five hundred years is very idle, becauſe were it true, as it is moſt falſe, that thoſe Fathers were Papiſts, yet could not that ſuffice to prove them a continued Succeſſion of ſixteen hundred years. Secondly, becauſe thoſe of the ſixth Age muſt needs know better what was the Religions and Tenets of them who lived in the fifth Age by whom they were inſtructed, and with whom they daily converſed, then our modern Papiſts can now do, and they have not proteſted on their ſalvation that it was the very ſame with the now popiſh Doctrine, nor that they received it from them by word of mouth, and ſo from age to age: and finally, becauſe if our Tenets in which we differ from Papiſts, and are oppoſed by them, be taught and approved by the Fathers of the firſt five hundred years, then it is wholly impoſſible they ſhould be for Papiſts and againſt us. But our Doctrines (in which we differ from Papiſts, and are oppoſed by them) are taught and approved by the Fathers of the firſt five hundred years. Therefore it is impoſſible that the Fathers of the firſt five hundred years ſhould be for Papiſts and againſt us. The Major is manifeſt of it ſelf. The Minor is proved 1. By what hath been already cited out of thoſe Fathers, as alſo by what ſhall be cited out of them in the following diſpute. 2. By the ingenuous confeſſions of our Adverſaries. Cardinal Cuſanus in his ſecond Book of Catholick Concord, cap. 13. ſaith, The Pope is not the univerſal Biſhop, but the firſt above or among others. Cardinal Beſſarion of the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, We reade that theſe two onelyonly Sacraments were delivered plainly in the Gospel. Cardinal Cajetan, tract. de Indulg. cap. 1. There can be no certainty found touching the beginning of Indulgences: there is no authority of the Scripture, or ancient Fathers, Greek or Latin, that brings it to our knowledge. Durand. in lib. 4. ſent. diſt. 20. qu 3. Of Indulgences few things can be ſaid of certainty, becauſe the Scripture ſpeaks not expreſly of them. Cardinal Fiſher Biſhop of Rocheſter, Aſſert. Luth. confeſ. art. 18. pag. 86. Touching Purgatory there was very little mention or none at all, among the ancient, as the Greeks to this day believe it not: which words are cited by Polyd. Virgil. lib. 8. de invent. rerum, cap. 1. Cardinal Bellarmine, lib. 5. de Juſt. cap 7. For the uncertainty of our own righteouſneſs, and for avoiding of vain-glory it is moſt ſure and ſafe to repoſe our whole confidence in the alone mercy and goodneſs of God. Cardinal Cajetan in 3. part. 2. Th. qu. 80. art. 12. qu 3. The cuſtome of the peoples receiving the Wine endured long in the Church. Georg. Caſſ in his Defence of his Book entituled [De officio pii viri] ſaith, The uſe of the Blood of our Lord together with his Body in the miniſtring of this Sacrament, is both of the inſtitution of Chriſt, and obſerved by the cuſtome of the whole Church for above a thouſand years, and unto this day of the Eaſtern Churches. And although the uſe of one kinde came up about the year 1200. yet the moſt learned of thoſe times never taught that it was neceſſary ſo to be obſerved. Tonſtal Biſhop of Durhom, de verit. corp. & ſanguinis, p. 46. till the Council of Lateran it was free for all men to follow their own conjecture concerning the manner of Chriſts preſence in the Euchariſt. Polydor Virgil. de invent. rer. l. 6. 13. afore the Index Expurgatorius put them out, had theſe words, By the teſtimony of Hierom it appears how in a manner all the ancient holy Fathers condemned the worſhip of images for fear of Idolatry. Caſſand. conſult. tit. de imag. It is verily manifeſt out of Auguſtin, writing on Pſal. 113. that in his age the uſe of Images in Churches was not. Claudius Eſpencaeus a Biſhop in Tit. c. 1. many hundred years after the Apoſtles by reaſon of the want of others, Prieſts were married, Greg. de Val. tom. 4. diſp. 9. punct. 5. ſect. 9. with others confeſſeth, that in the moſt ancient times of the Church, and after the Apoſtles death Prieſts had their wives. Harding in his anſwer to Jewel on the third Article; Verily in the primitive Church this was neceſſary, when the faith was in learning. And therefore the prayers were made then in a common known tongue to the people, for cauſe of their further inſtruction, who being of late converted to the faith, and of Painims made Chriſtians had need in all things to be taught. John Hart in his Epiſtle to the Reader before the conference with Dr. Rainold in the Tower; In truth I think, that although the ſpiritual power be more excellent than the temporal, yet they are both of God, neither doth the one depend of the other. Whereupon I gather as a certain concluſion, that the opinion of them who hold the Pope to be a temporal Lord over Kings and Princes, is unreaſonable and improbable altogether. For he hath not to meddle with them or theirs civilly, much leſs to depoſe them, or give away their Kingdoms: that is no part of his commiſſion. He hath in my judgement the Fatherhood of the Church, not a Princehood of the world: Chriſt himſelf taking no ſuch title on him, nor giving it to Peter or any other of his Diſciples. Biſhop Jewels challenge and performance is known, Biſhop Mortons Catholick Apology and Appeal, beſides many other books are extant; by which it may be plainly diſcerned, that Papiſts have not the Fathers of the firſt five hundred years for them, and that even the learned writers of the Popiſh party have vented ſo much in their writings, as yeilds an apology for Proteſtants in all or many of the points in difference between Proteſtants and Papiſts.
SECT. III.
Proteſtants have had a ſufficient ſucceſſion to aver their doctrin in the Latin Churches.
BUt I ſhall add a direct anſwer to H. T. his argument. 1. By denying his ſyllogiſm to be right, as having theſe words added in the minor [or tenets, &c.] which were not in the Major, whereby there is a fourth term, which makes a ſyllogiſm naught. 2. By denying his Major, and as a reaſon of that denial I ſay, agreement of doctrin with Chriſt and his Apoſtles in the main points of faith and worſhip, though there be no Biſhops nor Prieſts is ſufficient to a true Church; and ſuch ſucceſſion as H. T. requires is not neceſſary. 3. To the Minor, though Proteſtants have not a continued number of Biſhops, Prieſts and Laicks ſucceeding one another from Chriſt and his Apoſtles to this time in the profeſſion of the ſame faith or tenets, the thirty nine Articles or any other ſet number of tenets expreſly holding and denying all the ſame points; yet they do agree with Chriſt and his Apoſtles in the doctrin of the Chriſtian faith, and the Chriſtian worſhip; and there hath been a ſucceſſion in all ages hitherto of Chriſtian profeſſors holding the ſame points of faith in the fundamentals, although ſometimes more purely and conſpicuouſly than at other times; and they have oppoſed, though not with the like ſucceſs, agreement, or largeneſs in every age, the Popiſh errors now avouched in Pope Pius the fourth his Creed and the Trent Canons. And for anſwer to the proofs of the Major: I deny, that the Major proceeds from the definition to the thing defined, [a continued number of Biſhops, Pri…ſts and Laicks ſucceeding one another in the profeſſion of the ſame faith from Chriſt and his Apoſtles to this time] being not the definition of the continued ſucceſſion neceſſary to the being of the true Church of God; as hath been proved before in the anſwer to the former Article, Sect, 4. 5. And to the proof of the Minor: I anſwer, that Proteſtants may have true ſucceſſion from Chriſt and his Apoſtles, and may be eſteemed Chriſtians and Catholicks, though they differ in many material points, as long as they hold the ſame fundamental points, and Proteſtants, oppoſing all or ſome of the chief points of Popery as they aroſe and were diſcovered to them, though they did not diſcern all their errors, nor relinquiſh all their practiſes, or the communion of the Churches ſubject to the Biſhop of Romes rule; but they were truely Proteſtants, however otherwiſe named, while they did hold the ſame fundamental truths we hold, and oppoſed, as they appeared to them, all or ſome of the Popiſh corrupt worſhip and errors, which the Proteſtants now do. And for proof of this we rightly name the Waldenſes, Huſſites, Wickleviſts, Albigenſes, Puritan Waldenſes, Beringarians, Grecians, of whom writers teſtifie they excepted againſt the Popes ſupremacy, purgatory, half communion, tranſubſtantiation, ſetting up and worſhip of Images, propitiatory ſacrifice of the Maſſe for quick and dead, invocation and worſhip of Angels and Saints deceaſed, ſeven Sacraments, with other errors of the now Romaniſts; and yet in the chief points of Chriſtian faith and worſhip did agree with the now Proteſtants, as may be gathered from the confeſſions, and writings of their own, either extant or acknowledged in the hiſtories and writings of their adverſaries, ſuch as were Rainerius, Aeneas Sylvius, Cochlaeus, and others. See Samuel Morlands hiſtory of the Evangelical Churches in Piedmont the firſt book, by which their confeſſions and treatiſes are brought to light agreeing with Proteſtants. What H. T. brings againſt this is either falſly aſcribed to them by the calumnies of their adverſaries, whoſe recitals of their opinions to the worſt ſenſe no man hath reaſon to believe, eſpecially conſidering their works extant do refute them, and it hath been often complained of, that they have been miſinterpreted and miſreported; or elſe, if true, is inſufficient to invalidate our allegation of them.
H. T. tells us the Waldenſes held the real preſence, that the Apoſtles were lay men, that all Magiſtrates fell from their dignity by any mortal ſin, that it is not lawful to ſwear in any caſe, &c. Illiricus in Catalog. Waldenſ. Confeſ. Bohem. a. 1. and Waldo an unlearned Merchant of Lyons lived but in the year 1160.
Anſw. Sure he was not altogether unlearned, of whom it is ſaid by ſome that have ſeen his doings yet remaining in old parchment monuments, that it appeareth he was both able to declare and to tranſlate the books of Scripture, alſo did collect the Doctors minas upon the ſame. Yet were he unlearned, ſure he had ſtore of companions among the Romaniſts, Friers, Biſhops and Popes of thoſe times, by one of whom a Biſhop was condemned as an heretick, for holding that there are Antipodes; and Paul the ſecond ſaith, Platina pronounced them hereticks, who ſhould from thence forth mention the name of the Academy, either in earneſt or in jeſt. The very decrees and Epiſtles of the Popes in their Canon law ſhew, that few of them had any skill in the Scriptures or the original languages competent to divines, and who ſo readeth their writings obſervingly, ſhall find that the ableſt of their ſchoolmen in thoſe dayes were very ignorant of the Scripture ſenſe and language. Nor do I think the Popes and generality of Biſhops and Prieſts, and Preachers among the Romaniſts at this day are men of much learning in the holy Scriptures. So that I preſume Waldus, as unlearned as he was, was comparable to the Roman Clergy at that time in learning, and for holineſs of life, by the relation even of Popiſh writers, exceeding them as much as gold exceeds lead, and therefore as likely to know the mind of God as any Pope, or Biſhop, or Frier at that time. Now clear it is by an ancient manuſcript alledged by the Magdeburg. cent. 12. c. 8. that the Waldenſes held, that the Scripture is the only rale in the Articles of faith, fathers and councils no otherwiſe to be received then as they agree with the Scriptures, that the Scriptures are to be read by all ſorts of men, that there are two Sacraments of the Church, that the Lords ſupper is appointed by Chriſt, and to be received by all ſorts in both kinds, that Maſſes were impious, and that it was a madneſs to ſay Maſſes for the dead, purgatory to be a figment, the invocation and worſhip of dead Saints to be idolatry, the Roman Church to be the whore of Babylon, that the Pope hath not the ſupremacy of all the Churches of Chriſt, marriage of Prieſts to be lawful: with ſundry more, which are agreeable to Proteſtant tenets againſt Papiſts: which is confirmed, becauſe much to the ſame purpoſe Aeneas Sylvius in his Bohemian hiſtory writes of their opinions. Nor is it likely they held what they are ſaid by H. T. to have held. For it appears by the diſpute between them and one Dr. Auſtin, ſet down by Mr. Fox Acts and Monuments at the year 1179. out of Orthuinus de gratiis, that their opinion was, that Chriſt is one and the ſame with his natural body in the Sacrament, which he is at the right hand of his Father: but not after the ſame exiſtence of his body. For the exiſtence of his body in heaven is perſonal and local: there to be apprehended by the faith and ſpirit of men. In the Sacrament the exiſtence of his body is not perſonal or local to be apprehended or received of our bodies, after a perſonal or corporal manner, but after a Sacramental manner: that is, where our bodies receive the ſign, and our spirit the thing ſignified. And Illyric. cat. teſt. verit. tells us, that it is ſaid to be their opinion, that the tranſubſtantiation is not made in the hand of the conficient, but in the mouth of him that receives it worthily. And though he ſets down the words of Rainerius as they were, yet he conceives the things objected were calumnies. As for what is brought out of the B…hemian confeſſion, Anno 1535 it ſpeaks of their tenet then, but not what thoſe in Gallia held in and about the time of Waldus, who from him were termed Waldenſes. It is probable they might ſay the Apoſtles were lay men not ordained, or tradeſmen, as Peter was a fiſher, Paul a tentmaker, not thereby derogating from the Apoſtles function, when they were made Apoſtles, but endeavouring to abate the arrogance of the Biſhops and Prieſts, who appropriated to themſelves the title of the clergy (which Peter, 1 Pet. 5. 3. gave to all the flock of Chriſt) and the power only to tranſlate, read, expound and preach the Scriptures, which the Waldenſes held to be free to all men. By Magiſtrates falling from their dignity by mortal ſin, its likely they meant Eccleſiaſtical, whom they held God did ſuſpend from the exerciſe of their function, when they lived wickedly, they being not to receive, and ſo not to conſecrate, as I find it in, Illyric. catal. or perhaps they meant it, that Magiſtrates were not to be obeyed in their wicked commands, or (as it is moſt probable they meant it) it was juſt with God they ſhould fall from their dignity; and that he by his providence did ſo order it, not that men might depoſe them, as Papiſts have taught, nor that ipſo facto they ceaſe to be Magiſtrates. The ſame thing alſo H. T. ſaith of the Wicleſians out of the council of Conſtance, and imputes to them and to the Huſſites from the council of Conſtance, that all things came to paſs by fatal neceſſity, miſunderſtanding neceſſity of event by reaſon of Gods decree for fatal ſtoick neceſſity, and that all the works of the predeſtinate are vertues, which aroſe from their doctrine, that they could not fall from the faith, as if thereby they muſt hold, that then they could not ſin. That the Waldenſes held it not lawful to ſwear at all, is not ſo likely, as that they held the frequency of ſwearing unlawful, which is made the occaſion of their denying ſwearing to be lawful, by Rainerias himſelf in Illyr. catal. or perhaps they rejected monkiſh vows and oaths of canonical obedience, and many other oaths impoſed on men, together with ſwearing by the Maſs, Croſs, Rod, on a Book. But if they held all ſwearing unlawful, they held what Sixtus Sene…ſi…, lib. 6. Biblioth. Annot. 26. ſaith is conceived to have been held by many Fathers. Origen, Athanaſius, Epiphanius, Hilarius, Ambroſius, Chromatius, Hieronimus, Chryſoſtomus, Theophylactus, Oecumenius, Euthymius, whom he excuſeth and endeavours to acquit from error, and ſo do others the Waldenſes, Wicleviſts, &c. as Birkbck in cent. 14. doth Wicleff out of his Latin expoſition of the ſecond Commandment.
That the Huſſites held Maſs, tranſubſtantiation and ſeven Sacraments with the now Romaniſts, I find not in Mr. Fox, nor doth H. T. tell me where I may find it in him; that the Huſſites or Wicleff held all the works of the predeſtinate to be vertues, or that all things come to paſs by fatal neceſſity (meaning of a concatenation of two cauſes antecedent to Gods decree, and binding him) is no more to be believed, becauſe the council of Conſtance condemned them, then that Wicleff held that God was to obey the Devil, becauſe it was ſo charged on him, from which his learned works yet remaining do free him. And it is found that the clamorous Jeſuits endeavor to faſten the like odious inferences on the doctrine of predeſtination taught by Calvin and other Proteſtants, which being rightly underſtood infers them not.
What Bernard ſaith, and Roger Hoveden of the Albigenſes, and Rainerius of the Cathariſts might be true of ſome of thoſe that went under their name, as the Gnoſticks did of Chriſtians, and perhaps ſome Ranters or Quakers may do under the name of Proteſtants. But the errors are contrary to the Waldenſes, Wicleviſts, Huſſites confeſſions and writings yet remaining, and Rainerius his own words, that the Waldenſes or Leoniſts did believe all things well of God, and all the Articles which are contained in the Creed, do acquit them: and they ſeem to be the errors of ſome remnant of the Manichees. But perhaps Bernard was miſtaken in the charge on them, as he was in the accuſation of Petrus Abailardus and others The tenets that the univerſal Church (meaning the Catholick Church which we believe in the Creed) conſiſteth only of the predeſtinate, that they cannot fall from the faith meaning totally or finally, are the opinions of many learned Proteſtants, and therefore the Huſſites holding them, may notwithſtanding thoſe opinions be reckoned for Proteſtants. Nevertheleſs were it true, that the Huſſites and Wicleviſts and Waldenſes taught what H. T. ſaith of them, yet we might alledge them as witneſſes againſt the now Popiſh errors, which they then declared againſt, and a catalogue of Proteſtant ſucceſſors continued from the Apoſtles in the naming them, rightly formed.
SECT. IV.
The ſucceſſion in the Greek Churches may be alleged for Proteſtants, notwithſtanding H. T. his exceptions.
A Catalogue of Biſhops, Prieſts and Laicks in the Greek churches continued in the profeſſion of the ſame faith with the Proteſtants againſt Popiſh errors is alleged by ſome learned Proteſtants. Againſt which H. T. excepts. 1. That they rejected the communion of the Proteſtants, cenſur. eccleſ. orientalis. Anſw. This doth not prove they profeſſed not the ſame faith with Proteſtants againſt Papiſts. For they might upon ſome differences, upon which perhaps they diſagree with the Romaniſts, reject the communion of the Proteſtants, and yet profeſs with Proteſtants the ſame faith, and oppoſe the ſame Popiſh errors.
2. Saith he, they were at leaſt ſeven or eight hundred years in the communion of the Roman Church, as witneſs the firſt eight general councils all held in Greece, and approved by the Popes of Rome. Anſw. To ſpeak exactly, a general council is a black Swan, there having never been any council ſo general, but that there have wanted meſſengers from many Chriſtian Churches in the world. The four firſt councils of the Biſhops of the Empire have gotten a great repute in the Chriſtian Churches, and have been accounted as the four Evangeliſts, though the canons extant even of the firſt Nicene council have no ſuch excellency in them, as to deſerve ſo great an opinion. Of the four later, ſurely the two laſt leſſe deſerve the name; the later Nicene council being affronted by the Carolin council about Images at Frankford, and the eighth by another of the ſame place of better note, by Michael the Emperor and Photius the learned Parriarch of Conſtantinople, who ſure acknowledged not the Popes Monarchy, but lived and died in conteſt againſt them. But neither the four firſt, nor the four laſt did ever aſcribe to the Pope of Rome the monarchy and ſupremacy, which are now arrogated, nor did they ever receive what they profeſſed, becauſe they profeſſed it, nor doth the deſire or acceptance, much leſſe the having the Popes approbation at all prove any authority over them in him, it being a thing uſual to ſeek approbation of men, who have no authority over the ſeekers, by reaſon of their eſteem for prudence, learning and other qualities, and for the more ready receipt of what they ſeek to have approved. But the councils determinations, and that with Anathema to the gainſayers, ſhewed that they judged themſelves to have deciſive power without the Pope, though his conſent alſo were added as uſeful for ſome purpoſes.
3. Saith H. T. The firſt revolt was made by the Grecians denying the proceſſion of the holy Ghoſt from God the Son, they were united again to the Church of Rome in the council of Florence ſeſſ. laſt.
Anſw. 1. The denying of the proceſſion of the Holy Ghoſt from God the Son, is ſhewed to be an error only in manner of ſpeaking, by Sir Richard Field of the Church, third book, ch. 1. and other learned men. 2. The revolt ſo long ſhews the Proteſtants had predeceſſors for many hundred years together in oppoſing the uſurpations and errors of the Roman Popes and Churches. 3. The reconciliation at Florence was but an imperfect thing, by perſons whoſe acts were not avowed afterwards, nor did the union hold, but was quickly diſſolved. 4. The council of Florence was a council not allowed by that at Baſil as being only of a faction to avoid the queſtioning of Pope Eugenius. See Platina in vita Eugenii. 4.
4. Saith H. T. they held tranſubſtantiation, ſeven Sacraments, unbloody ſacrifice, prayer to Saints and for the dead, cenſ. eccleſ. orientalis, c. 7, 10, 12, 13, 21.
Anſw. The Grecians hold not any ſuch tranſubſtantiation as whereby the elements are aboliſhed, and ceaſe to be that they were, but whereby they become what they were not, and the tranſubſtantiation they hold is a change of the communicants into the being of Chriſt, that is partakers of the divine nature, as the Apoſtle means when he ſaith they are the body of Chriſt, as Dr. Field proves out of Dam. ſcen, Cyril and others in his third book of the Church, ch. 1. Biſhop Jewel reply to Hardings anſwer, art. 10. Nor are the ſpeeches of tranſubſtantiation, tranſelementation and ſuch like terms, uſed by the Greeks, any other than lofty hyperbolical ſpeeches, ſuch as the Apoſtle uſeth when he ſaith, Chriſt was crucified among the Galatians, Gal. 3. 1. which abound in Chryſoſtome, Pſeudo, Dionyſius Areopagita &c. inſomuch, that Chryſoſtom ſometimes expreſſeth the preſence of Chriſt in the euchariſt, as if it were ſenſible, the communicants touching Chriſts body, ſeeing his blood, having their mouths made red by it, ſucking his blood, receiving him into our houſe, with more of the like, as may be ſeen in Chamier. Panſtr. cath. tom. 4. lib. 11. c. 9. As for ſeven Sacraments, the Greeks do not teach them to be ſo many, and no more, nor the unbloody ſacrifice any otherwiſe, then by it to mean a commemoration of the ſacrifice of Chriſt, as Chryſostom in his hom. on the tenth to the Hebrew expreſſeth it. It cannot be proved that the Greeks uſe ſuch prayer to Saints as the Papiſts do, directing their prayers to them as hearers, and by vertue of their merits helpers to them that call on them. Neither do they pray for the dead ſhut up in purgatory (which as I alleged out of Roffenſis, the Greeks do this day deny) and there enduring puniſhment of ſenſe, for deliverance thence, but commemorate the dead, even the moſt holy martyrs and confeſſors, and pray for their happy reſurrection and acquittal in the laſt judgement. As for the Egyptian Chriſtians and Armenians, what they hold is not ſo eaſie to know by reaſon of their remoteneſs from Europe, nor what Succeſſion they have had. But this is manifeſt enough, that they did never ſubmit to the Biſhop of Rome as their Head, except what was done at Florence (for which Michael Paleologus the Greek Emperour was abhorred by the Greeks, and denied Burial, and Iſidor Arch-biſhop of Kio…ia in Ruſſta depoſed and put to death) or by ſome obſcure perſons, whoſe acts the Churches never owned, and yet there doth not appear ſufficient reaſon to exclude them out of the Catholick Church, notwithſtanding ſuch Errours as are imputed to them, nor to queſtion their Succeſſion. Nor is the Proteſtants pretence to the Fathers of the firſt five hundred years idle, (it being not falſe, but moſt true, and ſo proved by Jewel and others, and the Anſwers of Harding and other Romaniſts proved inſufficient) that they were in the moſt material points Proteſtants, that is held otherwiſe than the Romaniſts now do. And though it prove not a Succeſſion of ſixteen hundred years continued, yet it proves a Succeſſion of ſo long continuance as will make void the popiſh claim of Succeſſion as peculiar to them, and with any conſiderate perſon ſo far take place as to juſtifie the Proteſtants oppoſition againſt the modern Papiſt's Errours and Innovations. 'Tis true, thoſe of the ſixth Age muſt needs know better what was the Religions and Tenets of them who lived in the fifth Age by whom they were inſtructed, and with whom they daily converſed, than Proteſtants can now do, in thoſe things which they delivered by word of mouth to them, if they were heedfull, intelligent, and mindefull of what they heard. But what they left in writing we may know as well as they. And experience ſhews that oft times upon miſtakes, and ſometimes voluntarily the ſayings of men ſpoken, yea ſometimes their very Writings, either by unskilfulneſs, or negligence, or fraud, are miſ-reported, and therefore notwithſtanding this reaſon of the acquaintance of thoſe of the ſixth Age with thoſe of the fifth, yet it may be that Proteſtants may know the minde of the Fathers in the fifth Age as well as thoſe that lived in the ſixth. But that thoſe of the ſixth Age have proteſted on their ſalvation that the Doctrine taught by the Fathers in the fifth Age was the very ſame with their, in every point, or the Doctrine now taught by the Romaniſts was received from them by word of mouth, and ſo from Age to Age is not true; yet if they ſhould, we have no more cauſe to credit them, than the Church had to believe the Millenaries and Quartodesimans, becauſe of Papias and others their report of John, with whom they converſed.
SECT. V.
The Romaniſts Doctrine as it is now was not the Doctrine of the Fathers of the firſt five hundred years, nor is acknowledged to be ſo by the learned Proteſtants.
H. T adds a third Argument to prove, that his with other Romaniſts Doctrines, (in which they differ from Proteſtants and are oppoſed by them) are taught and approved by the Fathers of the firſt five hundred years, which he thinks to prove by that he hath cited, and ſhall cite out of the Fathers, and the confeſſions of his Adverſaries, and to that end cites ſome Speeches of Fulk, Kemnitius, Whitgrft, Calvin, Whitaker, Peter Martyr, Duditius, Rainolds, Jewel: and then infers triumphantly, therefore the Father of the firſt five hundred years are not for Proteſtants, but for us; therefore Proteſtants are utterly at a loſs in the point of continued Succeſſion.
Anſw. 1. WHat is before cited hath been ſhewed to be inſufficient, and ſo will what is after, if God vouchſafe me time and ſtrength to that end. 2. Of the paſſages cited, the two laſt are not to the purpoſe, and they are maimedly, and corruptly cited. The Speeches, as they are cited, ſay not any thing of the popiſh Doctrin taught and approved by the Fathers of the firſt five hundred years, but the uncertainty of finding out the truth by their ſayings without the Scriptures. And that the dealing of this Author may appear, I ſhall ſet down the words as I finde them in Jewel's Apology, part. 4. cap. 22. diviſ. 3. For where theſe men bid the holy Scriptures away as dumb and fruitleſs, and procure us to come to God himſelf, who ſpeaks in the Church and in their Councils, that is to ſay, to believe their fancies and opinions this way, finding out the truth is very uncertain, and exceeding dangerous, and in a manner a fantaſtical and mad way, and by no means allowed of the holy Fathers. Which Speech is a moſt true and ſavoury Speech, yet not in the leaſt intimating a diffidence of the Fathers of the firſt five hundred years being for the Papiſts (the contrary to which Biſhop Jewel ſhewed in his famous Challenge at Paul's Croſs, and his making it good againſt Harding) but onelyonly vindicating the holy Scriptures from the foul Speeches of Hoſius, Pighius, and other Romaniſts, and aſſerting the authority of the holy Scriptures. The other paſſage which is cited out of Dr. Rainold's Conference (in H. T. it is printed Confeſſ.) cap. 5. diviſ. 1. is as corruptly and maimedly cited, the words being thus at large, Indeed Vincentius Lirinenſis preferreth this mark (of truth the conſent of the Fathers) before the reſt, as having held when they failed. Nevertheleſs he ſpeaketh not of it neither, as that it may ſerve for trial and deciſion of queſtions between us. For what doth he acknowlege to be a point approved, and ſuch as we are bound to believe by this mark? even that which the Fathers all with one conſent have held, written, taught, plainly, commonly, continually. And who can avouch of any point in queſtion, that not one or two but all the Fathers held it, nor onelyonly held it, but alſo wrote it; nor onelyonly wrote it, but alotaught it; not darkly, but plainly; not ſeldom, but commonly; not for a ſhort ſeaſon, but continually: which ſo great conſent is partly ſo rare, and ſo hard to be found, partly ſo unſure, though it might be found, that himſelf (to faſhion it to ſome uſe and certainty) is fain to limit and reſtrain it. Which words were ſound, and are neceſſary, but not ſpoken out of any diſtruſt of his cauſe or imagination, as if the Fathers of the firſt five hundred years were for the Papiſts. For in that very conference he largely proves, that not onelyonly the Fathers of the firſt five hundred years, but alſo the ſucceeding Councils and Fathers till the ſixteenth Century, did onelyonly yield the Pope a Primacy among other Patriarchs, but not a Supremacy over the whole Church, and that Primacy that was given him was by cuſtome of the Church for the honour of the Imperial City (which was auſerible) not becauſe of any grant of Chriſt, which was irrevocable. Duditius was one whom by Thranus his deſcription of him, Hiſt l. 96. towards the end, I know not whether I may reckon among Proteſtants, though he were an ingenuous and learned man, yet there is no reaſon his words ſhould be alleged as the confeſſion of Proteſtants. Peter Martyr's Speech reſpects onelyonly the point of vows, which is not a point of ſaith. Whitaker's Speech is not of the Fathers of the firſt 500. years, but of the ancient Church, which might be after, or onelyonly in ſome part of that time. The words of Calvin, lib 3. inſtit. cap. 5. parag 10. are not rightly alleged, being not together as H. T. cites them, but injuriouſly pieced out of Speeches, that are diſtant one from another He doth not deny, nor yet expreſly ſay, that it was a cuſtome thirteen hundred years ago to pray for the dead: but whereas it was objected by the Adverſaries, he urgeth, that if it were ſo, it was without Scripture, that it came out of carnal affection, that what we reade in the Ancients done therein was yielded to the common manner and ignorance of the vulgar, he confeſſeth they were carried away into errour, but faith not, they were all of that time carried away into errour, that ſame teſtimonies of the Ancients might be brought which overthrow all thoſe prayers for the dead, that their prayers for the dead were not without heſitancy, that they were different from the popiſh in divers things. The words of Whitgifts Defenſe, pag. 473. are miſ-cited, being not as H. T. cites them, All the Biſhops and learned Writers of the Greek and Latin Church too, for the moſt part, were ſpotted with the Doctrines of Free will, Merit, Invocation of Saints, but thus, How greatly were almoſt all the Biſhops and learned Writers of the Greek Church, yea and the Latins alſo for the moſt part ſpotted with the Doctrines of Free-will, of Merits, Invocation of Saints, and ſuch like? Surely you are not able to reckon in any Age ſince the Apoſtles time any company of Biſhops that taught and held ſo ſound and perfect Doctrine in all points as the Biſhops of England do at this time. The words of Kemnitius I finde not, perhaps becauſe the Edition is not named with the Page. But this I finde in the third part of his Examen, pag. 628. Francoſ. Edit. 1609. that he not onelyonly aſſerted, but alſo proved, that in the Primitive Church unto two hundred years after Chriſt born, the Doctrine of the Suffrages, Patronages, Interceſſions, Merits, Aid, Help, and Invocation of Saints in Heaven, was altogether unknown, and the reaſon or account of the veneration of Saints was then far other, as we have ſhewed, than that which was brought in. I have not Fulk's Retentives againſt Briſtow's Motives by me, which I imagine is the Book which H. T. cites under the Title of Riot Briſton: but his citing with an &c. and ſo ſmall a ſhred of the Authour makes me conceive that he wronged Fulk by that maimed citation, however ſith the confeſſion is but of three Fathers, and the Saints whether living or dead, and their invocation of what ſort he meant being not expreſſed, it ſerves not the turn to prove his confeſſion of the Fathers of the firſt five hundred years, holding Popiſh Invocation of Saints deceaſed.
SECT. VI.
The Anſwers of H. T. to the Objections of Proteſtants concerning their Succeſſion are ſhewed to be vain, and the Apoſtacy of the Roman Church proved.
AFter the reſt of his ſcribling H. T. under the Title of Objection ſolved, ſaith thus, Object. In all the Ages before Luther Proteſtants had a Church though it were inviſible. Anſw. This is a meer Mid-ſummer nights Dream, that a Church (which is a congregation of viſible men, preaching, baptizing, and converting Nations) ſhould be extant for a thouſand years, and yet be all this while inviſible, neither to be ſeen or heard of in the World.
I reply, who frames the Objection as this Authour ſets it down I know not, ſure I am that many of the Proteſtants do frame it otherwiſe, that the Proteſtants had Churches afore Luther, who did oppoſe popiſh innovations, and that theſe were viſible, though not to their Enemies, nor in ſo conſpicuous a manner as the Roman Senate or Common-wealth of Venice, and this is no Mid-ſummer nights Dream any more than that Papiſts have a Church in England in communion with the See of Rome, and that they have Maſſes, Baptizing, &c. although it be not known to Proteſtants, nor ſo conſpicuous as that we know where to go to them. And theſe Churches have been ſeen and known in the World, partly ſeparate from the Roman Church, partly continuing within the Roman Church, but yet oppoſing the p…pal uſurpations and corruptions. As for H. T. his Definition of a Church, it is to me more like a Mid-Summer nights Dream. For is the Church a congregation of viſible men preaching, baptizing, and converting Nations? Are all the viſible men in the congregation, which is the Church, men preaching, baptizing, and converting Nations? May not a Church be a congregation of men that convert not any Nation if themſelves be converted, that baptize not others if themſelves be baptized, that preach not if they have heard, received and profeſs the Word preached? Are not Women part of the congregation, which is the Church? Do they preach and baptize? However it is well this Authour ſets down Preaching and Baptizing as acts whereby the men who are of the congregation, which is the Church, are viſible; which is all one with the marks of the viſible Church given by the Proteſtants, to wit, preaching the Word and adminiſtring the Sacraments.
H. T. adds, Object. The Church in communion with the See of Rome was the true Church till ſhe apoſtatized and fell from the faith.
Anſw. If ſhe were once the true Church, ſhe is and ſhall be ſo for ever; ſhe cannot fail, as hath been proved, nor erre in faith, as ſhall be proved hereafter.
I reply. It is, true Proteſtants yield that the Churches in communion with the Biſhops of Rome were true Churches while they held the faith of Chriſt entire, and did not by their innovations ſubvert it, which was in proceſs of time done by altering of the rule of faith, the Apoſtolical tradition of the holy Scripture into unwritten tradition, the Popes determinations and canons of councils as the ſenſe of the Scripture, or the revelations of the Spirit of God, and by bringing in the invocation and worſhip of the Virgin Mary and other Saints, altering the Sacrament of the Lords Supper inſtituted for a commemoration of his death into a propitiatory ſacrifice for quick and dead, aſſerting tranſubſtantiation, and adoring of the bread, worſhipping images and reliques, perverting the Goſpel by bringing in the doctrines of humane ſatisfactions for ſin, power to fulfill the law, juſtification by works, and meriting eternal life, inſtead of free remiſſion of ſins to the penitent believer only through the blood of Chriſt, and juſtification by faith in Chriſt without the works of the law. In which points that the Churches now in communion with the See of Rome have apoſtatized, is apparent by this argument. Thoſe Churches have apoſtatized, who have left the faith once delivered to the Saints by the Apoſtles of Chriſt. But the Churches now in communion with the See of Rome, have left the faith once delivered to the Saints by the Apoſtles of Chriſt: therefore the Churches now in communion with the See of Rome have apoſtatized. The Major is evident from the terms, apoſtaſie being no other thing than leaving the faith once delivered to the Saints by the Apoſtles of Chriſt. The minor is manifeſt by comparing the doctrine of the council of Trent, and Pope Pius the fourth his Creed with the Apoſtles writings, eſpecially the Epiſtle to the Romans by Paul, which ſhews what once the church of Rome believed. For inſtance it is ſaid, Rom. 15. 4. For whatſoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. 2 Tim. 3. 15, 16, 17. And that from a child thou haſt known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wiſe unto ſalvation, through faith which is in Chriſt Jeſus. All Scripture is given by inſpiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for inſtruction in righteouſneſs, that the man of God may be perfect throughly furniſhed unto all good works. Eph. 2. 20. And are built upon the foundation of the Apoſtles and Prophets, Jeſus Chriſt himſelf being the chief corner-stone, which plainly prove the Scriptures uſe for all ſorts, ſufficiency, and divinity, and the needleſneſs of unwritten traditions to guide us to ſalvation. Rom. 12. 5. We being many are one body in Chriſt, and every one members one of another. 1 Cor. 12. 12. For as the body is one and hath many members, and all the members of that one body being many are one body: ſo alſo is Chriſt. Ver. 13. For by one ſpirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free, ver. 27. Now ye are the body of Chriſt and members in particular, ver. 28. And God hath ſet ſome in the Church, firſt Apoſtles, &c. Epheſ. 1. 22. and gave him to be head over all things to the Church which is his body, which prove the Catholick Church to have extended to all believers of Jews and Gentiles, and that they (and not the Roman only, or thoſe that are in communion with it) are that one body or Catholick Church, and that there is no other head of the whole Church but Chriſt, nor any Apoſtle above another; and conſequently the Roman Church and Pope have no ſupremacy over the reſt of the Churches. Rom. 10 14. How ſhall they call on him in whom they have not believed. 1 Tim. 2. 5. There is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the man Chriſt Jeſus, which prove they then received not the invocation of Saints, nor made the Virgin Mary or any other deceaſed Saint, Mediators between God and men. 1 Cor. 11. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. after his blaming them for diſorder about the Lords ſupper, he ſaith thus, For I have received of the Lord that which alſo I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jeſus, the ſame night in which he was betrayed took bread: and when he had given thanks he brake it and ſaid, take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the ſame manner alſo he took the cup when he had ſupped ſaying, this cup is the New Teſtament in my blood: this do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me. For as oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do ſhew the Lords death till he come. Wherefore whoſoever ſhall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, ſhall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himſelf, and ſo let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. The cup of bleſſing which we bleſs, is it not the communion of the blood of Chriſt? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Chriſt? for we being many are one bread and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Which texts plainly ſhew, that what is eaten in the Euchariſt is bread, and therefore not fleſh, and conſequently no tranſubſtantiation, that the actions are commemorate ſigns of Chriſts death; therefore no propitiatory ſacrifice: that bread was to be broken and eaten, therefore not to be whole and ſwallowed down. Heb. 9. 26. But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away ſin by the ſacrifice of himſelf. Heb. 10. 10. By the which will we are ſanctified through the offering of the body of Jeſus Chriſt once for all, which ſhew there is no more ſacrifice or offering of Chriſt in the church of Chriſt to be continued by a Prieſt. Rom. 1. 25. who changed the truth of God into a lye, and worſhipped the creature beſides, or more than the Creator. 1 Theſ. 1. 9. ye turned to God from Idols to ſerve the living and the true God, therefore they worſhipped not bread, nor croſſes, nor reliques as Papiſts do. Rom. 3. 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is juſtified by faith without the deeds of the law. Rom. 4. 5. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that juſtifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted to him for righteouſneſs. Rom. 5. 1. Therefore being juſtified by faith we have peace with God. Rom. 8. 1. There is no condemnation to them that are in Chriſt Jeſus. ver. 3, 4. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the fleſh, God ſending his own Son in the likeneſs of ſinful fleſh, and for ſin, condemned ſin in the fleſh, that the righteouſneſs of the law might be fulfilled in us. ver. 18. For I reckon that the ſufferings of this preſent time, are not worthy to be compared with the glory which ſhall be revealed in us. Rom. 9. 11. For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpoſe of God according to election might ſtand, not of works, but of him that calleth. 16. So then it is not in him that willeth, nor in him that runneth, but of God that ſheweth mercy. Rom. 10. 3, 4, 5, 10. For they being ignorant of Gods righteouſneſs, and going about to eſtabliſh their own righteouſneſs, have not ſubmitted themſelves to the righteouſneſs of God. For Chriſt is the end of the law for righteouſneſs to every one that believeth. For Moſes deſcribeth the righteouſneſs which is of the law, that the man which doth them ſhall live in them. For with the heart man believeth unto righteouſneſs, and with the mouth confeſſion is made unto ſalvation. Rom. 11. 6. And if by grace, then is it no more of work, otherwiſe grace is no more grace: but if it be of work, then it is no more grace, otherwiſe work is no more work. 1 Cor. 1. 30. But of him are ye in Chriſt Jeſus, who of God is made unto us wiſdome, and righteouſneſs, and ſanctification, and redemption, 1 Cor. 4. 4. I know nothing by my ſelf, yet am I not thereby juſtified. ver. 7. who maketh thee to differ from another? and what haſt thou that thou didſt not receive? now if thou didſt receive it, why doſt thou glory as if thou hadſt not received it? Gal. 2. 16, 17, 21. knowing that a man is not juſtified by the law, but by the faith of Jeſus Chriſt: we ſeek to be juſtified by Chriſt. I do not fruſtrate the grace of God: for if righteouſneſs come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain: to which may be added, Gal. 3. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. & 5. 4, 5. Epheſ. 2. 8, 9. Phil. 3. 8, 9. Tit. 3. 5, 6, 7. 1 John 1. 7. which overthrow forgiveneſs of ſins for our ſatisfaction, merit of glory by any Saints works, righteouſneſs by works and ſuch other tenets as whereby Papiſts extol man, and debaſe the grace of God, which will more fully appear by refuting the ſhifts of the Romaniſts in the diſcuſſing of the following articles.
As for what H. T. ſaith here, if the Church in communion with the See of Rome were once the true Church, ſhe is and ſhall be ſo for ever, if meant of the viſible Church militant (of which alone is the queſtion) it muſt reſt either on this propoſition, every true viſible Church militant is and ſhall be a true Church for ever, which is proved falſe by the inſtances of the Hieroſolymitan, Antiochian, Alexandrian, Epheſian, Corinthian and other Churches. Where there are not now churches of Chriſt, but Mahometans, at leaſt by this authors own doctrine, they were not true churches while the Greek churches revolted from the communion of the Roman which he mentions, p. 47. and it is manifeſt by Chriſts threatning, that he would remove the candleſtick from them except they did repent, Revel. 2. 5. Or elſe it reſts on this, that every church in communion with the See of Rome is, and ever ſhall be a true church: but there is no priviledge in Scripture to the church of Rome more than to other churches, much leſs to every church that is in communion with the See of Rome; yea it is ſaid to the Roman church as well as other churches, Rom. 11. 20, 21, 22. well, becauſe of unbelief they were broken off, and thou ſtandeſt by faith. Be not high minded but fear. For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed leſt he alſo spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodneſs and ſeverity of God: on them which fell ſeverity; but towards thee goodneſs, if thou continue in his goodneſs, otherwiſe thou (even the Roman church to whom he then wrote) alſo ſhalt be cut off. However if it be proved that the church catholick inviſible of the elect and true believers cannot fail, and that a church viſible indefinite ſhall not fail, but be in ſome place or other more or leſs conſpicuous, in greater or ſmaller numbers; yet it is not proved that the church militant definite of this or that place ſhall not fail, nor is there a word in Scripture to prove this the priviledge of the Roman church, or thoſe that are in communion with the See of Rome that they cannot fail nor erre in faith: nor do the words of Fathers rightly underſtood prove it. But Scripture and experience do plainly refute it. What hath been alleged is examined, the reſt will be in its place. I proceed to that which remains in this Article.
Object. The Catholick ſucceſſion was one ſucceſſion for the firſt five centuries.
Anſw. You may as well tell me of a white blackmore: a Catholick is not a Proteſtant, nor a Catholick ſucceſſion a Protestant ſucceſſion. Who ever heard of a Proteſtant Pope? The Catholick church was always governed by a Pope in the firſt five centuries, as now it is, and hath defined our tenets and condemned yours, as you have ſeen. It is the very eſſence of a Proteſtant (as a Proteſtant) to proteſt againſt the Catholick church, as Lutherans and you have done.
To this I reply, To an objection of ſuch moment as this is the anſwer, is but meer trifling. For he knows, that we mean by catholick ſucceſſion, not that which he calls catholick ſucceſſion, to wit of Popes of Rome, but that the teachers, who are reputed catholick, whether of the Greek or Latin churches, who have ſucceeded one after another in the five firſt centuries of years from Chriſts incarnation according to the account now uſed, taught not the doctrine now profeſſed in the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth, or in the Tridentin canons, but that in all or moſt of the points in difference between Proteſtants and Papiſts they taught the doctrine, which Proteſtants now hold, which hath been proved by Jewel and many other Proteſtant writers. And in this ſenſe it is no more abſurdity to call a Proteſtant a catholick, then to call a ſpade a ſapde, a ſtraw a ſtraw. Proteſtants are truely Catholicks, Papiſts are but falſly called Catholicks affecting the name, as ſome that were of the Synagogue of Satan ſaid they were Jews, and were not, but did lye, Revel. 3. 9. and impudently claiming that which they have no right to, that they may be it as a ſtalking horſe catch ignorant people, who are taken with ſhews and confident talk, being unable to ſift out truth and diſcern it from pretences. A Catholick ſucceſſion is in true conſtruction a Proteſtant ſucceſſion, and the Popes of Rome it ſelf Proteſtant Popes, teaching in ſuch writings as remain not the now Papal doctrine, but in the main the Proteſtant, though by ſome of them exceſſively magnifying their See, and promoting rites of mens invention way was made for the after corruptions of the Papacy. The term Pope was in former times given to other Biſhops, Presbyters, yea and Deacons too beſides the Biſhop of Rome, though now the title is appropriated to him, who deſerves not the name of Papa or Father, as it was heretofore uſed as an honourable title of the reverend and godly teachers and officers in the church of God, nor any other way I know, except it be in the ſenſe in which an Italian ſaid of Innocent the eighth,
Octo nocens pueros genuit totidemque puellas:
Hunc merito poteris dicere Roma patrem:
Many of whoſe predeceſſors and ſucceſſors have made it their work to advance their baſtards, rather then beget children to God by preaching the Goſpel. It is a notorious falſhood, that the catholick church was alwayes governed by a Pope in the firſt five centuries, if he mean by Pope a Biſhop of Rome. Its manifeſt by many inſtances, that the African and Aſian churches were not governed by him in the ſecond, third, fourth and fifth centuries, ſith they did oppoſe him, as appears by the contentions between Victor and Polycrates and others. That which we have ſeen in H. T. or Bellarmin or any other writer of the Popiſh party, hath not yet made it ſo much as probable, that the Catholick church hath now defined the now Roman tenets, or condemned the Proteſtants, nor is it of the eſſence of a Proteſtant, as ſuch, to Proteſt againſt the Catholick church, but againſt the errors and abominations of the now Roman party. Nor hath H. T. or any other proved, that the Proteſtant teachers proteſt againſt manifeſt revealed verities, and the very fundamentals of the Chriſtian faith, however they do proteſt againſt the fundamentals of the new Popiſh faith, the Popes monarchy, tranſubſtantiation, &c.
H. T. adds, St. Auguſtin, St. Hierom and many others are divided in their opinions, whether Linus or Clement immediately ſucceeded Peter. Anſw. Be it ſo, yet they all agreed in this, that the ſucceſſion was morally continued, to which it is a thing indifferent whether Clement immediately ſucceeded him, as he well might being his ſcholar, or firſt Linus, then Cletus, and then Clement, which is now the more common opinion of the church.
I reply, what he means by [morally continued] I underſtand not, nor know I any ſenſe of that ſpeech, which ſerves to take away the force of the objection, which is, that if it be uncertain who ſucceeded Peter immediately, then the tradition of the church unwritten, or not written in the Bible is uncertain, and that too in a main point which is fundamental with the Romaniſts, the ſucceſſion of their chief Paſtors, upon which the truth of their church and the rule of their faith depends, and conſequently the rule of the Romaniſts whereby to know what we are to believe hath a meer ſandy foundation, not being ſufficient to build a divine and firm faith upon; and the Proteſtants are no more to be blamed than the Romaniſts, if they do not ſo exactly ſet down and prove their ſucceſſion of Biſhops as the Papiſts require, ſith the Papiſts themſelves are deficient in their own catalogue, and if the Proteſtants can prove their faith out of Scripture, though they prove not ſuch a ſucceſſion as is demanded, they may as well be concluded a true church as the Roman, which anſwers the two firſt Articles of H. T. his Manual of controverſies. Beſides the moſt ancient tradition they have, to wit Irenaeus l. 3. adver. haereſ. c. 3. ſaith that Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome, and then delivered the Epiſcopacy of the church to be adminiſtred to Linus, which was done in their life time, and ſo Linus did not ſucceed Peter as Biſhop of Rome, for he was Biſhop while Peter lived, and ſo if Peter died Biſhop of Rome there were more Biſhops together, and Irenaeus makes them ſucceſſors of Paul as well as Peter; nor were they ſucceſſors to them as having the ſame office with them. For they could not be Biſhops of particular places fixed there as now the term is uſed, it ſtood not with their commiſſion, which enjoyned them to go into all the world, and to preach the Goſpel to every creature, nor were they ſucceſſors to them in their Apoſtleſhip, for that particular office ceaſed with the firſt Apoſtles. So that the truth is, this conceit of ſucceſſion is but a vain conceit, though it be much magnified by H. T. and other Romaniſts for want of ſolid proof of their ſeveral doctrins out of Scripture or primitive antiquity. I go on to the next Article.