denominated from the prime or second efficient of the revelation it is the belief of God and of Christ as Mediator and not of the Apostles and so Gods own Veracity and not mans is the objectum formale fidei divinae 4. But why may not a subordinate humane faith be conjoined with this and so we believe Christ to be the Messiah at once 1. By the testimony of God 2. Of Christ as man 3. And of the Prophets and Apostles 1. Did not the union of the Divine nature with the humane make Christ as man to be credible If so why should we not believe him 2. Did not the sanctifying work of the Holy Ghost and divine inspiration joined to it make the Apostles and Prophets credible persons If so why should we not believe them 3. Did not the Miracles which they wrought render the persons and their testimonies credible together with the circumstances of their being eye-witnesses and such-like 4. Is not every honest man credible according to the measure of his skill and honesty 5. Doth not every man know that there may be many efficient causes conjoined in producing one effect May not faith now be wrought by the Preachers word and Spirit Why else doth Christ say to Paul Acts 26. 17 18 I send thee to open their eyes and turn them c. And Paul directeth Timothy to save himself and those that hear him Why may not believing God believing Christ as man and believing Peter and Iohn c. that saw him risen be conjunct causes of our faith in Christs Resurrection If they might not produce one faith at least they might produce three faiths united by conjunction But would one ever have expected this from a Jesuit or Roman Priest Remember Reader that Divine belief and a belief of the Church Council Pope or Priest are not to be taken for conjunct causes of our believing the Gospel or Christian faith in this mans opinion But he saith Though the Prophet be a humane person yet he speaks when he is inspired by God not by humane but divine authority God speaking by his mouth Ans. It is Veracity that is the thing that we now speak of and is the authority in question And doth not Gods Veracity give Veracity to the Speaker and use it Doth God speak by Prophets and Christs Humanity as through an inanimate Pipe or Whistle or as by Balaam's asse Doth he make no use of the reason and honesty of the speaker nor make them more knowing and more honest true and careful that they may be the fitter to be believed Is this Roman Divinity Why then do the Apostles so oft protest that they speak the truth and lye not even of that which they had seen and heard Would the Gospel have been equally credible to us if all the witnesses had in other matters been knaves and lyars 2. Reader judg whether those that accuse the Roman Clergy of Fanaticism and Enthusiasm do them any wrong while they think that God maketh them infallible by such inspiration as maketh no use of their Reason Learning or Honesty And read but what their own Historians say of Fifty Popes together besides all the rest and of the Ninth and Tenth Centuries of the Church and of the Popes that were lads and could not read Mass but were illiterate Read what their Councils have said of some whom they deposed as inhuman Monsters and judg whether it be easie to believe that any inspiration used those men as infallible deliverers of that Christian faith and see here why it is that they think wit and honesty no more necessary in Pope or Councils if God use them but as an organ-pipe or trumpet Pag. 18. When he is urged to tell me what it is that is the necessary belief of their Church which must make a man a member of it he again bids me tell him what points I make essential to a Christian and I shall save him the labour Ans. And are we indeed agreed And yet do they writeso many Volumes to the contrary Reader I take him at his word I have said that it is The belief and consent to the Baptismal Covenant that is the constitutive essence of a Christian. Remember this when they jest at Fundamentals and tell us of damnation if we believe not their Councils and the Country-Priests that are the reporters of them Remember now the extent of the Christian Church that it reacheth to all that believe and consent to the Baptismal Covenant But will these wavering men long stand to this and confess their Sect to be but a fourth or third part of the Church But perhaps they will say That words not understood are no true faith we are yet to seek what believing in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost do mean and comprehend Answ. These ignorances or artifices have too long abused unstudied men It is not now the unsearchable truth of mens subjective faith or internal acts which we dispute of But it is of necessary objective faith or what ex parte objecti is essentially necessary to true subjective faith in case it be truly believed which God only can tell And I say 1. It is no meer words spoken more or less which can prove to another the sincerity of the speakers belief of them 2. But the words of the Baptismal Profession and Covenant if sincerely believed contain all essential to the Christian faith 3. And for more or fewer words I say that the more understanding any man hath the more fully and easily he may understand the sense of those words though general and few but to an ignorant person there must be many words and oft repeated to make him understand the same thing which the other doth by these few And must we therefore have as many symbols of Christianity as there are various degrees of Understandings 4. And the Church hath in its best times taken up with the Creed as the Exposition of the Baptismal faith and if it now contain any words more than essential that crosseth not its use which was to be a just and satisfactory Explication of that Baptismal faith which had nothing but the Essentials And accordingly till faith and piety degenerated into opinion and tyranny Baptized persons were accounted Christians and members of the Catholick Church and as obliged to live as Christs Disciples in love to one another it being none but Christ himself who instituted Baptism as our Christening to be the symbol and badg of his Disciples Pag. 19. When I had prest him to a particular answer and told him what would follow upon the Answers which I supposed he might make he tells me that Divines have a hundred times told us that some things must be believed necessitate praecepti and some things necessitate medii Ans. We have heard some things some things so oft that we would fain know what things at last are necessary ut media Reader if these Writers must not be ashamed of their
necessary to make us Members Answ. As the union of King and Subjects maketh one Kingdom so the union of Christ and Christians maketh one Church and we call none Christians that profess not true Faith and Charity and their seed But he saith the Question is How a Heretick or Schismatick can be a true Christian. Answ. Ambiguous words are the game of deceivers and to open the ambiguity marreth their cause The word Heretick I have told you signifieth either one that denyeth an Essentiall part of Christianity or one that only denyeth an Integral part The former are no Christians the latter may § 13. But he will prove that no Heretick is a Christian or hath true Faith viz. Whoever hath true faith believeth the material object of faith for the Divine authority of God revealing it That is certain But so doth no Heretick That 's very false of both sorts of Hereticks 1. You call the Luciferians the Novatians c. Hereticks and who can see reason to doubt but they might believe that all that God saith is true 2. Overdoing is undoing As you are the greatest causes of Schisme by overdoing as against Schisme so you would justifie almost all the Hereticks in the world by your blind overdoing as against Hereticks and while you would make most or much of Christs Church to be Hereticks you would make men believe that there are none All that believe that there is a God believe that he is Verax no Lyar but true All that believe that God is no Lyar but true of his word believe all to be true which they judge to be his word But saith W. I no Heretick believeth any thing on the authority of God revealing that is because God that revealeth it is true And so all those that believe that God is true and that any thing is true because he revealeth it are no Hereticks And who knoweth other mens hearts better You or They You take me it's like for a Heretick I say that I believe that God cannot Lye and I believe in Christ because God the â—…evealer is true You say Then I am no Heretick If an Arrian can but truly say that he believeth all Gods word to be true but he taketh not Christs Consubstantial eternal Deity to be Gods word you will justifie him to be no Heretick And yet the poor Iconoclasts the Waldenses the Berengarians can find no place in this mans Church when yet he thus acquitteth almost all Hereticks in the whole world Nothing but humerous singularity can pretend any probable reason why an Arrian a Nestorian an Eutychian a Monothelite yea a Mahometan or other Infidel may not believe that God is no Lyar but all that is indeed his word is true § 14. But he will not be unreasonable without reason His Argument is Whosoever believeth the material object of Faith for the Divine Authority of God revealing it must believe all things which are as sufficiently propounded to him to be revealed of God as are the Articles which he believeth protesteth to and believe nothing as revealed which is as sufficiently declared to him to be erroneous and not revealed c. But every Heretick doth otherwise If he believe some and refuse others equally propounded it is not for Divine Authority Answ. If you believe this reasoning your self you deserve little belief from others 1. The word sufficiently propounded will never sufficiently be expounded by you nor ever is like to be Sometimes by sufficient as in the Dominicans controversie of sufficient grace is meant that which quo posito res fieri potest sine quo non potest And so taken as necessarium or possible for the minimum tale it hath no degrees But usually we take sufficient in such a latitude as that things may be in many degrees one more sufficient than another that is more apt and powerfull to produce the effect And for the first remember that if you judge so mercifully of Hereticks as that no one is such that hath not a proposal in the very first sense sufficient you can call no Arrian nor Photinian or Gnostick a Heretick till you know that the Proposal was to him sufficient And how much less can you call the Nestorians or Eutychians or the Abassines Syrians Armenians c. Hereticks when you know them not and know not the sufficiency of their proposals And to know that a proposal was sufficient to Nestorius Eutyches or Dioscorus doth not prove that there was such sufficient proposal to all others that go under such names either then or now Who knoweth not that an unlearned man hath need of clearer and ofter teaching than the Learned and one that by Education is prepossest with contrary conceptions hath need of more than the unprejudiced and one that is corrupted by sensual lusts hath need of more than the temperate And what man is well able to judge of the measures of sufficiency as to other then much less to whole Nations whom we know not 2. But as to your Minor which by the word as sufficiently sheweth that you take sufficiency as it hath degrees here you seem plainly to absolve all the Hereticks in the world e. g. As if a Monothelite were no Heretick unless it be as sufficiently in degree revealed that Christ hath two wills as it is that he is the Christ and rose again or as if an Arrian were no Heretick unless it be as sufficiently revealed that Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same substance with the Father as it is that he dyed 3. And the supposition in your Minor is notoriously false that all Hereticks have as sufficient a proposal of all they deny as of that which they believe For if the meaning of the words revealing be not equally plain and intelligible then the proposal is not equally sufficient But c Can any man not blinded by faction believe that God hath no more plainly told us that Christ dyed rose and ascended than that he hath two distinct wills or that he hath but one person or that his mother is to be called The parent of God and one that did beget and bring forth God and that God dyed yea or that Christ is God of God Light of Light very God of very God and yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only from the same substance but the same substance Though these are equally true they are not equally clear and evident Do the Quartodecimani the Luciferians the Iovinians deny Truthes as sufficiently proposed as that there is a God or a Christ If you say that though they be not equally proposed in Scripture yet they are by Councils or Traditions I Answer 1. Were they no points of Faith nor the denyal Heresie for 300 years before the first General Council 2. When they of Constance and Basil are for the Supremacy of Councils as de fide and they of Laterane and Florence against them when the Council of Basil decreed the Immaculate conception of the
Church still three hundred Years before there was any General Council as well as the Scriptures And why do not Hierome Chrysostome Augustine c. Exhort Meâ—… and Women to read the Councils as much as the Scriptures At least methinks you should allow the Scripture an Equality with Councils But if God have spoken that which is nonsence or unintelligible till Councils or lopes Expound it Scripture is far from having such Equality Then Paul and Peter spake not intelligibly but P. Paul 4 and 5. and the Council of Trent did Then Councils may save them that know not Scripture but Scripture cannot save them that know not the Councils And do all the Papists Men and Women know the Councils In short If a Tyrannical Sect of Priests can get this Monopoly or Peculiar of expounding all Gods Laws and Word so that the Scripture will not save any but by their Expositions it will become more the word of the Pope or Council than of God And when all is done every Priest must be the pope and Council to us that never saw them and must be the immediate Object of our Infallible belief And if the Pope can so communicate to so great a swarm the sweetness of participating in his Universal Dominion and Infallibility no wonder if Self-love bid them serve his Usurpation But by that time every Woman must be sure 1. That the Pope is Christs Vicar General indeed 2. That with a Council he is Infallible 3. And that Gods Revelation must be received only on this Deliverers Authority 4. And the sence of all on his Exposition 5. And know how Men believed the first three hundred Years before such Popes or Councils ever were 6. And can tell certainly which Councils be true and which false and which of them must be believed and which not 7. And is sure that every Priest doth Infallibly Report all this to her 8. And doth give a true Exposition of each Council before another Council do Expound them 9. And be sure that she hath all that those Councils have made necessary and have not had a sufficient proposal of more I say by that time all this certainty be attained the Popish Faith will appear to be harder work than they think that hear Deceivers say Believe as the Church believeth and you shall be saved Judge how far the Pope Exalteth himself above God when it is thus confidently told us That we nor no Men believe with a Divine and Saving Faith any one word of God if we believe it meerly because God hath given it us in the Sealed Scriptures and add not the Expositions of the Papal Church § 12. My next Argument was Those that explicitely profess the belief of all that was contained in the Churches Creeds for six hundred Years after Christ and much more Holy truth and implicitely to believe all that is contained in the Holy Scriptures and to be willing and diligent for the explicite knowledge of all the rest with a resolution to Obey all the will of God which they know do profess the true Christian Religion in all its Essentials But so do the Protestants c. Here again the Formalist wants Form An Enumeration of particulars in a Description is not equal to an Universal with him unless he read All. And then he denyeth the Major 1. Because our General Profession is contradicted in particulars Answ. 1. Bare Accusation without Proof is more easie than honest 2. There is a contradiction direct and understood which proveth that the Truth is not believed and a contradiction by consequence not understood which stands with a belief of the Truth The latter all Men in the World have that have any Moral Error 3. O what self-condemning Men are these How certainly hath a Papist no true Faith if abundance of contrary Errors nullifie Faith His second Reason is You distinguish not between implicitely contained in general Principles and explicitely contained in the Creed and Scriptures Answ. A very Logical Answer To what purpose should I do it His third is the strength Creeds and Scriptures are not enough Traditions and General Councils in matters of Faith must be believed Answ. 1. I would matters of Practice were more at Liberty that Princes were not bound to Murder or exterminate all their Subjects as Hereticks that will not be Hereticks and inhumane and to Rebel perfidiously against those Princes that are Sentenced by his Holiness for not doing it 2. Alas who can be saved on these Mens terms If the belief of all the Creeds and all the Scriptures be not a Faith big enough to save him And yet perhaps you may hear again that Men may be saved without any of all this save believing that there is a Rewarding God and that the Pope and his Subjects are the Infallible Church Universal And it is but proving an insufficient proposal and we are delivered from Traditions Councils Scriptures Creeds and all And never was the proposal of Councils more insufficient than when Councils were most frequent when in the Reign of Constantius Valens Valentinian Theodosius Arcadius and Honorius good Theodosius junior Marcian Leo Zeno Anastasius Iustin Iustinian and long after Anathematizing one General Council and crying up another and setting Council against Council was too much of the Religion of those times 4. Again he denyeth that Protestants not excused by Invincible Ignorance believe any Article with a Saving Faith Answ. Easie Disputing Cannot a Quaker say so too by us and you But how unhappy a thing is Knowledge then and how blessed a thing is Invincible Ignorance which may prevent so many Mens Damnation § 13. I proved the Major by the express Testimony of many Papists ad hominem To which he saith It is to no purpose For our Question is not of what is to be believed expresly only but of what is to be believed both expresly and implicitely of all Christians respectively Answ. Reader Judge with what Ingenuity these Men Dispute And how they make nothing of giving up all their cause and yet Cant on with any of the most senseless words He had largely enough told us before that the belief of General Truths explicitely is the Implicite belief of the contained particulars though unknown to the Believer I am now proving that Protestants explicite Faith leaveth out no Article necessary to be explicitely believed To this end I cite Bellarmine and Costerus and after many others consessing what I say in plainest words even the sufficiency of our enumeration He denyeth none of my proof as to explicite belief And do we need any more Is not all that which he calleth explicite belief the meer denomination of the Explicite from the particulars implyed in it Can any Man want an Implicite belief that wanteth no Explicite belief If I am not bound explicitely to believe that the Pope and his Council is the Universal Church or the Infallible deliverer of Traditions or Expounder of Scripture or my rightful Governours how am I
tergiversation what sort of Disputants should blush would you think after all this what his answer is You shall have it in his own words And know you not that Divines are divided what are the points necessary to be believed explicitely necessitate medii Some and those the more ancient hold that the explicite belief of God of the whole Trinity of Christ his Passion Resurrection c. are necessary necessitate medii Others among the Recentiors that no more than the belief of the Deity and that he is a rewarder of our works is absolutely necessary with that necessity to be explicitely believed Now to answer your Question what it is whereby our Church-members are known I answer that 1. All those who are baptized and believe all the points of our faith explicitely if any such are to be found are undoubted members of our Church 2. All those who believe explicitely all the Artiales whatever belongs to them in particular by reason of their respective offices in the Church 3. Those who so believe all things necessary necessitate medii or necessitate praecepti extended to all adulti 4 All those who believe in that manner all things held necessary necessitate medii according to the first opinion of the more ancient Doctors 5. It is probable though not altogether so certain as the former that such as believe explicitely the Deity and that he is a rewarder of our works and the rest implicitely as contained in confuso in that are parts of the Catholick Church Baptism supposed 〈◊〉 Nowâ—… seeing all those in my four first Numbers which comprehend almost all Christians are certainly parts of the Catholick Church we have a sufficient certainly of a determinate Church consisting at least of these by reason whereof our Church has a visible consistency those of the fifth rank though not so certain not taking away the certainty of the former See you not by this Discourse that we answer sufficiently to your question by telling which are undoubted members Ans. Reader how sad is the case of mankind when such a talker as this shall go for a Champion and prevail with silly souls in the matters of Salvation against common reason and the notices of Christianity Mark here 1. He asketh me Know you not that Divines are divided Yes and I know how lamentably you have divided the Christian world See Reader what is the unity and concord of the Church of Rome Not only the Laity but their Divines are divided about the very essence of a Christian and their Church These are the men that cry up Unity as a mark of their Church and cry out of us as Schismaticks as if we were all crumbled into dust by Sects because we differ about some small circumstances of Worship or Exposition of some imposed words of men or of some difficult point of no flat necessity 2. Note here also the Infallibility of their Church and what a priviledg they have in having a Iudg of Controversies While their Doctors are divided on the question what a Christian is And Pope and Council dare not or cannot or will not determinate what maketh a Christian or member of their Church O happy infallible Judg of Controversies 3. Note also the extent of the Roman faith 〈◊〉 it is so big as that it and its circumstances fill large Volumes called the Councils and yet it is no article of their faith what Christianity is or what must constitute a member of their Church but this is left at liberty to disputes 4. Note also the great partiality of the Papists The Doctors may be divided about the essence of Christianity and may deny faith in Christ to be particularly necessary to a Christian. But if a man believe not that Rome is the Mistris of all Churches and the Pope the Universal Governourr and that there is no bread and wine in the Lords Supper when the Priest hath consecrated he is to be exterminated or burnt as a Heretick and Princes deposed that will not execute it 5. Note here that here is not a word in all this of believing the Pope to be the Governour of all the Churches in the world Either they take this to be essential to a member of their Church or not If they do are they not juglers and ashamed of their faith when they thus hide it If not what is become of their Sectarian Church and all their accusations and condemnations of most of the Christian World who believe no such office of the Pope And what a Society is that where the reception of the Pars Imperans is not necessary to every subject 6. Note here whether the Roman Religion be mutable or not and whether constancy be a note of their verity When he professeth that the ancient Doctors and the Recentiors or Novelists do differ about the very essence of Christianity Have these Recentiors antiquity to boast of 7. Note also from hence the validity of their common argument from Tradition As if all their Church were now and always of one mind when at present they are divided about the essence of Christianity and the Recentiors forsake the Ancients But had these Ancients Tradition for their opinion or not If they had how come the Recentiors to forsake it If not what an insufficient thing is your Tradition that hath not told you what a Christian or Church-member is And yet we must take this Tradition as sufficient to tell us what orders and ceremonies Peter setled at Rome 8. I pray you note that even their ancient Doctors opinion which is all that must keep his cause from utter shame he durst not describe in answer to my question but having named five words God the whole Trinity Christ his Passion and Resurrection he craftily shuts it up with an Eâ—… caetera so that if you suppose him to say that these five things are all that they require he may deny it because he added an c. If you ask what are the â—…est you are where we begun an c. is all the answer 9. Well let us peruse his five particular sort of members distinctly which make up their Church and try 〈◊〉 be the mâ—…ey 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 or whether the Reader will not wonder that such trained disputers have no more to say nor a more plausible sort of fraud to use 1. His first sort of visible members are All those that are baptized and believe explicitely all the points of our faith if any such are to be found Ans. Is not this a modest Parenthesis whether any such are to be found he seemeth uncertain and yet saith These are the undoubted members of our Church The undoubted members when he doubteth himself whether any such are to be found And can we find the Church by them then And no wonder that they are not to be found for note Reader that he never tells you here yet at all what the faith of their Church is but only that if any have it all they
may help to deceive the ignorant 1. Your Popes as Universal Bishops had never true Power over us 2. Nor any Bishops as their Ministers as such 3. For this treasonable Usurpation we were bound to avoid them as scandalous Invaders of Christ's Prerogative which some call Antichristian 4. Our English Bishops and other Pastors when they came to see that such an Usurper had no right to govern them forsook him but forsook no Governour 5. Those Bishops that adhered to him the People justly forsook as Usurpers under him 6. Those that forsook him they obeyed as their true Pastors And now will it follow if I be obliged to renounce a Usurping Vice-King and Traytor as having no power over me as such and that I partake not of his Treason that I must therefore forsake the King for his personal faults If the Deputy of Ireland should say I am Vice-King of all the Kings Dominions and I challenge Obedience from all the Subjects and the King forbid us to obey him as such I may obey him in Ireland till the King depose him and I must renounce him in England and yet I must not tell the King Sir why must we not then for your faults also renounce you The scandal of Treasonable Usurpation differeth from a meer immorality or miscarriage R. B. Qu. 2. Is it no Schism unless wilful W. J. No. R. B. Again you further justifie us from Schism If it be wilful it must be against knowledge But we are so far from separating wilfully from the whole Church that we abhor the thought of it as impious and damnable W. J. Abhor is as much as you please for your own particular I know not what may be pleaded for you I am certain that your first beginners did it and that knowingly and wilfully and you still maintaining what they began must by all considering Christians be judged guilty of the same Crime for still you remain separate from all these Christians from which they departed that is from all the visible Churches existent immediately before they sprung up and in their time and still continue through the whole World R. B. A naked bold and shameless assertion without one word of proof Our Reformers knew no Head of the Church but Christ and they neither renounced him nor any one Member of his Church as such but only a Trayterous Usurper and his Sect indeed while he claimed but as Patriarch some Government of them jure humano by the Will of Princes they gave him answerable obedience and in their ignorance most gave him too much and many perceived not his Usurpation But when the Empire was down that set him up or had no power here and their own Princes no longer obliged them hereto he had not so much as such a humane Authority And when they that renounced him as a Traytor to Christ protested to hold Communion with all Christs Church on Earth according to their distant Capacities and to abhor all separation from them would not a man have expected that this Dispute should have given us some proof that to forsake this false Head was to separate from all the visible Churches on Earth I proved our Union with them before Yea he presumes to say That he is certain that they did it knowingly and wilfully As if he knew all the hearts of thousands whose Faces he never saw when they that should know them better thought that they were certain that they separated from no Christians but an Usurper and his Adherents as such And this we have great reason to continue as much as Subjects have to separate from Rebels R. B. Qu. 3. It is no Schism if men make a division in the Church and not from the Church W. J. Not as we are here to understand it and as the Fathers treat it For the Church of Christ being perfectly one cannot admit of any proper Schism within it self for that would divide it into two which cannot be R. B. 1. If there be other Schisms besides separating from the whole Church why should you not here understand it unless understanding things as they are will hurt your Cause 2. What a stranger doth this Disputer make himself to the Fathers if he know not that they frequently use the word Schism in another sense than his I will not be so vain as to trouble my self or the Reader with Citations The Indexes of the Fathers and Councils will satisfie those that will but search them Was it a separation from the whole Church which Clemens Romanus the eldest of them all doth write his Epistle to the Corinthians against or rather a particular Schism between the people and some few eminent men Read it and see what credit these men deserve when they talk of the Eathers Judgments 3. But his reason is most unreasonable That the Church of Christ is so perfectly one that it cannot admit of any proper Schism within it self Can the Unity be perfect while all our uniting Graces are imperfect When every Member is imperfect in Knowledge Faith Love Holiness Obedience Iustice Patience c. how can the Union be perfect 4. Reader do but read their Councils Church-Histories Baronius Genebrard Platiâ—… Wernerus to whom I may add above one hundred and if thou dost not find them and also their polemical and practical Divines commonly mentioning Schisms in the Church of Rome it self then believe these deceivers and call me the deceiver Do they not lament their Schisms Were not the Councils of Constance Basil Pisa c. called to heal them Do they not number the Schisms that fell out in 40 or 50 years time and continued Dare any man deny it Were these then Proper Schisms or not No it 's like this man would say that none of these Writers speak properly when they call it Schism I would he would tell in the next what proper word to use But either these Schisms were within the Church or without it Reader see whither falshood will run at last If they were within the Church then W. I. doth but abuse you by his falshoods If without the Church then one half the Roman Church was Unchurched for 40 or 50 years when they followed one Pope while the other half followed another And who knoweth which of these parts was the Church It seems whoever adhered to the wrong Pope was none of the Church But saith Wernerus and other Historians sometimes the wisest were at their Wits end and knew not which was the true Pope nor is it known to this day Nay the matter is yet worse A great General Council deposed Euginius the Fourth as no Pope but an uncapable wicked Heretick and yet he kept in and became the only Head of their Church whom the rest succeed And so all that Church by this rule was unchurched Sure necessity must make you recant and say that yet both Parties in your long and odious Schisms were within the Church or else what a Wound will ye inflict
coram Ecclesia That the true Church of Christ hath no other Head than Christ himself no Vicarious Universal Head Pope nor Council That the Protestants profess themselves Members of no other Universal Church but that of which Christ only is the Head and all Christians at least not cast out are Members that this Christian Church hath been visible to God by real consent and visible to man by professed consent from the first being of it to this day And when they ask us Where was your Church before Luther we say where there were Christians before Luther Our Religion is nothing but simple Christianity We are oâ—… no Catholick Church but the Universality of Christians We know no other but lament that the pride of the Clergy growing up from Parochial to Diocesan and from Diocesan to Metropolitical and Patriarchal and thence to Papal hath invented any other and that the Serpent that tempted Eve hath drawn them from the Christian simplicity They deny not the successive visibility of Christianity and the Christian Church We desire no more we own we know no other Religion and no other Church But the Roman Artifice here comes in and when their HUMANE UNIVERSAL HEAD hath made the grand Schism of the Christian World hence they have learnt to make Christians of no Christians and no Christians of Christians as Pride and Ignorance serving this usurping interest please Their Doctors are not agreed whether any more be necessary explicitely to be believed to Salvation than that there is a God and that our works shall be rewarded without believing a word of Christ or the Gospel and whether they that believe not in Christ are Christians or whether being no Christians yet they are Members of the Christian Church And the greater part are here on the wider Latitudinarian side as you may see in Fr. S. Clara's Problemes Deus Nat. Grat. and in the words of this W. I. before answered And yet these charitable men conclude that two or three parts of the true Christian world Abassines Copties Syrians Iacobites Georgians Armenians Greeks Moscovites Protestants are all out of the Church of Christ though their own Fryars that have lived among some of them in the East profess that they are no Hereticks and are better Men than the Papists are and none worse of Life than the Roman Party And whence is this strange difference Why it is because that these are none of them subject to the Pope which it is supposed that those are that believe only that there is a God and a Reward But how is this their only explicite Faith if they must also believe that the Pope is the Vice-Christ And some of them tell you further that he that should so far believe his Ghostly Father the Priest as to hold that he is not bound to love God because the Priest tells him so is not only excusable but he meriteth by it So much more necessary to Salvation is it to love the Priest than to love God And yet after all this their own Leaders confess that it is no Article of their Faith that the Pope is Peter's Successour and that it is not by Revelation that the Church-Governours must be known as I have shewed out of Ri. Smyth Bishop of Calcedon and of England and in the fore-confuted Writings of W. I The things that I maintain are I. That the Protestants Religion and Church being only the Christian as such had an uninterrupted succession as such which the Papists deny not II. That the Papal Church as such cannot prove its constant visibility and succession Nay though it be their part to prove it we are ready to prove 1. That it is a Novelty 2. That it hath been often and notoriously interrupted and their Papacy hath not had any continued succession of Men truly Popes by their own Laws and Rules and in their own Account CHAP. I. The Confutation of W. J's Reply THE first regardable Passage in W. I's Reply is p. 53 54. Where he maintaineth that whatsoever hath been ever in the Church by Christ's institution is essential to the Church and nothing meerly Integral or Accidents Because I had omitted the word ever in the Confutation he taketh that as the Insufficiency of all that I said against him and challengeth me still to give an Instance of any Institution not essential to the Church of Christ that hath been ever in it But Reader is Perpetuity any proof of an Essential He was forced to confess that as other Societies so the Church hath Accidents but he faith no Accidents instituted have been ever in it It may be we shall have a Quibble here upon the sense of the word ever whether it was from Everlasting or from the Creation or before Christ's Incarnation or before his Resurrection or the forming of his Church by the Spirit in the Apostles But in Consistency with his own Cause which is That the Papacie hath been ever in the Church he must take up with this last sense Well Let us see what work these Men make and how they are taken in the Traps that they lay for others But first he shall have some confuting Instances 1. Every word of Christ's own Doctrine and Speeches recorded in the Gospel hath been ever in the Church and instituted by Christ but every word of Christ's own Doctrine and Speeches recorded in the Gospel is not essential to the Church Therefore every thing instituted by Christ that hath been ever in the Church is not essential to it If you say that it was not all written till after some years it was yet all in the Church even in the Minds of them that wrote it and the other Apostles and in their Preachings as is like If you say that all this is essential alas then if false Copies have lost us a word the Church is lost and those Churches that received not some words were Unchurched That Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate hath been ever in the Church's Creed and yet the Name of Pontius Pilate is not essential to Christianity 2. The Administring the Lord's Supper in both kinds Bread and Wine hath been ever in the Church and of Christ's own Institution Is this essential to the Church Perhaps some will have the impudence to say that it is not now in it because the Pope hath cast it out but it is now in all the rest of the Church And we might as well say the Papacie is not now in because other Churches do reject it 3. Prayer in a known Tongue was ever in the Church and of Christ's Institution and yet you think it not essential to it 4. The use of the second Commandment as such Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image c. was ever in the Church and yet you have left it out of the Decalogue 5. The Office of Deacons hath been ever in the Church since their Institution Act. 6. yet few think them essential to the
Christians and so not of the Church indeed 2. We know of no Faith in Christ but that which you call Explicite Faith in Christ Common custome calleth those Infidels that never heard that there is a Christ or who he is or hearing it doth not believe it And he cannot believe it that doth not hear it Most of the Infidel and Heathen World profess to believe Gods veracity and that all that he saith is true if this be an implicite believing in Christ almost all the Heathen World believeth in him use Names and Words as you see cause These are Infidels in our use of speech 3. The place in Sancta Clara is pag. 113. besides 109 110. c. the words are too large to be transcribed he citeth many Authors to prove such in the Church and saved where after much to that purpose he saith What is clearer than that at this day the Gospel bindeth not where it is not authentically preached that is that at this day men may be saved without an explicite belief of Christ For in that sense speakes the Doctor concerning the Iews And verily whatever my illustrious Master hold with his Learned Mr. Herera I think that this was the Opinion of Scotus and the Common one and he citeth many for it Read the rest your self in the Book and I defie your pretence that this is unjust Citation I cite none of this as if I were handling the question whether any besides Christians are saved But whether the Nations that never heard of Christ be Christians and Members of your Church But pag. 60. he will prove that nothing which Christ hath instituted to be ever in the Church is accidental to the Church For every accident is separable from the subject without destroying the subject whose accident it is But what Christ hath instituted to be ever in his Church is inseparable from it Ans. 1. What if it were not an Accident must it therefore needs be Essential Are there not Integral parts that are not Essential parts 2. You that boast so greatly of your Logick faculty should not so absurdly erre as you do in your major Do you not hereby deny all proper accidents which agree as omni soli ita semper Is not Risibilis an accident of man and yet inseparable 2. Is not quantity inseparable from a Body or natural substance 3. What the Porphyrians speak of an Intellectual separation you ignorantly or deceitfully apply to an actual eventual separation If Christ had been otherwise put to death than by crucifying or else-where than at Ierusalem if his Bones had been broken if he had not had the same integral parts and accidents of Body as he ever had he had been Christ still But yet it was Logically impossible that any of these should have been otherwise than they were they being fore-decreed of God If the Sun should cease moving illuminating heating you may say it would be still the Sun But yet it is certain that these accidents are eventually inseparable from it If you will cause Humidity to cease from Water or separate Gravity from Earth of Stone c. I shall think you have made them other things 4. But to instance as you do in such a being as the CHURCH dishonoureth your boasted Logick greatly The ratio formalis of a Church is Relative and Relation is an accident and to say that accidents may all be separated from the Church without destroying it is to say that Relation may be separated that is the Church from it self or formal Essence without destroying it Do you conquer by such disputing as this was it by such that you had your boasted printed victory over such great Logicians as Bishop Gunning and Bishop Pierson Can you also prove that all accidents that is Relation may be separable from Families Schools Kingdoms without destroying them I hope you will not say that you mean that the separation destroyeth not the humanity of the Members and that this is the subject you mean for no more would Apostasie or Unchurching them destroy Humanity 3. And that no part may be sound your minor is false as well as your major What Christ by his Law commandeth or prescribeth to be in the Church that he instituteth But all cometh not to pass which Christ commandeth or instituteth He commandeth us higher degrees of Faith Love and other Duty than we perform You say No Man may change his institution but doth it follow that no man doth change it No man ought to plead for Errour or deceive poor Souls Doth it follow that therefore you and such others do not so It is Gods command that we never sin It doth not follow that we never do sin When the Apostles strove who should be greatest it was Christs institution that they should not seek for domination or superiority as the Princes of the Earth do but be as little Children and strive who should be most humble and serviceable and take the lowest place and it was St. Peters Doctrine that Bishops must not Lord it over the Flocks nor rule them by constraint but voluntarily but doth it follow that all this is done by all no nor by your pretended Head who is made an essential part of the Church I conclude then 1. That many accidents are not separable without destruction of the subject 2. That many more shall never be separated 3. That relation is not separable from the Church nor numbers neither 4. That there are Integral parts which are neither Accidents nor Essentials 5. That every thing is not ever in the Church nor in any man which Christ hath commanded or instituted to be ever in it And if that may be in a man which Christ forbiddeth so may it be in the Church and so that be absent which he commandeth 6. That it is a novel Opinion contrary to common Reason and all true Theologie and which a Catechized Child should be ashamed of to hold that all that Christ hath instituted to be ever in the Church is essential to it And so that the Church would be nullified if one word of the Holy Scriptures perished by the carelesness of Scribes or Printers or if one decent order were changed or if one Office were depraved c. 7. It aggravateth the errour to hold that every instituted apex or perfection for continuance is Essential to the Church and yet even the explicite belief that Iesus is the Saviour is not essential to a Church-Member or a Christian. 8. That this Disputer absolutely nullifieth the Roman Church which hath changed the Sacrament and Prayer and Church-Officers c. which were instituted by Christ to be ever in the Church But I noted to him that our question to him was Whether the holding such thing to be instituted be essential to the Church and not whether the institution it self be so May not the Opinion be but integral or an accident Here he replies without blushing 1. That thus I yield up
de Pontifice Romano and others that so speak c. is a vain digression not worthy an answer nor the rest I will here briefly recite some undeniable Reasons which I have given pag. 100 c. of my Naked Popery to prove what we have been all this while upon 1. That the Papal Power was not held to be jure divino but humano 1. It stood by the same right as did the other Patriarchs but it was jure humano 2. The Africans Aurelius Augustine c. of the Carthage Council enquired not of Gods Word but of the Nicene Canons to be resolved of the Papal Power 3. The whole Greek Church heretofore and to this day is of that Judgment for they first equalled and after preferred Constantinople which never pretended to a Divine Right but they were not so blind as to equal or prefer a humane right before a Divine 4. The fore-cited Ca. 28. of the Council of Calcedon expresly resolves it 5. Their own Bishop Smith confesseth that it is not de fide that the Pope is St. Peters Successor jure divino II. The Roman Primacy was over but one Empire besides all the Reasons fore-going I added That the Bishop of Constantinople when he stood for to be Universal Bishop yet claimed no more therefore no more was then in contest but Power in the Empire III. That Councils then were called General in respect only to the Empire I proved by ten Arguments p. 104. 105. adding five exceptions Page 114. he had put a Verse under the name of Pope Leo with a Testimony c. I shewed that there was no such and he confesseth the Errour but he supposeth a confident Friend of his put it into his Papers and now saith the Verse was Prosper's and some words to the like purpose are Leo's de Nat. Pet. Prosper he saith is somewhat ancienter than Leo and less to be excepted against Ans. 1. He was Leo's Servant even his Secretary as Vossius and Rivet have shewed and so his Words and Leo's are as one's 2. It is in a Poem where liberty of phrase is ordinarily taken 3. No wonder if Caput Mundo be found in a Poet either as it is spoken de Mundo Romano or as Caput signifieth the most excellent great and honourable And so Rome it self is oft called by Historians Caput Mundi before and since Christianity entered it And it may well be said that this was Pastoralis Honoris though not ex Pastorali Regimine Universali For one Bishop was a Caput or chief to others Pastorali Honore that was not their Governour as the chief Earl or chief Judge among us is to the inferiours 3. And the Pope did Nihil possidere armis 4. And Tenere and Regere be not all one He may be said thus Tenere in that the Religion which he professed had possession of more than the Roman Empire and he was the Chief Bishop in honour of that profession The sense seemeth to be but this As great a honour as it is to be the Bishop of the Imperial City of a Conquering Empire it is a greater to be the Prime Bishop of that Christian Religion which extendeth further than the Roman Conquests He citeth a sentence as to the same sence out of Prosper de Vocat Gent. l. 2. c. 6. viz. That the Principality of the Apostolick Priesthood hath made Rome greater through the Tribunal of Religion than through that of the Empire Which I take to be the true sence of the Poet but to be greater by Religion than Empire is no more to be Ruler of the World than if I had said so of Melchizedeck that he was greater as he was Priest of the most high God than as he was King of Salem But there is in the cited place of Prosper none of these words nor any about any such matter at all but there is somewhat like it in cap. 16. which indeed is expository Ad cujus rei effectum credimus providentia Dei Romani regni latitudinem praeparatam ut Nationes vocandae ad Unitatem Corporis Christi prius jure unius consociarentur imperii quamvis gratia Christiana non contenta sit eosdem limites habere quos Roma multosque jam populos sceptro Crucis Christi illa subdiderit quos armis suis ista non domuit Quae tamen per Apostolici sacerdotii principatum amplior facta est arce Religionis quam solio potestatis All this we acknowledge that Prosper then said about 466 years after Christ being Pope Leo's Secretary and seeing the Church in its greatest outward Glory The Unity of the Empire prepared for the greatness of the Church and those that were United in one Empire were United after in one Religion and yet the Gospel went further than the Empire and Rome it self became more honourable in being the seat of the most honourable Christian Bishop whose Religion extended further than the Empire than in being the Imperial Seat of Power The words which he citeth of Leo I made the lightest of because he was a Pope himself and pleaded his own cause more highly than any of his Predecessors and lived so late but yet the words do not serve the Papists turn for he at large sheweth that his meaning was that Rome which was domina mundi before it waâ—… Christian and yet not the Ruler of the World was prepared to be the Seat of Peter and Paul that even the outer Nations by their Neighbourhood to the Empire might be capable of the Gospel which is a certain Truth Ut hujus inenarrabilis gratiae per totum mundum diffunderetur effectus Romanum regnum divina providentia praeparavit cujus ad eos limites incrementa perducta sunt quibus cunctarum undique gentium vicina contigua esset universitas Disposito namq divinitatis operi maxime congruebat ut multa regna uno confâ—…derarentur imperio cito pervios haberet populos praedicatio generalis quos unius teneret regimen civitatis Nec mundi dominam times Romam qui in Caiphae domo expaveras sacerdotis ancillam And mentioning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Rome he saith ut cos in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 caput est Christus quasi geminum constituerit lumen oculorum de quorum meritis atque viâ—…tutibus que omnem loquendi superant facultatem nihil diversum nihil debemus sentire discretum quia illos electio pares labor similes finis fecit aequales And in the next Sermon expounding super hanc petram thus saith super hanc inquit 〈◊〉 â—…ternum extruam templum ecclesiae meae caelo inserenda sublimitas in hujus fidei firmitate consurget Hanc confessionem portae Inferi non tenebunt c. And of Tibi dabo claves Transivit quidâ—…m in Apostolos alios vis illius potestatis sed non frustra uni commendatur quod omnibus intimetur Petro enim singulariter hoc creditur quia cunctis ecclesiae rectoribus Petri forma proponitur Manet
and yet be punished if he do not come to Church and communicate 2. Lament Reader to think what engines Clergy-tyranny hath made against Christiaâ—… Love Peace and Concord to set the world into a war If the Council for want of understanding a point of doubtful words pronounce such words Heresie all people for feaâ—… of being burnt and damned must fly from all as hereticks that they think are for those condemned words All our Plowmen and women must be supposed to know that it is heresie e. g. to say that Christ hath but one will though the speaker mean objectively one or else One by Union of the divine and humane nature or to say that it was not God that was conceived and suffered and dyed and was passible when he meaneth only formalâ—…ter not As God but onâ—… he that is God and then every family must have an inquisition and people must fâ—… from one another before any judgment Doth not this give every lad and woman somâ—… power of the keyes and every subject a power of judging Kings and Judges 3. But mark Reader how sin condemneth it self as envy eateth its own flesh e. g. general Council condemneth Pope Eugenius as an Heretick or Iohn XXIII or others Tâ—… whole Church of Rome continued in communion and subjection to this condemned Herâ—…tick as they did with Honorius Therefore by their own sentence the whole Church 〈◊〉 Rome must be taken for Hereticks And if so 4. See how they justifie us for separating from them when they judge us hereticks themselves if we communicate with them Alas if a wrangling proud Clergy have but ignorance and pride enough to call Gods servants Berengarians Wicklefists Waldenses Lutherans Zuinglians Calvinists Iconoclasts Luciferians Quartodecimani c. hereticks all families and neighbourhoods are presently bound to fly from one another as if they had the plague or were enemies And must subjection come in for heresie If you call our King a heretick must all his subjects be taken for heretiâ—…ks for having communion and subjection to him Will the Popes chargeâ—… yea or real heresie disoblige us from Subjection And yet will you pretend to be loyal subjects § 21. I gave him the proof that he before called for from Thomas à Iesu Paulâ—… Veriditus Harris of Dublin against Usher that their writers vindicate the Greeks from heresie To which he saith that I could not but know that he meant of the modern Greeks as hereticks and not of the ancient fathers of which Bernard Aquinas Paul Harris speak Answ. This Answer hath a very bold face if it do not blush 1. It was the words of Thomas à sancto Iesu de convers Gent. a late writer that I recited to whose testimony as his he giveth not one word of answer And Thom. in the words cited expressely speaketh of the present Greeks and it is the very scope of his writing 2. Thomas cited ex junioribus Azorius 1. Iustit Moral l. 8. c. 20. To which he giveth not a word of answer 3. Paul Harris saith that when the Greeks had explicated their à Patre per filium viz. in the Council at Florence they were found to believe very orthodoxely and catholickly yeâ—… doth this man say that Harris speaks of the ancient Greeks expressely contrary both to his drisâ—… and words Is there any dealing with these false hereticaters It 's well that no Council hath anathematized falshood and calumny for heresies else we must have no communion with such that have no better meanes to dispute down christian Love and Concord Yea what need I more testimony than that Council of Florence it self which so judged and was supposed to heal the breach by explications Nor is it true that Bernard and Aquinas spake not of the Greeks in their times as owning the same cause that these do now § 22. I told him if Greeks and Latines will divide the Church and damn each other they shall not draw us into their guilt He saith again that the Church cannot be divided it is so perfectly One Answ. If I have not shamed the Saying let me bear the shame though we say that it cannot have any part totally divided from Christ for then it were no part and therefore none is divided relatively or really from the whole body But if the parts may not have sinful divisions from each other secundum quid Paul told the Corinthians amiss and the Papists Historians much mistook that talkt of about 40 Schisms at Rome and of the Popes adherents when part of the body had one head and part another for so long a time and to such sad effects § 23. Next I cited him the express words of their own Florentine Council professing that the Greeks and Latines were found upon conference to mean the same thing To which he saith 1. That it was but a few of them and that Marcus Ephesus dissented 2. Thaâ—… they revolted when they returned home Answ. 1. See still how they fight against their selves The seeming concord of this Council which did the Pope who was newly condemned and deposed by a great general Council more service than ever any did them is the great pretense of their false boasting that the Greek Church is subject to the Pope And yet he teaches us truly to say that it was but a few and that Marcus Eph. dissented and that they stood not to it when they came home The known truth is that the Emperor in distress constrained some to dissemble in hope of relief of which when he failed the submission was at an end And the Church never consented to it 2. But as to the point in hand it is not the Greeks recovery from an error that the Council mentioneth but the discovery of their meaning which was found to be Orthodox And though they yet use not the Romans phrase they never retracted the sense in which they were found to be orthodox § 24. Next he citing Nilus that the Greeks broke off from the Latines for the filioque alone I recited Nilus his title and words at large professing that There is no other cause of dissention between the Latin and Greek Churches but that the Pope refuseth to deferre the cognisance and judgment of that which is controverted to a general Council but he will sit the sole Master and Iudge of controversie which is a thing aliene to the Lawes and actions of the Apostles and Fathers The cause of the disserenâ—… saith he is not the sublimity of the point exceeding mans capacity for other matters that have divers times troubled the Church have been of the same kind This therefore is not the cause of the dissention much lesse the Scripture But who the fault is in any one may easily tell that is well in his wits Nor is it because the Greeks 〈◊〉 claim the Primacy N. B. He mentioneth that the Pope succeedeth Petâ—… only as a Bishop or dained by him as many other Bishops originally ordained by him do
sincerity but the very Being of them is the Papists confutation of us § 18. Secondly I proved it from our knowledge and sense of our own Acts. When I know and feelmy Love shall I believe a Pope that never saw me that tells me I do not know or feel it To this his easie Answer serveth He saith I do not feel that I truly Love God or his Servants if I be a Formal Protestant my Heart deceives me Answ. No wonder if all these Priests are Infallible that know all our Hearts so much better than we But who shall be Judge The true searcher of Hearts If the Fruits must be the Evidence I should rather fear that such Murderers of hundred thousands as killed the Waldenses Albigenses French English Dutch c. were like to be without Love than all those meek and Godly Protestants that I have known for no Murderer hath Eternal Life But forma is sometime taken for figura and for outward appearance only And such formal Protestants as have but the cloathing of Christianity have not indeed the Love of God § 19. He addeth What would you say to an Arrian a Turk or Jew that would urge the like knowledge or feeling Answ. The same that I would do to a bloody Papist And'I would tell him that if a Bediam think that he is a Prince or a Fool that he is Wise or a Beggar that he is a Lord or an illiterate Man that he is Learned it doth not follow that no Man can know that he is a Prince or a Lord or Wise or Learned I would tell him that there can be no effect without the adequate cause nor is there a cause where there is no effect And lie that perceiveth not God's amiableness in the necessary demonstrations of it cannot Love that Goodness he perceiveth not nor can any desire or seek the Heaven which he believeth not And I would tell him that he that believeth not in a Redeemer or a Sanctifier cannot Love him nor can he Love Believers and Godly Men as such who knoweth not that they as such are Lovely And that if really he Love God and Holyness and the hopes of Heaven before this World it will work in his seeking them above the World If you had Argued rationally against our Love of God and Holyness from any proved defect in the necessary cause which is in you we had been Obliged thankfully to hear and try your words But let Reason judge e. g. whether that man be like to love this world best and be loth to leave it who looketh to go at death into the flames of Purgatory or he that looketh to go to the glorious presence of his Redeemer And whether he be like to Love God best that look eth to be tormented by him in those flames or he that looketh to passe into heavenly perfect Love Christ telleth us that forgiving much causeth Love If a man were to torment you so long would it make you love him or at least is it a good proof that Protestants Love not God because they believe not that he will torment them in flames but presently comfort them § 20. II. My ad Argument to prove the perpetual visibility of our Church was this The Church whose Faith is contained in the Holy Scripture as its rule in all points necessary to Salvation hath been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on Earth But the Church whose Faith is contained in the Holy Scriptures as it's rule in all points necessary to Salvation is it of which the Protestants are members Therefore the Church of which the Protestants are members hath been visible c. Here he wanteth Form again because the praedicate of the Minor is the Subject of the conclussion and then he distinguisheth of the Maior of containing Involutely in General principles he granteth it but if expresly he denyeth it Answ. 1. The marvellous Logician it seems is but for one mood or figure but by what authority or Reason 2. He denyeth that the Churches Faith in all points necessary to Salvation is expresly contained in the Scripture I proved the contrary ad hominem before out of Bellarmine and Costerus plain words and shall by and by further prove it Mark again the Papists value of the Holy Scriptures he that explicitly believeth all that it expresly delivereth and no more say these men cannot be saved and yet if they believe none of it but a rewarding Deity say most or some more of the Creed say others men may be saved if they do but believe that all is Gods word and truth which the Pope and his Priests or Council say is such Next he distinguisheth of all things necessary to Salvation to be by all distinctly known and expresly believed and so he granteth the Scripture-sufficiency Very good Now all that is so necessary to a distinct knowledge and express belief is there But of all things to be Believed implicitly and distinctly known he denyeth it These distinctions supposed saith he I deny your Consequence Answ. Here is all new still 1. He calleth my Conclusion my Consequence and reciteth it 2. What he meaneth by things to be distinctly known by all and yet Believed but implicitely is past my understanding having to do with that man that hath all this while described implicite Belief by the express Belief of some meer General truth And must men know all that distinctly which they Believe not distinctly but in their general the man sure was confounded or confoundeth me The General to be Believed is the Pope and Councils authority in propounding and expounding Gods word This is their saving Faith the Belief of all that they propose is implicitely contained in this but must all this be distinctly known by all and yet not distinctly Believed The first would damn all that know not every one of their Councils decrees de fide the ad will shew that they Believe nothing at all for he that knoweth distinctly what the Pope saith and yet Believeth it not distinctly cannot Believe the general of his veracity But perhaps he spake distributively of two sorts of Faith viz. both the Implicite and the Explicite and so meant to deny the Scripture-sufficiency only to the first if so I shewed the flat contradiction of it before Where there is all that is necessary to be Believed expresly eo nomine there is all that is necessary to be Believed implicitely because to be Believed implicitly with this man is but to be the unknown consequent or inclose of that which is Believed expresly § 21. For the proof of my Major the Scripture-sufficiency as to all things commonly necessary to Salvation after Bellarmine and Costerus I have cited the plain words at large of 1. Ragus in Council Basil. Bin. p. 299. 2. Gerson de exam doct p. 2. cont 2. 3. Durandus in Praefat. Hierom. in hym 4. Aquinas 22. 9. 1. à 10. ad 1. de Verit. disp de fide q.
Socrates Sozomene Theodoret Evagrius Procopius Victor Nicephorus c. and judge as you see cause especially if you will also read but the works of Tertullian Cyprian Nazianzene Basil Hilary and the true Acts of the old Councils 5. I added the equalizing the Patriarch of Constantinople which he denyeth against the express words of the Council I might adde the after prefering the Bishop of Constantinople The oft contempts and excommunications of him the altering of Church power ordinarily by the Emperors is Iustinian's making Iustiniana prima and secunda to be absolute and under no Patriarch as was Carthage and saith Pet. a Marca and many others Heraclea Pontus and Asia long The managing of many Councils without him and passing Canons as Calced 28. against him The whole Council of Ephes. 2. going against his Legates and that under a most pious and excellent Prince Theodos. 2. that used Cyril and made him President Ephes. 1. and Dioscorous Ephes. 2d and countenance this Council against the Pope When Zeno carryed on his Henoticon and Anastasius his Reconciliation how little did he or any of the Eastern Churches stick at the Popes dissent No nor Iustinian when he turned to the Heresie of the Apththartodocitae and when he drag'd Vigilius as some Historians say with a rope instances might be multiplyed § 32. My 6th proof of the novelty of the Papal Sovereignty was from the testimony of their own greatest Bishops where I cited Greg. 1st his words so plain and large against a Universal Bishop or Pastor as plainer can scarce be spoke and answered Bellarmine words against it and I shall take the impartial Reader to need no more answer to W I. than even to read the words of Gregory themselves only noting that this Iohn of Constantinople that claimed the title of Universal Bishop was a man of more than ordinary mortification and contempt of worldly things for his poverty and great fasting called Iohannes jejunus and therefore not like to do it out of any extraordinary worldliness and pride And also that Gregory was of so little power himself being then out of the Empire under other powers for the most part that he did not blame Iohn as for claiming that which he hath right to but that which no Bishop at all had right to The case is most plain § 33. My 7th proof was The Papists themselves confess that multitudes of Christians if not most by far have been the opposers of the Pope or none of his Subjects Therefore there have been visible Churches of such To this He granteth the antecedent of Christians net Univocally so called but of no others Answ. Here he intimateth that most of the professed Christians of the world were not univocally Christians by profession but equivocally only and who will easily believe such Teachers as unchristen most of the Christian World Any Sect may take that course their sence is this none are Christians indeed but only those that are subjects to the Pope therefore all the Christian World are his Subjects Just so the Donatists and some Foreign Anabaptists take it but for granted that none are Christians but those that are Baptized at Age and then the Inference will be plausible that all the Christian World is against Infant-Baptism § 34. To Aeâ—…eas Sylvius Pope Pius 2d words That small regard was had to the Church of Rome before the Nicene Council He replyeth that he meaneth not so small as not to be the Head of all other Churches else the Council of Nice had introduced a new Government Answ. His words are plain and all History of those times confirm them No one Church before the Council of Nice had any Government over others but what was for meer Concord by free consent at least before Constantine gave it them And in the Council of Nice there is not a word that intimateth that the Pope was Ruler of all the World of Christians but his power is mentioned as limited to his Precincts and the like given to Alexandria Yet Innovation in giving power to Patriarchs is no wonder in Councils How else came Constantinople and Ierusalem to be Patriarchs Was it not by Innovation § 34. Next he saith I cite Goldastus but where the Lord knows Answ. I perceive the Man is a stranger to Goldastus who hath gathered a multitude of Old Writers against the Papacy for Princes Rights and bound them in many great Volumns De Monarchia Constitut. Imperial I cited no particular words but all these great Volumns of many Authors of those times shew the opposition to Papal Claims § 35. His saying That the Schismatical Greeks were not Univocal Christians is no more regardable than the Greeks Anathematizing Papists § 36. My plain Testimony of their Reynerius Armeniorum Ecclesiae Aethiopum Induorum caeterae quas Apostoli converterunt non subsunt Ecclesiae Romanae He first cavils at my saying were not under instead of are not not seeing that I only recited the Assertion as uttered by Reynerius so long ago and must I not say that he saith then they were not under if he so long ago say They are not 2. But he would perswade the Credulous that this speaks of them but as Schismaticks as Alexandria Antioch Constantinople are not now under Rome but have been Answ But those that will be satisfied with forced abuse of words may believe any thing that a Priest will say The context confuteth you You do not pretend that India turned from you and was under you By the Churches Planted by the Apostles he plainly meaneth those without the Empire as being none of the Provinces put under the Bishop of Rome nor of old claimed by the Pope § 37. I cited Melch. Canus words Loc. l. 6. c. 7. fol. 201. Not only the Greeks but almost all or most of the rest of the Bishops of the whole World have vehemently sought to destroy the Priviledges of the Roman Church and indeed they had on their side both the Arms of Emperours and the greatest number of Churches and yet they could never prevail to abrogate the Power of the one Roman Pope To this he saith That 1. Canus speaks of different times not conjunctly 2. And he taketh them not for univocal Christians And here he finds a Root of Rebellion q. d. Most of the Countries Rebelled against the King Ergo he had no Authority over them Answ. Our Question here was only of the matter of Fact Whether de facto most of the Bishops and Churches have not been against the Papacy This Canus asserteth therefore I seek no more And when you have proved them no Christians or Rebels I shall consider your Proofs 2. Had he meant only the most of the Bishops and Churches per vices it had signified nothing to his purpose For that had been no strength but might have been some inconsiderable Town at a time 3. But that all Church-History may help us better to understand his words that tell us oft
on the 6th of Ianuary till after the middle of Chrysostom's time and so in the present case had it been as ancient as they pretend it was not Universal 2. But he saith that at least as Patriarch of the West by the Churches grant they were in full quiet possession of that Right or Power which we confess was lawful Ans. No such matter We make no such Confession Those Protestants who think that the superiority of Patriarchs is lawful do hold that it is by humane Laws and that if any such Laws were made by that which you call the Church that is by Councils it was by such Councils as in such matters received their Power from the Emperours without which they might not set up one City above another nor distribute Provinces and Diocesses and as was done and therefore that while the Imperial Laws enforced them they had the Law to bind Subjects to obey them but when any Kingdom was cut off from the Empire it was from under those Laws and under the Laws of their own Prince and the former decrees of Councils were no Laws to them any longer though they might by voluntary contract still associate with Forraign Lands So that such hold 1. That while Britain was under the Roman Empire they owed some respect or obedience to the Pope as Patriarch of the West as English-men do the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury 2. That before and after they owed him no more obedience than to the Bishop of Rhemes or Arles 3. That when the Saxon Kings permitted the first English Bishops voluntarily to subject themselves to the Patriarch of Rome they made themselves Debtors of all lawful obedience which they promised 4. That when the Saxon and Danish Kings Commanded their Subjects such lawful obedience to the Bishop of Rome they owed it him by the obligation of their Soveraigns Laws 5. And when those Laws ceas'd their obligation ceased and when those Laws forbad it it became unlawful And so the Roman Patriarch had no power in England when the King and Law did deny it him or cease to give it him This is the judgment of those Protestants that think such Patriarchs lawful The other that think them a sinful Usurpation think that they were never lawful yet he urgeth us with what Conscience we ceased to obey them Pag. 74. he saith Prove that any Church which now denyeth it hath been always visible and I am satisfied whether that Church always denyed it or no. Ans. This hath some moderation in it 1. There hath no Church but that of Ierusalem been always visible from the beginning of Christianity for no other was at first existent 2. And that was not visible from the beginning of the World 3. This Church of Ierusalem as it consisteth of the most Christians there now denyeth your Papal Power 4. The Churches of Alexandria Antioch and Abassia now deny it and have been always visible 5. The Church of Ephesus and many others of Greeks that now deny it have been always visible since Paul's time and Constantinople since the first planting 6. And I pray you note that the Church of Rome hath not been always visible for it did not exist till some years after that at Ierusalem Yea note that you cannot pretend that the Bishop of Rome was the Universal Bishop from the beginning for you confess Peter was first Bishop of Antioch and all that while Rome was not the Mistress Church And so if you should have the Supremacy it must be by a change from the first State Though indeed Peter himself never claimed nor exercised any such thing much less did he ever leave it to a Successor and least of all as fixed to one City any more than St. Iohn's power was to the Bishop of Ephesus And indeed Bellarmine himself dare not deny but that the Seat of the Universal Bishop may possibly be removed from Rome to some other place And then suppose it were to Avignion or to Constantinople where is St. Peter's Successor How must he be chosen or how shall his power above others be known when all the old pretensions faile Pag. 78. till then there 's nothing but vain words When I noted that They that make Christ corporally present in every Church in the Eucharist should not say that the King of the Church is absent He replyeth We dispute of a proper visible presence such as is not in the Eucharist Ans. You affirm that Christ is there corporally present under the Forms of Bread and Wine and that the Bread which we see is the Body of Christ and no Bread and yet that we see not the Body of Christ Sure we see something or nothing and if it be something and not Bread nor Christs Body what is it But suppose that it be not Christs Body which we see yet while the Bread is turned into his Body that which you do see is nearer to him than a Kings Crown or Clothing is to the King and yet if you see the King only in his Cloths his â—…ace being vailed will you say that he is not a visible King Doth clothing make Kings or the species of the Consecrated Bread make Christ to become invisible 2. Do you not bow towards him on the Altar Do you not carry him in procession about the Streets and do you not constrain all that meet you to kneel down and adore sure you do not think him to be out of sight or hearing or far off to whom you pray and whom you so honour as present As Paul said to the Iews God is not far from every one of us so that Christ who is adorably present in his Body on the Altar and corporally present in every Receivers hand and mouth surely hath not yet forsaken the Earth so far as to be uncapable of constituting a visible Kingdom without a Pope Pag. 79. I told him that When they prove 1. That Christ is so absent from his Church that there is need of a Deputy to essentiate his Kingdom and 2. that the Pope is so deputed they will have done their work He replyeth I have proved that Christ instituted St. Peter and his Successors to govern visibly his wholly Universal Church in all Ages Ans. Wonderful when was it and where Let the Reader find any such thing in your writing for I cannot no not a word Had that been done I had contradicted you no longer but if it be by an Invisible Proof that your Visible Head reigneth I cannot judge of it He next addeth I press you therefore once more to give an instance of something which hath been ever in the visible Church by Christs institution and yet is accidental to the Church Ans. 1. If I have not given you such Instances and Reasons also to prove that all that Christ instituted to continue is not essential let the Reader say that I have failed you 2. But if I had not what is it to your cause will it thence follow that
you have said a word to prove that Christ instituted the Universal Head-ship of the Pope Or rather do you not overthrow it your self by such arguing seeing 1. the Headship of Rome hath not been ever in the Church as you confess 2. It never was in the Universal Church either instituted by Christ or received by the Church one hour but only for a time received by a corrupt oppressed part of the Church 3. The Pope hath cast out divers things instituted by Christ for continuance as is proved I told him that though the King were absent it is only the King and Subjects that are essential to a Kingdom the Deputy is but an Officer and not essential He replyeth 'T is so indeed de facto But suppose as I do that a Vice-King be by full authority made an ingredient into the essence of the Kingdom then sure he must be essential Ans. Yes by very good reason if he be made essential he is essential and now I understand what is your proof you suppose it to be so But if it be so in our case then the Pope is essentially so the Churches constitutive Head that when-ever he dyeth the Church is dead unless you can say as our Law doth of the King Papa non moritur and when the Church hath been two or near three years without it was no Church and when it had two or three Popes it was no Church or two or three Churches But saith W. I. This is evident in our present Subject for though all the Pastors in Christs Church be only his Officers and Deputies yet you cannot deny such Officers are now essential to his visible Church Ans. 1. When I heard the word Evident I lookt for something But I had nothing but you cannot deny it and what true Christian ever yet denyed it But I do not remember that ever I heard it disputed before affirmed or denyed He that would deny it will say that as all the Mayors Bayliffs and other Magistrates of Corporations are indeed essential parts of those Corporations and these Corporations are the noblest integral parts of the Kingdom but no essential parts of it so that if the Kingdom should be resolved into a King and meer common Subjects only it were a Kingdom still so it is in the Church Particular gathered Churches are the noblest integral parts of the Universal Church but not essential And Pastors are essential parts of those particular Churches But if all the particulars and Pastors should cease the Church would be a Church still while there is a Christ and meer Christians But this never will be in this world because Christ will not only have a Church but a well-formed organized Church Those that had rather use the word essential of the Pastors will say that as soul and body are the only essential parts of a man and yet the brain heart and liver may be called essential parts of the body as distinct from the rest because without these it is not corpus orgâ—…nicum and so not humanum so though Christ be the only soul of the Church yet Officers may be essential parts of his body as organical capable of such a soul And though the other will reply that this is but a deceiving Metaphor Christ being not only the soul but the head and no organical Members being more than noble Integrals because if an Intellectual separation be made the Church is a Church still in such a conception Yet all this is but a Controversie of the aptitude of the word Essential in that case we are agreed that Officers shall be in the Church to the end And yet Saint Paul 1 Cor. 12. calls them but eyes and hands and never heads but reserveth that title to Christ alone yea even when he speaketh of Apostles And yet if any Officers were Essential it would be Apostles who are called Foundations and Pillars of the House but none of them the Head 2. But what 's all this to our Controversie What if Pastors were Essential to the Church viz. that there be some Doth it follow that the Bishop of Rome is any more essential to it than the Bishop of Ierusalem or Antioch If so then 1. Before Peter is feigned Bishop of Rome the Church was no Church All the while that he dwelt at Ierusalem and Antioch 2. And then if Rome were burnt or the Bishop of it ceased the Church were no Church Sir our true question is Whether a trayterous Usurper of Universal Soveraignty received by a third part of the Church and refused by all the rest be essential to the Church Not as whether the heart or head but a Scab or Cancer be essential to the body After some vain repetitions pag. 82. he repeateth the sum of his fraudulent Argument which he calls The force of his Discourse viz No Congregation of Christians hath been perpetually visible but that which acknowledgeth the Popes Supremacy Ergo No Congregation of Christians is Christs true Church save that Ans. I will therefore repeat the sum of my Answer viz. The word Congregation is ambiguous 1. Either it meaneth a company met together 2. Or a number of such Congregations owning one Superiour being part of the Universal Church 3. Or the Universal Church it self Accordingly I answer 1. That in the first sense a Congregation is called the same either because the same men live or because the survivors dwell in the same place or because they are of the same profession In the two first respects it is not necessary that any Congregation continue the same for men dye and places may be conquered or ruined In the third sense All true Christian Congregations in the world are of one and the same species as Christian from the beginning to this day II. In the second sense of the word Congregation I answer like as to the former The men dye the places are mutable but as to the common Christian Profession they are the same that they have been but as to the extent of Diocesses neither you nor we can deny but that they have altered Scotus Petavius and Doctor Hammond who hold that Bishops without Presbyters were first setled must hold that a Church then was but one Assembly or no more than one Bishop could speak to But de facto all agree that it was not long before they widened by degrees And in this sense the Churches of Abassia Armenia Ierusalem Alexandria c. are visible and have been from their beginning and some of them before Rome was The Churches of Ephesus Smyrna Thessalonica c. are and have been such And some Churches are visible which do not acknowledge the Popes Soveraignty that sometimes did viz. The Church of Britain in England and Scotland at first owned it not and after did receive it and after that cast it off again but it is visible and hath been from its beginnings The Churches of Denmark Sweden Transilvania and divers Countries of Germany were not