Romanism discussed, or, An answer to the nine first articles of H.T. his Manual of controversies. Whereby is manifested, that H.T. hath not (as he pretends) clearly demonstrated the truth of the Roman religion by him falsly called Catholick, by texts of holy scripture, councils of all ages, Fathers of the first five hundred years, common sense, and experience, nor fully answered the principal objections of protestants, whom he unjustly terms sectaries. By John Tombes, B.D. And commended to the world by Mr. Richard Baxter.

ARTIC. IV.

One Catholick Church not the Roman The Church of Rome is not that one Catholick Church, which in the Apostolick and Nicene Creeds is made the Object of Christian Faith.

SECT. I.

Unity in non-fundamentals of Faith and Discipline is not essentially presupposed to the Universality of the Church Militant.

H. T. to his fourth Article gives this Title, The true Church demonstrated by her Unity and Universality; and then saith, Unity being essentially presup∣posed to Universality, I thought it not improper to joyn these two in one Ar∣ticle.

Answ. IF this Authour had meant to deal plainly, he should have told us what Unity is essentially presupposed to Universality, and how the true Church is demonstrated by her Unity and Universality. Unity in general is so far from being essentially presupposed to Universality in general, that the contrary seems more true, that one is not universal, Unity not consistent with Universality, it being in effect as if i•• were said, One is many or all; yet I deny not some unity in special may be essentially presupposed to some universality in special. There are many sorts of unity which Logicians and Writers of Metaphysicks reckon up, in respect of which it is certain, that the true Church of Christ cannot be said to be one, as it cannot be said to be one with generical or specifical unity; for that is not essentially presupposed to universality of time and place, but is ab∣stracted from it. But he seems to mean unity in Doctrine, Discipline, and Faith, by the words following. Universality likewise is manifold, as Logici∣ans and Writers of Metaphysicks shew, as there is an universality of predica∣tion, of essence, and existence. Now this Authour seems to mean universali∣ty of existence for time and place, and his meaning is this, that unity of Do∣ctrine, Discipline, and Faith, is essentially presupposed to universality of exi∣stence

for time and place: that is, that Church which hath not the same Do∣ctrine, Faith, and Discipline, which all Churches of Christ in all times and places have had, is not the true Church of Christ, and that which hath is the true Church of Christ. Now these Propositions I grant, if meant of Do∣ctrine, and Faith in the Fundamentals, but not if meant of meer outward Church-discipline, or Doctrine, and Faith in points not fundamental, having learned from the Apostle, 1 Cor. 3. 11, 12, 13, 14. that some may build Hay and Stub∣ble, that is, some errors upon the foundation Christ, who yet may be saved: which they could not be, if they were not of the true Church of Christ, or, that is no true Church of Christ, which consists of such. In like manner, the Apostle Rom. 14. 2. expresly tells us in the Church of Rome, one did believe he might eat all things, and another did eat herbs, one esteemed one day above another, others esteemed every day alike, and yet God received them both, and they were Gods servants, v. 3, 4, 5. And that in Discipline there may be disagreement, yea, Schism, and disorder, is apparent from the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 1. 11, 12. & 51. & 6. 7. & 11. 17, &c. & 14. 26. & 15. 12. who are termed the Church of God, 1 Cor. 1. 2. And therefore without distinction and due limita∣tion (which this Authour omits) his Position is not true. But let's view what he writes.

SECT. II.

The antiquity of H. T. his saying of the Roman Church its unity and univer∣sality is shewed.

Now, saith H. T. that the church of Rome is both perfectly one, and also uni∣versal for time and place is thus demonstrated.

Answ. HEre again this Authour deals sophistically, putting the Roman church for the true church, as if they were the same, and not ex∣plaining what he means by the Roman church, which may either•• signifie the church that is in Rome, which is the expression of the Apostle, Rom. 1. 7. or the Church where ever it be, which holds the Roman faith. And this Roman faith may be either the faith in all points which now at this day the Bishop, and Priests, and People, dwelling at Rome hold, or which the Christians at Rome held in the days of Paul, and some Ages after. If it be meant in this this last sense, the true Church is no more the Roman church than Corinthian, nor so much as the Hierosolymitan, whence all churches received the faith: if in the former sense, the term is not according to the ancient use either in Scri∣pture or ancient Ecclesiastick Writers, though I conceive it so meant by this Authour. To be perfectly one is also ambiguous: it may be meant either that they have not the least disagreement in Doctrine, Discipline, and Faith, or they hold the same Faith and Doctrine in the main, or points fundamental. To be universal for time and place, may be either meant thus, that the persons now termed the Roman church are universal for time and place. But this is contrary to sense, it being known by it, that they were born within a certain definite time, at certain definite places, not in all times, and every place exi∣stent:

or that the faith which now the Romanists hold, is that which in all times and places the true church of God hath held. And this we deny if it be meant of the Articles in Pope Pius the fourth his Creed, and are willing to put all our controversies to this issue. But H. T. looks quite awry from this, as will appear by viewing his dispute, which is thus.

SECT. III.

Unity under one visible bead without division in lesser points and disciplin, is not proved from 1 Cor. 10. 17. Ephes. 1. 22, 23. John 10. 16. 1 Cor. 1. 10. Act. 4. 32. John 17. 11. and the Nicene Creed.

H. T. saith The argument for unity. The church of Christ is one body, one fold or flock (of which he himself is the supreme invisible head, and the Pope his deputy on earth the visible or ministerial) But the Roman Catholick church and no other is this one body, one sold or flock; therefore the Roman Catho∣lick church and no other is the church of Christ. The Major is proved, We are one bread and one body as many as participate of one bread. 1 Cor. 10. 18. He hath made him (Christ) head over all the Church which is his body. Ephes. 1. 22, 23. There shall be made one fold and one Pastor. John 10. 16. I be∣seech you, that you all speak one thing, and that there be no Schisms among you, but that ye be perfect in one sense and one judgement. 1 Cor. 1. 10 The multitude of believers had one heart, one soul. Act. 4. 32. Christ prayed that his Disciples might be one. St. John 17. 11. I believe one holy Catholick and Apostolick church. The Nicene Creed.

Ans. 1. THe thing pretended to be demonstrated by her unity, was the true church, after he changeth it into this, that the church of Rome is both perfectly one, and also universal for time and place is thus demonstrated, here the conclusion is the Roman Catholick church and no other is the church of Christ. By comparing of which it is apparent, that this Author supposeth the true church, the church of Rome, and the Roman Catholick church to be synonymous or di∣verse names of the same thing, which is supposed but not proved, nor yeilded, nor can be true, as shall be shewed after. 2. This Author pretends to de∣monstrate by this argument, the church of Rome to be perfectly one, which should have been his conclusion, whereas not heeding his words he makes it the Minor. 3. He puts in by a parenthesis in the Major many words which are not in the Minor, though they belong to the middle term, which should be the same in both premises: nor is any proof brought for them here; to wit, that the Pope is Christs deputy on earth, the visible or ministerial head of that church, which is one body, one fold or flock. 4. That the Major might be for his pur∣pose it should have been thus; that church which is one body, one fold or flock (of which he himself is the supreme invisible head, and the Pope his de∣puty on earth the visible or ministerial) and no other is the church of Christ, but such is the church of Rome, ergo. But as it is now framed it is in the second figure of all affirmatives, which is against Logick rules, and makes the syllogism naught, as the very freshmen know. But to it as it is now framed

I answer. If the words [and the Pope his deputy on earth the visible or mini∣sterial] be left out, the Major is granted in this sense, that the universal church of Christ are one body by unity of one spirit and faith of the fundamentals, and one flock by unity of one head, and supreme Pastor. But in H. T. his sense it is most false, that it is one by the same faith in every point without any difference in lesser points, or without any divisions in rites and disciplin, and in subjection to one universal Bishop on earth, as Christs deputy and the churches visible head. Nor do any of the texts prove it in this sense. For the first doth not express what all Christians were in respect of their state; but profession, and the unity is not derived from either subjection to one universal Bishop on earth, or agreement in all points, but from participating of one bread in the Lords Supper. For it is not to be read as this Author after the vulgar translation reads it [as many as participate of one bread] but [for we all partake of one bread] it being in Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and in some copies of the vulgar [nam omnes] as in the Plantin edition by the Lovain Divines 1574. I finde it in the margin: so that the meaning is this, we do shew our selves one body, one bread, forasmuch as we all partake of one bread in the Lords Supper.

The next text, Ephes. 1. 22, 23. proves only that the church is one body by unity of one head, to wit Christ, as H. T. rightly interprets it. And the third text, John 10. 16. also makes the whole church one flock (as it should be read) not one fold, in respect of one Pastor, which the very words, ver. 11. 14, 15, 16. do shew plainly to be Christ himself, who gave his life for them, and no other; and therefore none of these texts derive the unity of the church from subjection to the Bishop of Rome as visible head or chief Pastor. The next text, 1 Cor. 1. 10. doth only prove that the church ought to be of one mind and one judgement without Schisms, not that they are, or must be, if they be the true church, but the text proves the contrary, that they may be a true church though there be Schisms, and difference of judgement among them. The fifth, Acts 4. 32. only proves that the church at Jerusalem once were so (at which time they had also all things common, which doubtless H. T. will not say must or doth agree to the whole church at all times) but not that the whole church shall be so still. The last, John 17. 11. is a prayer of Christ that it may be so, and so will be accomplished, but by the words, ver. 21, 22, 23. it seems most likely not to be till they be consummate in glory; or if afore, yet certainly the unity cannot be meant of unity in every thing; for so Peter and Paul did not agree, as Gal. 2. 11, 12, 13, 14. it appears, but of such unity in communion with God, and aiming at his glory, as is only in the elect by ver∣tue of Christs indwelling by his Spirit: which is nothing to the unity which H. T. here requires as peculiar to the Roman church. The passage of the Nicene creed proves only an unity of the church, but not an unity by agree∣ment in all points and subjection to one Catholick Bishop on earth. So that H. T. after his fashion cites many texts, but not one for his purpose.

SECT. IV.

It is notoriously false that the Romanists are perfectly one, or have better unity, or means of unity than Protestants, and H. T. his argument for the truth of the Roman church from its unity proves the contrary.

H. T. adds. The minor is made evident (even to the weakest understanding) by the present manifold Schisms and divisions, which are now among Pro∣testants and all other Sectaries, as well in doctrine as government, whereas Catholicks are perfectly one both in disciplin and doctrine, all the world over, even to the least Article or point of faith, being all united to one supreme invisible head, Christ Jesus, and all subordinate to one visible and ministerial head, the Pope his Vicar on earth; we all resolve our selves in points of faith into one safe and most unchangeable principle, I believe the holy Catholick church, we look on her as the immediate and authorized proponent of all revealed verities, and the infallible Judge of controversies; God himself being the prime Author, and his authority the formal motive and object of our faith.

Answ. 1. The Protestants are not Sectaries nor divided from the Catho∣lick church, but from the now Roman party, who are really a faction divided from the Catholick church holding a new faith never established till the Tri∣dentin council, though with an impudent face H. T. avouch a most palbable falshood of the Romanists universality, and arrogates to the Roman the title of Catholick church. Nor are the now divisions of Protestants in doctrine or government such as cut them off from the unity of the Catholick church, they own Christ their head, and faith in him, which is sufficient to save them, and even by this Authors next argument, enough to make them members of the Catholick church. 2. The Schisms and divisions of the Papists have been and are as great as the divisions of the Protestants. In former ages there were many Schisms even in the church of Rome between the several Popes at one time, and the factions among the people about Popes and Emperours and other quarrels. Onuphrius reckons up thirty. Bellarmin himself twenty six Schisms one after another, sometimes one Pope condemning what another had done, and excommunicating and persecuting Emperours, Antipapes, and all that have adhered to them. Besides the contentions about the Virgin Maries immaculate conception, about the superiority of a council above the Pope, about Priests marriages, election of Popes, investiture of Bishops have been so great, and frequent, and of long continuance, as their own histories shew, that they far exceed the Protestants divisions. The divisions in this last age, and some at this day, to wit, in and since the council of Trent between Catha∣rinus, Soto, Vega, Andradius about certainty of salvation; Pighius and others about inherent righteousness, the Spanish and other Bishops and the Papalins about the divine right of Bishops and their residence, not deriving their Epis∣copacy from the Pope; the French churches not acknowledging the Bishop of Rome above a council, nor yet receiving the Trent council: the two Popes Sixtus the fifth and Clement the eighth, about the vulgar translation both en∣joyning each of their editions and no other, as the right copy to be received under penalty of a curse, though one in many places contradict the other (as

Dr. James in his Bellum Papale shews, from which no Papists have or can vindicate the two Popes) the divisions in England and Ireland between the secular Priests and the Jesuits about Episcopal jurisdiction and visitations, between Papists in Italy, at Venice, and in England about the Popes power in temporal things over Princes, in France and England about the lawfulness of killing Kings excommunicated by the Pope, in England and France about Jesuitical equivocation, at this day between Dominicans and Jesuits, Janse∣nists and Mol••nists about Gods predeterminations, efficacious and sufficient grace, and mans freewill have been and are at this day as great or greater in respect of the things in which they differ, the continuance of them, the par∣ties differing and their bitterness one to another, then the Protestants divisions, and therefore the brag of H. T. concerning the Popish unity, that Catholicks are perfectly one both in discipline and doctrine all the world over, even to the least article or point of faith, is a falshood apparent to all well read scholars, though the simple English Papists, from whom the truth of these things is con∣cealed, are made to believe by their Priests disguises and pretences as if it were so. Nor doth that which H. T. here saith, salve the matter, and if it did, the Protestants have as good a plea for themselves, notwithstanding their divisions, in respect of means for unity. For, 1. The Papists all the world over are not so subordinate to the Pope as to acknowledge his superiority to a council, but that they have and think they may appeal from the Pope to a general coun∣cil, which may judge the Pope an heretick and depose him, yea and take away the Pope altogether if they see it necessary, nor do the Jansenists acquiesce in the late Pope Innocents determination at this day, nor do the Sorbonists in France acknowledge the Popes power in temporals, or the Venetians the Popes power to interdict their state and meddle with their government in exempting Ecclesiasticks from their jurisdiction. 2. That which he saith of the Catholick church as the immediate and authorized proponent of all revealed verities, and the infallible Judge of controversies is either nonsense or false, or that which Papists reject in Protestants. If they mean by the Catholick church the Pope, or the Pope with his Cardinals, or a council, it is ridiculous nonsense to call any or all of them the Catholick church, which, according to their own Triden∣tin Catechism, contains all believers from Adam to this day, or that shall be here∣after, and according to this Author, p. 59. is coexistent with all times, and spread or diffused over all places: or if it be understood according to good sense, it is most false. For the Catholick church properly so called as it is in the Creed, is neither mediate nor immediate proponent of all revealed verities, much less authorized thereto, nor do Papists so look on them. For many of the Papists go no further than the present Pope or council, or their Priests, (who only are to most the immediate proponents) but rest in their determi∣nations and adhere to what they determine with an implicite faith and blind obedience, never enquiring what all believers have held or done before them. Nor is it possible they should have resolution from the Catholick church pro∣perly understood as in the Creed it is believed: for it is invisible, they never did together express their determination in all points of faith, have varied in many, nor could it be known to others of their own time if they had, much less to the believers of this age. Nor is the Catholick church fit to be the mediate or immediate proponent of all revealed verities, nor fit for such an authority

as to be infallible Judge of controversies: for to say the Catholick church is such, is to say the university of believers is such, of whom a great part are wo∣men, a great part ignorant persons altogether uncapable of such an office: yea it is contrary to the Apostle Pauls resolution, 1 Cor. 12. 28, 29. who tells us, that God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, then Prophets, thirdly Teachers, not the church to be teachers, which is all one with proponents of revealed verities, but teachers in the church: and these are denied to be all the church, when he saith, ver. 29. Are all teachers? And to make them infalli∣ble is contrary to the Apostle. Rom. 3. 4. where he saith, let God he true, and every man a lyar, surely then not an infallible Judge of controversies: yea should this be granted, it would bring all confusion into the churches of God. Nor can the speech have any good sense, that the Catholick church is Judge in controversies, but this which Protestants indeed rightly teach, that every man is to judge for himself, not for others with a judgement of discerning what doctrine or points of faith he hears, and receives, yet requiring upon pain of damnation that they be careful in examining what they embrace, which the Papists do so much inveigh against falsly, as if it were a leaving every man to his private spirit, though they do in this no otherwise than Papists must of necessity, yeild to each man when the determinations of Popes and councils are ambiguous, as they were in the council of Trent, and are often in the De∣crees, Breves and other edicts of Popes, as is manifest by the writers on the Canon law, and disputes about the councils and Popes meaning, in which are so many ambiguities that there is scarce a point in which there are not many opposite opinions. If Pappus have overcounted, who reckons out of Bellarmin alone two hundred thirty seven contradictions in Popish writers; yet he that reads Bellarmins controversies, shall finde very few questions, in which the Schoolmen and other Papists do not gainsay each other. And as for their resolution into the principle, I believe the Catholick church. They are not agreed what the church is from whom they may have resolution, whether the Pope, who is with them the church virtual, or a general council, which is either never, or very rare, which they call the church representative, or the uniform consent of the Fathers, according to which only the profession of faith of Pope Pius the fourth requires all Papists to receive and expound the holy Scriptures: and yet this uniform consent of Fathers is either a nullity, it being scarce found in any point, or it is impossible to be known. H. T. by his words pag. 108. resolves his faith into the next precedent age and so upwards, and here pag. 30. into the church, and this church is, pag. 70. not the whole church (which yet is all one with the Catholick) but a council approved by the Pope, into whose authority they finally resolve their faith; for though they pretend to resolve it into the Scripture, yet as it is expounded by the church, pag. 109, 113. which is the Pope. So that whatever pretence they make of resolving their faith into the church as the proponent, or God as the Author; in conclusion they acquiesce in what the Pope dictates by himself or with a council approved by him. As for the Scriptures the Papists are not all agreed which be the Canonical Scri∣ptures, which not: nor can they set down certain rules to know what are the unwritten traditions of the church, which they are to admit and embrace with a like affection of piety as the written Word, as the Trent council decreed, sess. 4. nor can they have any bottom to rest on by their principles; sometimes one

Pope and one council crossing another, some having been condemned in gener∣al councils as hereticks: nor can they tell, but by information of others, as Priests or Carriers, of their Bulls or Breves (which are many of them not only fallible, but also false, as some of their own have complained) what the Popes determin, and what fraud is used in procuring Popes Bulls or Breves sometimes is many ways testified, as that the Bull of Pius the fifth, wherein Queen Eli∣zabeth was excommunicated and deprived, was gotten in a fraudulent way by Morton and Webb;* 1.1 there is no cer∣tainty from the reports of others what the Pope determins, except a man hear him preach, or pronounce sentence, or see him write and seal, he must rely on the testimony of those that may▪ and are like enough to deceive. Nor if a man see or hear the Pope decree, can he be certain whether he spake from Peters chair, or determine what is to be believed by the whole church (out of which case they say he is fallible) or give his opinion as a private Doctor. So that it is most false, that either Papists agree as H. T. saith, or resolve themselves into one safe and most unchangeable prin∣ciple, or have any infallible judge of controversies, or have God himself for the prime Author, and his authority the formal object and motive of their faith: but their faith in what they differ from us rests only on mens sayings, for the most part ignorant and wicked (for such have been most of the Popes for a thousand years) whom they follow against the plain and confessed words of the Scripture, as in their communion under one kinde, worshipping of Images, and ascribe to them power by their authority to declare new Scriptures and Articles of faith, and make the Scripture only to be believed because of the churches determination, that is the Popes, which in respect of us they make of more authority than the Scripture, and so make the churches, not Gods authority, the formal motive and object of their faith. So that if unity be a note of the church, of all others the Popish church can lay least claim to it, and H. T. his argument may be retorted. The Catholick church is one, the Roman church is not one, therefore the Roman church is not the Catholick church. On the other side the Protestants have better unity and means of unity than Papists. For however they differ in ceremonies and disciplin, yet in points of faith they differ little, as may appear by the harmony of their con∣fessions, which shews agreement in their churches; however in explication of points private Doctors differ, and they have a more sure principle and safe in owning one Master even Christ, and one certain rule to know the minde of God, to wit the holy Scripture, which the Papists themselves make the object of faith, and the translation into the English tongue makes plain in the chief points to be believed, so that every ordinary man may be certain what it deli∣vers concerning them, and this translation appears to be certain in those things, by comparing it even with the Papists own English translation at Rhemes and Dow••y, which had they left out their corrupt Annotations and permitted it to be read (as God requires) by all sorts of persons, the falshood and errors of Po∣pish Priests would soon appear, and be rejected by all that love truth.

SECT. V.

The argument of H. T. from the unity of a natural body, is against him and for Protestants.

But H. T. adds a second argument for the unity of the Catholick church thus. As a natural unity and connexion of the parts among themselves, and to the head is necessary for the being and conservation of a natural body: so the spi∣ritual unity and connexion of the members amongst themselves and to the head, is necessary for the being and conservation of a mystical body. But the church of Christ (as I have proved) is a mystical body. Therefore a spi∣ritual unity and connexion of the members amongst themselves and to the head, is necessary for the being and conservation of the church of Christ. The Major is proved by the parity of reason, which is between a natural and mystical body; for as a natural body must needs dye, if all it's parts by which it should subsist be torn and divided one from another; so also a mystical body perishes, if all it's members be divided from one another, and from the head (whence it hath it's spiritual life) by Schism and heresie.

Answ. THough it be that this argument is only from a similitude, which doth only illustrate not prove, as Logicians say truely, and there be such disparities between a natural body and a mystical, as are sufficient to shew the weakness of this arguing; as namely, that there are no parts vital in the mystical body besides the head, as the heart, liver and lungs are in the natural, that some parts of the head it self may be cut off, as the ears, and nose, and yet the being, though not the integrity of the body continue, that there are some parts that have not life, as hair, and nayles, (as some conceive) that the parts receive not life from the head, but the head and the rest from the soul: yet ••ith the conclusion is true, and the argument with its proof many wayes against the Popish tenets, I grant it, and observe, 1. That the unity which is proved hence, is not of the universal visible church; the truth of which Papists and this Author go about to demonstrate by it's unity, but of the mystical. For in this mystical body the unity is spiritual by faith, and the members have spiritual life from the head. But in the Catholick church (of which the di∣sputes are) according to Bellarm. l. 3. de eccl. milit. c. 10 &c. are many dead members, secret infidels: so that this argument proves not the Catholick vi∣sible by it's unity, but the Catholick invisible of true believers. 2. This ar∣gument is not to prove the unity of the church by subjection to the Roman Bishop, by which H. T. would demonstrate the unity of the church, but by the unity to that head whence the body hath it's spiritual life and motion, which sure is Christ only and not the Bishop of Rome. 3. This similitude, if by [head] were meant the Pope, cannot evince the purpose of this Author. For there have been Schisms in the Roman church of one Pope and his party against another, and yet the unity of the Catholick church in the profession of the ••ame faith continued. Whence it follows, that Schism doth not take away the unity of the church Catholick without heresie, but only disorder, distemper and disquiet it. And therefore though it were granted (as it is not) that Pro∣testants

were Schismaticks in dividing from the See of Rome, yet they might be united to the Catholick church, and it's being and conservation continued as long as the unity of faith is continued, and until it be proved that Pro∣testants have departed from the unity of faith once delivered to the Saints (which he can never do) in vain doth H. T. go about to prove they are not uni∣ted, to the Catholick church.

SECT. VI.

The universality, which Matth. 28. 20. Eph. 4. 12, 13. Luk. 1. 33. John 14. 15, 16. for time, Psal. 85. 9. Isa. 2. 2. Matth. 28. 20. for place is meant, agrees not to the now Roman church, but better to the Protestants.

BUt H. T. proceeds thus. To be universal for time and place is nothing else but to be coexistent with all time, and to be spread or diffused over all places. But the church of Christ from the time he hath founded it hath been coexistent with all time, and shall be to the worlds end, and hath and shall be spread over all nations, therefore the church of Christ is universal (or Catholick) for time and place. The Major is proved because the definition and the thing defined are convertible. The Minor is proved by Scripture for time, St. Matth. 28. 20. Ephes. 4. 12, 13. St. John 14. 15, 16. St. Luke 1. 33. For place, Psal. 85. 9. Isa. 2. 2. St Matth. 28. 20.

Answ. 1. The conclusion should have been, the Roman Catholick church and no other is the church of Christ, and the argument thus. That church which is universal for time and place, and no other is the church of Christ. But the Roman Catholick church and no other is universal for time and place, therefore the Roman Catholick church and no other is the church of Christ. But so the Major had not been true of any church existent in one age, nor the Minor true of the present Roman church▪ but it is contrary to all sense and histories which relate the occurrences of the world, specially in the churches of Christ. 2. As the argument is framed here by H. T. the conclusion is grant∣ed being thus understood, that the church of Christ is not confined to Israel only, but extended to all Nations indefinitely and aptitudinally, though not definitely and actually extended to every Nation. For some nations never were actually the church of Christ, nor any church of Christ among them, though there was no restraint by Christs command of preaching to them. But if it be understood of actual coexistence with all times and all places so the Minor is not true: nor the Major, as I conceive the meaning of the term [Ca∣tholick] in the Article of the Creed, I believe the holy Catholick church: nor is that the definition of the church Catholick, that it is actually coexistent with all time, and to be spread or diffused over all places: but it is termed Ca∣tholick, because it is not confined to one Nation, and comprehends all the believers of any Nation, Jew or Gentile: nor do the texts he brings prove any other universality. For Matth. 28. 20. proves not such an universality, as that there shall be no interval of time or particular place, wherein the church shall not be existent. But that Christ would be with them that preach the Gospel all dayes till the end of the world, so as that they had liberty to preach

the Gospel in every place, and should finde his assistance while they did preach, not that alwayes in each day there shall be a Church of Christ on earth, much lesse that there shall be a church visible conspicuously to all in every Nation of the earth. The like is the sense of Ephes. 4. 12, 13. which is, that Christ hath given various gifts till all come to the unity of faith: but this proves not there shall be a continuance of the Church on earth in every age, much lesse so conspicuously visible as that it may be known to all, much more lesse in every place. John 14. 15, 16. is yet farther from the purpose as containing a pecu∣liar promise to the Apostles: if it be meant of any Church it is the invisible of true believers, not of every or any meer visible Church, wherein many have not the spirit of Christ at all, much lesse abiding with them for ever. The text Luke 1. 33. doth not prove that there shall be in every age or time a Church on earth, but that Christs dominion shall never end. The texts Psal. 85. 9. Isa. 2. 2. are thus meant, that not only the Jews, but also all Nations, that is, all other people by faith shall be admitted to the Church of God by faith as well as Jews; now this proves not, that there shall be in every place on earth a Church of Christ. But H. T. adds.

I resume the Argument and make it thus. 1. That church which is not uni∣versal (or Catholick) for time and place is not the church of Christ. 2. But the Protestant church (and the like may be said of all other Sectaries) is not uni∣versal (or Catholick) for time and place. 3. Therefore the Protestant church is not the church of Christ. The Major hath been proved before. The Minor is proved, because before Luther (who lived little above ••ixscore years ago) there were no Protestants to be found in the whole world, as hath been proved by us, and confessed by our adversaries. To which you may adde, they have never yet been able to convert any one Nation from infidelity to the faith of Christ, nor ever had communion with all nations, nor indeed any perfect communion among themselves: therefore they cannot be the Catholick Church.

Answ. The Major, That church which is not universal for time and place is not the Church of Christ, If meant of actual or aptitudinal universality is not true. For the church of the Jews afore Cornelius was converted by Peter had been no church of Christ, which was actually, yea and aptitudinally, that is according to Peters and other Christians circumcised their opinions and in∣tentions to be confined to the Jews: and therefore no other church than on earth were or was believed by Peter and those who contended with him, Act. 11. 2. and yet there was a Church of Christ before, as is manifest from Acts 2. 47. But if the Major be understood of universality of faith thus, That church which is not universal for time and place by holding the faith once delivered by the Apostles to the Saints is not the church of Christ, it is granted: but in that sense the Minor is false, the Protestants church is universal for time and place: that is, holds the same faith, which was in all places preached by the Apostles and Apostolical teachers to believers. And in this sense Protestants have been in every age before Luther, and have as really converted Nations from infide∣lity to the faith of Christ as the Popish church or Teachers, and have had more perfect communion with all Nations and among themselves then Papists, as such, have had, and the Papists have not been so, but have held a new faith, not embraced by a great part of Christians, nor in all places received or known, nor for many hundreds of years taught in the churches, but lately by the Italian

faction devised to uphold the Popes tyranny and their own gain. And there∣fore I retort the argument thus. That church which is not universal (or Ca∣tholick) for the time and place, is not the church of Christ. But the Popish Roman church is not universal (or Catholick) for time and place, but is of late standing, therefore it is not the true church of Christ.

SECT. VII.

The words of Irenaeus, Origen, Lactantius, Cyril of Hierusalem, Augustin are not for the universality of H. T. which he asserts the Catholicism of the Ro∣man church, but against it.

AS for the words of the Fathers, which H. T. allegeth on this Article, they are not for H. T. his purpose to prove, that that is the only true church which is subject to the Bishop of Rome, or that the Roman church is the Catholick church, but they prove the contrary. For the words of Irenaem l. 4. adv. haereses c. 43. are these. Wherefore we ought to obey those Presby∣ters which are in the church, those which have succession from the Apostles as we have shewed, who with the succession of Bishoprick have received the certain gift of truth according to the pleasure of the Father: but to have the rest suspect∣ed either as hereticks and of evil opinion, or as renters and lifted up and pleasing themselves, or again as hypocrites working for gain and vain glories sake, who depart from the original succession and are gathered in every place. For all these fall from the truth. By which it may be perceived. 1. That H. T. omitted sundry words which would have shewed that Presbyters and Bishops were all one. 2. That Irenaeus requires that those to whom he would have obedience given, be such as have not only succession of place, but also the certain gift of truth. Whence it follows. 1. That this speech doth not prove that we are to obey only the Bishop of Rome, or the Roman Church, but any Presbyters. 2. That the succession required is not confined to Rome, but extended to any place. 3. That succession to any of the Apostles as well as Peter is termed original succession. 4. That Presbyters who in any place depart not from the truth are in the church. And therefore this place is so far from proving the ne∣cessity of unity with the Roman church, or that it is the Catholick church, that it proves the contrary.

The words of Origen are not for H. T. which require no other doctrine to be kept, but that which is by order of succession from the Apostles, and remains in the church to his time. For neither do they say, the church is only the Roman church, nor that doctrine to be kept which remains in it, or that which is de∣livered from Peter only, or by order of succession from his chair, or is delivered by unwritten tradition: but that which is delivered any way from the Apo∣stles by succession in any place.

The words of Lactantius are lesse for H. T. which do not at all call the Ro∣man the Catholick church, nor say in it only is Gods true worship and service and hope of life, but in the Catholick church, that is the Church of true believers all over the world, as the words of Cyril of Hierusalem next alleged do shew, in which is nothing for H. T. or against us.

And for the words of Augustin in his Book de vera religione, cap. 7. We must hold the communion of that church which is called catholick both by her own and strangers, they are maimedly recited, Augustin saying, that we are to hold the Christian Religion and communion of that church, not onely which is named catholick, but which is catholick, and is named catholick; and cap. 6. he ex∣plains what is meant by Catholick church, per totum orbem validè latéque diffu∣sa, spread over the whole World firmly and largely, and of the Religion which he terms the History and Prophecy of the temporal dispensation of the divine Providence for the salvation of mankinde to be reformed and repaired unto eternal life. Whereby it may be perceived, that he neither accounted that Christian Religion, which is about the Bishop of Rome's power, or any of the Popish Tenets which Protestants deny, but the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ, nor the catholick church the Roman onely, but the Christian church throughout the World, which consists of them, who are named Christians, Catholicks, or Orthodox, that is, Keepers of integrity, and followers of the things which are right, as he speaks cap. 5. And for the words of Augustine, Epist. 152. that whosoever is divided from the catholick church, how laudable so∣ever he seems to himself to live, &c. he shall be excluded from life, they are impudently appropriated to the Roman church. For a few lines before Augustine declares whom he calls the catholick church, that which is spread over the earth, which is designed by the divine testimonies of holy Scriptures, which beginning from Hierusalem increased in places in which the Apostles preached, and have written the names of the same places in their Epistles and Acts, and was spread over the other Nations. So that clearly Augustine tells us it was not the Ro∣man Church onely which he meant by the Catholick, but also the Corinthian, Ephesian, Thessalonian, and all the rest in the world. And therefore it is appa∣rent that neither this not any other Father understood by the Catholick Church, the Roman onely, and those who acknowledged the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy, nor did they hold a necessity of union with it.

SECT. VIII.

That it is non-sense or falshood to term the Roman Church the Catholick Church, and the shifts of H. T. to avoid this Objection are discovered.

H. T. adds, Object. The Roman Catholick Church is a particular Church, therefore it is not Catholick or Universal. Answ. I distinguish your Ante∣cedent, the Roman Church as taken onely for the congregation of Rome or Italy, is a particular Church, I grant: as taken for the whole collection of Churches holding communion with the See of Rome, I deny it. For so it is an universal Church containing all particular Churches, as all the parts are contained in the whole, and in this acception also it is called the Roman church, because the particular Roman church is the mother church, and hath a power of headship and jurisdiction over all the rest. Object. How can a church of one denomination be universal? Answ. I have told you already by the extent and latitude of her power, which is over all. So a particular man is called a General, by reason of his power over all the Army.

I Reply, Protestants do rightly object, that the terming of the Roman church catholick, is according to the right sense of words, to speak contradictions, to call that the whole which is not the whole but a part, universal, which is onely particular. The Answer is by a Distinction, which is meer non-sense. The Church of Rome as taken onely for the congregation of Rome or Italy is a particular C••urch, as taken for the whole collection of churches holding commu∣nion with the See of Rome, so it is universal. But was ever such language used by any Apostle or Ancient to term the Church of Rome any other than the believers dwelling or being at Rome? Did ever any of the first Ages term the congregation of Italy, or the whole collection of churches holding communi∣on with the See of Rome the Roman church? Paul when he wrote to the Church of Rome wrote to all that were in Rome, Rom. 1. 7. and Ignatius the Martyr when he wrote to the Church of Rome terms it, the Church which is seated in a place of the Region of Romans, and the old Councils termed the Bishop of Rome, The Arch-bishop of old Rome, to distinguish it from new Rome, and a Roman Synod is always meant of a Synod in the City of Rome. If the new-minted gibberish of these men be received, then the Church of Millain, of Paris, of Toledo, and the rest are all one with the Ro∣man Church, and the Bishop of Millain, &c. the Bishop of Rome. Who would not think that man crazed that should talk or write so? By this kinde of talk the Roman Church should not be one and the Corinthian another, but the Roman church, the Corinthian, Ephesian, and all, and the Apostle writing to the Corinthian should write to the Roman Church, charging the Corinthian with Schisms should charge the Roman. But this new canting Language is fit for these Juglers, who have by such terms bewitched silly Papists to receive their new Doctrine.

H. T. saith, As the Roman church is the collection of all churches holding communion with the See of Rome, so it is an universal church containing all particular churches as all the parts are contained in the whole.

I reply, Neither doth he shew any approved Authour for his speech, nor what sort of parts other particular Churches are as they are contained in the Roman as the whole. He will not make it an universal whole which is predi∣cate or said on more churches, in quid, that is, when the question is what the more churches are? to say they are the Roman. For then it were true to say, the church of Naples is the Roman, and so of other churches. If any were asked who is in his wits, What is the church of Naples? Would he say, It is the church of Rome? Nor are other churches essential parts. For then the Roman church should not be, if the churches of Naples, &c. were not: if they apostarize the church of Rome ceaseth to be. Nor will it be said, other churches are integral parts. For then the church of Rome should be maimed, and be but half a church, if they revolted from the faith or obedience to the See or church of Rome. What other parts he means I understand not, nor do I think H. T. distinctly knows himself; but that he is used to this unintelli∣gible Jesuitical non-sense of Roman catholick church. Sure before he made this

the definition of catholick, that it is nothing else but to be coexistent with all time, and to be spread or diffused over all places: according to which, by terming the church of Rome catholick, he should mean that the Roman church hath been in all places since Christ built this church, and in every place of the world: but both these are palpable Lies, contrary to all Histories and sense: nor in this sense should it be as a whole that hath parts, but be the onely and an ubiquetary church.

But he gives two Reasons of this Title, that it is the Mother Church, and hath power of headship and jurisdiction over all the rest. I reply, 1. that both these are manifestly false. For the Roman Church is not the mother Church in any true sense. It is a saying indeed, that God is a believers Father, and the Church his Mother. But however the Ancients have used it, yet the Scri∣pture saith not so, nor is it in any good sense true. For the church is but a congregation of believers, who are first such a••ore they are a church: now then the sense must be the church, that is, believers are the mother of believers, that is, the church, which is ridiculous. It is true, it is said, Gal. 4. 26. The Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all: but that is the Evangelical covenant, v. 24. not the church. Nor is there any thing done by the Church, or upon the church, from which in a meet resemblance the church may be termed the mother of believers. They are the Preachers of the Gospel not the church who bring forth souls to Christ. If the term [Mother Church] be from hence, that from it the Gospel went forth, it can be meant of none but Jerusalem, from whence the Gospel went into all the world, not from the Roman church. Nor is it true, that the Roman church hath the power of headship over all the rest, no not according to the Papists own opinion, which is that the Bishop of Rome hath this power, and that it belongs to his pastoral office: now I suppose they will not say the church hath the pastoral office, or that they are Pastors; if they should, they must make Women, who are of the Church as well as Men, Pastors, and all the Believers (who are the church) Pastors as well as the Bishop, aud if the church be Pastors or have power of jurisdiction, who are the Sheep who are to be fed, and over whom this jurisdi∣ction is to be exercised? But if they mean onely by the church universal the Pope of Rome, then all that is to be enquired is who is the true Pope, when en∣quiry is made which is the true church, and when there is no Pope, then there is no church, and when the Pope is uncertain, it is uncertain which is the church. So ridiculous is the Papists talk and dispute about the church, that there is no tolerable sense can be made with truth of the Roman church being catholick, the mother of churches, having power of Headship and Jurisdiction over all churches. Nor is it true, that the Pope of Rome hath either of right or in possession such power; not of right, as shall be shewed art. 7. where it will appear that the claim to it is meerly impudent, and arrogant, without any colour of right; nor in possession. For besides the Protestant churches, the Greek churches neither now nor heretofore, when unquestionably orthodox, were ever subject to the Romish Bishop. Yet were these things granted to H. T. that the Roman church were Mother and Head, is this a fit reason to term it catholick? Will any call a mother of twenty children all her twenty chil∣dren? Will any man call Julius Caesar, because Dictator of Rome, or the Ro∣man

Senate, because Rulers, all the Roman people, or all the people of that Em∣pire? H. T. his instance is frivolous: Though men call the Rulers of an Army the Captain General, yet not a general man, or the universal Army; and sutably, if it were allowed, that the Bishop of Rome were universal Bishop, yet in no good sense could he or the Roman church be termed the universal church. But this talk about the Roman catholick church is manifestly ridicu∣lous non-sense or false.

H. T. adds, Object. You communicate not with us, and many others, therefore your communion is not catholick or universal. Answ. I grant the An∣tecedent, but deny the Consequent: For universal communion requires not com∣munion with all particular sects or persons, but onely with all true believers, no, A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition avoid. Tit. 3. 10, 11.

Answ. To catholick communion is requisite communion with all Chri∣stian churches, though not with all particular sects. And that the Pro∣testant churches are no Hereticks is manifest from their confessions, which agree with the Scripture Doctrine; although Papists do clamorously term them such, and destroy them as such, and therein shew themselves Successours to Nero, not to Peter; whereas Papists are the most manifest Schismaticks, and greatest Hereticks that ever were. I pass on to the next Article.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Watson quodlib. p. 252, 260, 343.