Romanism Discussed, Treatise · Article 9
ARTIC. IX.
Schiſm and Hereſie are ill charged on Proteſtants.
Proteſtants in not holding Communion with the Roman Church, as now it is, in their Worſhip, in not ſubjecting themſelves to the Pope as their viſible Head, in denying the new Articles of the Tridentin Council and Pope Pius the fourth his Bull, are neither guilty of Schiſm nor Hereſie. But Papiſts by rejecting them for this cauſe, and ſeeking to impoſe on them this Subjection are truly Schiſmaticks, and in holding the Articles which now they do are Hereticks.
SECT. I
H. T. his definitions of Hereſie and Schiſm are not right.
H. T. intitles his ninth Article of Schiſm and Hereſie, and begins thus. Nothing intrenching more on the Rule of Faith or the Authority of the Church than Schiſm or Hereſie: we ſhall here briefly ſhew what they are, and who are juſtly chargeable therewith. Our Tenet is, that not onelyonly Hereſie (which is a wilfull ſeparation from the Doctrine of the Catholick Church) but alſo Schiſm (which is a ſeparation from her government) is damnable and ſacrilegious, and that moſt Sectaries are guilty of both.
Anſw. I Think Infidelity doth more intrench on the Rule of Faith than Hereſie, and Hereſie may be where there is no intrenching on the Authority of the Church in this Authour's own ſenſe, as when a man living in communion with the Roman Church, and owning the Pope, or being the Pope himſelf is an Arian, as Pope Liberius, or a Monothelite as Pope Honorius. And for his definition of Hereſie, it is in mine apprehenſion too obſcure and imperfect. For it neither ſhews what is the Catholick Church, the ſeparation from whoſe Doctrine makes Hereſie, nor what Doctrines of it the ſeparation from which makes Hereſie, nor what ſeparation in heart or profeſſion, or other act, nor when it is wilfull when not, nor how it may be known to be wilfull. Nor doth this definition agree with their own Tenets, who acquit many from Hereſie, who wilfully ſeparate from the Doctrine of the Catholick Church, as they define it, to wit, that which is defined by a general Council approved by a Pope. As for inſtance, The Popiſh French Church is acquitted from Hereſie, yet they hold a Council to be above the Pope, contrary to the laſt Lateran Council approved by Pope Leo the tenth. Nor is this definition at all proved by this Authour, but taken as granted, though it may be juſtly queſtioned. And for the uſe of the terms [Hereſie] and [Hereticks] in the Ancients it is certain, that many are put in the Catalogue of Hereticks by Philaſtrius, Epiphanius, Auguſtin, and alſo by other Writers elder and later, and thoſe opinions termed Hereſies, which were not ſo. The like faults are in the definition of Schiſm, in not ſetting down which is the Catholick Church, what is her government, what ſeparation of heart, or outward profeſſion, or other act it is which makes Schiſm. Nor is this a definition, which doth agree with their own grants; For the Councils that depoſed Popes ſeparated from the government of the Pope, and the French in their pragmatick Sanction, and the Venetians that refuſed to obey Pope Paul the fifth his Monitory, deny themſelves to be Schiſmaticks. Nor is it ſhewed how either is damnable or ſacrilegious, nor how Proteſtants are Sectaries, or which Sectaries are guilty of both or either. So that in this Tenet there is nothing but ambiguity and imperfection: yet ſith by what follows we may gheſs his meaning: let's view his diſpute.
SECT. II.
Proteſtants are not proved to be Sectaries by the firſt beginning of Reformation.
The Argument, ſaith H. T. All ſuch as are wilfully divided both from the Doctrine and Diſcipline of the Catholick Church are Schiſmaticks and Hereticks, and conſequently in a damnable ſtate. But moſt Proteſtants and other Sectaries are wilfully divided both from the Doctrine and Diſcipline of the Catholick Church. Therefore they are Schiſmaticks and Hereticks, and conſequently in a damnable ſtate. The Major is manifeſt out of the very notion and definition of Schiſm and Hereſie: The ſequel of it proved thus by Scriture, Titus 3. 10. 2 Peter 2. 1. Jude 13. Rom. 16. 17. Matth. 18. 7, 17, 18. 2 Theſſ. 3. 14.
Anſw. 1. BY denying his Definition to be good, and that any of the Texts prove it. 2. By granting the Sequel of them that are truly termed Schiſmaticks and Hereticks, but not of ſuch as he calls ſuch, to wit, that do wilfully divide from the Doctrine and Diſcipline of the now Roman Church falſly by him called Catholick. There is no need of examining each Text till they are ſhewed to prove what is denied.
The Minor, ſaith he, is proved, becauſe Luther and his fellow Proteſtants divided themſelves from the Communion of all Churches, therefore from the Communion of the Catholick Church, and that as well in Points of Doctrine as matters of Government, as plainly appears by all we have ſaid, and is yet confirmed, becauſe when they began their Separation Luther in Germany, Tyndal in England, &c. the Catholick Church was in moſt quiet poſſeſſion of her Tenets, in perfect peace and unity, her Doctrine and Government being the ſame they had been, not onelyonly to the time of Gregory the Great (as Proteſtants confeſs) but to the very time of the Apoſtles, as is manifeſt both by the publick Liturgies, Councils, and Records of all Ages, in which no one Doctrine of Faith, or ſubſtantial Point of Diſcipline, then profeſſed by the Roman Catholick Church, and oppoſed by Proteſtants, had ever been cenſured and condemned as heretical or ſchiſmatical, but all for the most part actually defined and eſtabliſhed againſt ancient Hereticks, as you have ſeen in the Councils.
Anſw. 1. The Minor ſpeaks of moſt Proteſtants, but mentions none but Luther and his fellow Proteſtants, and Tyndal in England: now it is no good proof againſt us, that we are Schiſmaticks, becauſe Luther and his fellow Proteſtants were ſo, and Tyndal began Separation in England. It is told them by C…illingworth c. 5. p 1. againſt Knot, that there may be an unjuſt Separation begun, and ſo a Schiſm in the Leaders, and yet no Schiſm in the Followers in after Ages; as in a Common-wealth it may be a Sedition and Rebellion to ſet up another Government and Governour in the firſt Authours, and yet none in the Poſterity to continue them, but rather their duty to maintain them in order to the peace and liberty which was unjuſtly obtained at firſt. 2. It is denied that Luther or Tyndal divided themſelves wilfully, that is, without neceſſity. It is known in the Hiſtory of Sleidan, and others, that Luther at firſt ſpake honourably of the Pope, and was willing to have continued in communion with the Roman Church till Leo the tenth did by his Bull condemn his Doctrine, afore he had heard him, and he ſaw plainly (as the World found by experience) that the Popes and Court of Rome did never by good proofs out of Scripture go about to refute them, but by Excommunications, Fire, and War, (to which Emperours and Kings were ſtirred up by them) endeavour to root them out. And for Tyndal it is manifeſt by the Book of Acts and Monuments of the Church written by Mr. Fox in the Reign of Henry the eighth, that Tyndal was perſecuted by the Popiſh Biſhops, and his body burnt in Brabant. Now ſure were the Proteſtants never ſo erroneous, yet the Law of Nature ties them to run away from ſuch cruel Wolves, as in ſtead of teaching them with love, endeavour to deſtroy them with cruelty. 3. It is moſt falſe, that Luther and his Fellows divided themſelvs from the communion of all Churches: It is certain, that they actually joyned with the remainder of the Huſſites in Bohomia, and the Waldenſes about the Alpes, who were true Churches of Chriſt, however the Romaniſts term them: nor did they ever renounce communion with the Greek. Eaſtern or Southern Churches, though by reaſon of diſtance, and the Power they were under, they could not have actual communion with them. And by their deſire of a free Council in Germany not called by the Pope, but the Emperour and Chriſtian Princes, nor of Biſhops ſworn to the Pope, but of men that were equal Judges by whom their Doctrine might be examined, and by their often Colloquies for Reconciliation they plainly ſhewed, that they tried all means they could with a good conſcience to have prevented the breach between them, and the Popiſh party, who were certainly the cauſe of the Schiſm, and truly the Schiſmaticks (as may be gathered from their own ſtories, ſuch as Thuanus, Frier Paul's Hiſtory of the Trent Council. and others, who relate the proceedings of thoſe times) and not the Proteſtants. 4. It is moſt falſe, that they ſeparated from the Catholick Church in point of Doctrine. It is moſt certain, that the party from whom the Proteſtants ſeparated had relinquiſhed the Catholick Doctrine of the Scripture, and Primitive times for five hundred years at leaſt, and had brought in a new upſtart Doctrine of Invocation of Saints, worſhiping Images, Tranſubſtantiation, half-communion as ſufficient, denial of Prieſt's Marriage, Popes univerſal Monarchy, Purgatory-fire, Indulgences, Sacrifice of the Maſs, Juſtification by Works, and many more, which were unknown to the firſt Chriſtians, nor hath the contrary appeared by any thing H. T. hath ſaid before, as the Reader of this Anſwer may perceive. 5. It is moſt falſe, that they ſeparated from the Catholick Church in the point of her Government. The Government of the whole Church by one univerſal Biſhop was never the Government of the Catholick Church. It is manifeſt by the firſt general Councils that the Pope of Rome was not acknowledged ſuperiour to other Patriarchs, and the Greek Churches have always reſiſted his claim of Supremacy, and many, as Nilus Arch-biſhop of Theſſalonica, Barliam and others have written againſt it as an unjuſt claim. 6. It is falſe, that the Roman Church (falſly by H. T. called Catholick) was in moſt quiet poſſeſſion of her Tenets, when Luther began his Separation in Germany, Tyndal in England. It is manifeſt by Cochlaeus his Hiſtory of the Huſſites, that there were a remnant of them in Bohemia, by Thuanus and Mr. Morland that there was a remnant of the Waldenſes in the Valleys of the Alpes, by Mr. Fox that there was a remnant of Lollards or Wicteviſts in England, who did reject the Roman Doctrine then and ſince taught, in many, if not all the points, in which Proteſtants do now oppoſe it. 7. It is falſe, that the Roman Church was in perfect peace and unity when Luther and Tyndal began their Separation. For the controverſies about the Virgin Marie's immaculate Conception, about the Popes Supremacy above a Council, and ſundry other were rather ſuppreſſed than compoſed, as the event ſhewed, no party relinquiſhing the holding their Tenets to this day, but each when occaſion is offered contending for their way. 8. It is falſe, that the Doctrines and Government of the Roman Church had been the ſame from that time Luther and Tyndal began their Separation to the time of Gregory the Great, or that Proteſtants do confeſs it. It is moſt certain to the contrary, that ſince Gregory the Great his time the Popes univerſal Epiſcopacy, the Worſhip of Images, Tranſubſtantiation, half-Communion in the Euchariſt, and many other points were brought into the Roman Church, as Biſhop Morton in his Appeal from Brereley's Apology to King James hath proved. 9 It is alſo moſt falſe, that their Doctrine and Government were the ſame … now they are to the times of the Apoſtles. The contrary is proved out of the Epiſtle to the Romans, by Biſhop Robert Abbot againſt D…ctor Biſhop, and by Biſhop Jewel againſt Harding out of the Fathers. 10. It is falſe which H. T. ſaith, It is manifeſt both by the publick Liturgies, Councils, and Records of all Ages, no one Doctrine of Faith, or ſubſtantial Point of Doctrine profeſſed then when Luther and Tyndal began their Separation by the Roman Church, and oppoſed by Protestants had ever been cenſured and condemned as heretical or ſchiſmatical, but all for the moſt part actually defined and eſtabliſhed againſt ancient Hereticks, as may be ſeen in the Councils. The contrary is moſt manifeſt, that the Council of Chalcedon and of Carthage, in which Auguſtine was preſent, oppoſed the Popes Supremacy as ſchiſmatical, that the Synod of Frankford oppoſed the worſhiping of Images as heretical, beſides many other, as hath been ſhewed in anſwer to what H. T. here allegeth.
SECT. III.
The Sayings of Fathers prove not Proteſtants Hereticks or Schiſmaticks.
BUt H. T. ſaith, Fathers for this Point, though there is not one of the Fathers Sayings which he brings that ſpeaks at all to that point of the Proteſtants being guilty of Schiſm or Hereſie, or that the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church, or that her Doctrine and Government have been the ſame in all Ages, or that in no caſe there may be dividing from it, or teaching contrary to it without Hereſie or Schiſm, yea, it is certain, that Irenaeus, Cyprian, and Auſtin, thought the clean contrary, Irenaeus oppoſing Pope Victor his Excommunication of the Eaſtern Biſhops for not holding Eaſter with him, Cyprian oppoſing Pope Stephanus about Rebaptization, Auguſtine oppoſing Popes Boniface, Zozimus, and Celeſtine, about the Appeal of Apiarius. But let's view their Sayings.
The firſt is thus cited by H. T. In the ſecond Age Irenaeus; God will judge thoſe who make the Schiſms in the Church, ambitious men, who have not the honour of God before their eys, but rather embracing their own intereſts than the unity of the Church, for ſmall and light cauſes divide the great and glorious body of Chriſt, &c. for in the end they cannot make any Reformation ſo important as the evil of Schiſm is prejudicious, lib. 4. cap. 62. It is likely H. T. ignorantly put [prejudicious] for [pernicious] or his Authour whence he had it, for it is in Irenaeus, Quanta eſt Schiſmatis pernicies. But it appears, 1. That he hath either not read the place, or not conſidered it, becauſe he puts in [God will judge] whereas it is manifeſt out of the words following [But he will judge alſo all thoſe who are out of the truth, that is, without the Church, but he himſelf is judged of no man] and from chap. 53. and following to be meant of every ſpiritual Diſciple of Chriſt that had received the Spirit of God, and the Apoſtolical Doctrine, chap. 52. alluding to Paul's words, 1 Cor. 2. 15. and he alters [the love of God] into [the honour of God before their eys.] 2. That the place makes nothing againſt Proteſtants; for it condemns onelyonly them that make Schiſms for ſmall and light cauſes, which was moſt true of Victor then Biſhop of Rome, in excommunicating the Aſian Biſhops for not keeping Easter as he did, reprehended by Irenaeus in his Epiſtle recited by Euſebius, hiſt. 1. lib. 5. cap. 24. but is nothing againſt Proteſtants, who neither make nor continue Schiſms, and that Separation which they make, they do it for very great cauſes. And he ſaith, No Reformation can be made ſo important by them who divide upon light cauſes, as is the miſchief of the Schiſm they make, but this hinders not but that the Proteſtants Reformation, or correption (which is Irenaeus his word) is ſo neceſſary, that it countervails the evil of the Schiſm conſequent. I add, the words of Irenaeus [the ſpiritual man who is a Diſciple of Chriſt will judge all them who are out of the truth] do juſtifie the Proteſtants in judging the Popes and Popiſh Doctors, and Churches as Schiſmaticks and Hereticks, who by their Doctrine of Popes Supremacy, Invocation of Saints, humane Satisfactions, inherent Juſtice juſtifying, Merit of Condignity, have departed from the Apoſtolical Faith, and by their cruel tyranny and hatred of Reformation have the moſt horrible and pernicious Schiſm that ever was in the Church of God, and the Proteſtants are warranted thus to judge by the holy Scripture.
The words of Cyprian de unit. Eccleſ. in the third Age againſt the Novatians of the inexpiableneſs of their crime of Schiſm, that it could not be purged by ſuffering for Chriſt, nor they be Martyrs, though they died for the Confeſſion of his Name, is too heavy a cenſure, yet if it were true is nothing againſt Proteſtants, who are not guilty of that Schiſm.
The words of Chryſoſtom hom. 11. in Epheſ. ſhew how grievous an evil Schiſm is, but prove not, that they are all Schiſmaticks, that ſeparate from the Roman Biſhop and Church, nor that the Proteſtants are guilty thereof, or the Romaniſts free.
The words of Optatus lib. 2. are not to any of the points now in controverſie except he mean by the unity of the Epiſcopal Chair holding communion with the Biſhop of Rome, and aſſert that to be the one Epiſcopal Chair to which all other are to be ſubject: which if ſo meant, the words are not true; if meant as Cyprian meant, that there is one Biſhoprick of which each Biſhop holds a part intirely, in reſpect of unity of Doctrine, the ſpeech is good, but not againſt Proteſtants, who hold the unity of that Epiſcopal Chair.
The words of Auguſtine lib. 4. de Symb. fidei ad Catech. cap. 10. if they were true, yet are they nothing to the purpoſe, unleſs it were ſaid, that by the holy Church he meant the Church of Rome, or that he who is found out of the Church of Rome is a ſtranger from the number of ſons, that he hath not God for his Father, nor will have the Church for his Mother, none of which are ſaid by him. It is true, there are theſe words in Auſtin's ſecond Expoſition on Pſalm 21. with us 22. ver. 18. He who hath charity is ſecure or ſafe. No man moveth it out of the Catholick Church. But theſe words are not againſt Proteſtants, but againſt Papiſts, who move it out of the Catholick Church, and confine it to the Roman, and moſt uncharitably damn them, who are not of their party, therein following the Donatiſts, whom Auſtin there condemns, who confined the Church to the part of Donatus in Africa. And there is another paſſage in the ſame Expoſition which doth juſtifie the Proteſtants and condemn the Papiſts in the main point of controverſie between us, what ſhall determine controverſies between us, they ſay the Church, when the great controveſie is which is the Church, we ſay the Scripture, and ſo doth Auguſtine in theſe words. The Teſtament of our Father (that is, the Scriptures, as the words a little before ſhew) is come out of any hole, I know not what Thieves would take it away, I know not what Perſecutours would burn it. Whenceſoever it is brought let it be read. Why ſtriveſt thou? We are brethren, why do we ſtrive? The Father died not without a Will, he made his Will and ſo died, he is dead and riſen again. So long there is contention about the Inheritance of the Dead untill the Will be publickly produced, and when the Will is brought into the publick all are ſilent, that the Tables may be opened and recited. The Judge hears within, the Advocates are ſilent, the Criers make ſilence, all the People is ſuspended, that the words of the Dead not perceiving it in the Tomb may be read. He lies without ſenſe in the Monument, and his words are in force, Chriſt ſits in Heaven, and is his Teſtament contradicted? Open, let us read, we are Brethren, why do we contend? Let our minde be pacified, our Father hath not left us without a Will. He that made the Will lives for ever, hears our voices, acknowledgeth his own. Let us read, why do we contend? Where the Inheritance it ſelf is found, let us hold it. Theſe words were ſpoken by Auſtin againſt Donatiſts, and may rightly be applied to Papiſts, who are the true canſe of all the horrible Schiſms and bloodſheds among Chriſtians, becauſe they will not try who hath the Inheritance of the Church by the Scriptures, which are God's Will, but uſurp the name of the Catholick Church, as the Donatiſts did, and under that pretence trample under foot all their Chriſtian Brethren in the World, who have as great and better Portion in the Inheritance of God their Father and of the Church than themſelves.
The words of Auguſtine in his Sermon ſuper geſtis Emeriti, are not, that out of the Church an Heretick may have all things but Salvation. For he ſaith, He may have the Faith, which he would not ſay of the Heretick, but he ſpeaks it of the Donatiſts, which whether it be true or no is nothing to Proteſtants, who are and may be in the true Church of Chriſt, and have ſalvation, though they be not in the Roman Church.
The words of Auguſtine Epiſt. 48. concerning the Donatiſts, that they were with other Chriſtians in Baptiſm, in the Creed, and in the other Sacraments of the Lord, but in the ſpirit of unity, in the bond of peace, and finally in the Catholick Church you are not with us; do not at all touch Proteſtants, who are in the Catholick Church with other Chriſtians, though not with the Roman party, who are moſt like the Donatiſts; and the Proteſtants hold with Auguſtine in the ſame Epiſtle, that that kinde of Letters (to wit, of Biſhops, ſuch as Hilary, Cyprian, &c.) is to be diſtinguiſhed from the authority of the Canon of the Scripture. For they are not ſo read as if teſtimony were brought out of them, that it may not be lawfull to think to the contrary, if perhaps they thought otherwiſe than the truth requires.
SECT. IV.
H. T. hath not ſolved the Objections acquiting Proteſtants from Schiſm and Hereſie, and condemning Papiſts.
It follows in H. T. Objections ſolved. Object. We ſeparated onelyonly from the Church of Rome's errours. Anſw. Yea, from her Catholick and Apoſtolical Doctrines. She doth not erre in Faith, as hath been proved. I anſwer therefore with St. Auguſtine to the Donatiſts; I object to you the crime of Schiſm, which you will deny, and I will preſently prove, becauſe you do not communicate with all Nations, cont. Petil. Add, no nor with any Nation before Luther.
I Reply, that we ſeparate from any other than the Church of Rome's errours, and ſins, is ſaid, but not proved, and that ſhe, that is, the Biſhop of Rome and his party do not erre in Faith is not proved, but impudently ſaid againſt plain evidence of Scripture, Councils, and Fathers, and I reply by retorting Auguſtine's words. I object to you the crime of Schiſm, which you will deny, and I will preſently prove, becauſe you do not communicate with all Nations, particularly you Engliſh Recuſant Papiſts H. T. and the reſt are manifeſt Schiſmaticks, for you ſeparate from the Catholick Church in that you do not communicate with the Proteſtant Church of Chriſt in England. It is falſe, that thoſe who held the ſame truth with Proteſtants under other names, held no communion with any Nation before Luther: For as far as they could, and ought, they held communion with a. called on the Name of the Lord Jeſus in France, Bohemia, England, and elſewhere, under the names of Waldenſes, Huſſites, Picards, Wicleviſts, Lollards, and ſuch like.
H. T. adds. Object. We refuſed onelyonly the Church of Rome's Innovations and Superſtitions. Anſw. You ſlander. Her Diſcipline and Doctrines were the ſame then that they have been in all precedent Ages. Did the Church periſh (ſaith St. Auguſtine to the Donatiſts, or did ſhe not? If ſhe did, what Church brought forth the Donatiſts? (or the Proteſtants?) If ſhe did not, what madneſs moved you to ſeparate your ſelves from her, on pretence of avoiding the communion of bad men? lib. 1. cont. Gaudent. cap 7. And again, We are certain no man can juſtly ſeparate himſelf from the communion of all Nations (yet Martin Luther and Mr. Tyndal did it) Epiſt. 48. And in another place, All Separation made before the drawing of the Net on the ſhore (at the Day of Judgement) is damnable and the Sacrilege of Schiſm, which ſurpaſſeth all other crimes, lib. 2. cont. Epiſt. Parmen.
I reply, it is a Scolds trick to ſay we ſlander, and not to prove it. We prove out of Paul's Epiſtle to the Romans, that the Roman Church then held Juſtification by Faith without Works, that every Soul even Popes were to be ſubject to Princes, that the Scriptures are to be the Rule of Faith, that the Church of Rome might fail, that the Roman church is but a particular Church, that it is evil to judge Chriſtians for not obſerving difference of Meats and Days, that it is Idolatry to do, as Papiſts now do, worſhiping the Creature with ſuch Worſhip as belongs to the Creatour, that we are not to invocate Saints in whom we believe not, with ſundry more, in which the preſent Roman church hath ſwe…ved from the primitive. We prove out of Gregory the Great himſelf, that the Doctrine and Diſcipline of the Roman church is not the ſame now as it was in all precedent Ages, for he rejected the Title of Univerſal Biſhop now uſurped by the Pope, and diſavowed the Worſhip of Images, with other things now received at Rome, and before him Pope Gelaſius termed the denying the Cup to the Lay-people ſacrilegious. Auguſtine himſelf hath taught us to account his words below Scripture-canon: yet his ſpeeches touch not us, who do not ſeparate our ſelves from the church of Chriſt on pretence of avoiding communion of bad men, but from the Papacy on full proof that the communion of the Popiſh church is impoſed on conditions of acknowledging ſuch Errours, and practiſing ſuch Idolatry as are damnable. We do not ſay, that the church periſhed, but that it was continued in a remnant of perſecuted Saints. We need not allege any Church for our Mother, but the Jeruſalem which is abov…, which is the Mother of us all, Gal. 4. 26. I judge it no better than an inconſiderate ſpeech to ſay, any viſible church is the Mother of Chriſtians, it is in my apprehenſion all one as to ſay, the church is the Mother of the church, Chriſtians or believers being all one with the church, and therefore count ſuch ſpeeches, whoever Father or Prelate he be that uſeth them, no better than ridiculous non-ſenſe, and much more to call Biſhops our Fathers in Chriſt, and yet to term them the Church alſo and our Mother. Nor need we allege a Church that brought us forth, it is ſufficient we can prove our Faith to be according to the Goſpel, and allege that we have been begotten by it, which way ſoever it be. Were not the …berians a church of Chriſtians who were converted by … captive Maid when there was no church there before, and the Indians by …rumentius without a Church to bring them forth? May not a man have Faith and Salvation in a Wilderneſs where he knows of no church? Neither did Luther nor Tyndal ſeparate themſelves from all Nations, but were expelled and pe…ſecuted by the deviliſh Popes and Popiſh Clergy of Rome, when they endeavoured to reſtore the purity of the Goſpel to the Germans, Engliſh, and other Nations. If Augustine meant ſimply, that all Separation made before the Day of Judgement is damnable, he wrote that which is not true, it being contrary to Paul's practiſe, Acts 18. 9. God's command, 2 Cor. 6. 17. 2 Tim. 3 5. 2 Theſſ. 3. 8. Revel. 18. 4. He himſelf acknowledgeth lib. 2. cont Epiſt. P…rmen. cap. 21. A man is not to aſſociate with others when he cannot have ſociety with them but by doing evil with them. But if he meant it of ſuch Separation as the Donatiſts made (as it is likely he doth) it toucheth not us, who ſeparate not from the Romaniſts, becauſe ſome evil men are tolerated, but becauſe Errour, Idolatry, and other evils are urged on us by them, and ſuch is their tyranny, that without yielding to them there is no communion, but in ſtead thereof Baniſhment or Burning.
Once more ſaith H. T. Object. We did but ſeparate from the particular Church of Rome. Therefore not from the whole Church. Anſw. I told you it the Queſtion of the Churches univerſality in what ſenſe the Church of Rome i… univerſal or Catholick, and in what ſenſe ſhe is particular, take it in which acception you will your Conſequence is falſe, for whoſoever ſeparates from an acknowledged true Member of the Catholick Church (and ſuch the Church of Rome then was in her particular) he conſequently ſeparates from the whole, and is an Heretick or Schiſmatick.
I reply, neither as it is taken for the congregation of Rome or Italy, nor as it notes a collection of all the Churches holding communion with the See of Rome is the Roman Church rightly termed the Catholick Church: the non-ſenſe and falſhood thereof is ſhewed before Art. 5. Sect. 8. Nor is it true that he that ſeparates from the Catholick Roman Church, in either ſenſe is an Heretick or Schiſmatick. And to his proof I ſay, 1. That many Proteſtants deny the Roman Church a true Member of the Catholick Church when Luther ſeparated, but call it an Antichriſtian and malignant Church; and they that acknowledge it a true Church, in reſpect of the truth of being, yet not of Doctrine, and they that ſay it had the truth of being, ſay it not of the predominant part, but of the latent, conceiving it was with them as it was with Iſrael in the days of Elijah, that they did not own thoſe Errours and evils which were practiſed in them, or avouched by them, though living among them, or if they did yield to them, or ſome of them, they had pardon, as doing it in ignorance, retaining the old Creed of the Apoſtles: And they attribute the truth of it to the few fundamental Articles which they held, who were in it, though very unſoundly by reaſon of the errours and corruptions mixed with them, which made the Church among the Romaniſts as a leprous man unfit for converſe and communion, with whom though they might continue for a time in expectation of their repentance, yet they might ſay to Rome being found u…c…rable, as the Jews to Babylon, Jer. 51. 9. We would have healed Babylon, but ſhe is not healed: forſake her, and let us go every one into his own countrey: for her Judgement reacheth unto the Heaven, and is lifted up unto the Skies. 2. That it is not univerſally true, that he who ſeparates from an acknowledged true Member of the Catholick Church ſepartes from the whole there may be a Separation partial not total, privative not poſitive, out of prejudice and paſſion, in heat not in heart, as between Paul and Barnabas, Acts 15. 39. Chryſoſtome and Epiphanius, temporary not perpetual, in prudence though not out of abſolute neceſſity, neceſſary not voluntary, juſt and not raſh, without revolt from the Faith, or perſecution of thoſe from whom it is made. In many of theſe ſorts there may be a Separation which may be from an acknowledged true Member of the Catholick Church, and yet no Separation from the whole. And therefore this Poſition of H. T. will not be yielded him without better proof and demonſtration, that the Separation from the Church of Rome which Proteſtants have made cannot ſtand with union with the Catholick Church in Doctrine and Diſcipline. Which ſure he hath not yet proved, nor is it likely he ever will: but as the faſhion of theſe Scriblers is, ſing over again and again their Cuckoes Song of the Catholick Roman Church, and that Proteſtants are Hereticks and Sectaries, with other Popiſh gibberiſh, though the folly and frivolouſneſs thereof hath been a thouſand times demonſtrated.
I have thus at laſt examined theſe nine Articles, being moved thereto out of hope to do ſome ſouls good by recovering them out of the ſnare in which they are held by Satan and Romiſh Emiſſaries. If they ſhut their eys againſt the light, their judgement will be of themſelves. I ſhall add prayer for them, that God would open their eys, and, if time, health, and other concurrences ſuit with my aims, diſcover the vanity of the reſt of H. T. his Manual. In the mean time, not as ſome Romaniſts blaſphemouſly Praiſe be to the Virgin Mother, in the end of their Writings, but as Paul concluded his Epiſtle to the Romans ſo do I, To God onelyonly wiſe be glory through JESUS CHRIST for ever. Amen.
FINIS.