them successively in all ages till Christ as a different Congregation of Christians from that which holds the Popes Supremacy which was my proposition For in the year 1500. those who became the first Protestants were not a Congregation different from those who held that supremacy nor in the year 500. were the Greeks a visible Congregation different from it nor in the year 300. were the Nestorians nor in the year 200. the Eutychians a different Congregation from those who held the said Supremacy But in those respective years those who first begun those Heresies were involved within that Congregation which held it as a part of it and assenting therein with it who after in their several ages and beginnings fell off from it as dead branches from the tree that still remaining what it ever was and only continuing in a perpetuall visibility of succession Though therefore you profess never to have seen convincing proof of this in the first 400 years labour to infringe it in the next ages yet I will make an essay to give you a taste of those innumerable proofs of this visible Consent in the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy not of Order only but of Power Authority Iurisdiction over all other Bishops in the ensuing instances which happened within the first 400 or 500 or 600 years Iohn Bishop of Antioch makes an Appeal to Pope Simplicius And Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople being deposed in the false Councill of Ephesus immediately appeals to the Pope as to his judge Theodoret was by Pope Leo restored and that by an appeal unto a just judgement Saint Cyprian desirâ—â— Pope Stephen to depose Marcian Bishop of Arles that another might be substituted in his place And to evince the supream Authority of the Bishops of Rome it is determined in the Council of Sardis That no Bishop deposed by other neighbouring Bishops pretending to be heard again was to have any successour appointed until the case were defined by the Pope Eustathius Bishop of Sebast in Armenia was restored by Pope Liberius his Letters read and received in the Council of Tyana and Saint Chrysostome expresly desires Pope Innocent not to punish his Adversaries if they do repent Which evinces that Saint Chrysostome thought that the Pope had power to punish them And the like is written to the Pope by the Council of Ephesus in the case of Iohn Bishop of Antioch The Bishops of the Greek or Eastern Church who sided with Arius before they declared themselves to be Arians sent their Legates to Iulius Bishop of Rome to have their cause heard before him against Saint Athanasius the same did Saint Athanasius to defend himself against them which Arian Bishops having understood from Iulius that their Accusations against Saint Athanasius upon due examination of both parties were found groundless and false required rather fraudulently then seriously to have a fuller Tryal before a General Council at Rome which to take away all shew of excuse from them Pope Iulius assembled Saint Athanasius was summoned by the Pope to appear before him and the Councill in Judgement which he presently did and many other Eastern Bishops unjustly accused by the Arians aforesaid had recourse to Rome with him and expected there a year and a half All which time his Accusers though also summoned appeared not fearing they should be condemned by the Pope and his Councill Yet they pretended not as Protestants have done in these last ages of the Kings of England That Constantius the Arian Emperour of the East was Head or chief Governour over their Church in all Causes Ecclesiasticalâ— and consequently that the Pope had nothing to do with them but only pretended certain frivolous excuses to delay their appearance from one time to another Where it is worth the noting that Iulius reprehending the said Arian Bishops before they published their Heresie and so taking them to be Catholikes for condemning Saint Athanasius in an Eastern Councill gathered by them before they had acquainted the Bishop of Rome with so important a cause useth these words An ignari â—stis hanc consuetudinâ—m esse ut primum nobis scribatur ut â—inc quod justum est à â—finiri possit c. Are you ignorant saith he that this is the custome to write to us first That hence that which is just may be defined c. where most cleerly it appears that it belonged particularly to the Bishop of Rome to pass a definitive sentence even against the Bishops of the Eastern or Greek Church which yet is more confirmed by the proceedings of Pope Innocent the first about 12. hundred years since in the Case of Saint Chrysostome Where first Saint Chrysostome appears to Innocentius from the Councill assembled at Constantinople wherein he was condemned Secondly Innocentius annulls this condemnation and declares him innocent Thridly he Excommunicates Atticus Bishop of Constantinople and Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria for persecuting Saint Chrysostome Fourthly after Saint Chrysostome was dead in Banishment Pope Innocentius Excommunicates Arcadius the Emperour of the East and Eudoxia his wife Fifthly the Emperour and Empress humble themselves crave pardon of him and were obsolved by him The same is evident in those matters which passed about the year 450. where Theodosius the Emperour of the East having too much favoured the Eutychian Hereticks by the instigation of Chrysaphius the Eunuch and Pulcheria his Empress and so intermedled too far in Ecclesiasticall causes yet he ever bore that respect to the See of Rome which doubtless in those circumstances he would not have done had he not believed it an Obligation that he would not permit the Eutychian Council at Ephesus to be assembled without the knowledge and Authority of the Roman Bishop Leo the first and so wrote to him to have his presence in it who sent his Legats unto them And though both Leo's letters were dissembled and his Legats affronted and himself excommunicated by wicked Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria and president of that Coventicle who also was the chief upholder of the Eutychians yet Theodosius repented before his death banished his wife Pulcheria and Chrysaphius the Eunuch the chief favourers of the Eutychians and reconciled himself to the Chruch with great evidences of Sorrow and Pennance Presently after Anno. 451. follows the Fourth General Council of Chalcedon concerning which these particulars occur to our present purpose First Martianus the Eastern Emperour wrote to Pope Leo That by the Popes Authority a General Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to chuse Secondly both Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople and the rest of the Eastern Bishops sent to the legats of Pope Leo by his order the profession of their Faith Thirdly the Popes Legats sate in the first place of the Council before all the Patriarchs Fourthly they prohibited by his order given them That Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria and chief upholder of
transcribe if I thought that you could not as well read Print as M. S. of higher expressions then Caput and fundamentum given to Andrew by Isychius and equal expressions to others as well as Rome and Peter And who is ignorant that knoweâ—h any thing of Church-history that others were called successours of Peter as well as the Bishop of Rome And that the Claves regni were given to him is no proof that they were not given also to all the rest of the Apostles And where you say Arcadius condemneth Nestorius for contemning the command of the Apostolick Sea You tell me not where to find it I answer you still that its long since your Sea begun to swell and rage but if you must have us grant you all these consequences Celestine commanded therefore he justly commanded therefore another might not as well have commanded him as one Pastor may do another though equall in the name of Christ and therefore he had power to command without the Empire even over all the Catholick Church and therefore the Council was of this mind yea therefore the universal Church was of this mind that the Pope was its universal head You still are guilty of sporting about serious things and moving pity instead of offering the least proof Yet fear you not to say that in the time of the holy Oecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon the universal consent of the whole Catholick Church was for you in this point The Lord keep our consciences from being the servants of our opinions or interests 1. Was the Popes Legate the whole Catholick Church 2. Was there one man at either of these Councils but within the Empire yea a piece of the Empire So that they were but such as we now call National Councils that is consisting only of the subjects of one Republick 3. Did the Council speak a word for your power without the Empire 4. Do they not determine it so expresly to be of humane right that Bellarmine hath nothing regardable to say against it Can. 28. Conc. Chalced. but that they spoke falsly And yet your opinion or interest hath tempted you to appeal viz. to the Sun that there is no such thing as light 21. After the conclusion you have a supernumerary in your Margin from Greg. lib. 10. Epist. 30. But there is no such word in that Epistle nor is it of any such subject But is the 31. Epistle its like that your leader meant And there 's no more but that a Bishop not named person or place having fallen into Schism voluntarily swore never more to depart from the Unity of the Catholick Church or the sea of Rome But 1. So may a Bishop of the Roman Province do or Patriarchate without believing Rome to be the Universal Head So might one in any other Province have done And yet it follows not that he ought to do so because he did so You see now what all your proofs are come to and how shamefully naked you have left your cause In summ of all the testimonies produced 1. You have not named one man that was a Papist Pope Leo was the nearest of any man nor one testimony that ever a Pope of Rome had the Government of all the Church without the verge of the Roman Empire but only that he was to the Roman Church as the Archbishop of Canterbury to the English Church And as between Canterbury and York so between Rome and Constantinople there have been contentions for preheminency But if I can prove Canterbury to be before York or Rome before Constantinople that will prove neither of them to be Ruler at the Antipodes or of all the Christian world 2. Much less have you proved that ever any Church was of this opinion that the Pope was by Divine Right the Governour of all the world when you cannot prove one man of that opinion 3. Much less have you proved a succession of such a Church from the Apostles having said as much as nothing concerning the first 300 years 4. And yet much less have you proved that the whole Catholick Church was of this opinion 5. And least of all have you proved that the whole Church took this Primacy of Rome to be of necessity to the very Being of the Church and to our salvation and not only ad melius esse as a point of Order So that you have left your Cause in shameful nakedness as if you had confessed that you can prove nothing In the end you return to terms To what you say about the word Christians I only say that it s but equivocally applied to any that profess not all the Essentialls of Christianity of which Popery is none any more then Pride is About the word Monarch in good sadness do you deny the Pope to be an imperious sole Commander Which of these is it that you deny not that he is a Commander not that he is imperious not that he is sole in his Soveraignty I would either you or we knew what you hold or deny But perhaps the next words shew the difference as Temporal Kings But this saith not a word wherein they differ from Temporal Kings sure your following words shew not the difference 1. Kings may receive power from Christ. 2. Kings must rule in meekness charity and humility But I think the meekness charity and humility of Popes hath been far below even wicked Kings if cruel murdering Christians for Religion and setting the world on fire may be witness as your own Histories assure us 3. The Government of Kings also is for mens eternal good however Papists would make them but their executioners in such things 4. Brethren as such are no subjects and therefore if the Pope Rule men but as Brethren he rules them not by Governing authority at all 5. Children to him we are not You must mean it but Metaphorically And what mean you then Is it that he must do it in Love for their good So also must Kings So that you have yet exprest no difference at all But our Question is not new nor in unusuall terms What Soveraignty you claim you know or should know Are you ignorant that Bellarmine Boverius and ordinarily your Writers labour to prove that the Government of the Church is Monarchicall and that the Pope is the Monarch the supream Head and Ruler which in English is the Soveraign Are you ashamed of the very Cause or Title of it which you will have necessary to our salvation Next you say that you very much dislike the Title of Vice-Christ as proud and insolent and utterly disclaim from it neither was it ever given by any sufficient authority to your Popes or did they ever accept of it Reply Now blessed be God that makes sin a shame to it self that the Patrons of it dare scarce own it without some paint or vizard 1. Is not the very life of the Cause between you and us whether the Pope be the Universal Head of the Church vice Christi
istius non potuisse statuere prout statuit haeretiâ—um censeatur So that by your Law we must believe the power of your Lord God the Pope or be hereticks If you meet with any Impressions that leave out Deum take Rivets note haberi in editione formata jussu Greg. 12. â— corectoribus Pontificiis nec in censuris Glâ—ssae jâ—ssu Pii 5. editis quae in expurgatorio indice habintur nomen Dei erasum fuisse Pope Nicolas 3. de Elâ—ct cap. fundamenta in 6. saith that Peter was â—ssumed into the Society of the individuall Trinity Angelus Polit. in Orat. ad Alex. 6. Pontificem ad Divinitatem ipsam sublâ—tum asserit He saith the Pope was taken up to the Godhead it self At the foresaid Council at Laterane Antonius Puccius in an Oration before Leo the tenth in the Council and after published by his favour said Divinae tuae Majestatis conspectus rutilante cujus fulgore imbecilles oculimei caligant His eyes were darkened with beholding the Popes Divine Majesty None contradicted this In the same Council Simon Bâ—gnius Modrusiensis Episcopus in an Oâ—acion Sâ—ss 6. calls Leo The Lion of the Tribe of Juda the root of Jesse him whom they had looked for as the Saviour In the same Council Sâ—ss 10 Stephanus Patracensis Archiop saith Reges in compedibus magnitudinis magni Regis liga nobiles in manicis ferreis censurarum constringe quoniam tibi data est omnis potestas in coelo in terra and before qui totum dicit nihil excludit So that all Power in heaven and earth is given to the Pope Paulus Aemilius de gestis Francorum lib. 7. saith that the Sicilian Embassadours lay prostrate at the Popes feet and thrice repeated Thou that takest away the sins of the world have mercy on us And prove to me that ever any such man was reprehended for these things by the Popes of late August Triumphus in Praefat. sum ad Ioan. 22. saith That the Popes power is infinite for great is the Lord and great is his power and of his greatness there is no end And qu. 36. ad 6. he saith that the Pope influenceth or giveth the Motion of direction and the sense of cognition into all the Members of the Church for in him we live and move and have our being And a little after he saith The will of God and consequently of the Pope who is his Vicar is the first and highest cause of all corporal and spiritual motions Would you have any more witness of the falshood of your words saith Zabarella I.C. lib. de schism Innocent 7. Bened. pag. 20. For this long time past and even to this day those that would please the Popes perswaded them that they could do all things and so that they might do what they pleased even things unlawfull and so more than God Antonius parte 3. tit 21. cap. 5. § 4. saith The Pope receiveth from the faithfull adorations prostrations and kisses of his feet which Peter permitted not from Cornelius nor the Angel from John the Evangelist Cardinalis Bertrandus Tract de origin jurisd q. 4. num 4. in Glos. extrag com l. 1. fol. 12. saith Because Iesus Christ the son of God while he was in this world and even from eternity was a Naturall Lord and by Naturall right could pronounce the sentence of deposition on Emperours or any others and the sentence of damnation and any other as upon the Persons which he had created and endowed with naturall and free gifts and also did conserve it is his will that on his account his Vicar may do the same things For the Lord should not seem discreet that I may speak with his reverence unless he had left behind him one Vicar that can do all these things Tell me now whether you said true in the Paragraph about the Title Vice-Christ yea whether it be not much more that hath been given and accepted But what name else is it that you agree on as proper to express the power which is controverted I know no name so fitted to the reall controversie And therefore in disclaiming the Name for ought I know you disclaim your Cause and confess the shame of Popery If he that seeks to be King of England should say he disclaimeth the Title of King as insolent and proud doth he not allow me to conclude the like of the thing which he concludeth of the proper name The name Papa Pope you know its like was usually by the ancients given to other Bishops as well as to him of Rome and therefore that cannot distinguish him from other men The same I may say of the Titles Dominus Pater sanctissimus beatissimus Dei amantissimus and many such like And for summus Pontifex Baronius tells you Martyrol Rom. April 9. that it was the ancient custome of the Church to call all Bishops not only Pontifices Popes but the Highest or Chief Popes citing Hierom. Ep. 99. And for the word Head of the Church or of all Bishops it hath been given to Constantinople that yet claimeth not as Nilus tells you neither a precedency to Rome nor an Universall Government much less as the Vice-Christ And that the Bishop of Constantinople was called the Apostolick Vniversal Bishop Baronius testifieth from an old Vaticane monument which on the other side calls Agapetus Episcoporum Princeps The Title Apostolick was usually given to others Hierusalem was called the mother of the Churches A Council gave Constantinople the Title of Vniversal Patriarch which though Gregory pronounced so in pious and intolerable for any to use yet the following Popâ—s made an agreement with Constantinople that their Patriarch should keep his Title of Vniversal Patriarch and the Bishop of Rome be called the Vniversal Pope which can signifie nothing proper to him the name Pope being common more then Vniversal Patriarch doth The Foundations and Pillars of the Church and the Apostles successors yea Peters successors were Titles given to others as well as him and more then these It being therefore the point in controversie between us whether the Bishop of Rome be in the place of Christ or as his Vicar the Head Monarch or Governour of the Church universal and the terms Vice Christi Vicarius Christi being those that Popes and Papists choose to signifie their claim what other should I use As to what you say of the Council of Constance which you must say also of Basil and of the French Church Venetians c. you pretend the doubt to be only between Ordinary and extraordinary Governours But 1. of old the Councils called Generall indeed but of one Principality were more ordinary then now the Pope hath brought them to be and I blame him not if he will hold his greatness to take heed of them 2. The way not to have been extraordinary if the Council of Constâ—nce had been infallible or of sufficient power who decreed that there should be one every ten years 3. The Councils that continue
so many years as that at Trent did are then become an Ordinary Government 4. What is given to the Church Representative is by many of you given to the Church reall or essentiall as you call it which is ordinarily existent only not capable of exerting the power it hath The singulis major at universis minor is no rare doctrine with you 5. But let it be as extraordinary as you please if while these Councils sit the Pope lose his Headship your Church is then two Churches specifically distinct and the form of it changeth when a Council sitteth which is a two-headed mutable Church not like the Spouse of Jesus Christ. 6. As your Popes are said to live in their constitutions and Laws when the person dyeth and your Church is not thought by you to die with them so why may not Councils do The Laws of Councils live when they sit not and the French think that these Laws are above the Pope though I shewed you even now that Iulius 2. in Conc. Later concluded otherwise of Decrees and the Council of the Popes power 7. If a Nation be Governed by Trienniall and so Decenniall Parliaments as the highest power and Councils of State in the intervalls who shall be accountable to Parliaments will you say that these Parliaments are extraordinary and not the ordinary Soveraign No doubt they are And the Council of State is not the Soveraign but the chief Officer or Magistrate for execution in the intervals Having begun this Reply May 2. I was again taken off it about May 5. or 6. And about May 11. I received a Letter from you wherein you tell me of a quarter of a years expectation Be patient good Sir These matters concern Eternity Believe it I have somewhat else to do of greater hast and moment Even some of your own friends find me more work What if ten of you write to me at once is it fair for each one of you to call for an answer as hastily as if I had but one in hand This is not my case but it is more then thus Fear not lest I give you over till you first prove the deserter and turn your back if God enable me Only I must tell you that I take it for a flight already and a forsaking of your Cause that you turn to these rambling impertinent citations and discourses in stead of a Syllogisticall arguing the case and that when you had spoken so much for it I have here that you may have no cause of exception nor pretence of cause in this Paper replyed to your last and in another proved the Visibility of our Church syllogistically and as overplus also disproved yours and proved it to be an upstart the sprout of Pride upon occasion of the greatness of the City of Rome and of the forming the Church to the Civil State in that one Empire If now you will deny to do the like I shall conclude you fly and forsake your Cause Besides your Rejoinder to this Reply I principally expect that you syllogistically in close and faithfull Arguing do prove to us the Affirmative of these Questions following Qu. Whether the Church of which the subjects of the Pope are Members hath been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth In which these three Questions are involved which you have to prove 1. Whether the Papacy that is the Vniversal Monarchy or Soveraign Government or Vice-Christship of the Pope take which term you like hath continued from Christs dayes till now 2 Whether all the Catholick Church did still submit to it and were subjects of the Pope 3. Whether those that did submit to it did take it to be necessary to the Being of the Church and the salvation of all believers or only to the more peaceable and better being If you call for Catalogues or proof of Visible succession and pretend so high to it your selves and yet will give us none when we importune you to it you tell us that you seek not to reveal the truth and Church but to hide them I urge you the harder though it may seem immodest because as the Cause doth lie upon your proof here so I know you cannot do it Pardon my confidence I know you can do no more then Baronius Bellarmine Bullinger c. set together have done and therefore I say I know you cannot do it I know your Vice-Christ I doubt the Antichrist is of humane introduction springing out of a Nationall I mean Imperiall Primacy which also was of humane invention It was but one Civil Government or Commonwealth in which your Bishop had his Primacy and that long without a Governing power And this National Primacy because of the greatness of the Empire was at last called Universal And even this was long after the dayes of Christ some hundreds of years a stranger in the Church unless as the Greatness of the Church of Rome and advantages of the place did give that Church such authority as ariseth from magnitude splendour honour and accidental advantages from the populousness wealth and glory of the City of Rome The carnall Church is led by the Vice-Christ the earthly Prince of Pride contending in the world for command and superiority and prosecuting his Cause with Strappados fire sword and gunpowder when Christ gave no Pastor a Coercive power to touch mens bodies or estates The true spirituall Church is Headed and commanded by Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace and knoweth no other Universal Head because no other hath either Capacity or Authority It obeyeth his Laws and learneth of him to be charitable patient meek and lowly and wonders not at errours and divisions on earth nor therefore accuseth the providence of God but knoweth by faith that the Universal Judge of Controversies is at the door and that it is but a very little while and we shall see that the Church had an Universal Head that was alone sufficient for his work for he that cometh will come and will not tarry Amen Even so come Lord Jesus Sir I desire you presently to send me word whether you will by close Syllogisticall arguing prove the successive visibility of your Church as Papal or not that I may know what to expect And once more I pray you take the help of the ablest of your party both that I may not be so troubled with wrong or impertinent allegations and that I may be sure that your insufficient arguings are not from any imperfection of the person but of the Cause If you meet in these Papers with any passages which you think too confident and earnest I beseech you charge them not with uncharitableness or passion for I hope it proceeded not from either but I confess I am inclined to speak confidently where I am certain and to speak seriously about the things of God which are of everlasting consequence May 18. 1659. For Mr. William Iohnson THE SECOND PART Wherein the successive Visibility of the Church of which the
judgement is in order to Ecclesiastical Communion or Excommunication And so it belongs to those with whom the person is in Communion in their several capacities The members of a particular Church are to be judged Authoritatively by the Pastors of that Church and by the people by a Private judgement of Discerning Pastors should associate for Communion of Churches and so in order to that Communion of Association it belongs to the several Associations to judge of the Members of the Society which yet is not by a publike Governing judgement For in Councils or Associations the Major Vote are not properly the Governors of the lesser part But those that are out of capacity of Communion have nothing to do to judge of the Aptitude of Pastors or Churches in order to Communion or non-Communion And for the Pope he hath nothing to do with us at such a distance whose persons and cases are wholly unknown to him he being neither our Governour nor our Associate But if we and our case were known to him he may judge of us so far as we may judge of him And other judgement what ever men may say to deceive there is none to decide our controversies but the final judgement of the Vniversal Iudge who is at the door A LETTER Written to Thomas Smith A Papist Concerning the Church of Rome LONDON Printed 1660. Reverend Sir THe noted sanctity admirable integrity and extraordinary charity so eminently appearing in your pious actions and as I have some cause to think the indelible characters of your sacred function hath animated me to make choice of your self rather then any of your coat to this present address hoping your candour and tenderness will bear with what may be by others less sensible of the value of immortal souls slighted interpreted according to the candid and true sense of your supplicant by you It hath pleased the great and terrible Iudge of heaven and earth to put me upon some thoughts more seriously then ordinary of my eternal estate and to be somewhat doubtful in the midst of external perturbations of those internal grounds which I have formerly relyed upon And truely Sir with all cordialness my desire is clearly to know the mind of my God which were I truely satisfied in I should soon wave all other interests to entertain and assuring my self according to what I have seen and read the Church of Rome to which I have long cleaved and adhered to be the pillar and ground of truth and that Catholike Church which the ancient Creed testifies we are to believe in My desire is to be as soon satisfied as may be of your thoughts whether it ever were a true Church which I suppose you will not deny when you consider the first verse of the Epistle to the Romans and if so when it made its defection The reason of my urging this is because I think all other questions to be but going about the bush and the true Church being proved all arguments else easily are answered I have heard Protestants aver the ancient maxime viz. Extra Ecclesiam non est salus Therefore I suppose it the only thing pertinent to my purpose and necessary to salvation to enquire after My occasions will suddenly draw me from these parts unless I hear from you speedily and doubt not Sir but I am one who freely will resign my self to hear truth impartially Therefore I beseech you to send something to me by way of satisfaction the next Saturday after which you shall be more particularly sensible who the person is that applies himself to you and in the interim subscribes himself Sir A thirsty troubled soul and yours to his power Tho. Smith Feb. 11. 1656. Direct your Letter to me if you please to Mr. John Smiths house next door to the sign of the Crown in the broad street Worcester Good Sir be private for the present otherwise it may be prejudicial to some temporal affairs agitating at this time Sir THat you can have such charitable thoughts of one that is not of the Roman subjection and of my function being not received from the Pope is so extraordinary yea and contrary to the judgement of your writers that I must needs entertain it with the more gratitude and some admiration And that you are so impartially willing to entertain the truth as you profess though it be no more then the truth deserves of you and your own wellfare doth require yet is the more aimiable in you by how much the more rare in those of your Profession so far as my acquaintance can inform me for most of them that I have met with understand not well their own Religion nor think themselves much concerned to understand it but refer me to others for a Reason of their hope For my part I do the more gladly entertain the occasion of this entercourse with you though unknown that I may learn what I know not and may be true to my own conscience in the use of all means that may conduce to my better information And therefore I shall plainly answer your Questions according to the measure of my understanding most solemnly professing to you that I will say nothing which comes not from my heart in plain simplicity and that I will with exceeding gladness and a thousand thanks come over to your way if I can finde by any thing that you shall make known to me that it is the mind of God that I should so do And therefore I am desirous that if what I write to you shall seem unsound you would not only afford me your own advice for the correction of it but also the advice of the most learned of your mind to whom you shall your self think meet to communicate it But on these conditions 1. That it be a person of a tender conscience that dare speak nothing but what he verily believes 2. That he will argue closly and not fly abroad or dilate Rhetorically And for any divulging of it to your danger or hurt you need not fear it For these two grounds of my following answers I shall here promise 1. That I am so far from persecuting bloody desires against those of your way that their own bloody principles and practices where they have power in Italy Spain c. hath done much to confirm me that the cause is not of God that must be so upheld and carried on 2. And I am so far from cruel uncharitable censures of any that unfeignedly love the Lord Jesus and his truth that it is the greatest motive to me of all other to dislike your Profession because it is so notoriously against Christian charity restraining the Catholike Church to your selves and outing and condemning the far greatest part of Christians in the world and that because they believe not in the Pope though they believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and all that the Primitive Church believed I am so Catholike that according to my present judgement I cannot
Peter c. ut supra Sir To comply with your desires of brevity and of confining my self to half a sheet of paper I send you at present only one Argument which being fully discussed shall be followed by others God willing To this as to all the rest of my Arguments which may hereafter be urged I require a Categorical and strict Sylogistical Answer in Form by Concedo Nego Distinguo Omitto Transeat And the particular Propositions specified to which the Respondents apply any of them and no more then precisely thus neither adding Amplifications Reasons Proofs c. of their own out of form and that this may be done with all convenient speed To the place of Scripture Ephes. 4. c. is also required a Categorical answer to what is precisely pressed in it without directing the discourse to other things And what is answered otherwise I shall not esteem an answer but an Effugium or declining of the difficulty By this method exactly observed Truth will easily and speedily be made manifest and your desires of Brevity will be punctually complied with I also desire that the Respondent or Respondents will as I do to this subscribe his or their name or names to their answers so often as any are by him or them returned with the day of the month when returned William Johnson Decem. 9. 1658 The Answer to the first PAPER I received yours and writ this Answer Ian. 4. 1658. Sir WHoever you are a serious debate with so sober a Disputant is to me an exceeding acceptable employment I shall not I hope give you any cause to say that I decline any difficulties or halk your strength or transgress the part of a Respondent But because 1. You have not as you ought to have done explained the terms of your Thesis 2. And have made your Propositions so long 3. And have so cunningly lapped up your fallacies your Respondent is necessitated to be the larger in distinction and explication And seeing you are so instant with me for strictness you thereby oblige your self if you will be ingenuous to make only the learned and not any ignorant men the Iudges of our dispute because you know that to the unlearned a bare Nego signifieth nothing but when such have read your Arguments at length they will expect as plain and large a confutation or judge you to be in the right for speaking most TO your Argument 1. Your conclusion containeth not your Thesis or Question And so you give up your cause the first step and make a new one It should have contained your Question in terms and it doth not so much as contain it in the plain sense so much difference is there between Assemblies of Christians united c. and Congregation of Christians and between Salvation or the Church never was in any other then those Assemblies and no Salvation out of that Congregation as I shall shew you besides other differences which you may see Ad Majorem Resp. 1. By Congregation you mean either the whole Catholike Church united in Christ or some particular Congregation which is but part of that whole In the latter sense your Subject hath a false supposition viz. that a part is the whole and your Minor will be false And your whatsoever Congregation of Christians seems to distinguish that from some other excluded Congregation of Christians that is not part of the Catholike Church which is a supposing the chief part of the Question granted you which we deny We know no universal Congregation of Christians but one which containeth all particular Congregations and Christians the univocally deserve that name 2. Either you mean that this whole Congregation or true Church acknowledgeth the Popes Soveraignty or else that some part of it doth acknowledge it The former I deny and challenge any man living to prove If it be part only that you mean then either the greater part or the lesser that it is the greater I as confidently almost deny for it is against the common knowledge of men acquainted with the world c. If you mean the lesser part you shall see anon that it destroys your cause 3. Either you speak de Ecclesia quae talis or de Ecclesia qua talis and mean that this acknowledgement is essential to it or at least an inseparable property or else that it is separable accident The latter will do you no good the former I deny In summ I grant that a small corrupt part of the Catholike Church doth now acknowledge the Pope to be Christs Vicar or the Vice-christ but I deny 1. That the whole doth so which is your great cause 2. Or the major part 3. Or any Congregation through all ages though if they had it would do you no good 4. Or that it is done by any upon just ground but is their corruption Ad minorem Resp. 1. If you mean any part of the Universal Church by that Congregation which is now the true Church I deny your Minor If the who le I grant it 2. You say all Christians agree in it c. Resp. I think all Protestants or near all do but Franciscus à sancta Clara hath copiously told us in Artic. Anglic. that most of your own Doctors are for the salvation of Infidels and then either you take Infidels for your Church members or your Doctors for no Christians or you play not fair play to tell us so gross an untruth that all Christians are agreed in it To your conclusion Resp. 1. Either you mean that there is no Salvation to be had out of that Universal Church whose part a minor corrupt part acknowledgeth the Popes Soveraignty or else that there is no Salvation to be had out of that Universal Church which wholly acknowledgeth it or else that there is no Salvation to be had out of that part of the Universal Church which acknowledgeth it In the first sense I grant your conclusion if really you are part of the Church There is no Salvation to be had out of Christs Universal Church of which you are small corrupted part In the second sense I told you we deny the supposition in the subject In the third sense I deny the sequel non sequitur because your Major Proposition being false de Ecclesia universali the conclusion must be false de parte ista as excluding the rest But to the unskilful or unwary reader your conclusion seemeth to import that the being in such a Church which acknowledgeth the Popes Soveraignty as it is such a Church is necessary to Salvation and so that the persons acknowledgement is necessary But it is a fallacia accidentis cunningly lapt up that is the life of your imported cause That part of the Universal Church doth hold to the Popes Soveraignty is per accidens and could you prove that the whole Church doth so which you are unlike to do I would say the like And that your fallacy may the better appear I give you some
are members of the Universal Church though they never heard of a Pope at Rome before they are United to Pastors of their own The Proof of the Minor from Eph. 4. I grant as aforesaid The text proveth that Pastors the Church shall have I disclaim the vain objection of Conditionality in the promise which you mention But it proves not 1. That the Church shall have an Universal Monarch or Vice-Christ under Christ. 2. Nor that every member of the Universal Church shall certainly be a member of a particular Church or ever see the face of a Pastor or be subject to him You say next There remains only to prove the Minor of the second Syllogism viz. that no Congregation of Christians hath been alwaies visible but that which acknowledges c. This is the great point which all lyeth on The rest hath been all nothing but a cunning shooing horn to this Prove this and prove all Prove not this and you have lost your time You say The Minor I prove by obliging the answerers to nominate any Congregation of Christians which alwaies till this present time since Christ hath been visible save that only which acknowledges c. And have I waited all this while for this You prove it by obliging me to prove the contrary Ridiculous sed quo jure 1. Your undertaken form of arguing obligeth you to prove your Minor You cannot cast your Respondent upon proving and so arguing and doing the Opponents part 2. And in your Postscript you presently forbid it me You require me to hold to a Concedo Nego Distingno Omitto Transeat threatning that else you will take it for an Effugium And I pray you tell me in your next to which of these doth the nomination or proof of such a Church as you describe belong Plainly you first slip away when you should prove your Minor and then oblige me to prove the Contrary and then tell me if I attempt it you 'l take it for an Effugium A good cause needs not such dealing as this which me thinks you should be loth a learned man should hear of 3. Your interest also in the Matter as well as your office as Opponent doth oblige you to the proof For though you make a Negative of it you may put it in other terms at your pleasure It is your main work to prove that All the members of the Universal Church have in all ages held the Popes Soveraignty or Universal Head-ship Or the whole Visible Church hath held it Prove this and I will be a Papist you have my promise You affirm and you must prove Prove a Catholike Church at least that in the Major part was of that mind though that would be nothing to prove the condemnation of the rest If you are an impartial enquirer after truth fly not when you come to the setting too I give you this further evident reason why you cannot oblige me to what you here impose 1. Because you require me to prove the Visibility of a Church which held not your point of Papacy and so put an unreasonable task upon me about a Negative or else I must prove that they held the contrary before your opinion was started And it is the Catholike Church that we are disputing about so that I must prove this Negative of the Catholike Church 2. It is you that lay the great stress of Necessity on your Affirmative more then we do on the Negative you say that no man can be saved without your Affirmative that the Pope is the universal Head and Governor But we say not that no man can be saved that holdeth not our Negative that he is not the Vice-Christ For one that hath the plague or leprosie may live Therefore it is you that must prove that all the Catholike Church was still of your mind 3. And it is an Accident and but an Accident of a smallâ—r corrupted part of the Catholike Church that you would oblige me to prove the Negation of and therefore it is utterly needless to my proof of a Visible Catholike Church For I will without it prove to you a successive Visibility of the Catholike Church from the Visibility of its Essential or Constitutive parts of which your Pope is none I will prove a successive visible Church that hath still professed faith in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and been united to the Universal Head and had particular Pastors some fixed some unfixed and held all essential to a Christian. And proving this I have proved the Church of which I am a member To prove that England hath been so long a Kingdom requireth no more but to prove the two Essential parts King and Subjects to have so long continued united It requireth not that I prove that if ever either hâ—â—d or opposed a Vice-King This is our plain case If a man have a botch on one of his hands it is not needful in order to my proving him a man heretofore that I prove he was born and bred without it so be it I prove that he was born a man it sufficeth Nor is it needfull that I prove the other hand alwaies to have been free in order to prove it a member of the body It sufficeth that I prove it to have been still a hand I do therefore desire you to perform your work and prove that no Congregation hath been still visible but such as yours or that the whole Catholike Church hath ever since the ascention held a Humane Universal Governour under Christ or else I shall take it as a giving up your cause as indefensible And observe if you shall prove only that a part of the Catholike Church still held this which you can never do then 1. You will make the Contrary opinion as Consistent with salvation as yours For the rest of the Catholike Church is savable 2. And then you will allow me to turn your Argument against your self as much as it is against us and so cast it away e. g. what ever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath been alwaies Visible But no Congregation of Christians hath been alwaies Visible but that which quoad partem denyeth the Popes universal Headship therefore whatever Congregation of Christians is the true Church denyeth the Popes universal Headship Well! but for all this supposing you will do your part I will fail you in nothing that 's reasonable which I can perform A Catholike Church in all ages that was against the Pope in every member of it I hope I cannot shew you because I hope that you are members though corrupt But you shall have more then a particular Congregation or a hundred 1. At this present two or three parts of the Catholike Church is known to be against your Universal Monarchy The Greeks Armenians Ethiopians c. besides the Protestants 2. In the last age there were as many or more 3. In the former ages till An. D. 1000. there were neer as
my Nego Concedo c. exacted from the Respondent and nothing else follows not For that prescription is to be understood that the Respondent of himself without scope given him by the opponent was not to use any other forms in Answering But if the opponent should require that the respondent give reasons or instances or proofs of what he denies that then the Respondent is to proceed to them And this is most ordinary in all Logicall Disputations where strict form is observed and known to every yong Logitian Instances therefore demanded by the opponent were not excluded but only such excursions out of form as should proceed from the respondent with out being exacted by the opponent You say though I make a Negative of it I may put it in other terms at my pleasure But the question is not what I may do but what I did I required not an Answer to an Argument which I may frame but to that which I had then framed which was expressed in a negative proposition You tell me if I prove the Popes universal Supremacy you will be a Papist And I tell you I have proved it by this very Argument That either He hath that supremacy or some other Church denying that he hath alwaies had it hath been alwaies visible and that Church I require should be named if any such be and whilest you refuse to name that Church as here you do you neither answer the Argument nor become a Papist You say I affirm and I must prove I say in the proposition about which we now speak I affirm not and so must not prove and you by denying it must affirm and so must prove You prove it is not your part here to prove because the Popes supremacy could not be denyed before it was affirmed and you must be obliged to prove that denyal I oblige you not to prove a continued visible Church formally and expresly denying it but that it was of such a Constitution as was inconsistent with any such supremacy or could and did subsist without it which is an Affirmative You affirm that because I say you cannot be saved if you deny that Supremacy and you say that I may be saved though I hold it therefore you are not bound to prove what I reprove but I to prove my negative proposition But this would prove as well that a Mahumetan is not bound to prove his religion to you but you to prove yours to him because you say he cannot be saved being a Mahumetan and he says that you may be saved being a Christian. See you not that the obligation of proof in Logicall form depends not of the first position or Thesis but must be drawn from the immediate proposition affirmative or negative which is or ought to be proposed To what you say of an Accident and a corrupt part I have already answered To what you say of a vice-king not being necessary to the Constitution of a kingdom but a king and subjects only is true if a vice-king be not instituted by the Full power of an Absolute Authority over that kingdom to be an ingredient into the essence of the Kingdom in the Kings absence But if so constituted it will be essential now my proposition saith and my Argument proves that by the Absolute Authority of Christ Saint Peter and his Successors were instituted Governors in Christs place of his whole visible Church and whatsoever Government Christ institutes of his Church must be essential to his Church You see now the Disparity You insist to have me prove a Negative and I insist to have you prove that Affirmative which you fall into by denying my Negative and leave it to judgement whose exaction is the more conform to reason and logical form But if I prove not here say you the whole Catholike Churches holding ever the Popes Supremacy you shall take it as a giveing up my cause I tell you again that I have proved it by this very Argument by force of Syllogistical form and it is not reasonable to judge that I have given up my cause if I prove not again what I have already proved Your taking upon you the part of an opponent now is you know out of Season when that is yours mine shall be the Respondent AT length you give fair attempt to satisfie your obligation and to return such an instance as I demanded of you But you are too free by much in your offer I demand one Congregation and you promise to produce more then an hundred But as they abound in the number so are they deficient in the quality which I require I demand that the Answerer nominate any Congregation of Christians which alwayes till this present time since Christ hath been visible c. and you tell me of more then an hundred Congregations besides that which acknowledges Saint Peter c. whereof not any one hath been all that designed time visible which is as if I had demanded an Answerer to nominate any Family of Gentry which hath successively continued ever since William the Conquerour till this present time and he who undertakes to satisfie my demand should nominate more then a hundred Families whereof not so much as one continued half that time You nominate first all these present the Greeks Armenians Ethiopians besides the Protestants These you begin with Now to satisfie my demand you must assert that these whom you first name are both one Congregation and have been visible ever since Christs time This you do not in the pursute of your Allegations For Numb 2. you nominate none at all but tell me that in the last age there were as many or more What were these as many or more were they the same which you nominated first or others I required some determinate Congregation to be nominated all the while and you tell me of as many or more but say not of what determinate congregation they were In your Num. 3. you tell me in the former ages till one thousand there were neer as many or rather many more A fair account But in the mean time you nominate none much less prosecute you those with whom you begun Num. 4. You say in the year six hundred there were many more incomparably What many what more were they the same which you nominated in the beginning and made one Congregation with them or were they quite different Congregations what am I the wiser by your saying many more incomparably when you tell me not what or who they were Then you say But at least for four hundred years after Christ I never yet saw valid proof of one Papist in all the world that is one that was for the Popes universal Monarchy or vice-Christship What then are there no proofs in the world but what you have seen or may not many of those proofs be valid which you have seen though you esteem them not so and can you think it reasonable upon your single not-seeing or not-judging
Pope have made it an Article of their faith that the whole substance of the Bread and Wine is turned into the Body and Blood of Christ so that there is left no Bread or Wine but only that colour quantity and tast that before belonged to it And if you know not Bread when you eat it or Wine when you drink it and when the senses of all the sound men in the world concur with yours is it not vain for me or any man to dispute with you Can you have any thing brought to a surer judgement then to all your senses And yet no doubt but your seducers can say something to prove that Bread is not Bread when you see and eat it No wonder then if they can confute me But do they indeed believe themselves how is it possible there is no exercise of reason and belief that supposeth not the certainty of sense If I cannot know Bread and Wine when I see touch â—ast them then cannot I know the Pope the Councils the Scripture the Priest or any thing else If you think to let go this point of Popery and hold the rest you know not what Popery is for a Pope and Council having determined it you are damned by them for denying the faith and if you depart from the infallibility of their Rule and judge in points of faith or at least from the obligation of it in one thing they will confess to you that you may as well do it in more False in this and certain in nothing is their own conclusion Sir I have not been unwilling to know the truth having a soul to save or lose as well as you and having as much reason to be loth to perish If you have so far forfeited the Grace of God as meerly to follow the pride of a pretended Vice-Christ that hath turned doctrine into error worship into superstition and dead formality light into darkness discipline into confusion mixt with tyranny if meerly to set up one Tyrant over the consciences and bodies too of all believers in the world you can fall into a Sect deny Scripture Reason the Judgement and Tradition of most of the Church and your own and all mens eye-sight tast and other senses the Lord have mercy on you if you be not past it I have done with you yet remaining An unfeigned desirer of your welfare and lamenter of the Apostacies and giddiness of these times Richard Baxter May. 18. 1659. Did you know what it is by loose and false allegations to be put to read so many Volumes in great part in folio to try whether the alledger say true or false you would not expect that I should return an answer and read so much of so many folios in any less then ten or eleven daies which I think hath been all that I have had to write and read so much The Reader must take notice that I wrote the former Letter to the person that sent Mr. Johnsons Letters with a charitable jealousie that if he were himself in doubt he might be resolved But in his return he fully disclaimed Popery and assured me that it is for the sake of some friends that he desired my labour and not for his own R. B. The Reply to Mr. Johnsons second PAPER Sir THE multitude and urgency of my employments gave me not leave till this day May 2. so much as to read over all your Papers But I shall be as loth to break off our Disputation as you can be though perhaps necessity may sometime cause some weeks delay And again I profess my indignation against the Hypocrital Jugling of this age doth provoke me to welcome so ingenuous and candid a disputant as your self with great content But I must confess also that I was the less hasty in sending you this Reply because I desired you might have leisure to peruse a Book which I published since your last A Key for Catholikes seeing that I have there answered you already and that more largely then I am like to do in this Reply For the sharpness of that I must crave your patience the persons and cause I thought required it Ad 1m. What explications were made to your Friend of your Thesis I could not take notice of who had nothing but your writing to Answer 2. If you will not be precise in Arguing you had little reason to expect much less so strictly to exact a precise Answer which cannot be made as you prescribed to an Argument not precise 3. I therefore expect accordingly that the unlearned be not made the Judges of a dispute which they are not fit to judge of seeing you desire us to avoid their road 4. Again I say if you will not be precise in arguing I can hardly be so in answering And by a Congregation of Christians you may mean Christians politically related to one Head whether Christ or the Pope But the word Assemblies expresseth their actuall Assembling together and so excludeth all Christians that are or were Members of no particular assemblies from having Relation as Members of Christ our Head or the Pope your Head and so from being of the Congregation as you Call The Church universall 5. I had great reason to avoid the snare of an equivocation or ambiguity of which you gave me cause of jealousie by your whatsoever as I told you as seeming to intimate a false supposition To your Like I answer it is unlike and still more intimates the false supposition Whatsoever Congregation of men is the Common-wealth of England is a phrase that importeth that There is a Congregation of men which is not the Common-wealth of England Which is true there being more men in the world So whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church doth seem to import that you suppose there is a Congregation of Christians univocally so called that are not the true Church which you would distinguish from the other Which I only let you know at the entrance that I deny that you may not think it granted Yet I must tell you that nothing is more ordinary then for the Body to be said to do that which a part of it only doth As that the Church administreth Sacraments Discipline Teatheth c. the Church is assembled in such a Council c. when yet it is but a small part of the Church that doth these things And when Bellarmine Gretser c. say the Church is the infallible judge of Controversies of faith they mean not the whole Church which containeth every Christian when they tell you that It is the Pope they mean and therefore I had reason to enquire into your sense unless I would willfully be over-reacht You now satisfie me that you mean it universally viz. â—ll that Congregation or Church of Christians which is now the true Church of Christ doth acknowledge c. which I told you I deny 6. To my following distinction you say that all the world knows that whatsoever is acknowledged
to have been ever in the Church by Christs instiution cannot be meant of any accidental thing but of a necessary unchangeable and essentiall thing in Christs true Church To which I Reply Either you see the gross fallacy of this defence or you do not If you do not then never more call for an exact Disputant nor look to be delivered from your errors by argumentation though never so convincing If you do then you are not faithfull to the truth In your Major proposition the words being many as you say you penetrated divers arguments together ambiguities were the easier hidden in the heap That which I told you is Accidental to the Church and that but to a corrupted part was the Acknowledging of the Papacy as of Christs Institution and therefore if it were granted that a thing of Christs Institution could not be Accidental yet the Acknowledgment that is the Opinion or asserting of it may If the Church by mistake should think that to be Essential to it which is not though it will not thence follow that its Essence is but an Accident yet it will follow that both the false opinion and the thing it self so falsly conceited to be essential are but accidents or not essential You say It cannot be meant of any Accidental thing But 1. That Meaning it self of theirs may be an Accident 2. And the question is not what they Mean that is Imagine or affirm it to be But what it is in deed and truth That may be an Accident which they think to be none 2. But that which you say all the world knows is a thing that all the world of Christians except your selves that ever I heard of do know or acknowledge to be false What! doth all the world know that Christ hath instituted in his Church nothing but what is essential to it I should hope that few in the Christian world would be so ignorant as ever to have such a thought if they had the means of knowledge that Protestants would have them have There is no natural body but hath natural Accidents as well as Essence Nor is there any other society under heaven Community or Policy that hath not its Accidents as well as Essence And yet hath Christ instituted a Church that hath nothing but Essence without Accidents Do you build upon such foundations What! upon the denyal of common principles and sence But if you did you should not have feigned all the world to do so too Were your asseriton true then every soul were cut off from the Church and so from salvation that wanted any thing of Christs Institution yea for a moment And then what would become of you You give me an instance in the Eucharist But 1. Will it follow that if the Eucharist be not Accidental or integral but Essential that therefore every thing Instituted by Christ is Essentiall surely no 2. The Question being not whether the Being of the Eucharist in the Church be Essential to the Universal Church But whether the Belief or Acknowledgment of it by All and every one of the members be Essential to the Members I would crave your answer but to this Question though it be nothing to my cause Was not a Baptized person in the primitive and ancient Churches a true Church-member presently upon Baptism And then tell me also Did not the ancient Fathers and Churches unanimously hide from their Catechumens even purposely hide the mysterie of the Eucharist as proper to the Church of understand and never opened it to the auditors till they were Baptized This is most undenyable in the concurrent vote of the ancients I think therefore that it follows that in the Judgement of the ancient Churches the Eucharist was but of the Integrity and not the Essence of a member of the Church and the acknowledgement of it by all the members a thing that never was existent Where you say your Major should have been granted or denyed without these distinctions I Reply 1. If you mean fairly and not to abuse the truth by Confusion such distinctions as you your self call Learned and substantial can do you no wrong They do but secure our true understanding of one another And a few lines in the beginning by way of distinction are not vain that may prevent much vain altercation afterwards When I once understand you I have done And I beseech you take it not for an injury to be understood As to your conclusion that you used no fallacy ex Accidente and that my instances are not apposite I Reply that 's the very life of the Controversie between us And our main Question is not so to be begged On the grounds I have shewed you I still averr that the holding of the Papacy is as Accidental to the universal Church as a Cancer in the breast is to a woman And though you say It is Essential and of Christs Institution that maketh it neither Essential nor of Christs Institution nor doth it make all his institutions to be essentialls Now of your second Syllogism 1. I shall never question the successive Visibility of the Church Whereas I told you out of your Fransc. Ã S. Clara that many or most of your own Schoolmen agree not to that which you say All Christians agree to you make no reply to it As to your Minor I have given you the Reasons of the necessity and harmlesness of my distinctions we need say no more to that a Congregation of Christians and a Church are Synonima But the word true was not added to your first term by you or me and therefore your instance here is delusory But to say whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church is all one as to say whatsoever Church of Christians is now the true Church When I know your meaning I have my end Though my syllogism say not that the Church of Rome acknowledgeth those things alwaies done and that by Christs institution it nevertheless explicateth the weakness of yours as to the fallacy accidentis For 1. The holding it alwaies done and that of Christs Institution may be either an Accident or but of the Integrity and ad bene esse yea possibly an errour 2. And I might as easily have given you Instances of that kind To your 3. Syllogism I Reply 1. When you say the Church had Pastors as you must speak of what existed and Universalls exist not of themselves so it is necessary that I tell you How far I grant your Minor and how far I deny it My argument from the Indians and others is not solved by you For 1. You can never prove that the Pope was preached to the Iberians by the Captive maid nor to the Indians by Frumentius 2. Thousands were made Christians and baptized by the Apostles without any preaching or profession of a papacy Act. 2. passim 3. The Indians now Converted in America by the English and Dutch hear nothing of the Pope nor thousands in Ethiopia 4. Your own do
or may baptize many without their owning the Pope who yet would be Christians And a Pastor not known or believed or owned is actually no Pastor to them To your confirmation I Reply You misread my words I talk not of Invisible I say it is true that the Universal Church is united to Christ as their universall Head and is Visible 1. In the members 2. In the Profession 3. Christ himself is visible in the Heavens and as much seen of most of the Church as the Pope is that is not at all As the Pope is not Invisible though one of a million see him not no more is Christ who is seen by most of the Church and by the best part even by the glorified You know my meaning Whether you will Call Christ visible or not I leave to you I think he is visible But that which I affirm is that the universal Church hath no other visible universal Head or Pastor But particular Churches have their particular Pastors all under Christ. Of Eph. 4. I easily grant that the whole Church may be said to have Pastors in that all the particular Churches have Pastors But I deny that the whole have any one universal Pastor but Christ. Of that which is the point in controversie you bring no proof If you mean no more then I grant that the whole Church hath Pastors both in that each particular Church hath Pastors and in that unfixed Pastors are to preach to all as they have opportunity then your Minor hath no denyall from me Instead of prosecuting your Argument when you had cast the work of an Opponent upon me you here appeal to any true Logician or expert Lawyer Content I admit of your Appeal But why then did you at all put on the face of an Opponent could you not without this lost labour at first have called me to prove the successive visibility of our Church But to your Appeal Ho all you true Logicians this Learned man and I refer it to your tribunal whether it be the part of an Opponent to contrive his Argument so as that the Negative shall be â—is and then change places and become Respondent and make his adversary Opponent at his Pleasure We leave this cause at your bar and expect your sentence But before we come to the Lawyers bar I must have leave more plainly to state our case We are all agreed that Christianity is the true Religion and Christ the Churches Universal Head and the holy Scriptures the Word of God Papists tell us of another Head and Rule the Pope and Tradition and judgement of the Church Protestants deny these Additionals and hold to Christianity and Scripture only Our Religion being nothing but Christianity we have no Controversie about Their Papall Religion superadded is that which is Controverted They affirm 1. the Right 2. the Antiquity of it We deny both The Right we disprove from Scripture though it belongs to them to prove it The Antiquity is it that is now to be referred Protestancy being the Denyall of Popery it is we that Really have the Negative and the Papists that have the Affirmative The Essence of our Church which is Christian is confessed to have been successively visible But we deny that theirs as Papal hath been so and now they tell us that it is Essential to ours to deny the succession of theirs and therefore require us to prove a succession of ours as one that still hath denyed theirs Now we leave our case to the Lawyers seeing to them you make your appeal 1. Whether the substance of all our cause lie not in this Question Whether the Papacy or universal Government by the Pope be of heaven or of men and so whether it hath been from the beginning which we deny and therefore are called Protestants and they affirm and are therefore called Papists 2. If they cannot first prove a successive visibility of their Papacy and Papal Church then what Law can bind us to prove that it was denied before it did arise in the world or ever any pleaded for it 3. And as to the point of Possession I know not what can be pretended on your side 1. The Possession of this or that particular Parish Church or Tythes is not the thing in question but the universal Headship is the thing But if it were yet it is I that am yet here in Possession and Protestants before me for many ages successively And when possessed you the Headship of the Ethiopian Indian and other extra-imperial Churches never to this day No nor of the Eastern Churches though you had communion with them 2. If the Question be who hath Possession of the universal Church we pretend not to it but only to be a part and the soundest safest part 3. The case of Possession therefore is whether we have not been longer in Possession of our Religion which is bare Christianity then you of your superadded Popery Our Possession is not denied of Christianity Yours of Popery we deny and our denyal makes us called Protestants Let therefore the reason of Logicians Lawyers or any rational sober man determine the case whether it do not first and principally belong to you to prove the visible succession of a Vice-Christ over the universal Church As to your contradictory impositions I Reply 1. Your exception was not exprest and your imposition was peremptory 2. I told you I would be a Papist if you prove that the whole visible Church in all ages hath held the Popes universal headship you say that you have proved it by this argument that either he hath that supremacy or some other Church denying that he hath alwaies had it hath been alwaies visible and that Church you require should be named I Reply 1. Had not you despaired of making good your cause you should have gone on by Argumentation till you had forced me to contradict some common principle 2. If you should shew these Papers to the world and tell them that you have no better proof of the succession of your Papacy then that we prove not that it hath alwaies been denied by the visible Church you would sure turn thousands from Popery if there be so many rational considering impartial men that would peruse them and believe you For any man may know that it could not be expected that the Churches should deny a Vice-Christ before he was sprung up Why did not all the precedent Roman Bishops disclaim the title of universal Bishop or Patriarch till Pelagius and Gregory but because there was none in the world that gave occasion for it How should any Heresie be opposed or condemned before it doth arise But you fairly yield me somewhat here and say that you oblige me not to prove a continued visible Church formally and expresly denying it but that it was of such a constitution as was inconsistent with any such supremacy or could and did subsist without it Reply I confess your first part is very ingenuous and
fair Remember it hereafter that you have discharged me from proving a Church that denied the Papacy formally expresly But as to what you yet demand 1. I have here given it you because you shall not say â—'le sail you I have answered your desire But 2. It is not as a thing necessary but ex abundanti as an overplus For you may now see plainly that to prove that the Church was without an universal Pastor which you require is to prove the Negative viz. that then there was none such whereas its you that must prove that there was such I prove our Religion do you prove yours though I say to pleasure you I 'le disprove it and have done it in two books already My reason from the stress of necessity which you lay on your Affirmative and Additions was but subservient to the foregoing Reasons not first to prove you bound but to prove you the more bound to the proof of your Affirmative And therefore your instance of Mahumetans is impertinent He that saith you shall be damned if you believe not this or that is more obliged to prove it then he that affirmeth a point as of no such moment To what I say of an accident and a corrupt part you say you have answered and do but say so having said nothing to it that is considerable Me thinks you that make Christ to be corporally present in every Church in the Eucharist should not say that the King of the Church is absent But when you have proved 1. That Christ is so absent from his Church that there 's need of a Deputy to essentiate his Kingdom and 2. That the Pope is so Deputed you will have done more then is yet done for your cause And yet let me tell you that in the absence of a King it is only the King and Subjects that are essential to the Kingdom The Deputy is but an officer and not essential Your naked assertion that whatsoever Government Christ instituteth of his Church must be essential to his Church is no proof nor like the task of an Opponent The Government of inferiour officers is not essential to the universal Church no more then Judges and Justices to a Kingdom And yet we must wait long before you will prove that Peter and the Pope of Rome are in Christs place as Governours of the universal Church Sir I desire open dealing as between men that believe these matters are of eternal consequence I watch not for any advantage against you Though it be your part to prove the Affirmative which our Negative supposeth yet I have begun the proof of our Negative but it was on supposition that you will equally now prove your Affirmative better then you have here done I have proved a visible Church successively that hâ—ld not the Popes universal Government do you now prove that the universal Church in all ages did hold the Popes universal Government which is your part or I must say again I shall think you do but run away and give up your cause as unable to defend it I have not failed you do not you fail me You complain of a deficiency in quality though you confess that I abound in number But where is the defect you say I must assert both that these were one Congregation and ever visible since Christs time Reply If by one Congregation you meant one assembly met for personal Communion which is the first sense of the word Congregation it were ridiculous to feign the universal Church to be such If you mean One as united in one visible humane Head that 's it that we deny and therefore may not be required to prove But that these Churches are One as united in Christ the Head we easily prove In that from him the whole family is named the body is Christs body 1 Cor. 12.12 13. and one in him Eph. 4.4 5 6 c. All that are true Christians are one Kingdom or Church of Christ but these of whom I speak are true Christians therefore they are one Kingdom or Church of Christ. And that they have been visible since Christs time till now all history even your own affirms As in Iudaea from the Apostles times in Ethiopia Egypt and other parts Rome was no Church in the time of Christs being on earth And to what purpose talk you of determinate Congregations Do you mean individual assemblies those cease when the persons die or do you mean assemblies meeting in the same place so they have not done still at Rome I told you and tell you still that we hold not that God hath secured the perpetual visibility of his Church in any one City or Country but if it cease in one place it is still in others It may cease at Ephesus at Philippi Colosse c. in Tenduc Nubia c. and yet remain in other parts I never said that the Church must needs be visible still in one Town or Country And yet it hath been so de facto as in Asia Ethiopia c. But you say I nominate none Are you serious must I nominate Christians of these Nations to prove that there were such you require not this of the Church Historians It sufficeth that they tell you that Ethiopia Egypt Armenia Syria c. had Christians without naming them When all history tells you that these Countries were Christians or had Churches I must tell you what and who they were must you have their names sirnames and Genealogies I cannot name you one of a thousand in this small Nation in the age I live in How then should I name you the people of Armenia Abassia c. so long ago You can name but few of the Roman Church in each age And had they wanted learning and records as much as the Abassins and Indians and others you might have been as much to seek for names as they You ask were they different Congregations Answ. As united in Christ they were one Church but as assembling at one time or in one place or under the same guide so they were not one but divers Congregations That there were any Papists of 400. years after Christ do you prove if you are able My conclusion that all have been against you for many hundred years must stand good till you prove that some were for you yet I have herewith proved that there were none at least that could deserve the name of the Church Do you think to satisfie any reasonable man by calling for positive proof from Authors of such Negatives yet proof you shall not want such as the nature of the point requireth viz. That the said Churches of Ethiopia India the outer Armenia and other extra-imperial Nations were not under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome 1. You find all these Churches or most of them at this day that remain from under your jurisdiction and you cannot tell us when or how they turned from you If you could it had been done 2. These Nations
cannot force our own understandings to believe all such things that you believe and meerly because the Pope commands it and when we cannot thus force our own understandings must we be burned or else called Separatists would you have the Communion of our Ashes or else say We forsake your Communion In your Churches we cannot have leave to come without lying against God and our consciences and saying We believe what our senses contradict and without committing that which our consciences tell us are most heynous sins We solemnly protest that we would do as you do and say as you say were it not for the love of truth and holiness and for fear of the wrath of God and the flames of hell but we cannot we dare not rush upon these errours and sell our souls to please the Pope And must we then either be murdered or taken for unchaâ—â—â—â—ble will you say to so many poor souls that are ready to enter into another world Either sin against your consciences and so damn your souls or else let us burn and murder you or else you do not love us you are uncharitable if you deny us leave to kill you and you separate from the Communion of the Church We appeal from the Pope and all unreasonable men to the great God of heaven and earth to judge righteously between you and us concerning this dealing As for possessing our selves of your Bishopricks and Cures if any particular person had personal injury in the change being cast out without cause they must answer for it that did it and not I though I never heard any thing to make me believe it But must the Prince and people let alone delinquent Pastors for fear of being blamed for taking their Bishopricks Ministers of the same Religion with us may be cast out for their crimes Princes have power over Pastors as well as David Solomon and other Kings of Israel had Guil. Barklay and some few of your own knew this The Popes treasonable exemption of the Clergy from their Soveraigns judgement will not warrant those Princes before God that neglect to punish offeâ—â—ing Pastors And I beseech you tell us â—hen our consciences after the use of all means that we can use to be informed cannot renounce all our sences nor our reason nor the judgement of the most of the Church or of antiquity or the Word of God and yet we must do so or be no members of your Church what wrong is it to you if we choose us Pastors of our own in the order that God hath appointed Had not the people in all former ages the choice of their Pastors we and our late forefathers here were never under your oversight but we know not why we may not now choose our Pastors as well as formerly We do it not by tumults we kill not men and tread not in their blood while we choose our Pastors as Pope Damasus was chosen The tythes and other temporal maintenance we take from none but the Magistrate disposeth of it as he seeth meet for the Churches good And the maintenance is for the cure or work and therefore they that are justly cast out of the cure are justly deprived of the maintenance And surely when they are dead none of you can with any shew of reason stand up and say These Bishopricks are yours or these Parsonages yourâ—â— It is the Incumbent personally that only â—an claim title saving the supereminent title of Christ to whom they are devoted But the successive Popes cannot have title to all the tithes and Temples in the world nor any of his Clergy that never were called to the charges If this be disunion it is you that are the Separatists and cause of all If you will needs tell all the Christian world that except they will be ruled by the Pope of Rome and be burned if they believe not as he bids them in despight of all their senses he will call them Separatists Schismaticks and say they disunite and are uncharitable again we appeal to God and all wise men that are impartial whether it be he or we that is the divider You ask me Is not charity subordination and obedience to the same state and Government required as well to make one Congregation of Christians as it is required to make a Congregation of Commonwealths men Answ. Yes it is But as all the world is one Kingdom under God the universal King but yet hath no universal Vice-King but every Commonwealth only hath its own Soveraign even so all the Christian world is one Church under Christ the universal King of the Church but haâ—â— not one Vice-Christ but every Church hath its own Pastors as every School hath its own Schoolmaster But all the anger is because we are loth to be ruled by a cruel usurper therefore we are uncharitable Your next reason against me is because They cannot be parts of the Catholike Church unless Arrians and Pelagians and Donatists be parts and so Hereticks and Schismaticks be parts Reply 1. You know sure that your own Divines are not agreed whether Hereticks and Schismaticks are parts of the Church And if they were yet it is not de fide with you as not determined by the Pope If it be then all yours are Hereticks that are for the affirmative Bellarmine nameth you some of them If it be not then how can you be sure its true and so impose it on me that they are no parts 2. Arrians are no Christians as denying that which is essential to Christ and so to Christianity Pelagianism is a thing that you are not agreed among your selves of the true nature of Many of the Dominicans and Jansenists think the Jesuits Pelagianize or Semipelagianize at least I hope you will not shut them out Donatists were â—chismaticks because they divided in the Catholike Church and not absolutely from it and because they divided from the particular Churches about them that held the most universal external Communion I think they were still members of the universal Church but I 'le not contend with any that will plead for his uncharitable denyal It s nothing to our case That the Aethiopians are Eutychian Hereticks I will see better proved before I will believe it Rosses words I so little regard that I will not so much as open his book to see whether he say so or not I know that Heresie is a personal crime and cannot be charged on Nations unless you have evidence that the Nations consent to it which here you have none Some are called Hereticks for denying points essential to Christianity these are no Christians and so not in the Church but many also are called Hereticks by you and by the Fathers for lesser errors consistent with Christianity and these may be in the Church The Abassines and all the rest have not been yet tryed and convicted before any competent Judge and slanderers we regard not 2. Many of your own writers acquit them of Heresie and say the
unacquainted with the opinions of your own Divines and upon this mistake so confidently feign that it is our Novel writers forced to it by your arguments that have been so charitable to these Churches against antiquity that knew better If the Greeks and Latins tear the Church of Christ by their Condemnations of each other they may both be schismatical as guilty of making divisions in the Church though not as dividing from the Church And if they pretend the denyal of the Christian faith against each other as the cause you shall not draw us into the guilt of the uncharitableness by telling us that they know better then we If wise men fall out and fight I will not justifie either side because they are wise and therefore likelier then I to know the cause But what need we more to open your strange mistake and unjust dealing then the authority of your so much approved Council of Florence that received both Greeks and Armenians and the very words of the Popes Bull of the union which declare that the Greeks and Latins were found to mean Orthodoxly both the words are these Convenientes Latini Graeci in hac sacrosancta Oecumenica synodo magno studio invicem usi sunt ut inter alia articulus etiam ille de Divina Spiritus Sancti processione summa cum diligentia assidua inquisitione discuteretur Prolatis vero testimoniis ex Divinis Scripturis plurimisque authoritatibus sanctorum doctorum orientalium occidentelium aliquibus quidem ex Patre Filio quibusdam vero ex Patre per Filium procedere dicentibus Spiritū Sanctum ad eandem intelligentiam aspicientibus omnibus sub diversis vocabulis Graeci quidem asseruerunt quod id quod dicunt Spiritum Sanctum ex Patre procedere non hac mente proferrent ut excludant Filiū sed quia eis videbatur ut aiunt Latinos asserere spiritum Sanctum ex Patre Filioque procedere tanquam ex duobus principiis duabus Spirationibus ideo abstinuerunt à dicendo quod Spiritus Sanctus ex Patre procedat Filio Latini vero affirmaverunt non se hac mente dicere Spiritum Sanctum ex Filioque procedere ut excludant Patrem quin sit fons ac principium totius Deitatis Filii scilicet Spiritus Sancti aut quod id quod Spiritus Sanctu procedat ex Filio Filius à Patre non habeat sive quod duo ponant esse principia seu duas spirationes sed ut unum tantum asserunt esse principium unicamque spirationem Spiritus Sancti prout hactenus asseruerunt cum ex his omnibus unus idem eliciatur veritatis sensus tandem c. I pray you now tell it to no more that it is same Novel writers of ours prest by force of argument that have been the authors of this extenuation May heart even trembleth to think that there should be a thing called Religion among you that can so far extinguish both Charity and Humanity as to cause you to pass so direful a doom without authority or tryal on so great a part of the Christian world for such a word as this about so exceeding high a mysterie when your Pope and Council have pronounced a union of meanings And what mean you in your Margin to refer me to Nilus as if he asserted That the Greeks left the Communion of the Roman Church upon that difference alone Verily Sir in the high matters of God this dealing is scarce fair pardon this plainness consider of it your self The substance of Nilus book is about the Primacy of the Pope The very contents prefixed to the first book are these Oratio demonstrans non aliam c. An Oration demonstrating that there is no other cause of the dissension between the Latin and Greek Churches then that the Pope refuseth to defer the cognisance and iudgement of that which is controverted to a general Council but he will sit the sole Master and Iudge of the Controversie and will have the rest as Disciples to be hearers of or obey his word which is a thing aliene from the Laws and actions of the Apostles and Fathers And he begins his Book after a few words thus Causa itaque hujus dissidii c. The cause therefore of this difference as I judge 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 less is it the speech of the Scripture it self which as being concise doth pronounce nothing openly of that which is controverted For to accuse the Scripture is as much as to accuse God himself But God is without all fault But who the fault is in any one may easily tell that is well in his wits He next shews that it is not for want of learned men on both sides nor is it because the Greeks do claim the Primacy and then concludeth it as before He maintaineth that your Pope succeedeth Peter only as a Bishop ordained by him as many other Bishops that originally were ordained by him in like manner do succeed him and that his Primacy is no Governing power nor given him by Peter but by Princes and Councils for order sale and this he proves at large and makes this the main difference Bellarmines answering his so many Arguments might have told you this if you had never read Nilus himself If you say that This point was the first cause I deny it but if it were true yet was it not the only or chief cause afterward The Munner of bringing in the filioque by Papal authority without a general Council was it that greatly offended the Greeks from the beginning But you say that when I have made the best of these Greeks Armenians Ethiopians Protestants I cannot deduce them successively in all ages till Christ as a different Congregation of Christians from that which holds the Popes supremacy which was your proposition Reply I have oft told you we own no universal informing Head but Christ. In respect to him I have proved to you that is not my interest or design to prove us or them a different Congregation from you as you are Christians Nor shall you tempt me to be so uncharitable as to damn or unchristen all Papists as far as you do others incomparably safer and better then your selves But as you are Papal and set up a new informing head I have proved that you differ from all the antient Churches but yet that my cause requireth me not to make this proof but to call you to prove your own universal succession You add your Reason because these beforenamed were at first involved in your Congregation and then fell off as dead branches Reply This is but an untruth in a most publick matter of fact All the truth is this 1. Those Indians Ethiopians Persians c. without the Empire never fell
their Diocess yet they might renounce all communion with him Churches that have no power over one another may have communion with one another and that communion they may hold and renounce as there is cause Now if a neighbour Patriarch with so many Bishops of the West had renounc'd Communion with Chrysostomes enemies and also written their Letters on his behalf and taken him still as in their Communion this he hoped would much further his restauration which yet he doubted as he had cause For in his second Epistle he thanks him for doing his part though it did no good or did not avail And it is to be noted that your Author Nicephorus tells you lib. 13. cap. 31. that Chrysostomes Letters and his fellow-Bishops also and the Clergies of Constantinople were all written both to the Emperour Honorius and to Innocent And therefore you may see by that on what account it was and what help they did expect The Emperour was not to excommunicate but his Letters might do much Well but you alledge Niceph. l. 13. c. 34. to prove 1. Chrysostomes appeal But you have better or worse eyes then I for I can find there no such thing but a seeking for help as aforesaid 2. You say Innocentius nulls his condemnation and declares him innocent Ans. So might another Bishop have declared him But how far it should be regarded was not in his power 3. You say he excommunicates Atticus and Theopilus and 4. Arcadius the Emperor also and Eudoxia Reply 1. If he did so and did well another Bishop might as well have done it Mennas excommunicated Vigilius of Rome Excommunicating is not alwayes an act of Jurisdiction but a renouncing of Communion with a Ministeriall binding which any Pastor on a just occasion may exercise even on those that are not of his Diocess examples in Church-history are common 2. But I would have you answer Dr. Whittakers Reasons by which he proves that Nicephorus is a fabler in this relation and that that Epistle is not Innocents which cap. 34. he reciteth Lib. de pontif Rom. Contr. 4. Qu. 4. pag. 454 455. 1. Neither Socrates Theodoret or Sozomen make any mention of this excommunication who yet write much of the Case of Chrysostome and Arcadius And would these men that lived so near that time have all silenced so great and rare a thing as the excommunication of the Emperour and Empress which would have made so great a noise and stir that yet mention Ambrose his censure of Theodosius 2. This Bull of Innocents as Nicephorus would have us believe it hath such falshoods contrary to more credible history as bewray the forgery For Socrates lib. 6. c. 19. writeth that Eudoxia died the same year that Chrysostome was banished and that Chrysostome died the third year of his banishment And Sozomen saith l. 8. c. 28. that Chrysostome was in banishment three years after the death of Eudoxia But if Nicephorus were to be believed Eudoxia was alive and excommunicated by Innocent after Chrysostomes death Nor can it be said that Innocent knew not of her death for his Legats were sent to Constantinople in Atticus time who succeeded Arsacius who outlived Eudoxia This is the summe of Dr. Whittakers confutation of Nicephorus And withall who knows not how full of fictions Nicephorus is In your Margin you pretend to confute Chamier p. 498. as saying That other Bishops restored those wrongfully deposed as well as the Pope to which you say that never single Bishop restored any who were out of their respective Diocess c. whereas the Bishop of Rome by his sole and single authority restored Bishops wrongfully deposed all the Church over Reply 1. It seems you took Chamiers words on trust peruse that page and see his words 2. Single Bishops have censured and therefore might as well remit their own censures Ambrose censured Theodosius who was no fixed Member of his charge and he remitted the Censure Epiphanius presumed even at Constantinople to excommunicate Dioscorus and his Brethren Socrat. lib. 6. c. 14. And many instances may be brought both of excommunicating and again receiving to communion by particular Bishops even as to those that were not of their charge And if the fact were not proved yet the forbearance proveth not the want of power 3. I deny your unproved assertion that the Bishop of Rome singly restored all the Church over It is a meer fiction How many restored he out of the Empire Or in the Empire out of his Patriarchate but suasorily or Synodically Your next instance of Theodosius his not permitting the Council at Ephesus to be assembled and his reconciling himself to the Church is meerly impertinent We know that he and other Princes usually wrote to Rome Constantinople Alexandria c. or spoke or sent to more then one of the Patriarchs before they called a Council You cannot but know that Councils have been called without the Pope and that neither this nor an Emperours forsaking his errour is a sign of the Popes Universal Government That Emperour gave sufficient testimony and so did the Bishops that adhered to Dioscorus that in those dayes the Pope was taken for fallible and controlable when they excommunicated him But when you cite out of any Author the words that you build on I shall take more particular notice of them Till then this is enough with this addition that the Emperours subjection if he had been subject not to an Ambrose or other Bishop but only to Rome would have been no proof that any without the Empire were his subjects No more then the King of Englands subjection to the Archbishop of Canterbury would have proved that the King of France was subject to him 12. Your twelfth proof from the Council of Chalcedon is from a witness alone sufficient to overthrow your cause as I have proved to you This Synod expresly determineth that your Primacy is a novel humane invention that it was given you by the Fathers because Rome was the Imperial Seat If you believe this Synod the Controversie is at end If you do not why do you cite it and why pretend you to believe Generall Councils But what have you from this Council against this Council Why 1. You say Martian wrote to Leo that by the Popes Authority a generall Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to choose Reply 1. Whereas for this you cite Act. Concil Chalcedon 1. You tell me not in what Author whether Crabbe Binnius Surius Nicolinus or where I must seek it I have perused the Act. 1. in Binnius which is 63 pages in Folio such tasks your citations set me and find no such thing and therefore take it to be your mistake But in the preambul Epist I find that Valentinian and Martian desire Leo's prayers and contrary to your words that they say Hoc ipsum nobis propriis liter is tua sanctitas manifestet quatenus in omnem Orientem in ipsam Thraciam
Illyricum sacrae nostrae literae dirigantur ut ad quendam definitum locum qui nobis placuerit omnes sanctissimi Episcopi debeant convenire It is not qui vobis placuerit but qui nobis But what if you had spoke truth doth it follow that Leo was Christs Vicar-general Governour of the world because that the Soveraign of one Commonwealth did give him leave to choose the place of a Council Serious things should not be thus jested with 2. You say Anatolius and the rest of the Eastern Bishops sent to Pope Leo the professions of their faith by his order Reply 1. And what then therefore Pope Leo was both Governour of them and all the Christian world You should not provoke men to laughter about serious things I tell you Can you prove this Consequence Confessions were ordinarily sent in order to Communion or to satisfie the offended without respect to superiority 2. But I see not the proof of your impertinent words Pulcherius Epistle to Leo expresseth that Leo had sent his Confession first to Anatolius to which Anatolius consented By your Rule then Leo was subject to Anatolius 3. You say the Popes Legates sate first in Council Reply What then therefore the Pope was Governour of the Christian world though not a man out of the Empire were of the Council Are you still in jest But if it must be so then I can prove that others were the Universal Governours because at Nice and other Councils they sate before the Legates of the Pope and in many his Legats had no place Is this argument good think you O unfaithful partiality in the matters of salvation 4. You say they prohibited Dioscorus to sit by his order Reply 1. What then therefore he was Universal Governour of the Church All alike Any accuser in a Parliament or Synod may require that the Accused may not sit as judge till he be tried 2. But did you not know that Leo's Legates were not obeyed but that the Gloriosissimi judices amplissimus senatus required that the cause should be first made known and that it was not done till Eusebius Episcop Dorylaei had read his bill of complaint Binnius Act 1. pag. 5. 5. You say the Popes Legates pronounced the Church of Rome to be Caput omnium Ecclesiarum Reply 1. What then therefore he was Governour of all the Christian world I deny the consequence You do nothing but beg not a word of proof Caput was but membrum principale the Patriarch primae sedes and that but in the Empire 2. The Popes Legates were not the Council nor judges in their own cause and not opposing signifies not alwayes a consent 3. But the Council do as I said expresly define the point both what your Primacy is and of how long standing and of whose institution and that Constantinople on the same grounds had equall priviledges 6. You say all the Fathers acknowledged thtmselves Leo 's Children and wrote to him as their Father Reply Of this you give me not any proof but leave me to read 190 pages in Folio to see whether you say true or no. And what if you do as I believe you do can a man of any reading be ignorant how ordinarily other Bishops were stiled Fathers even by their fellow-Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome 7. You add that they humbly begged of him that the Patriarch of Constantinople might hâ—ve the first place next Rome which notwithstanding the Council had consented to as had also the third general Council at Ephesus before yet they esteemed their grants of no sufficient force till they were confirmed by the Pope Reply So far were the Council from what you falsly say of them that they put it into their Canons that Constantinople should have the second place yea and equal priviledges with Rome and that they had this on the same grounds as Rome had its Primacy even because it was the Imperial Seat Vid. Bin. pag. 133 124. col 2. And not only Ephesus but the second general Council at Constantinople they tell you had decreed the same before You see then contrary to your fiction that three general Councils of the greatest likened by Gregory to the 4 Evangelists not only judged without the Pope but by your own confession against him for you say he consented not yea so much did they slight the Popes consent that when his Legates dissented they were not heard See Bin. pag. 134 136. They persisted in the Council to maintain their Canon 38. notwithstanding the contradiction of Lucretius and Paschasinus and by the Judges it was accordingly pronounced p 137. And unanimously the whole Synod consented never stopping at the Roman dissent Pergamius Bishop of Antioch saith in omnibus sanctissimum Archiepiscopum Regiae civitatis novae Romae in honore cura sicut Patrem praecipuum habere nos convenit No man contradicted this And is not this as much or more then you alledge as spoke to Leo They call Leo you say Father And the Bishop of Constantinople is pronounced the Chief Father in all things in honour and Cure And Eusebius Bishop of Doryl the chief adversary of Dioscorus witnessed that he himself in the presence of the Clergy of Constantinople did read this Canon to the Pope at Rome and he received it Upon which your Historian hath no better an observation then that either Eusebius lyed or else at that hour he deceived Leo. It s true that the Synod writ to him for his consent but not as suspending any of their Decrees on it but telling him over and over that the things were by them defined and confirmed already pag. 140. that which they desired of him was what Synods ordinarily did of Bishops of their Communion that were absent Haec sicut propria amica ad decorem convenientissima dignare complecti sanctissime beatissime pater 13. In your Margin you tell me that Agapet in the time of Iustinian depoâ—ed Anthymius in Constantinople against the will of the Emperour the Empress Reply 1. And doth it follow that because he did it therefore he did it justly yea and as the Governour of that Church when Menna Bishop of Constantinople excommunicated Pope Vigilius was he not even with him and did that prove that Rome was subject to Constantinople Niceph. l. 17. c. 26. When Dioscorus excommunicated Leo and an Eastern Synod excommunicated Iulius Sozom. l. 3. c. 11. that proves not that they did it justly or as his Governours Honorius the Emperour deposed Boniface 1. Othe with a Synod deposed Iohan. 13. Iustinian deposed Sylverius and Vigilius Will you confess it therefore justly done 2. As to the history I refer you to the full answer of Blondel to Perron cap. 25. sect 84 85. 3. Usurpation and deposing one another by rash sentences was then no rare thing Eusebius of Nicomedia threatened the deposing of Alexander of Constantinople who sure was not his subject Socrat. lib. 1. c. 37. vel 25.
Apostles and this is but to know their doctrine delivered in that first age which we appeal to And after he expresly saith Ad hanc it aque formam provocabantur ab illis Ecclesiis quae licet nullum ex Apostolis vel Apostâ—licus auctorem suum proferant ut multo posteriores quae denique quotidie institutum tamen in eadem fidem conspirantes non minus Apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrinae The Apostles doctrine will prove an Apostolical Church when ever planted And c. 38. he draws them from disputing from the Scripture because they owned not the true Scripture but corrupted it and charged the Catholikes with corruption Sicut illis non potuit succedere corruptela doctrinae sine corruptela instrumentorum ejus Ita nobis integritaes doctrina non competisset sine integritate eorum not by real tradition alone per quae doctrina tractatur Etenim quid contrarium nobis in nostris quid de proprio intulimus ut aliquid contrarium ei in Scripturis deprehensum detractione vel adjectione vel transumtatione remediaremus Quod sumus hoc sunt Ab initio suo ex illis sumus antequam nihil aliter fuit quam sumus And cap. 36. He sends them by name to the particular Apostolical Churches and begins with Corinth then to Philippi Thessalonica Ephesus and then to Rome of whose Soveraignty he never speaks a syllable So more plainly l. 4. contr Marcion c. 5. because Marcion denied the true Scriptures he sends them to the Apostolike Churches for the true Scriptures first to the Corinthians then to the Galatians then to the Philippians Thessalonians Ephesians and last of all to Rome But it would be tedious to cite the rest of the Ancients that commonly describe the Church as we and such as we all own as members of it Arg. 3. If the Roman Church as Christian though not as Papal hath been visible ever since the daies of the Apostles then the Church of which the Protestants are members hath been visible ever since the daies of the Apostles But the Antecedent is their own therefore they may not deny the consequent The consequence also is past denyal 1. Because the Roman as Christian is part of the universal Christian Church 2. Because they profess to believe the same holy Scriptures and Creed as we do So that though they add more and so make a new form to their Church yet do they not deny our Church which is the Christian Church as such nor our Test and Rule of faith nor any Article that we account Essential to our Religion So that themselves are our sufficient witnesses Well! but this will not satisfie the Papists unless we shew a succession of our Church as Protestant 1. This we need not any more then a sound man lately cured of the Plague doth need to prove that he hath ever been not only sanus but sanatus a cured man before he was sick How could there be a Church protesting against an universal Vicar of Christ before any claimed that Vicarship 2. And when the Vicarship was usurped those millions abroad and even within the Roman territories that let the pretended Vicar talk and followed their own business and never consented to his usurpation were of the very same Religion with those that openly protested against him And so were those that never heard of his usurpation Object But at least say they you must prove a Church that hath been without the universal Vicar negatively though not against him positively Answ. 1. In all reason he that affirmeth must prove It is not incumbent on us to prove the negative that the Church had not such a Roman head but they must prove that it had Object But they have possession and therefore you that would dispossess them must disprove their title Ans. 1. This is nothing to most of the Catholike Church where they have no possession therefore with them they confess themselves obliged to the proof 2. This is a meer fallacious diversion for we are not now upon the question of their Title but the matter of fact and history we make good the negative that they have no Title from the Laws of Christ himself and so will not dispossess them without disproving their pretended Title But when the question is de facto whether they have ever had that possession from the Apostles daies they that affirm must prove when we have disabled their title from the Law 2. But what must we prove that all the Church hath been guiltless of the Papal usurpation or only some in every age of all its no more necessary to us then to prove that there have been no Heresies since the Apostles If a piece of the Church may turn Hereticks or but Schismaticks as the Novatians and African Donatists why may not another piece turn Papists 3. What will you say to a man that knoweth not a Protestant nor a Papist or believeth only Christianity it self and meddleth not with the Pope any further then to say I believe not in him Jesus I know and the Apostles and Scripture and Christianity I know but the Pope I know not and suppose he never subscribed to the Augustane English or any such confession but only to the Scripture and the Apostles and Nicene and other ancient Creeds By what shew of Justice can you require this man to prove that there hath been no Pope in every age 4. The foundation of all our controversie is doctrinal whether the Papal Soveraignty be Essential to the Church or necessary to our membership we deny it you affirm it If it be not Essential it is enough to us to prove that which is Essential to have been successive we be not bound in order to the proof of our Church it self to prove the succession of every thing that maketh but to its better being Yet professing that we do it not as necessary to our main cause we shall ex abundanti prove the negative that the Catholike Church hath not alwaies owned the Papal Soveraignty and so that there have been men that were not only Christians but as we Christians without Popery and against it and so shall both prove our Thesis and overthrow theirs Arg. 4. If there have been since the daies of Christ a Christian Church that was not subject to the Roman Pope as the Vicar of Christ and universal Head and Governour of the Church then the Church of which the Protestants are members hath been visible both in its being and its freedom from Popery But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the consequent I shall prove the Antecedent and therein the visibility of our Church and the non-existence in those times of the Papacy Arg. 1. My first Argument shall be from the general Council of Chalcedon If the priviledges of the Roman Sea were given to it by the Bishops consequently because of the Empire of that City and therefore equal priviledges after given to Constantinople on the same
like of the Ordinary Glosses of the Bible which yet seem of greater authority then Aquinas The sixth example is of some not Canonized Saints as Anselm Cantuar. Hugo de Sancto Victore and others as authentick as S. Thomas And say they his Canonization hindereth not which some pretend as of great colour To say that S. Tho. in some part of his doctrine erred in faith derogates not from his Canonization nor from the approbation of his Theologicall doctrine even as to say this of other Saints and chief Doctors derogateth not from their Canonization or approbation For as the Church by Canonizing one a Saint doth not thereby approve all his Deeds so in approving his doctrine it doth not hereby approve all his sayings or writings but only that which is not retracted by himself or corrected by another or deservedly to be corrected as contrary to truth And now when Fathers even the chief and your Saints and highest Doctors have this Testimony from the famous University of Paris to have somewhat hereticall or erroneous in the faith and so who among you is free I leave it to modesty to judge whether the Greeks Armenians c. and we are not of one Faith Religion and Catholick Church for all our differences in some points Have you had all these Nations man by man before your bar and convinced them of pertinaciousness in heresie If not call them not Hereticks till you are willing to be called such your selves and that by your selves And thus I have evinced 1. That the Church of which the Protestants are Members hath been Visible since the dayes of Christ on earth 2. And ex abundanti that the Papal Church as Papal hath not been visible and that Christian Churches without Papal Soveraignty have been Visible since Gregories dayes and the whole Catholick Church was such before And you see both in the Essentialls and in the freedom from the Romish Vice-Christ where our Church hath been before Luther even since Christ. Sir I have performed this task on this supposed condition that you will now do the like as to your own Church and send me in solid Arguments your proof of this Thesis The Church of which the Subjects of the Pope are Members hath been Visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth Where note that it is not the Visibility of your Church as Christian United in Christ the Head that is in Question We grant as Christians all of you are of the true Christian Church that destroy not your Christianity But it is your new Church form as Papal that we question and renounce Protestants are of no Church but the Christian united in Christ The name Protestant signifieth not any essentiall of their Church but their Rejection of your Church as Headed by the Pope You are therefore to prove that your Catholick Church as Headed by the Pope hath been visible in all ages And here I must in Justice expect that you give us such a Definition as you will stand to through the dispute 1. Of the Church 2. Of the Pope and 3. Of the Subjects of the Pope or Papists The term Roman Catholicks would but divert and elude For it is not as Romane that we oppose you that is as inhabitants of Rome or as subject to him as a Bishop of Rome Nor is it as Catholicks that is as of the Universal Christian Church but as Papists that is subjects of the Pope as universal Soveraign or Bishop To dispute of terms not agreed on is lost labour Define first or you do nothing I find of your Writers some by the Church mean the Pope as Gretser Defens cap. 10. lib. 3. de Verbo Dei pag. 1450 1451. By the Church saith he we mean the Pope of Rome and per Ecclesiam Papam interpretantur Non abnuo Some by the Church mean a Council and what they mean by a Council I know not well And some mean the Roman Clergy i. e. of that Diocess And some mean all the Clergy under the Pope And some mean all the people that are his subjects I have given you the Reason of my doubting of your meaning in these terms in a Book come out of the Press since your last to me where I have answered most of yours 2. Let me desire of you such proofs as in your own judgement are cogent I suppose as I have there told you Key pag. 41. cap. 12. that none of you will take either Sense Reason Scripture the Tradition or judgement of most of the Church for a sufficient proof but yet we will accept of them when you argue but ad hominem for we renounce them not I think what ever you say that is not the Determination of the Pope or a Council by him approved which is all one you will give us leave to judge that you are uncertain your selves whether you say true in it if de fide Saith Skul Revius Apol. pro Bellâ—rm c. 6. p. 255. The Popes Power is as the hinge the foundation and that I may comprehend all in a word the summ of the Christian faith Greg. Valent. Anal. fid l. 8. c. 7. The Authority that resideth in the Pope alone is called the Authority of the Church and Councils Bellâ—r de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 3. It is apparent that the whole firmness or strength of Councils is from the Pope not partly of the Pope and partly of the Council Binnius Vol. 2. p. 515. saith Every Council hath just so much strength and authority as the Apostolike seat bestoweth on it But I leave you to give us your own judgement Your Testimonies from Fathers can seem of no great weight to us while you so slight them your selves as commonly you do with what lies or Errors or other incompetency you charge Iustin Mart. Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Victorinus Cyprian Eusebius Epiphanius Prudentius Hierom Lactantius Augustine Procopius Theodoret Isidore Euthymius Sozomen Oecumenius Bernard and all the Fathers see Dr. Iames Corrupt of Fath. Part. 4. p. 2 3. Tell us therefore how far you credit them Sir if you refuse thus first to explain your terms and then prove the Visibility of your Church as Papal successively as I have proved the Visibility of the Church that I am of I shall be forced to conclude that you love not the light but at once give up your cause and the reputation of your impartial Love of truth Addenda Miscellanea COncil Ephes. 1. in Epistola ad Nestor Tom. 1 fol. 315. ed. Pet. Crab. Petrus Iohannes aequalis sunt ad alterutrum dignitatis Comment in epist Synodal Basil. p. 31. p. 40. Impress Colon. 1613. saith that The Provinces subject to the four great Patriarchs from the beginning of the Christian Church did know no other supream but their own Patriarcks And if the Pope be a Patriarck it is by the Church If he be Head of all Churches it is by the Church And whereas we have said that it is expressed in the
and unchurched with them But if these Popes may be in the Church and Heads of yours while Hereticks then so may others 3. It s commonly said by others of yours as well as Bellarmine that the Councils were misinformed about Honorius and the Popes that consented to those Councils and so that he was not a Heretick nor out of the Church Also that a Pope may erre in matter of fact and unjustly excommunicate If so a Pope and Council may erre about another as well as about Honorius or other Popes and therefore their sentence be no proof that such are out of the Church no more then that he and Eugenius were out 4. As the Pope and his Synods condemn the Greeke so the Greeks condemn and excommunicate you as formerly the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope have excommunicated each other I am therefore no more bound to take them for excommunicate persons than you they having as much authority over you as you over them and their witness being to us as credible as yours 5. The Abassines Armenians Greeks c. are not proved to deny any essential point of the Christian Religion or which is necessary to the Being of a Christian or Church 6. Nor are they proved to be willful obstinate and impenitent in defending any errors with a wicked mind and so to be formally Hereticks in your own sense 7. They are large Nations and millions of souls and their Pastours numerous so that its impossible they should be all legally by you convicted They never spake for themselves nor were witnesses heard against them Noxa caput sequitur Guilt of Heresie is to be proved of each individual whom you condemn If a few Bishops were Hereticks or a Prince were such that proves not that the rest and all the Pastors or people even to many millâ—ons are such Or if half had been such in former ages that proves not that half or any are such now Christ never appointed the excommunicating of millions for the sakes of a few of their Rulers nor of whole Nations unheard but of single persons upon a just and equal tryal If therefore your Pope or any of his Councils which you falsly call General do excommunicate or condemn Habassia Armenia Georgia Syria and other Naâ—ions as Hereticks it is so far from unchurching them or proving them such as that it is one of the greatest sins that can be committed by the sons of men with inhumane injustice cruelty pride and arrogancy presuming to pass a damning sentence on so many millions of souls whose faces you never saw nor were ever called to a legal tryal 8. Your own writers ordinarily acquit the Greeks from Heresie and those of them that have travelled to other Countries as Syria c. acquit most of them as I have proved in former writings out of their own words not needful therefore here to be recited when you may see any writings 9. Your Pope and Bishops is none of their authorized Pastor and therefore hath no power as such to judge them And as neighbour Churches they have as much to do to judge you as you to judge them Therefore they are never the more out of the Church for your judgement any more than you for theirs 10. There are as many and as great errors proved by them to be in your Church as is by you to be in theirs so that in sum your cause being much worse and your censure of them proving you guilty of such inhumane cruelty injustice arrogancy usurpation c. by condemning them you go much nearer to prove your selves no Christians and no Church than them 11. And yet I think the far greatest part of them many thousands to one are not actually excommunicated or condemned by any pretended sentence of your own whatever your writers may say of them and whatever one Council might say of some few in some one age 12. Lastly It can be no matter of certainty to you your self or any of you that these Nations or Churches are Hereticks both because it is a thing that none of your approved Councils have determined of as to any person now living nor to any considerable number comparatively in other ages and also because you confess your Pope and Councils fallible in these cases of fact and personal application You cannot therefore build upon such acknowledged uncertainties BUt Sir having thus answered your demand I must ask you what 's all this to the Answer of my last Papers which I have now near a year expected from you I suspected some such â—ergiversation when I took the boldness to urge you so hard to the tasks that you were reasonably engaged to perform viz. 1. To prove by close Argumentation the nullity of our Churches as you begun in your first Argument 2. To answer my proofs of our successive visibility 3. To prove your own successive visibility in all ages since Christ as I have proved ours I do therefore once more urge you speedily to do this assuring you that else I must take it for an open deserting of your Cause But yet I must add that if you will please to dispute the main cause in difference between us upon equal terms we have yet other Questions in which we differ that are lower then these and nearer the foundation Besides the forementioned work therefore I desire that you will dispute the main Cause in two distinct disputations in one of which be you the Opponent and bring your strongest Arguments against the Reformed Churches and Religion and in the other I will be Opponent and argue against Popery in the beginning agreeing upon the sense of those terms that we are like to have greatest use of through our disputation If you will but let us meet and state our sense of such terms before I return into the Country that we may the better manage it after at a distance it will be worth our labour And for verbal dispute I shall at any fit time and place most cheerfully entertain it if so many doubting persons may be present as that it may be worth our labour In the mean time I pray pardon it if the roughness of any passages discover the frailty of Your Servant R. Baxter Iune 7. 1660. Mr. Iohnsons EXPLICATION OF Some of the most used TERMS WITH QUERIES Thereupon And his ANSWER And my REPLY LONDON Printed 1660. AFter the writing of the foregoing Paper I again urged Mr. Johnson to the speedy answering my Papers Of which when he gave me no hope I committed them to the Press But afterward he seemed more inclinable both to that and to a Verbal conference And in order to both if we had opportunity I desired him first that we might agree on the sense of those terms that are like to be most used in the substance of our Controversie promising him that I will give him my sense of any term when he shall desire it and accordingly he explained his sense of many of them as
guideth or inspireth him This is at once to believe a Humane and Divine Veracity If any of this be your meaning the last questions remain still to be resolved by you A man may believe that God is true and that his Prophets or inspired messengers are true and yet not understand a word of the message so that still if this will serve a man may be of your Church that knoweth not that ever there was such a person as Jesus Christ or that ever he died for our sins or rose again or that we shall rise And are Infidels of your Church while you are arguing us out But if there be some truths besides the Veracity of God and his Messengers that must be believed you must shew what it is or your Church-members cannot be known Tell me therefore without tergiversation what are the revealed truths that must actually be believed or what is the faith materially in unity whereof all members of the Catholike Church do live I pray fly not but plainly tell me And if again you fly to uncertain points because of the diversity of means of information and say It must be so much to every man as he had means to know I again answer you 1. If a man had no means to know that there is a Christ it seems then he is one of your Church 2. You still damn all your own there being not a man that knoweth all that he had means to know because all have culpably neglected means And so you have no Church 3. Still you make your Church invisible if you had any For no man can tell as I said who knoweth in full proportion to his helps and means Do you not see now whither your Implicite faith hath brought you R. B. Qu. 3. Is it any lawful Pastors or All that must necessarily be depended on by every member and who are these Pastors Mr. J. Answ. Of all respectively to each subject that is that the authority of none of them mediate or immediate be rejected or contemned by him that is a true member of the Church R. B. Reply Ad Qu. 3. R. Reply 1. Here still you tell me that your descriptions signified nothing You told me that the members must live in dependance on their lawful Pastors And now you tell me that their authority must not be rejected or contemned And indeed is dependance and non-rejection all one The millions of heathens that never heard of the Pope or any of your Pastors reject them not nor contemn them Are they therefore fit matter for your Church 2. If you say that you mean it of such only as have a sufficient Revelation of the Authority of these Pastors I further reply 1. It seems then it is not only the Pope but every Priest respectively that is an essential member of your Church or to whom each member must be subject necessarily ad esse If so then every man that by falling out or prejudice doth culpably reject the authority of any one Pastor or Priest among a swarm is damned or none of the Church though he believe in the Pope and in twenty thousand Priests besides 2. And then have we not cause to pray God to bless us from the company of your Priests or at least that we may not have too many when among a multitude we may be in danger of rejecting some one and then we are cast out of the Church What if a Gentleman should find some such as Watson or Montaltus describe in bed with his wife or a Prince find a Garnet a Campion or a Parsons in a Treason and by such a temptation should be so weak as to contemn or reject the authority of that single Priest while he honoureth all the rest Is it certain that such a man is none of the Catholike Church for that How hard is it in France and Italy then to be a Catholike where Priests are so numerous that its ten to one but among the crowd the authority of some one may be rejected 3. But is it all the Priests that we never knew or knew not to be Priests that we must depend on or is it only those whose authority is manifested to us by sufficient evidence Doubtless you will confine our dependance to these only or else no man could be a Christian And if so you know we are never the nearer a resolution for your answer till you yet tell us how we must know our Pastors to have authority indeed What if they shew me the Bishops orders and I know that many have had forged Orders am I bound to believe in his authority what if I be utterly ignorant whether he that ordained him were himself ordained or had intentionem ordinandi how shall I then be sure of his authority that is ordained And how can the people be acquainted with the passages in Election and Ordination that are necessary to the knowledge of their authority especially of the Popes and prelates And what if you tell me your own opinion of the sufficient means by which I must be convinced of the Popes and Priests authority how shall I know that you are not deceived and that these are the sufficient means indeed unless a General Council have defined them to be sufficient And if they have if it were not as an Article of faith you 'l say I am not bound of necessity to believe their definition And what if I have sufficient means to know the authority of a thousand Priests but am culpably ignorant of it in some few through my neglect Doth it follow that therefore I am out of the Church Is my obedience to each Priest as necessary as my belief of every Article of my faith If so I know not whether your multiplying Articles or multiplying Priests doth fill hell faster if men must be judged by your laws But it is our Allegiance to our Soveraign that is the character of a Subject in the Common-wealth and not our Allegiance or duty to every inferiour Magistrate the rejection of one of them may stand with subjection though not with innocency It is not treason to reject a Constable why then should more be necessary to our Church-membership and salvation But still you make your Church invisible For as no man can know that liveth in the remote parts of the world whether your Popes themselves are truly Popes as being duly qualified and elected nor which is the true Pope when you have oft had more then one at once so you can never know concerning your members whether their dependance on their Pastors be extensively proportionate to the means that discovered their authority and whether their disobedience unchurch them or no I earnestly crave your answer to the thirty uncertainties which I have mentioned in my Safe Religion p. 93 to 104. And tell us how all our Pastours may be known And whether every particular sin unchurch men and if not why the contempt or rejection of a drunken Priest doth it while