coram Ecclesia That the true Church of Christ hath no other Head than Christ himself no Vicarious Universal Head Pope nor Council That the Protestants profess themselves Members of no other Universal Church but that of which Christ only is the Head and all Christians at least not cast out are Members that this Christian Church hath been visible to God by real consent and visible to man by professed consent from the first being of it to this day And when they ask us Where was your Church before Luther we say where there were Christians before Luther Our Religion is nothing but simple Christianity We are oâ—… no Catholick Church but the Universality of Christians We know no other but lament that the pride of the Clergy growing up from Parochial to Diocesan and from Diocesan to Metropolitical and Patriarchal and thence to Papal hath invented any other and that the Serpent that tempted Eve hath drawn them from the Christian simplicity They deny not the successive visibility of Christianity and the Christian Church We desire no more we own we know no other Religion and no other Church But the Roman Artifice here comes in and when their HUMANE UNIVERSAL HEAD hath made the grand Schism of the Christian World hence they have learnt to make Christians of no Christians and no Christians of Christians as Pride and Ignorance serving this usurping interest please Their Doctors are not agreed whether any more be necessary explicitely to be believed to Salvation than that there is a God and that our works shall be rewarded without believing a word of Christ or the Gospel and whether they that believe not in Christ are Christians or whether being no Christians yet they are Members of the Christian Church And the greater part are here on the wider Latitudinarian side as you may see in Fr. S. Clara's Problemes Deus Nat. Grat. and in the words of this W. I. before answered And yet these charitable men conclude that two or three parts of the true Christian world Abassines Copties Syrians Iacobites Georgians Armenians Greeks Moscovites Protestants are all out of the Church of Christ though their own Fryars that have lived among some of them in the East profess that they are no Hereticks and are better Men than the Papists are and none worse of Life than the Roman Party And whence is this strange difference Why it is because that these are none of them subject to the Pope which it is supposed that those are that believe only that there is a God and a Reward But how is this their only explicite Faith if they must also believe that the Pope is the Vice-Christ And some of them tell you further that he that should so far believe his Ghostly Father the Priest as to hold that he is not bound to love God because the Priest tells him so is not only excusable but he meriteth by it So much more necessary to Salvation is it to love the Priest than to love God And yet after all this their own Leaders confess that it is no Article of their Faith that the Pope is Peter's Successour and that it is not by Revelation that the Church-Governours must be known as I have shewed out of Ri. Smyth Bishop of Calcedon and of England and in the fore-confuted Writings of W. I The things that I maintain are I. That the Protestants Religion and Church being only the Christian as such had an uninterrupted succession as such which the Papists deny not II. That the Papal Church as such cannot prove its constant visibility and succession Nay though it be their part to prove it we are ready to prove 1. That it is a Novelty 2. That it hath been often and notoriously interrupted and their Papacy hath not had any continued succession of Men truly Popes by their own Laws and Rules and in their own Account CHAP. I. The Confutation of W. J's Reply THE first regardable Passage in W. I's Reply is p. 53 54. Where he maintaineth that whatsoever hath been ever in the Church by Christ's institution is essential to the Church and nothing meerly Integral or Accidents Because I had omitted the word ever in the Confutation he taketh that as the Insufficiency of all that I said against him and challengeth me still to give an Instance of any Institution not essential to the Church of Christ that hath been ever in it But Reader is Perpetuity any proof of an Essential He was forced to confess that as other Societies so the Church hath Accidents but he faith no Accidents instituted have been ever in it It may be we shall have a Quibble here upon the sense of the word ever whether it was from Everlasting or from the Creation or before Christ's Incarnation or before his Resurrection or the forming of his Church by the Spirit in the Apostles But in Consistency with his own Cause which is That the Papacie hath been ever in the Church he must take up with this last sense Well Let us see what work these Men make and how they are taken in the Traps that they lay for others But first he shall have some confuting Instances 1. Every word of Christ's own Doctrine and Speeches recorded in the Gospel hath been ever in the Church and instituted by Christ but every word of Christ's own Doctrine and Speeches recorded in the Gospel is not essential to the Church Therefore every thing instituted by Christ that hath been ever in the Church is not essential to it If you say that it was not all written till after some years it was yet all in the Church even in the Minds of them that wrote it and the other Apostles and in their Preachings as is like If you say that all this is essential alas then if false Copies have lost us a word the Church is lost and those Churches that received not some words were Unchurched That Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate hath been ever in the Church's Creed and yet the Name of Pontius Pilate is not essential to Christianity 2. The Administring the Lord's Supper in both kinds Bread and Wine hath been ever in the Church and of Christ's own Institution Is this essential to the Church Perhaps some will have the impudence to say that it is not now in it because the Pope hath cast it out but it is now in all the rest of the Church And we might as well say the Papacie is not now in because other Churches do reject it 3. Prayer in a known Tongue was ever in the Church and of Christ's Institution and yet you think it not essential to it 4. The use of the second Commandment as such Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image c. was ever in the Church and yet you have left it out of the Decalogue 5. The Office of Deacons hath been ever in the Church since their Institution Act. 6. yet few think them essential to the
on the 6th of Ianuary till after the middle of Chrysostom's time and so in the present case had it been as ancient as they pretend it was not Universal 2. But he saith that at least as Patriarch of the West by the Churches grant they were in full quiet possession of that Right or Power which we confess was lawful Ans. No such matter We make no such Confession Those Protestants who think that the superiority of Patriarchs is lawful do hold that it is by humane Laws and that if any such Laws were made by that which you call the Church that is by Councils it was by such Councils as in such matters received their Power from the Emperours without which they might not set up one City above another nor distribute Provinces and Diocesses and as was done and therefore that while the Imperial Laws enforced them they had the Law to bind Subjects to obey them but when any Kingdom was cut off from the Empire it was from under those Laws and under the Laws of their own Prince and the former decrees of Councils were no Laws to them any longer though they might by voluntary contract still associate with Forraign Lands So that such hold 1. That while Britain was under the Roman Empire they owed some respect or obedience to the Pope as Patriarch of the West as English-men do the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury 2. That before and after they owed him no more obedience than to the Bishop of Rhemes or Arles 3. That when the Saxon Kings permitted the first English Bishops voluntarily to subject themselves to the Patriarch of Rome they made themselves Debtors of all lawful obedience which they promised 4. That when the Saxon and Danish Kings Commanded their Subjects such lawful obedience to the Bishop of Rome they owed it him by the obligation of their Soveraigns Laws 5. And when those Laws ceas'd their obligation ceased and when those Laws forbad it it became unlawful And so the Roman Patriarch had no power in England when the King and Law did deny it him or cease to give it him This is the judgment of those Protestants that think such Patriarchs lawful The other that think them a sinful Usurpation think that they were never lawful yet he urgeth us with what Conscience we ceased to obey them Pag. 74. he saith Prove that any Church which now denyeth it hath been always visible and I am satisfied whether that Church always denyed it or no. Ans. This hath some moderation in it 1. There hath no Church but that of Ierusalem been always visible from the beginning of Christianity for no other was at first existent 2. And that was not visible from the beginning of the World 3. This Church of Ierusalem as it consisteth of the most Christians there now denyeth your Papal Power 4. The Churches of Alexandria Antioch and Abassia now deny it and have been always visible 5. The Church of Ephesus and many others of Greeks that now deny it have been always visible since Paul's time and Constantinople since the first planting 6. And I pray you note that the Church of Rome hath not been always visible for it did not exist till some years after that at Ierusalem Yea note that you cannot pretend that the Bishop of Rome was the Universal Bishop from the beginning for you confess Peter was first Bishop of Antioch and all that while Rome was not the Mistress Church And so if you should have the Supremacy it must be by a change from the first State Though indeed Peter himself never claimed nor exercised any such thing much less did he ever leave it to a Successor and least of all as fixed to one City any more than St. Iohn's power was to the Bishop of Ephesus And indeed Bellarmine himself dare not deny but that the Seat of the Universal Bishop may possibly be removed from Rome to some other place And then suppose it were to Avignion or to Constantinople where is St. Peter's Successor How must he be chosen or how shall his power above others be known when all the old pretensions faile Pag. 78. till then there 's nothing but vain words When I noted that They that make Christ corporally present in every Church in the Eucharist should not say that the King of the Church is absent He replyeth We dispute of a proper visible presence such as is not in the Eucharist Ans. You affirm that Christ is there corporally present under the Forms of Bread and Wine and that the Bread which we see is the Body of Christ and no Bread and yet that we see not the Body of Christ Sure we see something or nothing and if it be something and not Bread nor Christs Body what is it But suppose that it be not Christs Body which we see yet while the Bread is turned into his Body that which you do see is nearer to him than a Kings Crown or Clothing is to the King and yet if you see the King only in his Cloths his â—…ace being vailed will you say that he is not a visible King Doth clothing make Kings or the species of the Consecrated Bread make Christ to become invisible 2. Do you not bow towards him on the Altar Do you not carry him in procession about the Streets and do you not constrain all that meet you to kneel down and adore sure you do not think him to be out of sight or hearing or far off to whom you pray and whom you so honour as present As Paul said to the Iews God is not far from every one of us so that Christ who is adorably present in his Body on the Altar and corporally present in every Receivers hand and mouth surely hath not yet forsaken the Earth so far as to be uncapable of constituting a visible Kingdom without a Pope Pag. 79. I told him that When they prove 1. That Christ is so absent from his Church that there is need of a Deputy to essentiate his Kingdom and 2. that the Pope is so deputed they will have done their work He replyeth I have proved that Christ instituted St. Peter and his Successors to govern visibly his wholly Universal Church in all Ages Ans. Wonderful when was it and where Let the Reader find any such thing in your writing for I cannot no not a word Had that been done I had contradicted you no longer but if it be by an Invisible Proof that your Visible Head reigneth I cannot judge of it He next addeth I press you therefore once more to give an instance of something which hath been ever in the visible Church by Christs institution and yet is accidental to the Church Ans. 1. If I have not given you such Instances and Reasons also to prove that all that Christ instituted to continue is not essential let the Reader say that I have failed you 2. But if I had not what is it to your cause will it thence follow that
you have said a word to prove that Christ instituted the Universal Head-ship of the Pope Or rather do you not overthrow it your self by such arguing seeing 1. the Headship of Rome hath not been ever in the Church as you confess 2. It never was in the Universal Church either instituted by Christ or received by the Church one hour but only for a time received by a corrupt oppressed part of the Church 3. The Pope hath cast out divers things instituted by Christ for continuance as is proved I told him that though the King were absent it is only the King and Subjects that are essential to a Kingdom the Deputy is but an Officer and not essential He replyeth 'T is so indeed de facto But suppose as I do that a Vice-King be by full authority made an ingredient into the essence of the Kingdom then sure he must be essential Ans. Yes by very good reason if he be made essential he is essential and now I understand what is your proof you suppose it to be so But if it be so in our case then the Pope is essentially so the Churches constitutive Head that when-ever he dyeth the Church is dead unless you can say as our Law doth of the King Papa non moritur and when the Church hath been two or near three years without it was no Church and when it had two or three Popes it was no Church or two or three Churches But saith W. I. This is evident in our present Subject for though all the Pastors in Christs Church be only his Officers and Deputies yet you cannot deny such Officers are now essential to his visible Church Ans. 1. When I heard the word Evident I lookt for something But I had nothing but you cannot deny it and what true Christian ever yet denyed it But I do not remember that ever I heard it disputed before affirmed or denyed He that would deny it will say that as all the Mayors Bayliffs and other Magistrates of Corporations are indeed essential parts of those Corporations and these Corporations are the noblest integral parts of the Kingdom but no essential parts of it so that if the Kingdom should be resolved into a King and meer common Subjects only it were a Kingdom still so it is in the Church Particular gathered Churches are the noblest integral parts of the Universal Church but not essential And Pastors are essential parts of those particular Churches But if all the particulars and Pastors should cease the Church would be a Church still while there is a Christ and meer Christians But this never will be in this world because Christ will not only have a Church but a well-formed organized Church Those that had rather use the word essential of the Pastors will say that as soul and body are the only essential parts of a man and yet the brain heart and liver may be called essential parts of the body as distinct from the rest because without these it is not corpus orgâ—…nicum and so not humanum so though Christ be the only soul of the Church yet Officers may be essential parts of his body as organical capable of such a soul And though the other will reply that this is but a deceiving Metaphor Christ being not only the soul but the head and no organical Members being more than noble Integrals because if an Intellectual separation be made the Church is a Church still in such a conception Yet all this is but a Controversie of the aptitude of the word Essential in that case we are agreed that Officers shall be in the Church to the end And yet Saint Paul 1 Cor. 12. calls them but eyes and hands and never heads but reserveth that title to Christ alone yea even when he speaketh of Apostles And yet if any Officers were Essential it would be Apostles who are called Foundations and Pillars of the House but none of them the Head 2. But what 's all this to our Controversie What if Pastors were Essential to the Church viz. that there be some Doth it follow that the Bishop of Rome is any more essential to it than the Bishop of Ierusalem or Antioch If so then 1. Before Peter is feigned Bishop of Rome the Church was no Church All the while that he dwelt at Ierusalem and Antioch 2. And then if Rome were burnt or the Bishop of it ceased the Church were no Church Sir our true question is Whether a trayterous Usurper of Universal Soveraignty received by a third part of the Church and refused by all the rest be essential to the Church Not as whether the heart or head but a Scab or Cancer be essential to the body After some vain repetitions pag. 82. he repeateth the sum of his fraudulent Argument which he calls The force of his Discourse viz No Congregation of Christians hath been perpetually visible but that which acknowledgeth the Popes Supremacy Ergo No Congregation of Christians is Christs true Church save that Ans. I will therefore repeat the sum of my Answer viz. The word Congregation is ambiguous 1. Either it meaneth a company met together 2. Or a number of such Congregations owning one Superiour being part of the Universal Church 3. Or the Universal Church it self Accordingly I answer 1. That in the first sense a Congregation is called the same either because the same men live or because the survivors dwell in the same place or because they are of the same profession In the two first respects it is not necessary that any Congregation continue the same for men dye and places may be conquered or ruined In the third sense All true Christian Congregations in the world are of one and the same species as Christian from the beginning to this day II. In the second sense of the word Congregation I answer like as to the former The men dye the places are mutable but as to the common Christian Profession they are the same that they have been but as to the extent of Diocesses neither you nor we can deny but that they have altered Scotus Petavius and Doctor Hammond who hold that Bishops without Presbyters were first setled must hold that a Church then was but one Assembly or no more than one Bishop could speak to But de facto all agree that it was not long before they widened by degrees And in this sense the Churches of Abassia Armenia Ierusalem Alexandria c. are visible and have been from their beginning and some of them before Rome was The Churches of Ephesus Smyrna Thessalonica c. are and have been such And some Churches are visible which do not acknowledge the Popes Soveraignty that sometimes did viz. The Church of Britain in England and Scotland at first owned it not and after did receive it and after that cast it off again but it is visible and hath been from its beginnings The Churches of Denmark Sweden Transilvania and divers Countries of Germany were not
Churches from the beginning of the Christian Church nor was Rome it self so but ever since their beginnings they have been visible sometimes obeying the Pope and sometimes rejecting him the Abassines and several other Extra-imperial Churches never obeyed him The most of the Churches of the Empire the Eastern and African sometimes obeyed him as the chief in the Empire by the Laws of the Empire amd sometimes they cast him off when the Eastern Empire cast him off but they never obeyed him as the Soveraign Bishop of the whole World III. In the third sense of the word Congregation as it signifieth the Universal Church I confess that I can shew you no Universal Church now visible rejecting the Pope for the Universal leaveth out no part though a corrupt part and while Papists own him I cannot say that the Universal Church disowneth him but I can prove 1. That the Primitive Universal Church never owned any Universal Head or Governour but Christ and his twelve Apostles whose indefinite charge may be called Universal 2. That the Universal Church never owned the Roman Universal Soveraignty 3. That the far greatest part of the Church doth not own it at this day and therefore if the whole may be denominated from the major part we may say that now the Universal Church disowneth him And now Reader answer these like Sophisms and you have answered this man of Art 1. No Congregation of Christians hath been perpetually visible but that which acknowledgeth the Patriarchs in the Empire at least heretofore Ergo no other is the true Church of Christ. Answ. 1. But another is part and the best part of the Church of Christ. 2. And none that doth or ever did acknowledge those Patriarchs was the whole Church 3. And none of the Church acknowledged them at first before they were erected So 2. Inst. No Congregation of Christians hath been perpetually visible but that which condemneth the Monothelites the Nestorians the Eutychians the Audians the Luciferians the Quartodecimani c. Ergo no other is the true Church Answ. 1. Part of the Church condemn them and part never heard of them And before they rose none of the Church condemned them So another Instance is No Congregation of Christians hath been perpetually visible but that which Administreth the Eucharist only in one kind without the Cup and which useth publick Prayers in an unknown Tongue and which forbiddeth the reading the Scripture translated without special License c. Ergo no other is the true Church Answ. 1. Only a corrupt part now doth these The most discover it and none were guilty of it in many Generations Doth there need any other Answer to such palpable Sophismes His Argument plainly should run thus No Congregation of Christians hath been perpetually visible but that which now owneth the Trayterous Usurpation of the Pope and the Council of Trent and of Lateran and part of whose Religion is for exterminating or burning all that will not renounce all belief of Humane Senses in believing Transubstantiation and for casting out Princes that execute not this and absolving Subjects from their Oathes of Allegiance to them and which hath corrupted the Doctrine Worship and Government of Christ Ergo no other is the true Church Answ. A diseased part of the Church only is guilty of this now and the whole Church was far from it heretofore But pag. 83. he telleth me that he meaneth neither one present Assembly nor yet one as united in one visible Humane Head but abstracting from that also be it but truly and properly one whencesoever the Unity is drawn 't is all alike to the solution of the Argument Answ. Then sure our business is in a hopeful way if not as good as ended Remember this and fly not from it Our Unity is in Christ our Head One King maketh us one Kingdom All Christians are one Body of Christ. Yea moreover we are one in all the seven Points of Unity required by the Holy Ghost Eph. 4. viz. We have 1. One Body of Christ not of the Pope 2. One Spirit 3. One hope of our Calling viz. Eternal Glory 4 One Lord without a Vice-Christ 5. One Faith summarily in the Creed and integrally in the Holy Scriptures 6. One Baptisme or solemnised Baptismal Covenant 7. One God and Father of all who is above all and through all and in us all Yea as to the Integrals though our Grace hath various degrees we all receive the inspired Prophets Apostles and Evangelists Authority and Doctrine and the ordinary Pastors and Teachers that are sent by the Holy Ghost and called by the way which God hath appointed though we receive not an Usurper that maketh himself the Governour of the whole World in Title while he Governeth not the tenth part of it nor any according to God's Law and who is oft obtruded by Whores and Murders and is a wicked Slave of Satan so judged by his own General Councils We acknowledge that there are among us different Opinions but neither for Kind or Number comparable to the differences of the Papal Sectaries among themselves Not for Kind such as about Murder Adultery Perjury Lying False-witness yea about the Love of God it self are by the Iansenists charged on the Iesuits and proved out of their express words Nor such as Mr. Clarkson hath collected from the express words of their most famous Doctors of all Parties Nor such about King-killing dissolving Subjects Oathes c. as H. Fowlis hath gathered from the express words of your greatest Doctors And for Number all the Sects in the World of Christians set together have not half the Controversies and contentious Writings against each other as your Schoolmen and other Writers of your Church have For our parts we look not that our Union should be perfect till our wisdom and holiness and patience and we our selves be perfect They that know but in part will err in part and differ in part We believe that there are diversities of Gifts but the same Spirit and differences of Administrations but the same Lord and diversity of Operations but the same God who worketh all in all For as the Bedy is one and hath many Members and all the Members of that one Body being many are one Body so also is Christ For by one Spirit we are Baptised into one Body and have been all made to drink into one Spirit Thus are we the Body of Christ not of the Pope and Members in particular And God hath set some in this Body the Church first Apostles not first a Vice-Christ secondly Prophets thirdly Teachers but no Universal Vicar-Head All these are Members and should so live in love that there be no Schisme in the Body But pag. 84. the Man is not satisfied though I name them what I mean by These Churches united in one Christ. Answ. How should I make a Man know that is unwilling or how but by naming them by their Country and Profession I mean All the Christians of
must know whether all the Church was not Leprous then 2. And whether men could with a safe Conscience have Communion with any Answ. 1. He that saith he hath no sin is alyar saith St. Iohn All Christians and therefore all Churches are defiled with sin 2. All are not equally defiled I have told you that the Papists are not the third part of the Christian world and for many hundred years there were none 3. We must not separate from all Churches that have sin but we must not willfully sin for their Communion and we must joyn locally with the best we can and in spirit joyn with all as far as they joyn with Christ is not this plain and sufficient to your cavills § 5. He saith p. 423. that our external profession in the particulars of our Belief or rather Disbelief against the Roman Church sheweth our general profession of Christianity to be false as the Arrian was Answ. What is easier than to say so But where 's your proof § 6. After a repetition of his talk against Christ as no visible Head he cavills at the form of my first Argument which was this The body of Christians on Earth subjected to Christ their Head hath been in it's parts visible ever since the dayes of Christ on Earth But the body of Christians on Earth subjected to Christ their Head is the Church of which the Protestants are members Therefore the Church of which the Protestants are members hath been visible ever since thâ—… daies of Christ on Earth And first he saith that it 's out of form because it hath never an universal proposition Answ. This is the man that would not dispute but in meer Syllogism what need I an universal proposition If you be to prove that Cephas was Peter or Peter was an Apostle of the first place must you have an universal proposition What Universal must there be above The Body of Christians c. 2. He saith that the word Those Form requireth should have been All those when as there is never a Those at all in the argument Is not this an accurate reformer of Syllogisms that amendeth termes that were not written and talketh like a dreamer of he knoweth not what but what is the All that the man would have had is it all those bodies of Christians when we are all agreed that Christ hath but one political body if I had been to prove that the world that Protestants are parts of hath been visible since Adam or that the God the Protestants worship is Almighty must I have said All those worlds and all those Gods Nay had I said but whatsoever worlds or whatsoever God it had sounded ill among men that are agreed that there is but one sure an expository medium that was but notius was enough Next he saith that I put more in the medium of the major than in the medium of the minor and so it hath four terms Answ. Wonderful This is the man that disputed with our two great Logicians and publick professors of Cambridge Bishop Gunning and Bishop Peirson and as a triumpher printed the dispute and challenged men in London to Syllogistical combats And now see how he talketh 1. He calls that my medium that is no medium at all but the Praedicate 2. He saith it is not in my Minor where that Praedicate was not nor ought to be but another 3. He takes an expository parenthesis which is no part of the proposition for an addition that maketh â—…our termes When I prove the Church visible to prevent his cavils I put in a parenthesis as a margin in it's parts because the whole world or Church is not seen by any mortal man no not by the Pope that pretends to rule it all and this no man controverteth If he had said that there is less in the conclusion than in the premises he had spoken sence though impertinet while there is as much as was in the question 2 He saith I make the praedicate of the minor the subject of the conclusion and then saith This is a hopeful beginning Answ. O rare triumphant disputer why should I not make the praedicate of the Minor the subject of the conclusion What Law or Reason is against it when iâ—… is the subject of the question My Argument is a re definitâ ad rem denominatam as questioned the definition or res quà definita is my medium How ridiculoâ—…s hath this Aristarchus made himself in his Logick would not this disputing have been very edifying to such as the Lady that he and I were once to deal with when he would have bargained that never a word should be spoken by me nor written but in a Syllogism as bad as Popery is I hope it hath some men of more ingenuity and honesty then wilfully to delude the ignorant at these low and sordid rates § 7. But from his play he turneth in earnest to deny my Major and saith that Protestants are no parts of that Church on Earth of which Christ is Head And yet many of their Doctors say that they that have no explicite belief that Iesus is the Christ but believe only a God the rewarder of works are members of the Church but no Christians are save Papists Just the Donatists and worse than the Quakers and Anabaptists My Argument Those that profess the true Christian Religion in all it's Essentials are members of that Church which is the Body of Christians on Earth subjected to Christ the Head But Protestants profess c. Here 1. he wanteth form also All is wanting as if a definition were not Universal or equipollent But if All be in he denyeth it because they may destroy the faith by an Error Answ. He that so erreth as to deny any one Essential part doth not truly profess to hold that Essential part and so not the Essence as he that denyeth Christ to be God or Man and yet will say in general that he is the Messiah his meaning is that one that is not God or not Man is the Messiah which is not a profession of all Essential to Christianity but if he truly profess all that is Essential and ignorantly think some error Consistent with those Essentials which by consequence crosseth some of them and would abhorr that error if he knew it inconsistent this man is still a Christian or else it 's doubt whether there be one in the world if those Doctors say true that say that Theology is so harmonious a frame that the least moral Error doth by consequence cross and subvert fundamental truthes Certainly abundance of such do so as are collected by Montaltus and Mr. Clarkson out of your Jesuites and school Doctors and as you find in one another But he bids me prove my Major mark Reader what I am put to prove 1. Either that Profession denominateth a professor it being only Christians as visible by profession in question 2. Or that all the Essential parts do
which they may shortly expect by the perswasions of some I have attempted to make this Return to this one Reply which is all that ever they published against me that I know of And because true Order requireth first that we understand each others terms I must begin with that though it be the last thing in his Book in which you will see what a sandy fabrick it is which is adorned by them with the great Epithetes of Apostolical Ancient Universal Infallible and how little they know or can make others know what it is of which they do dispute or what that Church is to which so many hundred thousand Christians called by them Hereticks have been sacrificed by sword and flames In the second Part I defend the Visibility of the Church which the Protestants are members of against his vain Objections And in the third Part I defend those Additional arguments by which I proved it In all which I doubt not but the impartial understanding Reader may see that their Terrestrial Universal Monarchy and their condemnation of the greatest part of the Church of Christ are contrary to Sense Reason Tradition Consent Antiquity and Scripture and that their Kingdom standeth but on three Legs IGNORANCE and deceit worldly INTEREST and the SWORD and violence And when these and especially the sword of Princes do cease to uphold it it will presently die and come to nothing For though Melchior Canus say that the Roman Priviledges as he calleth them have stood though the greater number of Bishops and Churches and the Arms of Emperours have been against them yet was it upheld against all these by no better means than those aforesaid The greater number of Churches and Bishops viz. of East and South being against them and all the other four Patriarchates renouncing them as they do to this day they laid the faster hold of the West and by mastering Italy flattering and advancing France promising Kingdoms and Empire to their Adherents threatning the deposition of others dividing Germany and all Europe that many might need the Pope and few be able to resist him and by keeping men ignorant that they might be capable of their Government by these means they overcame the Arms of Emperours and made them their Subjects whose Subjects they had been If there were nothing else to satisfie the Reader against Popery but these following Particulars it were a shame to humane nature to receive it 1. The natural incapacity of one man to be a Church-Monarch any more than to be a Civil Monarch of the whole Earth 2. That Bellarmine confesseth that the Pope succeedeth not Peter as an Apostle but as an Universal Pastor But Peter never had any higher office than to be the first Apostle 1 Cor. 12. 28. God hath set in the Church first Apoctles not first a Vice-Christ 3. That they affirm that it is not de fide that the Pope is Peter's Successor 4. That none of the other Apostles had Successors as in superior seats nor did any Patriarch much less twelve claim power as Successors of any Apostle save Antioch and Rome and Antioch as from the same St. Peter but no Universal Soveraignty 5. That whoever will turn Papist must confess that he was an ungodly hypocrite before and that all professed Christians are so save the Papists that know their doctrine 6. That he must renounce the senses of all sound men and believe them all deceived by Miracle The Contents of the first Part. CHAP. 1. Sect. 1. HIs Explication of the terms CATHOLICK CHURCH 1. He excludeth all from Christs Universal Church and Christianity that are no Members of Christian Congregations Yet meaneth not only Churches but Families Ships or any civil Assemblies Damning all solitary Christians or that are alone among Infidels 2. He maketh subjection to the supreme Pastor necessary and yet saith the Votum of it alone will serve Sect. 2. He unchurcheth Parish-Churches He maketh dependance on lawful Pastors in general necessary but not on the Pope particularly Sect. 3 What Faith must be in a Church-member His implicite discourse of implicite faith which indeed is no faith of any particular Article Several senses of implicite faith opened His general faith proved No particular faith In what sense we believe all that God hath revealed Sect. 8. His instances explained Sect. 9. When virtual repentance sufficeth Sect. 10. His avoiding to answer Sect. 11. The Papists Church invisible Sect. 12. His strange Doctrine of generals Sect. 13. What Christianity is is no point of faith with them Sect. 14. The invisibility of their Church further proved Sect. 15. Their contradictions about receiving all faith on the Churches Authority Sect. 16. 17. The true method of believing Sect. 18. Humane faith is joyned with Divine Sect. 20. What the Essentials of Christianity are Sect. 21. Papists utterly disagreed what a Christian is and confounded and their Church invisible Sect. 22. Notes of great moment hereupon The baptizing of men that believe only that there is a rewarding God is a new false baptism Sect. 23. Q 3. Who are the Pastors whose rejection unchurcheth men Of Parish Priests Q. 4. How shall all the world be sure that Popes and Priests had a just Election or ordination Sect. 24 25 26 27 28. CHAP. 2. Their sense of the word HERESY Whether Heresie be in will or understanding Sect. 1. Hereticks by their definition are unknown Sect. 2. The power of judging of the Sufficiency of proposals make 's the Clergie Masters of all men lives Sect. 3. He maketh none Hereticks that deny not Gods Veracity Sect. 4. And all Hereticks to deny it Yea all that receive not every truth safficiently proposed Yet unsaith all and saith that not culpable neglect of sufficient proof of all but contradiction to the known proposal of lawful superiours makes a Heretick Sect. 7. Q. What sufficient proposal is Sect. 8. 9. He saith that the true Church-Governours may be known without Revelation Sect. 10. Sufficiency further examined Sect. 11. He hereticateth themselves or none Sect. 12. Whether every misunderstanding of an intelligible Text of Scripture be Heresie Sect. 13. What Heresie is indeed Sect. 14. CHAP. 3. Their meaning of the word POPE Sect. 1. Popes judged Herteicks by many Councils Where Christs institution of the Papacy must be found Sect. 2. Who ad esse must elect the Pope Sect. 3. W. J. cannot and dare not tell Consecration denyed to be necessary to the Pope Sect. 6. Neither Papal nor Episcopal Iurisdiction he saith depends on Papal or Episcopal ordination Sect. 7. So they may be Laymen What such jurisdiction is Sect. 8. What notice or proof is necessary to the subjects CHAP. 4. Their sense of the word BISHOP The Pope is not of Gods ordaining in their way Sect. 1. 2. Their Bishop of Calcedons testimony put off Sect. 3. They make all men that will or no men to be Bishops His great confusion and contradictions Saying we want not Episcopal Consecration but Election
His shameful reformation of Syllogisms and pretence of Logical form Sect. 6. He denieth Protestants to be of the Church of Christ. I prove it His silly cavils at the form of the Argument Sect. 7. Protestants profess all the Essentials of Christianity Proved His cavils shamed Sect. 8. His oft repeated Reason confuted of not receiving the Churches expositions Sect. 9. The novelty and discord of Popery The confusions in Councils Sect. 10. My second Argument's to prove that we hold all essentials The Popish faith explained Sect. 12. My third Argument Creed and Scriptures are with them too little and yet an insufficient proposal makes Christianity it self unnecessary Sect. 12. He giveth up his Cause confessing the sufficiency of our explicite belief Sect. 13. My fourth Argument His ridiculous denying that to deny the minor is to deny the antecedent Sect. 14. The minor proved All Protestants as such profess to love God Ergo sincere Protestants do love him What miracles believing in the Pope doth Sect. 15. He had no way to deny that Protestants profess true faith but by his impudent denying 1. That we profess to love God 2. And that we feel that we do love him Sect. 20. My second Argument to prove the perpetual visibility of our Church confoundeth him Sect. 21. Scripture sufficiency Sect. 22. My third Argument and his shameful Answer Sect. 25. My fourth Argument proveth the visibility of our Church not only as Christian but as without Popery Ten sub-arguments for that 1 From the twenty-eighth Canon of Conc. Calced 2. From the silence of the old Writers against Hereticks Sect. 28. 3. From Tradition proved 4. From Churches never subject to Rome His citations briefly confuted Sâ—…ct 30. 5. From the non-subjection even of the Imperial Churches Sect. 32. 6. From Gregory the first 's testimony Sect. 33. 7. From their confessions Aen. Silvius Reynerius Canus Binnius vindicated Sect. 38. 8. Phocas giving the Primacy to Boniface Sect. 39 9. Their Liturgy new Sect. 40. Twelve instances of new Articles of the Papists Faith which he durst not Answer Sâ—…ct 42. The tenth Argument he yieldeth the cause in sense Sâ—…ct 43. Notable testimonies unanswered Sâ—…ct 44. Papists differ de fide Sect. 47. What Hereticks are or are not in the Church fully opened His shameful exclaiming against me for distinguishing Sect. 48. Fifty six of Philastrius Heresies named many being small matters and many notorious certain truths Sect. 49. The woful work of Hereticating Councils Sect. 50. Councils hereticated Popes and one another Almost all the Christian world hereticate one another Sect. 55. His reasons answered for unchurching all Hereticks Sect. 60. Their Doctrine of sufficient proposal fullier confuted and their hereticating and unchurching themselves evinced Mr. Iohnson's alias Terret's Explication of seven Terms of our Questions examined and his confusion manifested CHAP. I. Question 1. WHAT mean you by the Catholick Church W. J. The Catholick Church is all those Visible Assemblies Congregations or Communities of Christians who live in unity of true faith and external Communion with one another and in dependance of their lawful Pastors R. B. Qu. 1. Whether you exclude not all those converted among Infidels that never had external communion nor were members of any particular visible Church of which you make the Catholick to to be constituted W. J. It is sufficient that such be subject to the supreme Pastors in voto or quantum in se est resolved to be of that particular Church actually which shall or may be designed for them by that Pastor to be included in my definition R. B. You see then that your definitions signifie nothing No man knoweth your meaning by them W. J. You shall presently see that your Exceptions signifie less than nothing R. B. 1. You make the Catholick Church to consist only of visible Assemblies and after you allow such to be members of the Church that are no visible Assemblies W. J. I make those converted Infidels visible Assemblies as my definition speaks though not actual members of any particular visible Church For though every particular visible Church be an assembly of Christians yet every assembly of Christians is not a particular visible Church I do not therefore allow such to be of the Church who are no visible assemblies as you misconceive R. B. 1. Would any man have understood that by Visible Assemblies the man had not meant only Churches but also Families Schools Cities c 2. Doth he not here expresly deny all those persons to be of the Church who are not members of some other visible assemblies And if a man be a Pilgrim a Hermite or if one or many be cast upon an uninhabited coast and if any are members of no visible assembly as Merchants Embassadors to Infidels c. when will he prove that this unchristeneth or unchurcheth them R. B. 2. You now mention subjection to the supreme Pastor as sufficient which in your description or definition you did not W. J. Am I obliged to mention all things in my definition which I express after in answering your Exceptions Ans. All that belongs to a notifying definition R. B. 3. If to be only in Voto resolved to be of a particular Church will serve then inexistence is not necessary To be only in Voto of the Catholick Church proveth no man a member of it because it is terminus diminuens but the contrary Seeing then by your own confession inexistence in a particular Church is not of necessity to inexistence in the Catholick Church why do you not only mention it in your definition but confine the Church to it W. J. I make them actually inexistent in some visible assembly according to my definition and in Voto only in a particular Church Now every particular family or neighbourhood nay two or three gathered in prayer is an actual assembly R. B. Strange Doctrine so it is of necessity to our Christianity and Salvation that we be members of a Christian City or Village or Fair or Market or some Meeting And so all Christians that live solitarily in Wildernesses or among Turks or Heathens are all unchristened and damned W. J. St. Hierome saith Ecclesia est plebs unita Episcopo In this consists your fallacy that you esteem none to be actually members of the Universal Church unless they be actual members of some particular Church which I deny R. B. I thought verily it had been I that was denying it all this while This is dispuâ—…ing in the dark Will you say that you meant in Voto who can understand you then when you say They must be of visible assemblies and mean that they need not be of any but wish they were or purpose to be so W. J. It is sufficient if they be actually of some assembly or congregation of Christians though it be no particular Church R. B. 1. Here is a new Exposition of Solomon's Vae soli Wo to him that is alone for he is unchristened by it or
tergiversation what sort of Disputants should blush would you think after all this what his answer is You shall have it in his own words And know you not that Divines are divided what are the points necessary to be believed explicitely necessitate medii Some and those the more ancient hold that the explicite belief of God of the whole Trinity of Christ his Passion Resurrection c. are necessary necessitate medii Others among the Recentiors that no more than the belief of the Deity and that he is a rewarder of our works is absolutely necessary with that necessity to be explicitely believed Now to answer your Question what it is whereby our Church-members are known I answer that 1. All those who are baptized and believe all the points of our faith explicitely if any such are to be found are undoubted members of our Church 2. All those who believe explicitely all the Artiales whatever belongs to them in particular by reason of their respective offices in the Church 3. Those who so believe all things necessary necessitate medii or necessitate praecepti extended to all adulti 4 All those who believe in that manner all things held necessary necessitate medii according to the first opinion of the more ancient Doctors 5. It is probable though not altogether so certain as the former that such as believe explicitely the Deity and that he is a rewarder of our works and the rest implicitely as contained in confuso in that are parts of the Catholick Church Baptism supposed 〈◊〉 Nowâ—… seeing all those in my four first Numbers which comprehend almost all Christians are certainly parts of the Catholick Church we have a sufficient certainly of a determinate Church consisting at least of these by reason whereof our Church has a visible consistency those of the fifth rank though not so certain not taking away the certainty of the former See you not by this Discourse that we answer sufficiently to your question by telling which are undoubted members Ans. Reader how sad is the case of mankind when such a talker as this shall go for a Champion and prevail with silly souls in the matters of Salvation against common reason and the notices of Christianity Mark here 1. He asketh me Know you not that Divines are divided Yes and I know how lamentably you have divided the Christian world See Reader what is the unity and concord of the Church of Rome Not only the Laity but their Divines are divided about the very essence of a Christian and their Church These are the men that cry up Unity as a mark of their Church and cry out of us as Schismaticks as if we were all crumbled into dust by Sects because we differ about some small circumstances of Worship or Exposition of some imposed words of men or of some difficult point of no flat necessity 2. Note here also the Infallibility of their Church and what a priviledg they have in having a Iudg of Controversies While their Doctors are divided on the question what a Christian is And Pope and Council dare not or cannot or will not determinate what maketh a Christian or member of their Church O happy infallible Judg of Controversies 3. Note also the extent of the Roman faith 〈◊〉 it is so big as that it and its circumstances fill large Volumes called the Councils and yet it is no article of their faith what Christianity is or what must constitute a member of their Church but this is left at liberty to disputes 4. Note also the great partiality of the Papists The Doctors may be divided about the essence of Christianity and may deny faith in Christ to be particularly necessary to a Christian. But if a man believe not that Rome is the Mistris of all Churches and the Pope the Universal Governourr and that there is no bread and wine in the Lords Supper when the Priest hath consecrated he is to be exterminated or burnt as a Heretick and Princes deposed that will not execute it 5. Note here that here is not a word in all this of believing the Pope to be the Governour of all the Churches in the world Either they take this to be essential to a member of their Church or not If they do are they not juglers and ashamed of their faith when they thus hide it If not what is become of their Sectarian Church and all their accusations and condemnations of most of the Christian World who believe no such office of the Pope And what a Society is that where the reception of the Pars Imperans is not necessary to every subject 6. Note here whether the Roman Religion be mutable or not and whether constancy be a note of their verity When he professeth that the ancient Doctors and the Recentiors or Novelists do differ about the very essence of Christianity Have these Recentiors antiquity to boast of 7. Note also from hence the validity of their common argument from Tradition As if all their Church were now and always of one mind when at present they are divided about the essence of Christianity and the Recentiors forsake the Ancients But had these Ancients Tradition for their opinion or not If they had how come the Recentiors to forsake it If not what an insufficient thing is your Tradition that hath not told you what a Christian or Church-member is And yet we must take this Tradition as sufficient to tell us what orders and ceremonies Peter setled at Rome 8. I pray you note that even their ancient Doctors opinion which is all that must keep his cause from utter shame he durst not describe in answer to my question but having named five words God the whole Trinity Christ his Passion and Resurrection he craftily shuts it up with an Eâ—… caetera so that if you suppose him to say that these five things are all that they require he may deny it because he added an c. If you ask what are the â—…est you are where we begun an c. is all the answer 9. Well let us peruse his five particular sort of members distinctly which make up their Church and try 〈◊〉 be the mâ—…ey 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 or whether the Reader will not wonder that such trained disputers have no more to say nor a more plausible sort of fraud to use 1. His first sort of visible members are All those that are baptized and believe explicitely all the points of our faith if any such are to be found Ans. Is not this a modest Parenthesis whether any such are to be found he seemeth uncertain and yet saith These are the undoubted members of our Church The undoubted members when he doubteth himself whether any such are to be found And can we find the Church by them then And no wonder that they are not to be found for note Reader that he never tells you here yet at all what the faith of their Church is but only that if any have it all they
are Christians Is this a satisfactory answering And yet if you will know the truth from their common writings the faith of their Church containeth these great bodies 1. All that is in the holy Scripture and the Apocrypha 2. All the Decrees of their General Councils if not also the Provincials and Popes Decretals that are de fide 3. All their unwritten Traditions de fide which they have yet to bring forth as need requireth And do you not approve his modesty that saith If any such be found that believeth all this 2. The second sort of their Church-members are All who believe explicitely all Articles and whatever belongs to them in particular by reason of their respective offices Ans. But he tells you not a word what Articles these be nor what belongeth to their Offices whether it be all the Articles of all the Creeds or also of their Councils Decrees or when it shall be known what is necessary to be believed about their office And is here any notice how to know a member of their Church any more than in the former He that believeth all that he should believe is a Christian But is there any such and what is that all and how shall we know them 3. His third sort of members are Those who so believe all things necessary necessitate medii vel praecepti extended to all the adult Ans. And what 's this but the same again we know none but the adult that are to believe And so here we are told That all men that believe all things commanded are Christians We were told this before But it was with If any such are to be found And who knows by this what your All is When we find men that do all commanded and sin not we will hope to find men that know all revealed and have no ignorance yet here is no visible Church 4. His fourth sort are All those who believe in that manner all things necessary necessitate medii according to the first opinion of the more ancient Doctors But what those things are we are not yet told but five words set down with an c. And is here yet a word to satisfie any man of reason what their faith is or what Christianity is or what maketh a member of their Church or is the bond of union But Reader hath God left us so much in the dark Is Christianity any thing or nothing If something hath it not an essence which may be defined Is this all our notice of it That men that know all that God hath reveal'd and believe it are Christians or such as believe five Articles caetera Judge now whether their Church be not invisible And if any little part of it were visible what 's that to the rest or to that visibility of particular members He tells us these are almost all Christians and yet questioned whether any of the first be found and the rest are no more to be found than they 5. And his fifth sort he confesseth himself to be uncertain which yet it s doubted are no small part that go for Papists And note I pray you that it is the present Church which they use to approach to for necessary resolution and the Recentiors are more the present Church than the Ancients And according to these 1. Their Church is confessedly doubtful or unknown as to most or multitudes of members 2. And note that their Articles being but two That God is and that he rewardeth works all the common Heathens of the world and all the Mahometans are of the Papists Faith and Church according to this opinion 3. But mark Reader another desperate corruption That Baptism must concur with these two articles O horrid corruption of Christianity it self Is this antiquity and tradition Did the Christian Church use to baptize men that believed neither in Jesus Christ nor the Holy Ghost if they did but believe a God and a Rewarder Do you baptize such in your Church I suppose even Pope Stephen himself would have been for the re-baptining of such Reader if one of us had charged such doctrine on the Papists as this their Champion doth should we not have been thought to slander them viz. That their later Doctors hold that all that believe explicitely but a God and a Rewarder and are baptized are members of the Church of Rome and consequently that all that believe but this much should be baptized that is all the Mahometans and almost all the Heathens in the world And is Baptism and the Creed come to this But I confess if the world were perswaded of this the Pope could make his use of it For when he is once taken for Governour of all the Church on earth if he can but prove all the world to be the Church it followeth that he is Governour of all the world And what need they now their feigned embassies and submissions to prove the Abassines Armenians and Greeks to be of their Church when Heathens and Mahometans are proved of it and yet are Protestants no part He tells us That a living body may be defined by head shoulders arms though there be a doubt among Philosophers whether hair humours c. be animated or parts Ans. But 1. it is known then that there is visibly head and shoulders c. But you tell us not how to know any individual persons to be visible members of your Church To tell us that there are some men that hold all that they are bound to hold maketh none visible while we are not told either what they are bound to believe or by what profession or proof it must be known that they do so When we tell you that sincere justifying faith and love do prove true Christians and that such there are it 's agreed that this proveth but a Church as invisible or unknown to us because we know not who have this sincerity So is it when you tell us that there are men that believe all that 's necessary for till it be known what that is no profession can thereby prove them Christians 2. But what if you had told us how to know those men that are certain or eminent members of your Church Is it nothing to you to leave all the world besides almost uncertain whether they be in the Church or not How know you whom to admit to your Sacramental Communion or to use as a Christian When a Congregation of many thousand persons called Papists meet you cannot tell how many of these are of your Church and yet you give them the Eucharist And it seemeth by you that they must be Baptized though you know not after whether they be members of the Church Remember Reader that our question is not what mercy God sheweth to the rest of the world nor whether any out of the Christian Church be saved But it is what is the faith which is essential to a member of the Christian Church and whether Papists make it not uncertain and whether he
Church did notoriously believe and practice the administration of the Lords Supper in both kinds the Cup as well as the Bread and the celebration of publike worship in a known tongue and the reading and hearing of the Scripture in a known tongue by the people and others such like But yet I will not take you at your word nor call you Hereticks meerly on the account asserted by you for I know that your rule is false And if a man had known that the Universal Church had held some opinion of Chronology or Genealogy or Cosmography as about Cainan or the age of Sem or that there were no Artipodes especially in the dismal Ninth Century and if he had thought that they took this point for a Divine Revelation believing the Septuagint or some other mis-translation which was commonly received before Ieromes time this man so thinking that the whole Church then erred in so small a point was no Heretick for so thinking for I would know of your self whether the Popes and all their followers be not Hereticks For the Septuagint was long taken by the Universal Church for the Word of God and so was the Vulgar Latin long after by your Universal Roman Church and consequently that those Texts were Gods Word which yet afterward you altered Many hundred or thousand alterations in the one were made by Sixtus 5 and Clement 8 all which were so many judgments that the Church had erred that before took the other readings for the Word of God unless you can make one thing Gods word to day and the contrary to morrow 5. But by this rule also we are acquit from Heresie if it was not notorious to us that the Universal Church believed and practised contrary to us which sure is notorious to very few at most And indeed we differ from the Roman Church the more because we dare not with them differ from the belief and practice of the far greatest part of the Church of Christ in this and in former ages R. B. Is not the Bible a publick testimony and record and being universally received is an universal tradition and yet abundance of truths in it are not actually known or believed by most of your own Church W. J. It is only a Tradition that whatever is there delivered is the word of God but it is no tradition that such a determinate sense and no other is the word of God in every sentence contained in it when according to the analogy of faith the words are capable of many senses R. B. Worse and worse still 1. Tradition tells us that this Bible is Gods Word This Word of God is significant and intelligible or else it is worse and more defective than the common words of men This intelligible Bible or Word therefore delivereth to us its own sense If not then Councils do not deliver us the sense of Gods Word or their own For God could speak as well as they and their words are no more plain than his Yet a multitude of plain intelligible Texts are not understood by many of your Church whom you call not Hereticks yea your learned Commentators differ and fight about their sense 2. Therefore when you talk of every sentence you do but fly and hide your fraud If your meaning be that no sentences of Scripture are Divine revelations as they are in Gods own words but as expounded by your Church all Christian ears should abhor your blasphemy If you mean only that there are some Texts so difficult as that most Christians cannnot understand them or that are capable of various senses we grant it But what are those to all the rest Is every man a Heretick that erreth about the sense of any one plain Text of Scripture or not And it is perverse that you say of divers senses according to the analogy of faith For a Text may be expounded contrary to the plain words and context which yet is not expounded contrary to the analogy of faith if by that word you mean as is usual contrary to the harmony of Christian necessary Truths yea or contrary to any other truth whatever save that Text it self And now Reader I leave it to thy reason whether this man have given us any regardable notice at all what is Heresie or what they mean by it or have not trifled and said nothing But what Heresie is I will briefly tell you The word signifying Election was used in the beginning sometime for any Sect or Party divided from the common body of the Church And Christians were called a Heresie by the Iews By the Christians the name signified any party of men that professing to differ in some necessary thing from the common body of Christians and the Doctrine of the Apostles did separate from them as unmeet for their Communion and gather themselves into divided Societies So that differing from the Apostolical Doctrine and Churches and making different Sects or Societies therefore which separated from and opposed the Churches was called Heresie by the Apostles and it was the same thing with the grossest sort of Schism And the commonest sense of the word Schism then was lower signifying either the contentious making of divisions within a Church without separating from it or else the breaking of one Church into many without separating from other Churches or the generality of Christians And so long after the word Heresie was sometime used for such Schism only and hence Lucifer Calaritanus and the Novatians and many others were called Hereticks And sometimes used more cautelously in a narrower sense for those only that denied some essential article of faith or practice And sometimes in a yet narrower sense for those only that upon such a denial of some essential point did gather into a separated Society to maintain their error and oppugn the truth And according to these various senses of the word Horesie and Heretick we must conclude that a Heretick may or may not be saved and is or is not within the Universal Church which W. I. doth deceitfully confound Of which I have said more in the End and shewed you by an instance of Philastrius how mischievous it is to abuse the name of Heresie against every different opinion of true Christians and so to make Hereticks of all Believers in the world CHAP. III. What mean you by the Word POPE W. J. By POPE I mean St. Peter or any of his lawful successors in the See of Rome having authority by the institution of Christ to govern all particular Churches next under Christ. R. B. I am never the nearer knowing the Pope by this till I know how St. Peters Successors may be known to me Q. 1. What personal qualification is necessary ad esse W. J. Such as are necessary ad esse of other Bishops which I suppose you know R. B. If so then all those were no Popes that were Hereticks or denied essential points of faith W. J. 'T is true they were no Popes while
of the Presbyters where there are any under them and so thought your own Bishops for above 600 years even when Gregory 1st wrote his Epistles But if you had asserted that it would do more to unpope and unbishop your Church than to disprove ours But he saith that the Capitula had the power of electing Bishops and of constituting Parish-Priests in such places as wanted them Ans. 1. Suppose they had you say no particular Electors act is necessary ad esse and why theirs 2. But quo jure by what right could one Dean and Chapter of a City elect an Overseer of many hundred Parish-priests and many score or hundred thousand souls without their consent You dare not say that God gave them that power and if man did it what men were they If you say that they were men that had more power in England than the King Parliament and the consenting people you must prove it If you lay it on any foreign power Pope and Council we will deny their power here and herein What man doth man may undo 3. But indeed your meer Capitular Election is null and contrary to Gods Word and the ancient custom of the Churches By Gods Word the consent of the Flock and of the ordainers and of the ordained made a Pastor Bishop or Presbyter By the customs of the Churches in the Empire sometime the greatest neighbour-Bishops assumed the power and sometimes Councils overtopt them all and undid what they did and sometimes the Emperours put in and out as pleased them as Solomon put out Abiathar But always the peoples election or acceptance was necessary For instance when Gregory Nazianzene had confuted the Macedonians and Arrians and encreased the Church at Constantinople though the Arrian Bishop since Valens time kept the great Church Gregory had a little one and was chosen their Bishop by the Orthodox people alone This was his first title After that Peter Bishop of Alexandria made him Bishop quantum in se or confirmed him this was his additional title After this the same Peter bribed by money without recalling his former grant made Maximus a right seeker of a Bishoprick as the world hath since gone bishop in his stead the people refused the change and retained Gregory Afterward Maximus got both Peter and the Egyptian bishops to make him bishop of Constantinople where was the Pope all this while the people still kept close to Gregory Afterward Theodosius the Emperor returning from the West puts Gregory in possession of the great Church and turneth out the Arrians and confirmeth him bishop After this Miletius of Antioch and a Council at Constantinople make Gregory bishop After this more bishops coming in to the Council got the major vote and he discerning that they were resolved to depose him departed requesting the Emperors leave as seeing the doleful divisions and contentiousness of the bishops not otherwise to be quieted entreating the Emperor to keep them in some unity and peace lest it should disgrace and ruin the newly reformed Church And the Council made Nectarius bishop the Pope in all this never minded By this one instance you may see how bishops were then made in the greater places though in lesser the election of the people and Presbyters and the ordination of three neighbour-bishops did suffice according to the ancient rule and custom But he saith That the old bishops were living and not legally deposed Ans. 1. Sub judicelis est we say they were 2. Some deserted 3. An illegal removal of the former doth not ever nullisie the title of the latter viz. when the flock consenteth to the change c. else what seat is there that hath not had their succession interrupted and corrupted but none more than Rome and Constantinople and Alexandria What poysonings fightings unjust depositions and schisms have made way for successions Is your Papacy therefore null But methinks it is a strange novelty that he makes the Capitula to have had the right of chusing not only the bishops but all the Parish-priests to say nothing of the Patrons or the Princes power which I think is as good as the Chapter who knoweth not that the bishops and the people did always chuse the Presbyters and not the Chapters But he saith that they were intruded by Seculor Power Ans. And were not your Popes so ordinarily till Hildebrand got the better of the Emperor But we had more than this R. B. Your Popes have not the consent of the most of the Christians in the world nor for ought you or any man knows of most in Europe W. J. Of what Christians such as you and your associates are We regard that no more than did the ancient holy Popes not to have bad the consent of the Nestorians Eutychians Pelagians Donatists Arrians c. R. B. Contempt of most of the body of Christ is one of the great proofs that you are all the Church And did not the Donatists say the same before you And what but the sword doth make your cause to be better than theirs How easie is it for any Sect to say We are the only Church of Christ and though most of the Christian world be against us we regard them not Reader mark the truth and câ—…ndor of these men When we tell them that the Greeks Armenians Syrians Iacobites Georgians Copties Abassines are of the same Church with us because they have the same Head and the same essential faith the Papists in their talk and writings tell us that they are more of their mind than of ours and that indeed they are not Hereticks but well-meaning-men But when we tell them then how two or three parts of the Church is against their Popes pretended universal power they number all these then with Hereticks as not to be regarded But abundance of their own Writers yea such as have lived among them at Ierusalem and other parts do vindicate the generality of these foreign Christians from the charge of Heresie 2. But doth not the world know that a man is supposed to be rightful Pope as soon as the Cardinals an upstart sort of things have chosen him before ever any of the people of Europe even Papists do consent But perhaps hee 'l say that the people consent that these shall be the chusers sure they did not so till Hildebrands days nor since any otherwise than by silence or non-resistance where they have no places to speak nor power to resist even as the Countrey-men consent to the conquering Armies that oppress them R. B. It 's few of your own people that know who is Pope much less are called to consent till after he is setled in possession W. J. What then Is not the same in all elective Princes where the extent of their Dominions is exceeding large R. B. 1. I confess when we have an Elective King of all the world I had rather Cardinals chuse him at Rome than all the world should meet to chuse him And if
Jurisdiction we need and desire none but a Ministerial Power of guiding Souls towards Heaven by God's Word preached and applyed And he that ordaineth a Minister thereby giveth him all the Jurisdiction which is necessary to his Office If a Man be licensed a Physitian must he have also Mission and Iurisdiction given him after before he may practice 3. How could we take Ordination Mission and Jurisdiction from Men on the other side of the World What need we go so far for it when the Gospel is near us which telleth us how God would have Ministers more easily called than so 4. And as for the prescript of our Liturgy Discipline and Hierarchy that is one of the differences between us and you Must you needs have a Liturgy Discipline and Hierarchy of Man's forming so you have But we can live in Christian Communion with so much as Christ and his Apostles by his Spirit have prescribed us Is there no Communion to be had with any Church but that which hath arrived at that heighth of Pride as to make Liturgies Discipline and Hierarchy for all the Chrstian World and to suffer none to speak publickly to God in any words but those which they write down for them to read to God We make no such Laws to any other Church in the World nor do we receive any such Laws from any and yet we have Communion with them fraternal and not subjective Communion There is one Law-giver who is able to save and to destroy who are you that make Laws for another's Servants and judge them Had the Churches no Communion for the first 400 years when no Liturgies were imposed or when the first Law made hereabout was but that no one should use a Form of Prayer till he had shewed it to the Synod No nor when Gregory's and Ambrose's Liturgies were striving for pre-eminence Had the Church at Neocesaria no Communion with that at Caesarea because they had so different Liturgies as their quarrel against Basil intimateth And when every Bishop used what Liturgy he pleased in his own Congregation Was there then no Communion between the Churches We refuse not any meet Liturgy that is found needful to our Concord But truly for Hierarchy and Species or Forms of Churches and the substantials of Discipline we earnestly wish that no Church had any but what God hath himself prescribed to them 5. But how should we joyn with Men many hundred or thousand miles off us in Word and Sacraments otherwise than by useing those of the same species We do not locally hold such Communion with the next Parishes to us nor with many in the World for we cannot be in many places at once much less can we be every Lords day in every Assembly in Ethiopia and Armenia As for Sacrifice we know of none acceptable but the Commemmoration of Christ's Sacrifice once offered for Sin and the offering of our selves and our Thanksgivings praise and other duties to God And why you distinguish the first from Sacraments I know not W. J. Aâ—…d did they profess the same Faith in all points of Faith and those the very same wherein they dissented from the Church of Rome R. B. 1. Ad hominem it might suffice to say to you that explicitely or implicitely they did 2. But I better answer you We profess the same Faith in all points essential to Christianity and in abundance more I have told you before that we agree in all the Old Creeds and in the truth of the Canonical Scriptures 3. But do you Papists agree in all points of Faith no not by a thousand For all is of Faith which God hath intelligibly revealed in the Holy Scriptures to be believed But there is above a thousand intelligible Texts of Scripture about the sence of which your Commentators differ If all Christians agree in all that is de fide then all Christians fully understand every intelligible Word in the Scripture And then every Woman and Rustick is as wise in Divinity as the greatest Doctors yea far are the Doctors from such Wisdom W. J. If so they may as well be said not to have separated fom the external Communion of the Roman Church R. B. Some will tell you that we did not separate from you but you from us but I must say that the Roman Church is considered either materially as Christians and a part of the Church of Christ and so we neither did nor do separate from you or else formally as Pâ—…pal and so we renounce you and all Communion with you as being no Church of Christ but a Sect that treasonably usurpeth his Prerogative The pars imperans specifieth or informeth the society Christ only is the Universal Head of all Christians as such and of all the Churches with which we profess Concord and Communion In this Head Greeks Armenians Ethiopians and Protestants unite But the Pope falsly pretending to be Christ's Vicar-General is taken for the Universal Head by the Papists and in renouncing this Head we renounce no other Church but yours R. B. Not from you as Christians but scandalous Offenders whom we are commanded to avoid we separate not from any but as they separate from Christ. W. J. 1. No sure for if you did you must be Iews Turks or Infidels 2. Was there no more in it Did not the Primitive Persons who begun your breach and party owe subjection to their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors Diocesans and Pastors R. B. No none at all as they were Papal that is the subordinate Ministers of the usurping Universal Bishop W. J. And is it lawful for a Subject to subtract himself from the obedience of a lawful Pastor because he is a scandalous Offender R. B. Yes if his Offence be a ceasing to be a lawful Pastor and taking on him a false Office by usurpation Or if he remained lawful quoad hoc as Christian and adde a treasonable addition we must have no Communion with him at least in that unlawful part W. J. If you say he remaineth not in his former Power you contradict our Saviour commanding obedience to the scandalous Pharisees c. R. B. 1. The Pharisees set not up a new usurped Office of Head-ship constitutive pretendedly to the Universal Visible Church but only abused a lawful Office that God had made 2. Yet Christ requireth obedience to them no farther than as they sate in Moses's Chair and delivered the Law but warned men to renounce them as Corrupters and to take heed of their Doctrine 3. And this much was but till they shewed themselves uncurable and he set up new Officers over his Church and then all men were to forsake the Pharisees Government W. J. You destroy all Ecclesiastical Government and open a way to tread under foot all temporal Authority If you hold these Offences deprive him of all Ecclesiastical Power why not so of Kings and Magistrates and Parents and then you have spun a fair Thread c. R. B. Confusion
which we charge them with in Europe and yet the Papists so charge them still that they may seem to have reason for condemning them fearing that their non-subjection to the Pope will not seem enough with impartial men And as to the great Confidence that they seem to place in their succession to St. Peter and Christs words to him on this Rock I will build my Church and to thee I give the Keys c. and feed my sheep I have oft answered it more fully than is fit again to recite but these few hints I would commend to the Reader 1. That we affirm that Peter was among them as a fore-man of a Jury and no more and so Christ spake to the rest in speaking to him and the same power is given to the rest The Church is said to be built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ being the head Corner-stone Is not this as much as is said of St. Peter Christ gave them all the power of Holy Ghost and the remitting and retaining sins binding and loosing which is the Keys which he gave to Peter And they are all sent forth to feed Christs Sheep Now the Fathers give as high Titles oft to others as to the Pope yea and to Peter see what I have cited in my Key for Catholicks pag. 175. 176. and what Gataker hath cited out of Dionysius Tertullian Basil Ierome Augustine Theodoret Gildas Nicephorus c. Cin. 395. 396. 2. Peter never exercised any authority over any of the rest of the Apostles He called them not governed them not There is mention of Paul's reproving him Gal. 2. but none of his reproving them Schismes being among them and greatly lamented they are never directed to unite in Peter as the way to Concord nor to have recourse to him to end them Nay when the over-valuers of Peter made one party in the Schism among the Corinthians Paul seeks to take them off that way and set Peter in the same rank with himself and Apollos as Ministers only by whom they believed calling them Carnal for saying I am of Cephas never calling them to unite in him as the Head of all And had this been necessary what had this been but to betray the Churches 3. The Apostles were never properly Bishops but of a higher rank Bishops were the fixed Over-seers of particular Churches and no one had many But Apostles only planted them and governed them for their Confirmation and so passed on from one to another and had care of many such at once If any one Church might pretend superiority by vertue of succession it would be Ierusalem and next that Ephesus where it is said that Iohn the Beloved Disciple was as Bishop and which hath continued to this day 4. The Apostles as such had no Successors nor as Bishops in any distinct Seats The same Christ that called Peter called the rest and called especially the Beloved Disciple to whom on the Cross he commended his Mother when Peter had denyed him and he promised to be with them to the end of the World But no Bishops on Earth ever pretended to superiority over any other Churches as the Successors of the other eleven Apostles Where are those Seats or where ever were they If the Apostles Successors must rule the Churches as such tell us which be the other eleven and which be their Diocesses and of what extent Nay it is considerable that even in the times of domination there were but five Patriarchates ever set up and not twelve and not one of those claimed Power by vertue of succession from any Apostle Constantinople never pretended to it Alexandria claimed the honour of succession only from St. Mark who was no Apostle And Ierusalem from Iames whom Dr. Hammond laboureth to prove to have been none of the Apostles but a Kinsman of Jesus Only Antioch and Rome claimed succession from Peter and Antioch as his first Seat but they did on that single account claim Power then over other Churches And seeing the Church is built on the Foundation of Apostles and Prophets and that all the Apostles 1 Cor. 12. are mentioned equally as the noblest Foundation Members or Pillars and the People chidden sharply by Paul for making Cephas a Head What reason have we to believe that Peter only hath perpetual Successors fixed to a certain City and that no other of all the Apostles have any such What word of God will prove that Peter hath left his Power at Rome and no other Apostles no not one hath left theirs to any Place or Person on Earth yea and that he left it more to Rome than to Antioch when Antioch claimeth the first succession from him and Rome but the second and when Nilus and others have said so much to make it probable that Peter never was at Rome and when it is certain that Paul was there and those old Fathers that from some word of one of Eusebius his doubtful Authors do say that Peter was at Rome and Bishop there do also say that it was the Episcopal Seat of Paul and when it is certain that no Apostle was any-where a Bishop formaliter but only eminenter as being not fixed nor fixing their Power to any Seat And Dr. Hammond giveth very considerable conjectures That if Peter and Paul were both at Rome they had divers Churches there Paul being the Bishop of the Uncircumcision and Peter of the Circumcision only from whence we may see that the Spirit of God in his Apostles judged that there might be more Churches and Bishops in one City than one much more over a thousand Parishes though as the contrary Spirit prevaileth the contrary Interest and Opinion prevailed with it These things premised the Reader must know that the state of the Controversie between Mr. Terret alias Mr. Iohnson and me is this Finding the Church of Rome in possession of abundance of Errours and Vanities he would not only perswade us that they are of God and have ever been the same because it is so with them now but also concludeth that these Carbuncles are essential to Christianity and the Church and that we cannot prove that we are a Church and Christians unless we prove that we have had from the Apostles a continued succession of their Errours As if a man could not prove himself to be a man unless all his Ancestors from Adam had the French-pox or the Leprosie On the contrary I maintain that the Church of Christ which is his Body is essentiated by true consent to the Baptismal Covenant which is our Christening and integrated by all the additional degrees that this Covenant is expounded in the Creed Lord's Prayer and Christian Decalogue The Lord's Supper is but the same Covenant celebrated by other signs not for Essence but Confirmation That all that consent to the celebrated Baptismal Covenant heartily are Members of the invisible Church and all that profess consent in Sincerity or Hypocrisie are visible Members
Abassia Armenia Egypt Syria the Georgians the Iacobites those falsly called by you Nestorians and Eutychians the Africans Greeks Muscovites the Britains Seots Swedes Danes Belgians Saxons Helvetians the rest of the Germans Transilvanians Hungarians French c. which now disown the Papacy who were some Countrys never under the Pope some Countries at first under him and after rejected him and some at first from under his Government next under him and after repented and all of them have been Christians from their first conversion to this day Can I speak plainer But Num. 42. he granteth that All that are true Christians are one Kingdom or Church of Christ but denyeth that these are true Christians And pag. 84. He would seem to give some reason for his denyal saying I deny it if they were independent on the Bishop of Rome Answ. 1. Even now he abstracted from this But now they are no Christians unless they be Dependendents on the Pope Such a Denyal is an easie Task and the sum of all their Writings But what need there then so many Ambages and large Volumes to bring out such a short and crude Assertion Could you not have said this without all the rest He is no Christian that dependeth not on the Pope But is it not incumbent on you to prove it Undoubtedly it is 1. In foro Scholastico as an Affirmer 2. In foro civili Ecclesiastico as an Accuser And till you have proved it what need they or I care for yoùr words Must all Men pass for no Christian that a Priest or Jesuit will say are none Or am I and all Men disobliged from loving all those as Christians whom such as you will affirm to be no Christians Love is easily destroyed if this much will do it But it costeth more than so to cause it Pag. 85. He addeth Let them have been as visible as you please that 's nothing to me so were the Arrians Sabellians Montanists c. Prove they were no more than one visible Congregation of Christians among themselves and with Orthodox Christians that 's the present Controversie Answ. I hope we shall find out the Controversie at last though it seems as hard almost as to resolve it How oft must I repeat the same Proof Again my Proof is this Those that are baptised into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and hold all essential to Christianity not apostatizing from the whole or any essential part are true Christians But such are they before mentioned 1. That they are Baptized is not denyed and Baptizing is Christening and supposeth the profession of all that is essential to Christianity or else it could not make them Christians 2. No man that professeth himself a Christian must be taken to be no Christian till he be convict by lawful proof because as sincerity or heart-consent to the Covenant of Grace is our Christianity as invisible before God so Baptism and professed consent to that Covenant is our visible Christianity before men every man being the Expositor of his own belief and resolution but that these Churches have Apostatâ—…zed from the whole or any essential part of Christianity is unproved and therefore not to be supposed As every particular man is to be taken for a Christian who is baptized and professeth it till his profession be disproved so much more whole Countries and Churches that profess Christianity must not be supposed without proof to be no Christians If a Papist will say to all the men in the City prove that you are no Thieves no Adulterers no Murderers no Lyars no Traytors or else I will take you for such I think they may more justly say prove that we are such or else we will take you for a standerer And that they are of one Church I prove All Christians are one Church but those are Christians therefore of one Church The major is certain They that are the Members and Subjects of one Christ are of one Church All Christians are the Members and Subjects of one Christ therefore they are of one Church All that have the seven terms of Union before mentioned out of Eph. 4. are of one Church but such are these before named Here remember 1. That I plead not for the Christianity of any that are proved to deny indeed any one essential point of Christianity but I will not believe this man that every thing instituted by Christ and so every word in the Bible is such an essential nor that our Church or Religion is so strange a thing as to have no perpetual integral parts nor accidents but what will not some men have a Face to defend 2. That this same man hath already maintained that no man is bound to be subject to the Pope to whom he is not sufficiently propounded and that he confesseth that it is not yet agreed among them that any more is necessary to Salvation to be explicitely believed than that there is a God and reward for good works And yet two or three parts of the Christian World must be no Christians nor Members of the Church of Christ because they are not Members of the Pope And let it be still remembred to acquit the Eastern and Southern Churches from the Papists charge of Heresie as being Nestorians and Eutychians 1. That the Accusers are to be taken for Calumniators till they prove it by all the rules of common Justice 2. That if they could prove Dioscorus e. g. an Eutychian that 's no proof that all the Bishops that adhered to him were such for it 's apparent by the Acts of the Councils that Multitudes adhered to him because they thought him no Eutychian and Derodon de suppositâ—… hath undeniably proved that Dioscorus said but what his Predecessor Cyril hath oft said whom you approved and many because they thought the Judgment unjust that judged him so and cast him out and many for the honour of the Seat yea many for fear of death by the people that were affected to him as their Patriarch though they understood not the cause in question He that readeth the Bishops at the Council of Calcedon part crying out prostrate on the Earth miseremini miseremini non dissentimus else kill us here we dare not go home if we desert and raile against our Patriarch before another be chosen the people will kill us and another part of them confessing that fear made them subscribe at the Council at Ephes. 2. and some crying out Away with them they are Hereticks who cryed non dissentimus may well judge that all were not Hereticks that clamor called so 3. If they could prove those few Bishops that were openly accused and noted to be Eutychians that 's no proof that the rest were so 4. If they could prove that many then were so that will not prove that those that now there inhabit are so 5. And of Nestorianism there is less publick shew of proof 6. And indeed the main Body of the Common
Christian World These Schismaticks named by you Sinned by unjust separation from the Imperial Churches near them but they did not separate from all the World save themselves as the Papists do And if you believe History you will find that some of them did not separate themselves till they were Anathematized and cast out by others Nestorius retired and Lived four Years in great repute in his Old Monastery near Antioch The Novatians were too scrupulous of joyning with Wicked Priests and People And your Writers say that Pope Nicholas forbad hearing Mass from a Fornicator Priest I had rather be in this of the Pope and the Novatians mind than of those Catholick Priests 2. But I think this is a considerable Difference The Erroneous Schismaticks of those times much more the proper Hereticks did sinfully withdraw from the Communion of most of the Universal Church to profess some Error of their own in singular Conventicles But we who take meer Christianity for our Religion do own Communion with the far greatest part of the Church on Earth yea with all as Christian and sepaâ—…ate not for Error but only from Error and Sin We separate from Pelagians as Pelagians from Novatians as Novatians and from Papists as Papists but not as Christians You say No more did they then I Answer 1. They separated from Truth and we from Error as the Council that condemned him did from Pope Honorius 2. The Luciferians and Novatians separated Voluntarily we are cast out by you from Christian Communion and are counted Separatists unless we will Sin with you or be burnt as Hereticks 3. Let the Reader still note the cheating ambiguity of your word Separation The Schismaticks named separated from Brotherly Communion but we separate from Tyrannical Usurped Domination and are called Schismaticks not because we will not have such Communion with you in all Christian Truth and Duty but because we will not be your Vassals or Subjects and Sin as oft as you command us § 2. Pag. 155. He saith That Had we deserted the sole Communion of the Papacy it might have born some show of Defence but seeing when we separated from that we remained separated as much from all particular Visible Churches in the World as that you have no Excuse Answ. If the Reader have not a very gross Head he shall see your Calumny As your Church is Essentiated by the Papal Head so far we renounce the very Essence of your Church None of the rest of the Christian World pretend to any such Universal Head but Christ. Therefore we separate not from their Head or any Essential part of their Church as such We separate as far as we are able from the corrupt Accidents and faults of every Church and Christian and would fain separate more from our own As we separate from the Abassines in the point of their oft Baptizing and from the Muscovites Greeks Armenians as to their Ignorance and some Mistakes and Vices And so we would separate from Drunkenness Fornication Covetousness Simony false Subscriptions Lies c. in any where we find them in the World But this is not Schism or separating from the Church Dare you say that this is not our Duty Will you joyn in Sin with every Sinful Church for fear of Schism § 3. But he saith That any Arrian will say so That he separateth not from the Church as Christian. Answ. We have brave Disputing with a Man that cannot or will not distinguish between Saying and doing Doth it follow that an Arrian doth not separate from the Church as Christian because they say they do not I prove the contrary He that separateth from the Church for an Essâ—…ntial part of Christianity separateth from the Church as Christian but so do the Arrians Ergo I prove the Minor He that separateth as denying the God-head of Christ separateth for and from an Essential part of Christianity but so do the Arrians Eunomians Photinians Samosatemans Socinians c. Ergo § 4. Next I opened their dealing with us that call us Schismaticks because we will not willingly Sin with them and be burnt by them as if it were our Ashes that refused their Communion or because Princes will punish wicked Priests or as Solomon cast out Abiathar and put Zadok in his place or will not be Subject to a Foreign Usurper c. To this he saith It is a Rhetorical Exclamation and whole Kingdoms condemned by the Popes Canons to the Flames must take such an Answer as that for their Lives And he again calls on me to name any Visible Church which we separated not from which I am aweary of answering so oft § 5. He ask'd me whether Subordination and Obedience to the same State and Government is not as well required to our Church as to our Common-wealth I Answered Yes But as all the World is not one Humane Kingdom so neither is it one Humane Church To this he repeateth his old Visible and Invisible taking it for granted that the Church must have one meer Humane Visible Head or Governour Personal or collective which yet he knoweth is the great thing which I deny and he had to prove which if he did all his work were done § 6. I Noted that their own Divines are not agreed whether Hereticks and Schismaticks are parts of the Church To this he saith That 1. He speaks of Parts of the Church as I understand parts Answ. Who would have thought till now but he had spoken as he thought himself 2. He saith That I hold that some Hereticks properly so called are parts of the Church of Christ and united to Christ their Head believing the Essentials of Christianity and so are Christians though Erring in some Accidents and this is contrary to all Christianity and a Novâ—…lty never held before by any Christian. Answ. But such gross Falshoods as yours and such deceits have been used before by many Papists 1. Where did I say that such as err only in some Accidents are properly called Hereticks I distinguished De re ratione nominis but undertook not to tell from the Etymology of the word which is the only proper sence of Heresie but according to the vulgar use of the word among us it is taken for one that denieth some Essential But with such as you I see it is taken more largely and I am not sure that at first it was not taken for any Separation or Schism into distinct Sects All that I say you may be ashamed to call me so oft to repeat it is That 1. Many are called Hereticks by Papists yeaâ—… by Philastrius and Epiphanius that were true Christians for ought is said against them yea Philastrius numbereth some certain Truths with Heresies when his contrary Errors are liker such 2. That they that erre in some Accidents may be true Christians or else I think there is none at Age in the World 3. That there is much lamentable Schism which is no Separation from the whole Church 4. That he
France and Germany To which I say 1. That none but Rome much medled in the Empire after their Conquest Nor Rome much in comparison of Alexandria Constantinople and Antioch 2. I easily confess that those Churches within the Empire had been settled in their several powers by the Councils at Nice and Const. did plead the same Canonical Settlement to keep their possession when they were conquered And that e. g. Rome under Theodorick and other Arrians was willing to keep their Relation to the Orthodox Churches of the Empire for their strength And Neighbours that were under Heathens or Arrians were glad of a little countenance from Councils of great Bishops in the Empire as Basil and the Easternes under Valens were from the West without Subjection to the Pope § 33. Pag. 116. After some trifling Quibbles he Answereth my Charge That their Church is not one but two having at times two Heads The Pope to some and a Council to others To this he saith 1. That this belongs to them that take Councils to be above the Pope and not to him who is of a contrary Opinion Answ. It is to your Party in general I did not say that W. I. was two Churches but that those called Papists are so 2. He saith That they also can answer me with a wet finger for the Pope is in the Council and not excluded Answ. Such wet-fingerd Answers serve to deceive the Ignorant The Question is not of the Popes Natural Person but of his Political Two summa potestates make two Polities The Pope in a General Council is not the summae potestas if a Council be above him and may Judge and Depose him To be a Member of a Council that hath the Sovereignty is not to have the Sovereignty Did you not know this § 34. I urged him as his proper work to answer these Questions Whether the Church of which the Subjects of the Pope are Members hath been Visible ever since Christ's days on Earth And therein 1. Whether the Papacy that is their Universal Papal Government over all the Earth hath so long continued 2. Whether all the Catholick Church did still submit to it 3. Whether those that did submit to it took it to be necessary to the Being of the Church and Mens Salvation or only to the more Orderly and Better being But he would not be driven to touch at any of these or prove the perpetual Visibility of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over my last 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over many of his Imâ—… 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 that I refer him but to the pâ—…sing of the Histories which 〈◊〉 coâ—…th with the General Answers which I have before given And he will find 1. That the Pope was but a National Primate 2. And that by Humane Institution 3. And under a General Council 4. Striving upon every Advantage to be greater 5. Under the power of Princes 6. And when he lost his power over all the other four Patriarchs the West falling from the Empire he sought to bring the Western Princes under him and claimed a Government over all the World The Third Part A Defence of my Arguments to prove That the Church of which the Protestants are members hath been visible ever since the daies of Christ on Earth § 1. I Began with an Explication of the termes but this Disputer saith that this is of no concern to his Argument nor much to my answer Answ. It pleaseth not those that are all darkness such Explications as you gave me are indeed of little Use. 1. He saith I make Believers and true Christians Synonyma's whereas one may be a Believer as an unbaptized Catechumene but is not a Christian till baptized Answ. As a Pope once told one how little wit in a place of power would serve to govern the world so I see by this man How little Reason will serve to set up a Iesuite for an â—…nanswerable disputant among the ignorant The word Christian as well as Believer signifieth 1. A heart-consenter to the Baptismal Covenant 2. Or a Professor of that consent And 1. Regularly by Baptism 2. Or without it when it cannot be â—…ad 1. As soon as a man Believeth and Consenteth he is a Christian before God 2. As soon as he solemnly professeth it he is an incompleat Christian before men 3. As soon as he professeth it in Baptism he is orderly and regularly a Christian before the Church Even as two secretly maâ—…rying are marryed before God and when they publish their mutual Consent and Covenant as suppose it were where a priest is not to be had they are irregularly married before men but solemn Matrimony maketh it a Legal Marriage in fore And this distinction holds of the word Beleiver as well as of Christian A Beleiver a Disciple and a Christian were Synonyma's before Popery was born § 2. Next he saith that my words Subject to Christ their Head are equivocal Because Subject may signifie but inferior and Head but a principal member Answ. What is not equivocal to a Jesuite 1. Did I not put this first The Church is the Kingdom of Iesus Christ 2. When I said It is the whole company of Believers subject to Christ their head are not the words significative enough of a governing Head And did I not adde the constitutive parts are Christ and Christians as the pars imperans subdita are there more notifying words in use If there are tell'them me if you can or was not this a cavil that had more of Will and Interest than of Conscience § 3. I said Protestants are Christians protesting against and disallowing Popery To this he cavils 1. That the name had another original 2. That the Greeks Arrians Antitrinitarians Socinians Hussites Anabaptists Familists Millenaries Quakers are not Protestants Answ. 1. Did I undertake to tell you the first Rise of the name or only to tell whom I mean in my dispute If I had the German protestation immediately against a particular Edict was principally and finally against Popery and in that sence is the name continued But it is not the Name but the Church and Religion that I dispute of You know that the Name Reformed Catholick Christians pleaseth us better than the Name of Protestants Were not Christians after they were first called so at Antioch of the same Religion as before when they were called but Disciples and Believers yea and Nazarens by their adversaries 2. Who would have thought that you had taken Arrians Antitrinitarians Socinians or any that deny an Essential part of Christianity for true Christians Did you not here oft profess the contrary and those that are no Christians are not in my definition those that are Christians as Greeks Millenaries and Hussites and most Anabaptists with us are Protestants but not meer Protestants they have somewhâ—…t more and worse which giveth them another name but if Christians protesting against Popery they are of the same Church universal as we are § 4. When I call Popery the Leprosie of some Christians he
the Arrians yea and of Marcian Leo Zeno Anastaslus Iustine almost all the Churches of the Empire continued charging each others with Heresie and Councils charging and condemning Councils Bishops deposing and cursing Bishops and Monks as their Souldiers fighting it out to blood when the obeying or cursing the Council of Calcedon divided the Bishops for many Princes reigns and when one part called the other Nestorians and the other called them Eutychians almost every where and when after that the Monothelites cause was in many Emperors Reign uppermost one while and down another and navicula Petri that alone scaped before was thus drowned by Honorius if Councils belie him not and Popes with the rest When the very same Bishops as at Ephesus and Calcedon went one way in one Council and another way in the next and subscribed to one Edict e. g. of Basiliscus and quickly to the contrary of another and cryed 〈◊〉 we did it through fear How should we then know by Fathers Bishops and Councils what was their concordant Commentary of the Scripture 4. I ask you what exposition of the Universal Church is it that we profess to differ from for our novelties name them if you can Either by the Universal Church you mean properly all Christians or most If All alas when and where shall we find their agreement in any more than we hold with them If most do we not know that the most two parts to one are against the Popes Sovereignty which is Essential to your Church Do not the Greeks once a year excommunicate or curse you To tell us now That above two parts of the Christian world are none of the Church because they differ from the Universal Church and that the third part is that Universal which he that believeth not is no Christian are words that deserve indignation and not belief and without the medium of Swords and Flames and tormenting inquisitions on one side and great Bishopricks and Abbies Wealth Ease and Domination on the other had long ago been scorned out of the Christian world § 10. But he also denyeth that we believe with a saving divine faith any of the said mysteries and that our Profession general and particular affirmeth it Answ. It 's like the Devil the Accuser of the brethren will deny it too of our Hearts we will not enter a dispute of our Professions let our books be witnesses Reader canst thou believe that we profess not to believe any Christian verity with a Divine faith yea but the man meaneth that it is not a Divine faith if it be not from the beleif of the Pope and his Party And how then shall we believe the Popes own authority § 11. II. My ad Argument to prove that we hold all the Essentials of Christianity was Those that profess as much and much more of the Christian Faith and Religion as the Catechumens were ordinarily taught in the ancient Churches and the Competentes at Baptisme did profess do profess the true Christian Religion in all it's Essentials but so do the Protestants c. To this he calls for Form again as if here were no Universal and then denyeth the Major but his words shew that indeed it is the Minor Because the Catechumens professed to believe implicitly all that was taught as matter of Faith by the Catholick Church in that Article I believe the Holy Church which the Protestants do not Answ. An unproved fiction on both parts 1. Shew us in Fathers Councils or any true Church-Records that Catechumens were then used to make any other exposition of those words than we do Did they ever profess that a Pope or a General Council cannot erre de fide did they not call many of those Councils General though violent and erroneous which they cursed The great doubt then was which party was the true Church and Christians then judged not of Faith by the Church-men but of the Church by the Faith else they had not so oft rejected and Hereticated many Popes Patriarches and the farre greater part of the Bishops as they did 2. And Protestants deny no article which ab omnibus ubique et semper as Lerinens speaks was accounted necessary to â—…ation yea it is one reason why they cannot be Papists because most of the Catholick Church are against the Papacy and all were against it or without it for many hundred Years after Christ. Let the Reader peruse Cyril Hieros Catech. August and all others that give us an account of the Churches Catechism and see whether he can find in it I believe that the Bishop of Rome is made by Christ the Governour of all the World and is Infallible in himself or with his Council and that we must believe all that they say is the Word of God because they say it or else we cannot be saved But it is an easie way to become the Lords of all the World if they can perswade all Men to believe that none but their Subjects can be saved 3. And what an useless thing to they make Gods Word that they may set up their own Expositions in its stead We know that the Word supposeth that the Ignorant must have Teachers Without Teaching Children cannot so much as learn to Speak And Oportet discentem credere fide humanâ that is he must suppose his Teacher wiser than himself or else how can he judge him fit to Teach him But what is Teaching but Teaching the Learner to know the same things that the Teacher doth by the same Evidence Is it only to know what the Teacher holdeth without knowing why If so must we know it by Word or Writing If by Word only when and where shall every Man and Woman come to be Catechized by the Universal Church That is by all the Christian World Or is every Priest the Universal Church Or is he Infallible And how come Words spoken to be more intelligible than words written Doth writing make them unintelligible Why then are their Councils and Commentaries written But if Writing will serve why not God's writing as well as theirs If God say Thou shalt Love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart Are not these words intelligible till a Pope Expound them When the Pope permitted his Casuists to expound them so as that Loving God once a Moneth or once a Year will serve for Salvation and that Attrition which is Repeating only out of Fear with the Sacrament of Penance will also serve Cannot a Man be saved that Believeth Repenteth and Loveth God upon the bare Commands of God and Scripture without hearing what all the Christian World or Councils say If I make to my self no Graven Image so as to bow down and Worship towards it by virtue of the second Commandment will this damn me because I receive not the Papists obliteration or contradiction of this Commandment as an Exposition If all the Docrees of Councils be as necessary as the Creed and Scripture why were not the Councils read in the
10. ad 11. 5. Scatus in Prolegom in sect 1. 6. Greg. Armin. in Prol. e. g. q. 1. art 2. Resp. fol. 3. 4. 7. Guil. Parisiens de Legib. c. 16. p. 46. 8. Bellarmine again de verbo Dei li. 10. c. 10. ad arg 5. c. And then I most fully proved it out of the ancient Church-Doctors But to all these he giveth such frivolous Answers that it irketh me to weary the Reader by repeating and answering them And he that will faithfully peruse the Authors words I think will either need no other confutation of him or is uncapable of understanding one when he seeth it The fore-confuted contradiction of sufficient explicite and yet not sufficient implicite is the chief and next a vain supposition that to say that Scripture is sufficient to all Theological points and conclusions is less than to say it is sufficient to necessary Articles of Faith and if any of them speak of the Churches exposition he denyeth the Scripture-sufficiency as a rule and yet their Councils need exposition too § 22. III. My 3d. Argument for our Churches perpetual visibility was If the Roman Church as Christian though not as Papal hath been visible ever since the dayes of the Apostles then the Church of which the Protestants are members hath been visible ever since the dayes of the Apostles but the Antecedent is their own Therefore they may not deny the Consequent Here he wants Form again because as Christian is in the Antecedent and not in the sequel Answ. He might have seen that it is but an Expository term in a parenthesis and so the same exposition in the consequent is supposed Next he saith that it is a fallacy a secundum quid ad simpliciter Answ. so then the Church as Christian is not the Christian Church but secundum quid but we that know no other profess to be of no other nor to prove the visibility of any other than the Church as Christian. Let them prove more that pretend to any other Next he saith that the Protestants have been visible as Christians is all that can be pretended and yet that also he denyeth for they believe not one Article with an infallible supernatural divine Faith Answ. 1. The question is whether they profess not so to do nay rather whether their objective Faith that is all the Creed and Holy Scriptures be not infallible of supernatural Revelation and Divine he that denyeth this seemeth an Infidel But if all the members of the Church must have an actual subjective Faith that is of supernatural divine infusion Then 1. No hypocrite is a Church-member 2. And no man can know who is a Church-member besides himself 3. And so the Church of Rome is invisible this is clear 2. I must not too oft write the same things if the Reader will peruse a small Tract of mine called The certainty of Christianity without Popery he shall soon see whether the Papists Faith or Ours be the more certain and divine Of which also I have said more in my Treatise called The safe Religion and Mr. Pool in his nullity of the Roman Faith § 23. I here shewed that having proved our visibility as Christian I need not prove a visibility as Papal any more than he that would prove his humane Genealogie having some leprous Ancestors need to prove that all were leprous Here he denyeth Popery to be Leprosie and again falsly tells us that if it were so all the visible Church in the world was leprous which needs no more confutation than is oft given it § 24. He tells me how an 1500 the Pope was in possession and we dispossest him without order c. Answ. An old Cant but 1. I have fully proved that he never was in possession of the Government of the Christian world 2. Nor in the Empire or any other Princes dominion but by humane donation and consent as the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury is in England 3. And that they that gave him that power may on just reason take it away And that the Bishop of another Princes Countrey cannot stand here by his authority when he hath lost the Government of England himself § 25. IV. My 4th Argument added more than my Thesis required viz. If there have been since the dayes 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 it's Being and in it's freedom from Popery But the Antecedent is true Ergo so is the Consequent To this 1. he wants the word ever in the Antecedent And yet before abated it but he knoweth that since was put for ever since 2. He saith I suppose that the sole denyal of the Popes supremacy constitutes the Church whereof the Protestants are members Answ. In despight of my frequent professions to the contrary who still tell him that our Christianity and Relation to Christ and one another makes us Church-members and our freedom from the Papacy is our renunciation of an Usurper § 26. I proved my Antecedent 1. from the express words of the Council of Calcedon can 28 which he answers as before where he is consuted § 27. 2. My 2d proof was from the silence of the ancient writers Tertullian Cyprian Athan. Nazianzene Nissene Basil Optatus Augustine c. that used not this argument of Popes power over all the world as of Divine Right to confute the Hereticks that they had to do with when two words had expeditiously done all if this had then been Believed Here he saith Their authors have proved that the Fathers did so Answ. Soon said and as soon denyed The books are in our hands as well as yours I will now instance but in Cyprian and the African Churches in his dayes and in Augustine and the same Churches in his dayes 1. Did Cyprian and his Council believe Stephens Universal Monarchy when he opposed his judgment with so much vehemency and set the Scripture against his plea from tradition Let him that will read his Epistles of this too long to be recited believe it if he can And when he twitted his arrogance in Council with nemo nostrum se dicit Episcopum Episcoporum 2. The plea of Aurelius Augustine and the rest of the African Bishops I have formerly recited of which Harding saith that the Africans seduced by Aurelius continued twenty years in Schism from Rome and did Augustine and all the rest then believe the Popes Sovereignty even in the Empire I did plainly show that if the Donatisâ—…s Novatians and all such Sects had believed the Roman Sovereignty and Infallibility they had not so differed from them if they did not believe it the Fathers would have taken the neerest way and wrote their Volumnes to convince them that this Papal Rule was it that must end all their controversies instead of writing voluminously from Scripture and the nature of the
Socrates Sozomene Theodoret Evagrius Procopius Victor Nicephorus c. and judge as you see cause especially if you will also read but the works of Tertullian Cyprian Nazianzene Basil Hilary and the true Acts of the old Councils 5. I added the equalizing the Patriarch of Constantinople which he denyeth against the express words of the Council I might adde the after prefering the Bishop of Constantinople The oft contempts and excommunications of him the altering of Church power ordinarily by the Emperors is Iustinian's making Iustiniana prima and secunda to be absolute and under no Patriarch as was Carthage and saith Pet. a Marca and many others Heraclea Pontus and Asia long The managing of many Councils without him and passing Canons as Calced 28. against him The whole Council of Ephes. 2. going against his Legates and that under a most pious and excellent Prince Theodos. 2. that used Cyril and made him President Ephes. 1. and Dioscorous Ephes. 2d and countenance this Council against the Pope When Zeno carryed on his Henoticon and Anastasius his Reconciliation how little did he or any of the Eastern Churches stick at the Popes dissent No nor Iustinian when he turned to the Heresie of the Apththartodocitae and when he drag'd Vigilius as some Historians say with a rope instances might be multiplyed § 32. My 6th proof of the novelty of the Papal Sovereignty was from the testimony of their own greatest Bishops where I cited Greg. 1st his words so plain and large against a Universal Bishop or Pastor as plainer can scarce be spoke and answered Bellarmine words against it and I shall take the impartial Reader to need no more answer to W I. than even to read the words of Gregory themselves only noting that this Iohn of Constantinople that claimed the title of Universal Bishop was a man of more than ordinary mortification and contempt of worldly things for his poverty and great fasting called Iohannes jejunus and therefore not like to do it out of any extraordinary worldliness and pride And also that Gregory was of so little power himself being then out of the Empire under other powers for the most part that he did not blame Iohn as for claiming that which he hath right to but that which no Bishop at all had right to The case is most plain § 33. My 7th proof was The Papists themselves confess that multitudes of Christians if not most by far have been the opposers of the Pope or none of his Subjects Therefore there have been visible Churches of such To this He granteth the antecedent of Christians net Univocally so called but of no others Answ. Here he intimateth that most of the professed Christians of the world were not univocally Christians by profession but equivocally only and who will easily believe such Teachers as unchristen most of the Christian World Any Sect may take that course their sence is this none are Christians indeed but only those that are subjects to the Pope therefore all the Christian World are his Subjects Just so the Donatists and some Foreign Anabaptists take it but for granted that none are Christians but those that are Baptized at Age and then the Inference will be plausible that all the Christian World is against Infant-Baptism § 34. To Aeâ—…eas Sylvius Pope Pius 2d words That small regard was had to the Church of Rome before the Nicene Council He replyeth that he meaneth not so small as not to be the Head of all other Churches else the Council of Nice had introduced a new Government Answ. His words are plain and all History of those times confirm them No one Church before the Council of Nice had any Government over others but what was for meer Concord by free consent at least before Constantine gave it them And in the Council of Nice there is not a word that intimateth that the Pope was Ruler of all the World of Christians but his power is mentioned as limited to his Precincts and the like given to Alexandria Yet Innovation in giving power to Patriarchs is no wonder in Councils How else came Constantinople and Ierusalem to be Patriarchs Was it not by Innovation § 34. Next he saith I cite Goldastus but where the Lord knows Answ. I perceive the Man is a stranger to Goldastus who hath gathered a multitude of Old Writers against the Papacy for Princes Rights and bound them in many great Volumns De Monarchia Constitut. Imperial I cited no particular words but all these great Volumns of many Authors of those times shew the opposition to Papal Claims § 35. His saying That the Schismatical Greeks were not Univocal Christians is no more regardable than the Greeks Anathematizing Papists § 36. My plain Testimony of their Reynerius Armeniorum Ecclesiae Aethiopum Induorum caeterae quas Apostoli converterunt non subsunt Ecclesiae Romanae He first cavils at my saying were not under instead of are not not seeing that I only recited the Assertion as uttered by Reynerius so long ago and must I not say that he saith then they were not under if he so long ago say They are not 2. But he would perswade the Credulous that this speaks of them but as Schismaticks as Alexandria Antioch Constantinople are not now under Rome but have been Answ But those that will be satisfied with forced abuse of words may believe any thing that a Priest will say The context confuteth you You do not pretend that India turned from you and was under you By the Churches Planted by the Apostles he plainly meaneth those without the Empire as being none of the Provinces put under the Bishop of Rome nor of old claimed by the Pope § 37. I cited Melch. Canus words Loc. l. 6. c. 7. fol. 201. Not only the Greeks but almost all or most of the rest of the Bishops of the whole World have vehemently sought to destroy the Priviledges of the Roman Church and indeed they had on their side both the Arms of Emperours and the greatest number of Churches and yet they could never prevail to abrogate the Power of the one Roman Pope To this he saith That 1. Canus speaks of different times not conjunctly 2. And he taketh them not for univocal Christians And here he finds a Root of Rebellion q. d. Most of the Countries Rebelled against the King Ergo he had no Authority over them Answ. Our Question here was only of the matter of Fact Whether de facto most of the Bishops and Churches have not been against the Papacy This Canus asserteth therefore I seek no more And when you have proved them no Christians or Rebels I shall consider your Proofs 2. Had he meant only the most of the Bishops and Churches per vices it had signified nothing to his purpose For that had been no strength but might have been some inconsiderable Town at a time 3. But that all Church-History may help us better to understand his words that tell us oft
it was at once specially when Binnius said that at Eph. 2. Concil Only Peter's Ship escaped drowning As to his Cavil at my Translation Whether Ab aliis plerisque totius orbis Episcopis be not to be Translated if not almost all the rest at least most of the rest of the Bishops of the whole World rather than very many others I leave to the ordinary Readers Judgment And as for either Canus or his own saying that all these the Greeks and most of the Bishops of the whole World the greater number of Churches and the Armed Emperours were all Schismaticks Hereticks and no Christians but Equivocally it is no weak proof of the falseness of their Cause and Tyranny that cannot stand without unchristening most of the Bishops and Churches in the World with such Emperours Canus his confession of the Historical Truth may be pleaded by me while I hate their Robbing Christ of the greatest part of his Church because they are not the Popes § 38. My Eighth Proof of the Novelty of the Papal Sovereignty was from Historical Testimony that the Papal sovereignty was no part of the Churches Faith nor owned by the Ancients This is done at large by Bloudel de Primatu and Pet. Moulin de Novitate Papismi usher Field of the Church lib. 5. Chaucer Whittaker Io. White and many other I instanced only in many Historians Regino Herman Contract Marian Scotus Beneventus de Rambaldis and others that say Phocas first constituted saith one or Boniface obtained of Phocas say others that the Church of Rome should be the Head of all Churches To this 1. He thinks I have forgot my first Thesis because he forgot that when I had proved by three Arguments my Thesis in the fourth to satisfie their importunity I proved it with the Addition that there hath been a Christian Church still visible that Obeyed not the Pope and so added ten more Arguments to prove this Negative or Exclusive part After he cometh to this again and would have ut Caput esset to be no more than an acknowledgment of a controverted Title But at least the Primus constituit confuteth that and it is not ut diceretur haberetur or denuò esset He citeth Platina as if it were a wonder for the Popes Houshold Servant to say that it was his Right 2. But I specially note that both what is said of Phocas and by him of Iustinian Gratian c. who constitute and command this Primacy and Subjection to it shew that it was but Imperial as to bounds and Authority I before mentioned Suarez himself in his Excellent Book De Legibus saying That God hath made no Laws of Church-policy And if so not of the Papacy § 39. I noted their Novelty out of Platina in Gregor saying What should I say more of this Holy Man whose whole Institution of the Church-Office specially the Old one was Invented and Approved by him which Order I would we did follow then Learned Men would not at this day abhor the reading of the Office Hence I Note 1. That all their Church-Office was new being Gregory's Invention though no doubt much of the Matter had been in use before that form 2. Therefore the maintainers of Tradition cannot prove that because they thus Worship God now therefore they always did so 3. Gregory's Invented Office hardly received in Spain was so altered in Platina's time that Learned Men abhorred the Reading of it 4. Why might they not corrupt Church-Government where Ambition had a thousand times greater baits as well as Church-Offices This is their Antiquity and constancy This W. I. thought meet in silence to pass by § 40. My Ninth Proof of the Novelty of the Papal Sovereignty was If the Generality of Christians in the first Ages and many if not most in the latter Ages have been free from the Essentials of the Papists Faith then their Faith hath had no Successive Visible Church professing it in all Ages but the Christians that are against it have been Visible But the Antecedent is true The Antecedent I proved in twelve Instances To this he saith It followeth not that though our Church as Papal had no Successive Visibility the Church whereof the Protestants are Members had ever since Christs time on Earth a Successive Visibility When you have proved this Consequence I Oblige my self to answer your Instances and so he durst not meddle with that matter but puts it off Answ. Reader see here what an Issue our Dispute is brought to Can you wish a plainer I proved that our Religion being nothing else but Christianity our Church hath been still Visible because it is confessed that the Christian Church hath been still Visible But the Papists must have us prove also that our Church-hath been still Visible as without Popery I now prove Popery a Novelty and doth not that then fully prove my Consequence that the Christian Church was Visible without it And I prove that this Novelty of Popery is yet received but by the third part of Christians of whom I am perswaded ten to one are either compelled to profess what they believe not or understand it not Therefore the Christian Church was once wholly and is yet mostly without Popery I know not when a Cause is given up if here he give not up his Cause § 41. Twelve new Articles of the Papal Faith I named 1. That the Pope is above aâ—… General Council Decreed at Later and Florence 2. Contrarily That the Council is above the Pope and may Iudge him c. Decreed at Basil and Constance True before as a point of Humane Order but not made ever an Article of Faith 3. That the Pope may Depose Princes and give their Dominions to others if they exterminate not all their Subjects that deny Transubstantiation Decreed at Later sub Innoc. 3. 4. That the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Iesus Christ is truly and really and substantially in the Eucharist and that there is a change of the whole substance of Bread into the Body and of the whole substance of Wine into the Blood which they call Transubstantiation Decreed at Trent and proved new by Ed. Albertinus Bishop Cousin's History of Trans and by my self 5. That the Eucharist is rightly given and taken under one kind without the Cup Decreed at Constance and Trent 6. That we must never take and Interpret Scripture but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers See the Trent-Oath whereas 1. We have no certainty whom to take for Fathers a great part being called both Fathers and Hereticks by the Papists 2. And they greatly disagree among themselves 3. And have not unanimously given us any sence at all of a quarter of the Bible if of the hundredth part 7. That there is a Purgatory and that the Souls there detained are holpen by the Suffrages of the Faithful 8. That the Holy Catholick Church of Rome is the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and
yet it is the Catholick that is the whole it self 9. That Traditions are to be received with equal pious Affection and Reverence as the Holy Scripture 10. That the Virgin Mary was conceived without Original sin Decreed at Basil. 11. That the people may not read the Scripture Translated into a known Tongue without a special License 12. That the Books of Maccabees and other such are part of the Canon of Faith against which see Bishop Cousins and Dr. Io. Reignolds See in Dr. Challenor's Credo Eccles. Cath. sixteen of their Novelties See Dallaus De cultu Latinorum their Worship proved new All this W. I. passeth over § 42. My Tenth Argument was If multitudes yea the far greatest part of Christians in all Ages have been Ignorant of Popery but not of Christianity then there hath been a Succession of Visible Professours of Christianity that were no Papists But the Antecedent is true Ergo c. Here I brought full proof of the Antecedent 1. From the Ignorance which they themselves accuse the Aethiopians Armenians Greeks Russians c. of and the Protestants also 2. The known Ignorance of the far most of the Vulgar in their own Church 3. The Papists charge on the Council of Chalcedon and others about their power 4. The difference of the Councils of Constance and Basil and Later and Florence about their Essentials 5. The large proof brought by Dr. Field Append. l. 3. Potter p. 68. Bishop Morton Apol. To this he Answers as to the last by notorious giving up his cause neither granting nor denying That there hath been a Succession of Visible Professours of Christianity that were no Papists which he saith is all that I prove Answ. And what need I more Is not the Succession of the Church as Christian granted by him Therefore if I prove it also Successively Christian without Popery I know not what else the Man would have But he saith Arrians may say so too Answ. Arrians are not Christians If his meaning be that besides our rejecting Popery we have some other Heresie which unchristeneth us 1. That 's nothing against my Argument which is but Christians Visibility ... 2. Why did he never tell us what that Heresie is Would he not if he could And was he not concerned to do it 3. It 's known that it is our rejecting Popery that is the Heresie they charge us with as to any other we defie their Accusation And 4. If any individual person be Accused let it be proved Our Religion Objective is justified by themselves from Heresie and all positive Error For it is nothing but the Sacramental Covenant briefly explained in the Creed Lords Prayer and Decalogue in the Essentials and in that and the Integrals all the Canonical Scriptures So that our proof of our Churches Visibility as Christian and not Papal is all that Reason can require of us And so this Task is done § 43. After these Arguments I added some Testimonies of Historians which shew how Melch-Canus words de facto are to be understood and how the word Catholick Church was then taken and how small a party the Papal Sovereignty had in the very worst times viz. Rog. Hoveden Mat. Paris in H. 2d shew that it was Avitas leges consuetudinis Angliae which the Pope here Damned and Anathematized all that favoured and observed them Here is Tradition Antiquity and the immutability of Rome The German History collected by Reuberus Pistorius Freberus and Goldastus fully shew That the Papal Tyranny only kept under by a Turbulent Faction the greater part by fraud and force which never consented to them The Apology of Hen. 4. the Emperour in M. Freberus To. 1. p. 178. saith Behold Pope Hildebrand's Bishops when doubtless they are Murderers of Souls and Bodies such as deservedly are called the Synagogue of Satan Yet they write that on his and on their party is the Holy Mother-Church When the Catholick that is the Universal Church is not in the Schism of any Side or Party but in the Universality of the Faithful agreeing together by the Spirit of Peace and Charity And p. 179. See how the Minister of the Devil is besides himself and would draw us with him him into the Ditch of perdition Who writeth that God's Holy Priesthood is with only thirteen N. B. or few more Bishops of Hildebrand's and that the Priesthood of all the rest through the World are separated from the Church of God our Mr. W. I. would say that only these thirteen Bishops were Univocal Christians when certainly not only the Testimony of Gregory and Innocent but the Judgment of all the Holy Fathers agree with that of Cyprian that he is an Aliene profane an Enemy that he cannot have God for his Father that holds not the Unity of the Church And p. 181. But some that go out from us say and write that they defend the party of tâ—…r Gregory not the whole which is Christ's which is the Catholick Church of Christ so the Catholick Church and the Popes Sect are distinct And p. 180. But our Adversaries that went from us N. B. not we from them use thus to commend themselves We are the Catholicks We are in the Unity of the Church So the Writer calls them Catholicks and us that hold the Faith of the Holy Fathers that consent with all good Men that love Peace and Brotherhood Us he calls Schismaticks and Hereticks and Excommunicate because we resist not the King He addeth out of Isidore Etymol l. 8. The Church is called Catholick because it is not as the Conventicles of Hereticks confined in certain Countries but diffused through the whole World Therefore they have not the Catholick Faith that are in a part and not in the whole which Christ hath Redeemed and must Reign with Christ They that confess in the Creed that they believe in the Holy Catholick Church and being divided into Parties hold not the Unity of the Church which Unity Believers being of one Heart and Soul properly belongs to the Catholick Church So far this Apol. of the Emperour Here you see what the Catholick Church is and that the Papalines were then a little Sect of thirteen or a few more Bishops And now Reader open thine Eyes and Judge whether the Emperour and all the rest of the Western Churches besides all the rest a greater part of the Christian Word are therefore no Univocal but Equivocal Christians because a Papal Faction and an Equivocating Jesuite may call them so All this the prudent Disputer thought best to Answer by silence § 44. I added because of their noise of Heresies charged on the Abassines Syrians Armenians Greeks Protestants c. 1. That they differ in greater matters yea de fide than many things which they call Heresies are 1. I repeated the differences of their Councils Const. and Basil against Later and Florence c. 2. Pighius words Hierarch Eccl. l. 6. That these Councils went against the undoubted Faith and Judgment of the
Confirmation Vocation Missions Jurisdiction All these explained Sect. 8. He makes the Chapters in Queen Elizabeth days to have had the power of choosing all the Parish Priests Popes no Popes for want of common consent Sect. 9. who must choose a Monark of all the earth Sect. 10. Their succession interrupted Sect. 11. 12. Is it essential to a Bishop to have many Congregations parishes or presbyters By affirming this he nullifieth all the first Bishops who were Bishops before they made presbyters under them and so denyeth all succession by denying the root CHAP. 5. What they mean by TRADITION Sect. 1. He thinks the Tradition of all the world may be known by every Christian as easily as the Tradition of the Canonical Scripture Sect. 2. Tradition against Popery Sect. 4. The Protestants Abassines Armenians Greeks c. are of one Church Sect. 4. The contradictions of W. J. The unity of all other Christians as such greater than the unity of Papists as Papists Sect. 5. CHAP. 6. What they mean by a General COUNCIL His definition of a general Council is no definition Sect. 2. Councils of old not called by the Pope Sect. 3. His confusion and contradictions Sect. 4. General Councils were but of the Empire proved Sect. 5. The impossibility and utter unlawfulness of a true universal Council of the whole Christian world proved Sect. 6. How many make an universal Council Sect. 7. They make presbyters uncapable of voteing in councils and yet the highest ancient part of the Papacy viz. to preside in councils is oft deputed to presbyters Sect. 8. The council of Basil that had presbyters rejected by them for other reasons Sect 9. CHAP. 7. What they mean by SCHISM Papists acquit all from schism who separate not from the Whole visible Church of Christ Sect. 1. We separated not from the Greeks Arminians c. Sect. 3. He absurdly requireth that we should have our Mission and Jurisdiction from them if we have communion with them Sect. 4. We have the same faith with them Sect. 5. How far we separate from Rome Sect. 6. They were not our lawful pastors Sect. 7. Of hearing the pharises Sect. 8. We infer not Rebellion against Authority by our rejecting trayterous Usurpers Sect. 9. Whether the first Reformers knowingly and wilfully separated from the whole Church on earth Sect. 10. He pretendeth that the Churches unity is perfect and therefore that it is impossible there should be any schism in it but only from it when their own sect had a schisme by divers Popes for forty years Whether all that followed the wrong Pope those forty years were out of the Church and damned Sect. 11. His definition of schism agreeth best to the Papists who separate from all the Church save their own sect Sect. 12. An admonition to others Sect. 13. My Reasons unanswered by which I proved 1. That we interrupted not our Church succession when we broke off from Rome 2. That the Roman Church is changed in Essentials PART II. The PREFACE ALL was not well said or done by every Bishop or Council of old Sect. 1 2 3. Of the considerableness of the extra-Imperial Churches of old Sect. 4 5. The plea of Peters supremacy and their succession overthrown There never were twelve Patriarchal seats as the successors of the twelve Apostles No one Patriarch claimed to be an Apostles successor but Rome and Antioch and Antioch never claimed supremacy on that account Sect. 6. The true state of the controversie about the Churches perpetual visibility Sect. 7. Papists make Christians no Christians for not obeying the Pope and no Christians to be Christians if they will be his subjects Sect. 8 9. What I maintain Sect. 10. A discourse republished proving that Christs Church hath no Universal Head but himself Pope nor Council CHAP. 1. The Confutation of W. I's Reply Twelve instances confuâ—…ing the wild fundamental principle of W. J. that whatever hath been ever in the Church by Christs institution is essential to it Sect. 4. By this he unchurcheth Rome Sect. 5. He saith that every such thing is essential to the Church but not to every member of the Church but to such as have sufficient proposal confuted Sect 6. By this their Church cannot be known or the faith of a few may make others Christians Sect. 7. His assertion further confuted Sect. 8. His Logical proof shamed that every accident is separable and therefore all that Christ instituted to continue is no accident Sect. 9. Whether the belief of every institution for continuance be essential to the Church Sect. 10. They unchurch themselves Sect. 11. He acknowledgeth that all Christian Nations are not bound to believe the Popes supremacy expresly but implicitely in subjecting themselves to them that Christ hath instituted to be their lawful pastors Five notable consequents of this The true method of believing Sect. 12. The instance of the conversion of the Iberians and Indians vindicated He supposeth that every revealed truth was taught them by lay-persons Sect. 13. The instance of Peters not preaching his own supremacy Act. 2. vindicated Sect. 14. The Indians converted by the English and Dutch are taught the true faith Sect. 15. And so are the Abassines Sect. 16. His Doctrine against Christs visible reign containeth many gross errors commonly called Heresies And by making the Christian world a Monster if it have not one Papal Head he maketh the humane world a Monster because it hath not one humane King Sect. 17. CHAP. 2. Our Churches visibility confessed Theirs to be by them proved How far any Protestants grant the power of Patriarchs and the Pope as Patriarch Sect. 1. He biddeth me but prove that any Church which now denieth the Popes Soveraignty hath been always visible and he is satisfied whether that Church always denyed it or not Sect. 2. Notes hereon Whether they should exclaim against Christ as an invisible Head who make him as visible in the Eucharist to every receiver as a King is in his cloathes Sect. 3. Whether a Ministry be essential to the universal Church Sect. 4. His Argument against our Christianity re-examined and confuted by divers instances of such fallacies Sect. 5. He requireth an instance of any Church-Unity though without a humane head which endeth the controversie Sect. 6. More differences and greater amongst Papists than among all the other Churches Sect. 7. He hath no evasion but saying that these Churches are not Christians because they depend not on the Pope from which he before said that he abstracted Sect. 8. He denieth us with the Abassines Greeks Armenians c. to have been of the Church and of one Church both fully proved Sect. 9. The charge of Nestorianism and Eutichianism on many Churches examined Sect. 10. His shameful calling for the names of sects and requiring proof of the Negative that they are not such Sect. 11. CHAP. 3. More of our Unity Of the speech of Celestines Legat at Ephesus Sect. 1 2. His saying and unsaying Sect. 3. His
instances of Goths Danes Swedes examined Sect. 4 5. Whether extra Imperial Churches were under the Pope Sect. 5. In what cases some were and which His pretence to the Indians Armenians and Persians examined Sect. 6. The Tradition of these Churches is against Popery Sect 7. His notorious fictions about the subjection of the Indians Armenians and Abassines to Rome Sect. 9. 10. Of Pisanus Arabick Nicene Canons Sect. 11. He intended to write a Tractate to prove that extraneous Bishops were at the Councils But that put-off goeth for an answer Sect. 12. He confesseth that the very Gallicane and Spanish Liturgies mention not the Popes Soveraignty no more than the Ethiopick Sect. 13. When Constantine intreated the King of Persia for the Churches there the Pope did not command there Sect. 14. Whether before Gregory's Mission the British Church was ever subject to the Pope or heretical Sect. 15. Reynerius words vindicated viz. The Churches of the Armenians Ethiopians and Indians and the rest which the Apostles converted are not under the Church of Rome Sect. 16. The 28. Can. of the Council of Calcedon vindicated which declareth the Pope to be but the first Patriarch in the Empire by humane right for the sake of the Imperial City Sect. 17. 18 19 20. His brave attempt to prove that extra-Imperial Bishops were summoned to the Councils At Nice of John Persidis Armenians Gothia At Ephes. 1. Thebamnon Bishop of Coptus Sect. 21. 22. His other citations confuted Sect. 23. Of Eusebius his circular Letter Sect. 24. CHAP. 4. The Emperors and not the Pope called the old Councils Sect. 1. Myraeus his Notitia Episcopat against him Sect. 2. Of the authority over the barbarous given Con. Calced c. 28. Proof that the Papal power was held to be but jure humano Sect. 5. He was over but one Empire Sect. 6. No councils but of one Empire Prospers testimony examined caput mundi expounded Sect. 7. Pope Leo's words examined Sect. 8 9. The Decretal Epistles shew the Popes ruled not the world Sect. 10. More of Ethiopia and Pisanus's Canons Sect. 11. CHAP. 5. The Case reâ—…eated The uselesness of his Testimonies therein CHAP. 6. The Vanity of his proofs that Councils were called General as to all the world and not only to the Empire From the words totius orbis from the end the peace of the World and the rest Sect. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. His Question answered what Hereticks are Christians Sect. 8 9 10 11. He saith that no Heretick believeth for the authority of God revealing and so acquitteth all that do but believe that God is true which is all that believe indeed that there is a God Sect. 12. Of sufficiency of proposal of truths It is not equal He absolveth Hereticks And maketh Hereticks of the Papists Sect. 13 14 15. Whether the Papists and Protestants are one Church Whether the Pope and Christ are two heads Whether a King that saith God hath made me the Vice-god of all the earth set not up a policy destinct from Gods Sect. 16. One called a Papist may be a Christian and another not Sect. 17. 18. CHAP. 7. Whether we separate from the Church as the old Hereticks did Sect. 1. Whether we separate from other Churches as we do from the Papal Sect. 2. Arrians separate from the Church as Christian Sect. 3. Why they-call us Schismaticks Sect. 4. 5. Papists agree not whether Hereticks are in the Church Sect. 6. What we hold herein Sect. 6. His absurd answer Sect. 7. Whether every man deny Christs veracity who receiveth not every truth sufficiently proposed Sect. 8 9. He maketh it a grand novelty of mine to say that there may be divisions in the Church and not from the Church because the Church is a most perfect unity The shame of this charge Sect. 10 11. His charge of Eutychianisme on the Abassines c. Sect. 12. Of self-conceited hereticating wits Sect. 12. Whether the Abassines confess themselves Eutichianes Sect. 14. Of the Greek Churches rejecting us Sect. 16. The Greek Church claimed not Soveraignty over all the world but in the Empire Sect. 17 18 19. Whether every child subject or neighbour must judg Hereticks and avoid them unsentenced Sect. 20. His false answer to the testimony of their own writers that free the Greeks from heresie Sect. 21. The witness of the Council of Florence That the Greeks meant Orthodoxly Sect. 23. Nilus testimony vindicated Sect. 24 Our unity with Greeks and others Sect. 25. A notable passage of Meletius Patriarch of Alexandria and Constantinople for the sole Headship of Christ and the Popes usurpation novelties and forsaking tradition which with Cyril's testimony W. J. passed over Sect. 26. The Answer to W. J's second part of his Reply Sect. 1. SUfficient answers to all his citations pretermitted in terms Sect. 2. Because I cite a Patriarch and Councils excommunicating a Pope by the Emperor Theodosius countenance he saith I plead for Rebellion Sect. 4. His instances of the Popes extraneous power confuted Sect. 5. His particular proofs before promised in a special Tract examined 1. His error of Theophilus Gothiae Sect. 6. 2. Of Domnus Bosphori his gross error Sect. 7. 3. Of Joh. Persidis Sect. 8. 4. Of Bishops of Scythia Sect. 9. 5. Of Etherius Anchialensis for Sebastianus Sect. 10. 6. Of Phaebamnon Copti Sect. 11. 7. Of Theodulus Esulae so falsly called Sect. 12. 8. Of Theodorus Gadarorum Sect. 13. 9. Of Antipater Bostrorum Sect. 14. 10. Of Olympius Schythopoleos Sect. 15. 11. Of Eusebius Gentis Saracenorum Sect. 16. 12. Constantinus Bostrorum Sect. 17. 13. One pro Glaco Gerassae All shew his gross ignorance of the Bishopricks of the Empire Sect. 19. The Nestorians Epistle at the Council Ephes. to Callimores Rex expounded Sect. 20 21. Remarks upon passages in the first Ephisine Council Sect. 22. Remarks of the Council of Calcedon Sect. 23. Of the Titles Caput Mundi Mater omnium Ecclesiarum Primatus Apostolicus c. given to Antioch and Jerusalem Sect. 24. Binnius confession that at Conc. Const. 1. The Pope presided not per se vel per Legatos Sect. 25. His assertion that the Councils pretended to jurisdiction over the Church through all the World examined Sect. 26. The vanity of his first proof Sect. 27 28. Of his second and third More Notes of the Council Calced Sect. 29. His fourth instance confuted Sect. 30. His fifth confuted Sect. 31. His sixth confuted Sect. 32. His last instance vain Sect. 33. He could not disprove the Roman Church from being really two Churches named one as having two supreme Heads Sect. 34. I could not intreat him by any provocation to prove the continued visibility of the Church as Papal PART III. A Defence of my Arguments for our continued visibility Sect. 1. WHether all Believers are Christians Sect. 2. The vanity of his next Cavil against my definition Sect. 3. My definition of Protestants vindicated Sect. 4. One may have communion with faulty Churches Sect. 5.
unchurched O poor Anchorites Hermites that are alone and shipwrackt Christians c. 2. Here is a new found priviledg of having company if in a Tavern or Alehouse and of being married and in a family such may be Christians when the solitary cannot Who would have thought that the Papists had held this But you say nothing to the case of them that are converted to Christ by a solitary Preacher that never tells him of a supreme Pastor as the English and Dutch convert many Indians Can they be subject to him that they hear not of W. J. Whether he be named or no the Church must be supposed to be sufficiently explicated to them as having some prudent manner of Government so that they must be instructed to render obedience to such Governours as Christ instituted in his Church which is virtually to a chief Pastor R. B. 1. So they that take the Pope for Antichrist may virtually be Papists Be content with that virtue 2. But I think that even that general belief of Pastoral Government is necessary ad bene esse rather than ad esse of a Christian. R. B. 1. I note by the way to be hereafter remembred his description of a particular Church as given by Hierome that it is Plebs unita Episcopo and Cyprian saith Ubi Episcopus ibi Ecclesia And Ignatius To every church there is one Altar and one Bishop with the Prosbyters and Deacons But by this Rule they make those that are now called parish-Parish-Churches to be no Churches but only parts of a particular Church 2. Note that in his Definition he maketh living in external communion essential to those Congregations or Communities of Christians who make up the Catholick Church but tells us not whether it must be a Civil or only a Religious Communion or what Religious Communions besides unity of faith and dependance on Pastors it must be If by those words pag. 3. every particular family or neighbourhood he express that external communion then if their Pastors never give them Gods Word Sacraments or Prayer it may serve 3. He saith p. 4. In this consists your fallacy that you esteem none to be actually members of the universal Church unless they be actual members of some particular Church which I deny Which is his meer fiction of which I was so far from giving him any occasion that I was charging it as an error on himself reasonably supposing that by Visible Assemblies he had meant Churches 4. Note that he maketh it essential to the members of the Catholick Church that they depend on their lawful Pastors and yet that it is but a virtual subjection to the Pope by subjecting themselves to Christs manner of Government which is essential 1. Are not all Protestants and other Christians that own not the Pope true members of the Church then while they subject themselves in general to Christs manner of Government 2. He subjecteth himself to no Governour who doth it not to some existent individual For the universal existeth not but in the individuals And if it be not necessary that the Pope be this individual then subjection to some other is more essential than to the Pope And who is that who must be preferred before him Q. 2. What is that Faith in unity whereof all members of the Catholick Church do live Is it the belief of all that God hath revealed to be believed or of part and of what part W. J. Of all either explicitely or implicitely R. B. He might easily have known that it is explicite belief which the question meant for his implicite belief is the actual belief of nothing but the general and not of any unknown particulars Where there is no object in esse cognito vel percepto there is no act of faith for the object essentiateth the act in specie And where only the general object is perceived and no particular e. g. All that God saith in Scripture is true when one word of Scripture is not known there is no object for a particular belief But it is the belief of this or that in particular that we enquire of e. g. that Jesus is the Christ c. Your implicite belief is actual belief of the general but of particulars it is actually none at all as common reason tells us His reply to this I shall answer by parts in order R. B. We have here a most implicite account of the implicite faith which is essential to a Church-member The man would make the ignorant believe that their Schools are agreed of the sense when he might easily know the contrary I mentioned different senses of implicite faith 1. When Particulars are known and believed actually but confusedly and not distinctly but in gross So Dr. Holden in Analys sid seemeth to take it so the parts are seen or known oft in the whole so a purblind man seeth all the letters men trees c. before him I see all the sand in the hour-glass or much but not distinctly one sand from another This is a real knowledg of the very things but an imperfect knowledg 2. But besides this there is a knowledg of things only in their general nature which is a real knowledg but partial and imperfect As when I see something coming towards me afar of and know not whether it be a man or a beast I say it is an animal or a wight but what I know not This is not to know the thing formally but to know aliquid rei somewhat of that thing 3. There is also a knowledg which besides the general nature extendeth to some inadequate conception of the form but leaveth out other parts of the conception which are essential As when one knoweth so much of a man as that he hath a rational soul and not that he hath a body or that his soul is a virtus intellectiva but not that it is volitiva or when one knoweth that fire is formally a virtus illuminativa but not that it is calefactiva or motiva This is a real knowledg but partial and not formal being not of the whole essence So when one knoweth Christ to be God but not to be man or man and not God or to be a Teacher but not a King or Priest this is not properly to know Christ but somewhat of Christ. 4. There is a knowledg of meer universal Propositions which is but Organical as to things And this is no knowledg of all the particular things spoken of nor oft of many nor sometimes of any of them nor of the particular Propositions which should be further known nor of the conclusion that should be infer'd from both For instance Men may say that Omnis spiritus est immaterialis And one may mean and know by it but as the Sadducees or Hobs or Gassendus that a spirit is a chimaera si daretur spiritus immaterialis foret And another may doubt and mean si detur spiritus immaterialis est And another may hold that there
we may not know what And he tells us That while they have an explicite belief of some Articles they can never be thought to be without faith Answ. Either he meaneth that faith which was in the question which must notifie us from Hereticks and from others without and which the Church must unite in or some other faith If any other doth he not wilfully juggle and fly from answering when he pretends to answer If he means the faith in question then Mahometans and Heathens are of their Faith and Members of their Church yea and all that they call Hereticks and anathematize themselves yea and the Devils that believe and tremble But one would think that pag. 11 he described the necessary implicite Faith when he saith Our ordinary sense is so to believe that point that we have no distinct or express knowledg of it but only a confused understanding because it is contained in confuso under this proposition I believe all that God hath revealed or I believe all that is delivered to be believed in the Holy Scripture Answ. 1. But I must again repeat that here the word confused is used but to confound This is no actual belief of any particular under that proposition When a thing is actually known in it self but only by a General knowledg or not dâ—…stinct this is truly an Impersect knowledg It is to know somewhat of that thing though not its form or individuation If I see something which I know not whether it be a Man or a Tree a Steeple or a Rock I verily know somewhat of that thing it self but not the form of it If I see a Book open at two-yards distance I see the Letters distinctly but not formally for I know not what any one of them is If I see a clod of Earth or a River I see much of the very substance of the earth and water but I discern not the sands or the drops as distinct parts Here something is known though the special or numerical difference much more some accidents be unknown But in knowing W. I's general proposition only I know nothing at all of the particulars as shall yet be further manifested 2. And mark what his general Proposition is which he saith is the object of their Implicite saith viz. I believe all that God hath revealed or all that is delivered to be believed in the Holy Scripture Either he really meaneth that this is the implicite faith by which Christians are notifiâ—…d and which uniteth the Members of the Church and distinguisheth them from those without or he doth not If he do not what doth he but deceive his Râ—…ader If he do then as I said All Christians Hereticks most Mahometans and Heathens believe the first proposition viz. That all is true that God revealeth And Protestants and Papists and most other sorts of Christians agree in the second The Scripture-truth Here then is a justification of our Faith so far But do you think that he meaneth as he seemeth to mean Do they not hold it also necessary that men must take their Church to be the declarer of this Scripture-truth And also that Tradition not written in the Bible be believed Must not both these make up their Implicite Faith If our general Faith and theirs be the same what maketh them accuse us herein as they do But now pag. 11. he proceeds to assault me with such reasoning as this No man knoweth all that God hath revealed to wit with an actual understanding of every particular Ergo say I No man believes all that God hath revealed Now I proceed If no man believe all that God hath revealed then you believe not all that God hath revealed Then further Whoever believeth not all that God hath revealed is no good Christian nor in state of salvation But you believe not all that God hath revealed Ergo you are no good Christian nor in a state of salvation See you not how fair a thred you have spun Or will you say that he that believes not all that God hath revealed is a good Christian If you will you may but no good Christian will believe you Answ. The man seemeth in good sadness in all this Childish Play And must Rome be thus upheld And must poor mens Faith and Consciences be thus laid upon a game at Cheating Words No wonder that this Hector would have nothing said in dispute but syllogism c. Few Lads and Women would unmask his pitiful deceits whether the great disputer saw their vanity himself I know not But men at age that can speak and try sense will see that all this Cant is but the sporting-equivocation of one syllable ALL This ALL is either a term of a meer general proposition e. g. All Gods word is true Here I believe what is predicated of this general word ALL and take this for a true proposition ALL Gods word is true Or it signifieth the very things species or parts as in themselves known and so if the very things species or parts generally expressed by the word ALL be not themselves known as such things species or parts it is no actual knowledg of them at all to know that truth of the said general proposition And doth not every novice in Logick know this The same I say of Beliefs as of Knowledg He is no good Christian who believeth not that all Divine Revelations are true which Hereticks and Heathens believe But neither I nor any Christian known to him or me knoweth or believeth ALL the particular verities which God hath revealed And he believeth not one of them beside that proposition it self which is found among the rest who believeth but that general But yet he will justifie his vanity by more instances pag. 12 he saith When you profess in tâ—…e Creed that God is the Creator of all things visible and invisible I demand Do you believe as you profess If you do then you may believe with an actual belief that he is the Creator of many things visible and invisible whereof you have no actual understanding or which are wholly unknown particularly or distinctly to you or by any other knowledg than as confusedly contained in the word ALL. Ans. 1. What 's all this but to say that I believe this proposition All things of which many are unknown to â—…e are created by God This proposition I know and believe but the things themselves as such I no further believe than I know if I know not that they are I believe not that they are if I know not what they are I believe not what they are that is if I have not an intellectual conception That they are and What they are for believing is indeed but a knowing by the medium of a Testimony or Revelation and the veracity of the Revealer I believe that God maâ—… all that is about the Center of the earth and yet I neither know nor actually believe any one thing species or individual or
to another or the King may pardon all crimes by an Act of Oblivion without knowing what they are But if the question were about an intellectual act whose object doth specifie it intrinsecally in the mind As whether the King actually know the particular crimes which he pardoneth If you say that he knoweth the particulars actually in confuso because the only knoweth in general that some crimes there are this is but to talk against all the usual â—…ense of mankind and to call that An actual knowing of particulars in confuso which other men call No actual knowledg of particulars but only of generals which in some cases may be called a virtual knowledg of Particulars which is no actual knowledg of them and in some not But if he had heard some imperfect confused Narratives of the crimes themselves this might be called An actual confâ—…ed knowledg of them But mark Reader what edification is to be expected from these mens Disputations He knew very well that he and I are agreed that all Christians must take Gods Veracity in his Revelations for the formal object without which faith is no faith and so must believe that God cannot lie and that all is true which he asserteth And that we Protestants hold that this is not enough nor includeth the knowledg or belief of any thing which he hath revealed beside this one general He knoweth that our question is Whether it be not necessary to believe some particulars as revealed by God And whether this faith do not go to essentiate a Christian and a member of the Church And if so then what those particulars are which must be believed to constitute a true Christian and member of the Church Now he durst not come into the light and answer this question but as if he were mocking women or children saith All that God hath revealed must be believed explicitely or implicitely We understand you Sir that we must believe this Proposition All that God revealeth is true But is that enough then Heathens Idolaters Sadducees Infidels Mahometans are Christians and members of your Church But do they think so themselves If you can thus with a juggle make all the world Christians the like art may make them subjects of the Pope No saith he there must some things also be believed explicitely But the question is What they are O there you must excuse him he dare not he cannot tell you what But Sir are these some things essential to Christianity and Church-membership or not If you say Not what nothing essential to Christian faith in particular Is it faith and yet a belief of nothing in particular Is there no material difference at all between a Christian and a Sadducee Infidel Mahometan or Heathen And yet cannot Protestants be saved for want of the right belief O marvellous Religion But if any particular belief be necessary cannot it be known what it is How then can a Christian be known by himself or others from all the unbelieving world or your Church from other men This was my question to you Is not your Church then invisible when no man can know what makes a member of it And yet the man talketh confidently in his darkness as if this would serve instead of light and saith I make my Church visible though by comprehending in it all those who profess an explicite faith in several Articles which they understand distinctly and an implicite belief of the rest whereof they have not distinct understanding by professing that they believe all that God hath revealed to be believed by them whatsoever they be in particular Now so long as they persevere in this belief though they should happen through culpable negligence not to arrive to the knowledg of many things which they ought to know necessitate praecepti yet they remain members though corrupt and wicked of the Church Whereby you see how easily I avoid that difficulty which you thought I could not Ans. Too easily against all reason Reader this Paragraph is worth the nothing 1. Several Articles must be believed explicitely but not a word to tell you which or what they are or whether it be any whatever that will serve the turn if it be but that Cain was the son of Adam 2. The implicite belief of all the rest is not here said to be any implicite belief of the Pope Council or Church of Rome but that they believe all that God hath revealed to be believed by them And are we not yet so far right and reconciled This is too kind to the Protestants For it takes in all mankind with them who confess a God For to give him the Lie is to deny his Perfection that is his Godhead 3. Mark that even culpable ignorance of other things unchurcheth not 4. And yet all this denoteth but a corrupt and wicked member of their holy Church which if such cannot be saved 5. And with this chat the man thinks he hath done his business And doubtless there are some so ignorant as to believe him But all this wants but two things to make it just the true Christian faith One is to name those Particulars essential to Christianity which must be believed The other is to distinguish between a sound and serious practical belief and a dead opinion or profession And to conclude that the sincere practical belief constituteth invisible justified members and the profession maketh only visible ones Next he hath another bout against Omne animal vivit the question was whether to know this be to know that W. I. Bucephalus a Phoenix or an Unicorn liveth I say No because it may stand with the ignorance that ever there was or will be such an Animal as is called W. I. or any of the rest But he makes all good on his side by talking of Impossibilities and such-like words which are of the same use in respect to our arguments that Drums in an Army are to drown the groans of dying men and put courage into the Soldiers He saith When Philosophers say Omne animal vivit they mean it of the essence or notion of Animal to be a living thing and this is true of me and all particulars whether we be in actual existence or not Is not here excellent Philosophy It 's very true that this is a true Proposition Omne animal vivit whether VV. I. exist or not But is this true of VV. I. and all particulars VVhether they exist or not That which existeth not is nothing neither VV. I. nor any particular The sum is then Nothing is a living thing or animal There is a VV. I. and all particulars which are all nothing and yet are animals or live Who would not turn Papist and run into a Nunnery that is but charmed with such Philosophy Next pag 15. he saith That how much must be believed explicitely is a dispute among Divines not necessary to be determined here yet I will say something to that presently Ans. I warrant you
nothing is necessary to you to do which you cannot do without coming into the light It 's a dispute among the Papists Divines what a Christian is or what Christianity is And yet they have an Infallible Judg of all the Scripture and all Controversies And yet they can tell that Protestants are Hereticks And yet they can tell who are members of their Church though it be a dispute among Divines But mark that this is not then with them de fide any point of faith what a Christian is or what must be believed For their Divines dispute not that which they take to be de fide I told him that a man may believe that the Bible is true and Gods word and yet not know a word that is in it or that Christ is the Messias or that there was ever such a person He answereth that This is morally impossible For either such a person believes the Bible rashly and imprudently and then according to all Divines his faith cannot be supernatural and divine or sufficient to constitute him a Christian or he believeth it prudently by prudential motives of credibility Now that can be no other than the authority of the Catholick Church which he cannot be ignorant to profess the faith of Christ there being no other save that though he know not by experience that Christ is mentioned in the Bible he cannot but know that he is professed to be the Son of God and Saviour of the world by those of the Catholick Church who delivered the Bible to him as the word of God and that such a faith is necessary to Salvation Ans. Here are many things worthy our consideration 1. That a man is not a member of the Church that is a Christian unless his faith be supernatural and divine not only in the object but his act And surely no man knoweth what other mans act of faith is supernatural and divine Therefore no man knoweth who is a Christian and so their Church is still invisible 2. No man that believeth the Bible rashly and imprudently is a Christian And no man knoweth whether another believe it not rashly and imprudently yea whether he believe it at all Therefore no man knoweth who is a Christian or member of the Church of Rome 3. No other motive than the authority of the Catholick Church can serve to free a man from this rashness imprudence and nullity of his Christianity 1. But why then had we not this General The Church Catholick is to be believed and the Scripture to be received only by its authority before in the description of implicite or explicite faith 2. Was that man no Christian in the Primitive times who was converted by a single Apostle and took not the faith on the authority of the Catholick Church Did the Eunuch converted by Philip Act. 8. or the Jaylor and Lydia converted by Paul Act. 16. or the 3000 converted by Peter Act. 2. receive faith on the authority of the Catholick Church Or the Indians when converted by Frumentius and Edesus or the Abassian Empire that till lately knew nothing of the Pope and his pretensions Or do we read that the Apostles did use that argument The authority of the Catholick Church to convert their hearers or that they always first told them of the authority of such a Church If by the Church you mean any single Apostle or Teacher hold to that and we shall do well enough with you 3. But Authority is an ambiguous word and may deceive We maintain that a preserving and teaching ministerial authority is usually needful to mens conversion to the faith though not absolutely necessary to be first believed by the hearer But a judging authority viz. Whether there be a God a Christ a Scripture a Heaven c. or not which determineth by a sentence rather than teacheth by opening that evidence which caused belief in the Teacher himself this is not necessary to mans faith 4. And what if a man should hear a Preacher open the other reasons of Christianity without talking of the Catholick Church and its authority and should hereupon believe or should believe by the bare reading of a Bible how prove you that this man is no Christian nor shall be saved when Christ saith He that believeth shall be saved and shall not perish and saith not He that believeth on any other motive than the authority of the Catholick Church and that must be the Romans believeth rashly and impudently and shall perish 4. But it 's well worth the enquiry could we possibly find it out what he meaneth by knowing the Church and its profession and its authority and whether this be an act of necessary faith before any thing else can be believed Or what other points of faith are contained in our belief of this Church and its authority And what is the foundation of this faith It seems that he supposeth that the Church must be known before that the Christian faith be believed And that in knowing the Church we must know the faith of the Church It is one thing to know that they are a company of men called the Christian Church and another thing to know what a Christian Church is and another thing to know that this company of men is that Church Must all these be known before we can believe or but one or two and which 1. If the name were enough a man may know that a company of men are called Christians or Mahumetanes who knoweth not at all what Christianity or Mahumetanism is You say that it must be known that they profess to trust in Christ this they may do and not know who Christ is whether God or man or what he hath done or will do for us If you say that they must know that they profess that Christ is the Saviour so they may do and yet not know what the word Saviour signifieth or what Christ ever did or will do for our Salvation 2. But if he mean here that every one that will believe Gods Word must first know the Church as defined or know it in all its essence then 1. How few will he be able to prove to be Christians And how will he know who they are 2. And still the question recurreth what is it that must be particularly believed to essentiate the Church For if he know not that he cannot know that he knoweth what the Church is 3. And when that is done it seems he must know which is that Church considered in existence as different from all Heresies and other Societies But by this method our difficulties are multiplied 1. How shall I be sure that this Church doth not deceive me in saying that this and not that is Gods Word Is this by an act of knowledg or of divine faith If of knowledg what evidences prove it If of faith then I must believe God before I can believe him that is I must believe that this is his Revelation and true that the Roman-Catholick
no man could say that the common consent of the people was always for him that carried it at last as right But if you mean as you seem that the universal or common consent of the people is the determining cause that must qualifie the person for the power Then either you mean an antecedent or a consequent consent If antecedent that is election which you say may vary If consequent it could not cause that which was caused before And it is not true that the consequent consent of the most of the people depriveth the King of his Power or proveth it to be in a Usurper 3. But seeing you here also say that Consecration is not absolutely necessary nor Election by any one sort or way but may be varied as times vary you have made either any man a Bishop that any men will chuse or you have made no man a Bishop for want of a determining application or no man can know himself or be known to be a Bishop If the question were Who is the true Husband of such a woman and you should say That her own antecedent consent or election is not necessary but without it sometimes the Kings election sometimes the Ministers sometimes the Parents may serve and Matrimonial celebration is not necessary it would follow that the woman may have a Husband against her will and before she consent and she may have many or can never know which is he for the King may chuse her one and the Priest another and the Parents a third So here 4. And if his Consecration be not necessary to Episcopacy how will you prove Ordination necessary to the Priesthood Here I noted R. B. that he resolveth the mysteries of their succession and mission into popular consent To this W. I. saith that he meaneth it only as the means of knowing it Ans. But I enquired of the causes or evidences by which a Bishop may be known from a Usurper what it is that maketh him a Bishop as I would know a man from a brute a Judg a Physician a Merchant from other men But he durst not come to this because guilt makes them conscious of their own defect But W. I. saith p. 50 It is sufficient that some generalities of Election be determined jure divino Ans. Let them be such that I may know a Bishop from a Usurper by and it is enough W. J. As that it he done by Christians by such as are capable to know who is a fit person for the Office chusing freely occording to the Laws of God the further determinations are left to the Church c. R. B. Worse still 1. If the men of York chuse a Bishop of London or several parties chuse ten Bishops here they are all chosen by Christians But that is not enough What if ten parties chuse ten Popes ten Kings ten Bishops the Christianity of the chusers will not prove them all authorized 2. Nor will the choosers capacity of knowing the capable prove it Three or four very wise men may best know who is capable to be a Judg a Bishop a Husband a Tutor a Physician c. and yet if they should choose all the Judges Bishops Husbands c. in the land the persons chosen by them would be never the more such than the unchosen 3. But being conscious that you had said nothing you put in these words according to the Laws of God But the question is How shall I know what makes a true Bishop according to the Laws of God and you skilfully tell me he must be chosen by knowing Christians according to the Laws of God He that is not satisfied by you with such talk let him be unsatisfied R. B. I here noted again that by his way none of our Churches are disabled from the plea of a continued succession for want of Episcopal Consecration Ordination or due Election 2. But that we cannot know their Bishops to be true Bishops because we cannot know that they have common consent He answereth W. J. No man argues you of the want of succession in your respective Sees because you want Episcopal Consecrations but because you want Episcopal Election Confirmation Vocation Mission Iurisdiction For your first Bishops in Queen Elizabeths time and the same is of your Ministers of Parishes were intruded by secular power the Capitula had the present power of electing the Bishops vid. caet R. B. 1. It 's well we are now quite rid of the old cavil of the Nags-head Consecration Why was not this confest sooner Did you well to abuse the people so long 2. I thought we had nothing to have proved but due Qualifications due election or consent and due Ordination or Consecration But here now comes in I know not what and how much more Confirmation Vocation Mission Iurisdiction All hard words Had I put him but to have told us the meaning of these also what work should I have made him 1. What is Confirmation without which Qualifications Election and Ordination make not a true Minister or Bishop O that we knew it 2. What is Vocation besides the three aforesaid and which is necessary ad esse 3. And what is Mission besides those three which is also so necessary 4. And what meaneth he by Iurisdiction that was wanting was it the Iurisdiction of the Collator or of the Receiver not the former for we never knew that God gave any Jurisdiction to the Clergy but the Pastoral power of guiding the Churches by the Word and Keys which is the work of their own office and the office of the Ordainer is â—…o ordain and if he have power to Ordain or Consecrate he hath that Jurisdiction which consisteth of that power If it be the Receivers Jurisdiction that he meaneth that is the same contradiction For to ordain one to the Pastoral office is to give him all the jurisdiction which is part of that office And for any other jurisdiction we wish Princes would keep it both from the ordainers and the ordained But he saith that our Bishops wanted Episcopal Election Is it come to that and yet the way of Election all this while made so indifferent What is Episcopâ—…l Election not an Election by Bishops that you affirm not Not an election to be Bishops that you deny them not It is therefore such an Election as is necessary to the being of a Bishop And what is that why all that we have been able to extort from you is That it be done by Christians capable to know fit persons choosing freely according to the word of God But what it is that is according to the Word of God and what measure of consonancy to the Word and in what points is necessary ad esse you durst never tell us And we say that our Bishops were chosen by Christians capable of knowing fit persons I confess that it is my own judgment that they should have the choice or consent of the people whom they are to oversee and
deny the Popes Soveraignty and that as by tradition And how lame their tradition is which is carried but by their private affirmation and is but the unproved saying of a Sect. To this he saith W. J. That this belongs to our Controversie and not to the explication of our terms And so I must pass it by R. B. Q. 2. What proof or notice must satisfie as in particulars what is true tradition W. J. Such as with proportion is a sufficient proof or notice of the Laws and Customs of temporal Kingdoms R. B. But you durst not tell us what that is that is proportionable This was answered before I added Is it necessary for every Christian to be able to weigh the credit of contradicting-parties When one half of the world say one thing and the other another thing what opportunity have ordinary Christians to compare them and discern the moral advantages on each side As in the case of the Popes Soveraignty when two or three parts are against it and the rest for it Doth salvation lye on this W. J. As much as they have to know which books are and which are not Canonical Scripture among those that are in controversie R. B. That these books were sent to the Churches from the Apostles 1. Is a matter of fact 2. And an assertion easily remembred 3. And all the Churches are agreed of all that we take as Caâ—…cal 4. And yet men that practically believe but the Creed and Summaries of Religion shall certainly be saved though they erroneously doubted of some of the uncontroverted books as Chronicles Esther Canticles c. much more that receive not the controverted Apocrypha But 1. Your Traditions in question are many particulars hard for to be remembred 2. And that of matter of faith and fact where a word forgotten or altered changeth the thing 3. And most Christians in the world are against it 4. And you would lay the peoples salvation on it yea and make it one of your cheating quibbles to prove your religion safer than ours because some Protestants say a Papist may be saved but you say that Protestants cannot be saved that is because you have less sincerity and charity Is not here difference enough If you hold that all they are damned that believed not that all the Apocryphal books were Canonical peruse Bishop Cousins Catalogue of Councils and Fathers that received them not and see whether you damn not almost all the Church But if you confess that there is no more necessity to salvation for men to be the subjects of your Pope than there is that they try all the Apocrypha whether it be Canonical and know it why then do you found your belief that Christ is the Son of God upon your forebelieving that the Pope is his Vicar or your Church his Church And why do you make such a stir in the world to affright poor people to believe and be subject to your Pope I here asked him Must all the people here take the words of their present Teacher And he durst not answer yea or nay but as much as they do for the determination of Canonical Scriptures Ans. If it be no more it giveth them no certainty but by the belief of one man as a Teacher they are brougâ—…â—…o â—…cern themselves those notifying evidences by which the Teacher himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 books are 〈◊〉 And if they attain no higher than to believe fide Dâ—… the 〈◊〉 Doctrines the doubting or ignorance of some texts or books will not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Scripture that impress of Divine authority which to a prepared heaâ—… oâ—… reader will 〈◊〉 convince him that they are of God though not râ—…e him of every particular Text and Book R. B. Then most of the world must believe against you because most of the teachers are against you Tradition quite â—…eth Pâ—…er W. J. There is no Congregation of Christians united in the same profession of faith external Communion and dependance of Pastors which is contrary in belief â—…o 〈◊〉 any way to be parallel with us in extent and multitude Prove there is and name it All our adversaries together are a patcht body of a thousand different professions and as much adversaries one to another as they are to us the one justifying us in that wherein the other condemn us so that no beed is to be taken to their testimonies non sunt convenientia R B. They agree not with your interest But if the Testimonies and Tradition of two or three parts of the Christian world be not to be heeded I doubt the testimony of your third or fourth part will prove much less regardable Let us try the case for here you are utterly confounded 1 Indeed none that our ordinary language calleth a Congregation that is men that meet locally together are so big as all your party But a Church far better united than you are is far greater than yours Those that have all the Essentials of the one Church of Christ are that one Church of Christ But the Reformed Churches the Greeks Armenians Abassines Syrians Iacobites Georgians Copties c. have all the Essentials of the one Church of Christ Therefore they are that one Church of Christ. The Major is undeniable The Minor is thus proved They that hold the same Head of the Church believing in the same God the Father Son and â—…ly Gâ—…st and are devoted to him in the same Baptismal Covenant and believe all the Articles of faith desire and practice essential to Christianity in the Creed Lords-prayer and Decalogue and receiâ—…e all the â—…re as Gods â—…ord which iâ—…â—…y here received by us as Canonical these have all the â—…ls of the one Church of Christ and much more But such are all the forementioned Christians Ergo c. The Head and the Body are the constitutive parts of the Church The Head is Christ the Body are Christians 1. They are united in the same profession of faith viz. the same Baptism â—…reed and Scriptures 2. They are united in the same external communion if you mean external worship of God in all the Essentials of it and much more They have the same Scriptures read and 〈◊〉 they preach the same Gospel they use the same Sacraments of the Covenant of Grace viz. Baptism and the Lords Supper yea they are commonly for some Confirmation Ordination 〈◊〉 of penitence and absolution of Pâ—…nitents Matrimony c. though they agree not whether the name of Sacraments be fit for them all much less Sacraments of the Coveâ—… Grace they observe the same Lords day for publick worship they pray confess sin give thanks and praises to God and hold the communion of Saints and communication to each other in want This is their external communion 3. They have the same depenâ—… of the people on their Pastors as the Ministers of Christ authorized to 〈◊〉 and guide the Churches and to go before them in the publick worshipping of God But if
you mean that they have not the same extâ—… communion of Pastors in dependance on one as the 〈◊〉 Pastor or Governour of all the rest indeed there is none such but you For it is in that that they differ from you Reader is not here an excellent Disputer I affirm that the judgment of most of the Christian world is against the Papists in the point of an Universal Head or Governour of all Churches He saith that no one party which is for an Universal Governour and yet is against an Universal Governour is so big as their party I grant it Had they all dependance on one as an Universal Governour they were not against on Universal Governour The Abassines have one Abuna but he claimeth no Universal Government The Armenians have their Catholick Bishop but he claimeth no Universal power The Greeks have their Patriarch at Constantinople but he pretendeth not to govern all the World We are all against any Head of the whole Church on Earth but Christ and therefore are united under no other You say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 patcht body of a thousand different professions c. Ans Reproach not the Body of Christ they are far more united than your Church as Papal Are not the seâ—…en points of 〈◊〉 mentioned by Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4 5 6 7 as good as yours 1. They have one â—…ead that never â—…arieth and whom all receive you have a Head rejected by most Christians and oft turn'd into two or three Heads one saying I am the Head and another I am the Head and setting the world in blood and contention to try it out which of them shall get the better as your forty years Schisms shewed 2. Therefore this Church which you reproach as patcht is but one But yours is really many and not one specifically as well as oft numerically when there were two or three Popes you had two or three Churches For it is the pars imperans that individuateth the Society And de specie you are still three Churches as holding three several heads one holdeth the Pope to be the Head another a Council and a third the Pope and Council agreeing And these Heads have oft condemned and deposed one another Councils namned Popes as Hereticks Infidels Simonists Murderers Adulterers and Popes accused Councils of schism and rebellion at least And to this day there is no certainty which were true Popes nor which were true Councils some being called by you Reprobate because they pleased not the Popes and some approved But our Head of the Church is not thus divided nor schismatical 3 Our common faith is still the same and its rule the same but yours is mutable by new additions as long Councils will make new Decrees and no man can tell when you have all and your faith is come to its full stature Nay and your Decrees which are your rule of faith are so many and obscure that you are not agreed your selves in the number or the meaning of them 4. It is a notorious truth that all these Churches which you say have a thousand professions as they all agree in one Christian profession so do less differ among themselves than your seemingly united Church doth with it self whether you respect the number or the weight of differences 1. For the Number sint libri judices all the Christian World besides hath not so many nor I think half so many Volumes of Controversies as your Writers have written against one another as far as is come to the notice of this part of the World 2. And for the Weight 1. I have shewed that you are divided in your very Fundamentals the Supremacy you confess here that your Church is not at all agreed what the Christian faith is or who is a Christian some say he that believeth the Church and that God is a rewarder others say a Christian must believe in Christ c. 2. Your Commentators differ about the sense of hundreds or thousands of Texts of Gods own word 3. Your Disputers about Grace and Free-will accuse one the other of making God the cause of Sin and of denying the Grace of God 4. Your Moralists differ about many instances of Excommunicating Kings and then killing them and of the Popes power to depose them and of perjury lying murder adultery fornication false witness yea about loving God himself whether it be necessary to love him once a year or whether attrition that is repentance from bare fear with penance may not serve turn to Salvation with abundance such And we confess that other Christians have their differences And what wonder while they are so imperfect in knowledg and all grace And now if Concord or Discord must tell us whose Tradition or Judgment is most regardable let the Impartial judg whether the moâ—…â—…egardable Tradition of the far greatest part of the Church be not against you and whether your reproaching them for discord condemn not your selves much more than them If a subject should stile himself the Kings Vicegerent and claim much of his Prerogative without his Commission and a third part of the Kingdom should unite in receiving and obeying him and have otherwise a thousand contentions among them Qu. Whether these or the rest of the Kingdom were the more and better united When I next questioned Whether the vulgar that know not Councils resolve not their faith into the belief of the Parish-priest he saith no. And saith That the Priest is but the means by whom we come to believe and tells us that else we know not whether there were any Christians 500 years ago c. Ans. But if they will be content with Ministerial teaching and Historical proof of things past we would not differ from them we do not only assert these as well as they but we say that as we have sounder teaching so we have far better Historical Tradition of our faith than that which dependeth on a pretended fanâ—…tick Infallibility or authority of their Pope and Sect even the Historical Tradition of the whole Christian World and of many of the enemies themselves CHAP. VI. What mean you by a GENERAL COUNCIL W. I. A General Council I take to be an Assembly of Bishops and other chief Prelates called convened confirmed by those who have sufficient spiritual authority to call convene and confirm it R. B. Here is nothing still but flying and hiding his cause is such that he dare not answer Note that 1. Here is no mention of what extent it must be at all whether these Prelates must be sent from all the Christian world or whence The least Provincial Council that ever was called may be a General Council by this description 2. He tells us of other chief Prelates and yet never tells what sort of things he meaneth by chief Prelates that are no Bishops And when he hath told us doubtless he will never prove nor I hope affirm that any such Prelates are of Christs institution And if the
will not pretend 7. Were it not an impudent thing for any man to call together all the Bishops in the world If it be not desired that they come why are they called Ludicrous hypocrisies beseem not matters of this moment If it be desired only that they châ—…e some few among the rest it is the chusing of those few only that should be required But if all be intended the Devil could scarce make a more 〈◊〉 motion What! for all the Bishops on Earth 1. To forsake their charges most of them for many years 2. To lose so many years time in Travel and Session 3. To lose the lives of so many as are never like to endure Voyages and journies by Sea and Land so long with strange air and other difficulties c. But why should I stay to shame such madness when though W. I. be fain to vent it their Sect never intended nor attempted any such thingâ—… But suppose it were but some delegate Bishops that he pleaded for to make an Universal Council I have shewed in the 2d part of my Book called A Key for Catholicks how impossible and wicked the design of a true Universal Council is For 1. They must be so many from all parts of the world as may make it an equal Representative and not two or three from the remotest part and 200 from Italy and other nearer parts or else it is a putid mockery 2. Some Churches have a 100 Bishops over so many Christians as in other Countries are under one only Most report that in all Abassia there is but one Abuna which though it be not now so big as it hath been or as Alvarez saith yet is like to be as big as Brierwood concludeth viz. as France Spain Italy and Germany And should that one Abuna leave his Country to have no more vote than Pate or Olaâ—… Magnus had at Trent 3. Most of the Christian world have not half so many able Teachers as they need especially the remotest parts and it would be cruelty to the peoples souls to call away from them proportionable representatives 4 None are so fit men for the great business of Councils as the ablest boliest experienced Bishops and these are most of them aged sickly and weak and unfit for so long travels 5. Abassia 〈◊〉 not Sea-ports and the Armenians and other Nations are out of the reach of such necessary converse as must duly warn all of the time and place 6. The Bishops are under Princes of such various Religions minds and interests as they could never agree to a true Council Would the Turk that is an enemy to Christianity give leave to the Greek Bishops proportionably to come Would the Countries that are in War with those that send them give them a free passage 7. The time would be so long in passing from Abassia Armenia St. Thomas Mexico the Antipodes and staying at the Council and returning that few were like to come home alive and so the Bishops are murdered and the Countries receive not any just account of their transactions 8. When they come together the number would be so great as that they could not hear what was said by one another 9. And many would understand and speak no one common language with the rest and so be uncapable of that right understanding and communication as is necessary to the end 10. And their judgments and interests would be so cross as would render the Council too like a pitcht field and when they had wearied themselves to go home to the further parts of the world with no better an account but that they were over-voted by a greater number of Europeans who living near and under the Pope were awed by his power or by assed by interest what good would this do the Countries that sent them And all this wicked and impossible design ariseth from the idle brains of men without any true usefulness or need or any ground of Gods word or reason only because in one Empire there were oft such things as General Councils which yet were like to fields of War and had torn the Imperial Churches all to pieces had not some Emperours done much to keep the peace so that Pighius saith That General Councils themselves were but a new devise of Constantine and not of Gods institution nor of necessity R. B. I next asked of him If all must be called and but some come whether thâ—…se that never come there through distance age prohibition of Princes poverty c be any parts of the Council and so whether it be General because those should come that do not If that will serve what if none come when all are called He answereth W. J. As it is a true Parliament if a competent number come when all are called â—…o here R. B. 1. The validity of a few mens acts cometh from the fundamental Constitution which is as the Law to them But who made such a Law for all the world If God did shew it to us if man who and by what power Whether all be right and valid that is done in a Parliament or not when few are there yet it is certain the rest are absent Parliaments meet and act under Laws but Councils meet as Equals upon meer and voluntary consent The Law may oblige all the Land by that which a few men do but if there be a meeting e. g. as now at Nâ—…mengen of the Agents of free Princes who can oblige ten by the acts of two without their consent However if only Europeans be at the Council it 's certain that Africans Asians and Americans are absent and if absent their judgment and consent is not there signified and therefore if your question be only de nomine whether forty bishops may be called a General Council while the rest are far off Or if it be whether the Laws or Canons of a small or Provincial Council may oblige some men though it were not general These are nothing to our present business 2. Moreover were all the world under the Popes or any other mens Laws yet they could not be bound to wickedness self-murder neglect of their flocks and to impossibilities Therefore if e. g there were forty bishops or forty two at Trent in the beginning and 200 after and perhaps 20000 absent that were never obliged to be there the question is both whether this was an universal meeting and whether the 20000 were obliged by the Acts of the 40 or 200 3. And if they were obliged what 's that to notifie the Tradition of all the absent Churches Can you know their minds and customs by saying that they were obliged by the Decrees R. B. Q. 4. May none but Bishops and chief Prelates be members as you say W. J. No other unless such Inferiors as are sent to supply their places and as Deputies of those Bishops or Prelates c. R. B. Note here 1. He determineth no others but never tells us quâ lege and who it
is that made that Law to all the world And it 's known that the Apostles Elders and Brethren were â—…senters at Ierusalem Act 15. 2. Inferiors may come as Deputies of the Bishops for he knew that the Bishop of Rome had oft sent such to Councils so far off as his gravity would not suffer him to go to But are these Priests capable persons or not If not how can a Bishops deputation make them capable what if a Priest depute a Lay-man to consecrate the Eucharist or a Bishop depute a Priest or Deacon only to ordain will the deputation make them capable but if they are capable why may they not be there by their own right If the business of Councils be as much as our modern Papists tell us to transmit the Traditions which the several Countries have received from their Ancestors why may not ten learned grave Priests as truly and credibly tell what are the Traditions of their Country as one unlearned or learned Bishop 3. Note here how the highest acts of a Pope or Prelate with them may be done per alios by Deputies that are no Bishops To preside in General Councils was of old in the Empire the top of the Popes prerogative and yet he may do that by a Presbyter and a Bishop may vote and do all his part in a General Council by a Presbyter And is that an office properly Ecclesiastical and Sacred which may be exercised by others not of that office why then may not a Lay-man be deputed to preach baptize pray consecrate and administer the Eucharist excommunicate absolve c. if deputed And if so what is proper to the office I told him of the Council of Basil where were a multitude of Priests And he answereth W. J. Basil in many things is not allowed of by us name those others received as General Councils by us that had simple Priests with power of giving Votes as such R. B. See Reader when they have talkt of Councils and Traditions of all the Church c. all signifieth but what please the Pope and his dislike can make Councils and their judgments null at a word Basil was one of the greatest Councils that ever was but they condemned and deposed the Pope and no wonder then if the Pope dislike them and now that 's an answer to all such authority Basil is not allowed by us Nor is any thing allowed by you that is against you But if any of them would see where Priests have had Votes in Councils let them read Blondel in the end of his Def. Sent. Hieron and he shall have proof enough For I will not tire the Reader with vain citations done by many long ago Only I note 1. If Abbots that are no Bishops have Votes in Councils why not Priests saving the Popes will what makes the difference 2d If Presbyters may have Votes in National and Provincial Councils why not in General ones the will of the Pope makes and unmakes all Thus we have no satisfaction what a General Council is CHAP. VII What mean you by SCHISME W. J. I understand by Schism a wilful separation or division of ones self from the whole visible Church of Christ. R. B. If this only be Schism it 's comfortable news to many a thousand and million that some call Schismaticks I hope then there are no Schismaticks in England of those that are called Presbyterians Erastians Independents Separatists or Anabaptists For I know not one of these that separateth from the whole visible Church of Christ. But I doubt with these Judges the Church of Rome goes for the whole visible Church of Christ. I asked here Q. 1. Is it no Schism to separate from a particular Church unless from the whole W. J. No it is no Schism as Schism is taken in the Holy Fathers for that great and Capital Crime so severely censured by them in which sense only I take it here R. B. 1. He first defineth without distinguishing and then tells us that he means only one sort of Schism 2. Let the Reader but peruse all the Texts of Scriptures which mention Schism and see whether he will not find that every Text or almost every one do use the Word only of Divisions made in the Church rather than of dividing or separating from the Church and whether such separating from the whole Church be not there called Heresie rather than Schism But seeing it is only this Capital Schism that he calleth by that name I have no mind to draw him now to more censoriousness and therefore I noted how by this he absolveth the Protestants from the guilt of Schism W. J. Did not your first Protestants in Germany separate as much from the Armenians Ethiopians Greeks as they did from the Romans If they did not shew the Communion they had with them R. B. Very willingly Sir They had the same God the same Saviour the same Spirit the same Faith Baptism and Hope and so were of the same Body of Christ which is all the Union predicated by St. Paul Eph. 4. 3 4 5 6. They had also the same Scriptures the same Rule of Prayer and Practice the Lord's Prayer and the Decalogue and Precepts of Christ as well as the same Creed the same Love the same Sacrament of the Eucharist Prayses of God the Lords day for Holy Communion Pastors of the same Order and had no other Diversities in such things than St. Paul tells us are in the Body of Christ 1 Cor. 12. Is this no Communion W. J. Did your Ministers first take either Mission or Iurisdiction to preach from any of their Bishops or Patriarchs Did they take the prescription of their Liturgies Discipline or Hierarchy from them Did they upon occasion joyn in Prayer Sacraments or Sacrifice with them R. B. 1. Do we hold Communion with none that we take not Mission and Iurisdiction from What Absurdities do you thrust upon us Did the Churches of Ephesus Corinth Galatia Philippi Colosse c. hold no Communion in Scripture-times unless they had Mission and Iurisdiction from each other Must the Greeks and Armenians have Mission c from us If not why must we have it from them Your Church receiveth no Mission or Jurisdiction from others Have you therefore no Communion with them Your Language favoureth of so much Tyranny and Pride as would tempt Men indeed to take you for anti-Anti-christian As if Subjection to you and Communion with you were all one or you would have Communion with no Christians in the World bâ—…n the relation of Servants or Subjects to you 2. When we have Qualification Election and where it may be had due Ordination we know of no other Mission necessary besides Gods own Word which chargeth Christ's Ministers to preach the Gospel in season and out of season c. God's charging all Ministers to preach is their Mission when they are Ministers Princes leave and Peoples consent do give them their opportunity and for
may help to deceive the ignorant 1. Your Popes as Universal Bishops had never true Power over us 2. Nor any Bishops as their Ministers as such 3. For this treasonable Usurpation we were bound to avoid them as scandalous Invaders of Christ's Prerogative which some call Antichristian 4. Our English Bishops and other Pastors when they came to see that such an Usurper had no right to govern them forsook him but forsook no Governour 5. Those Bishops that adhered to him the People justly forsook as Usurpers under him 6. Those that forsook him they obeyed as their true Pastors And now will it follow if I be obliged to renounce a Usurping Vice-King and Traytor as having no power over me as such and that I partake not of his Treason that I must therefore forsake the King for his personal faults If the Deputy of Ireland should say I am Vice-King of all the Kings Dominions and I challenge Obedience from all the Subjects and the King forbid us to obey him as such I may obey him in Ireland till the King depose him and I must renounce him in England and yet I must not tell the King Sir why must we not then for your faults also renounce you The scandal of Treasonable Usurpation differeth from a meer immorality or miscarriage R. B. Qu. 2. Is it no Schism unless wilful W. J. No. R. B. Again you further justifie us from Schism If it be wilful it must be against knowledge But we are so far from separating wilfully from the whole Church that we abhor the thought of it as impious and damnable W. J. Abhor is as much as you please for your own particular I know not what may be pleaded for you I am certain that your first beginners did it and that knowingly and wilfully and you still maintaining what they began must by all considering Christians be judged guilty of the same Crime for still you remain separate from all these Christians from which they departed that is from all the visible Churches existent immediately before they sprung up and in their time and still continue through the whole World R. B. A naked bold and shameless assertion without one word of proof Our Reformers knew no Head of the Church but Christ and they neither renounced him nor any one Member of his Church as such but only a Trayterous Usurper and his Sect indeed while he claimed but as Patriarch some Government of them jure humano by the Will of Princes they gave him answerable obedience and in their ignorance most gave him too much and many perceived not his Usurpation But when the Empire was down that set him up or had no power here and their own Princes no longer obliged them hereto he had not so much as such a humane Authority And when they that renounced him as a Traytor to Christ protested to hold Communion with all Christs Church on Earth according to their distant Capacities and to abhor all separation from them would not a man have expected that this Dispute should have given us some proof that to forsake this false Head was to separate from all the visible Churches on Earth I proved our Union with them before Yea he presumes to say That he is certain that they did it knowingly and wilfully As if he knew all the hearts of thousands whose Faces he never saw when they that should know them better thought that they were certain that they separated from no Christians but an Usurper and his Adherents as such And this we have great reason to continue as much as Subjects have to separate from Rebels R. B. Qu. 3. It is no Schism if men make a division in the Church and not from the Church W. J. Not as we are here to understand it and as the Fathers treat it For the Church of Christ being perfectly one cannot admit of any proper Schism within it self for that would divide it into two which cannot be R. B. 1. If there be other Schisms besides separating from the whole Church why should you not here understand it unless understanding things as they are will hurt your Cause 2. What a stranger doth this Disputer make himself to the Fathers if he know not that they frequently use the word Schism in another sense than his I will not be so vain as to trouble my self or the Reader with Citations The Indexes of the Fathers and Councils will satisfie those that will but search them Was it a separation from the whole Church which Clemens Romanus the eldest of them all doth write his Epistle to the Corinthians against or rather a particular Schism between the people and some few eminent men Read it and see what credit these men deserve when they talk of the Eathers Judgments 3. But his reason is most unreasonable That the Church of Christ is so perfectly one that it cannot admit of any proper Schism within it self Can the Unity be perfect while all our uniting Graces are imperfect When every Member is imperfect in Knowledge Faith Love Holiness Obedience Iustice Patience c. how can the Union be perfect 4. Reader do but read their Councils Church-Histories Baronius Genebrard Platiâ—… Wernerus to whom I may add above one hundred and if thou dost not find them and also their polemical and practical Divines commonly mentioning Schisms in the Church of Rome it self then believe these deceivers and call me the deceiver Do they not lament their Schisms Were not the Councils of Constance Basil Pisa c. called to heal them Do they not number the Schisms that fell out in 40 or 50 years time and continued Dare any man deny it Were these then Proper Schisms or not No it 's like this man would say that none of these Writers speak properly when they call it Schism I would he would tell in the next what proper word to use But either these Schisms were within the Church or without it Reader see whither falshood will run at last If they were within the Church then W. I. doth but abuse you by his falshoods If without the Church then one half the Roman Church was Unchurched for 40 or 50 years when they followed one Pope while the other half followed another And who knoweth which of these parts was the Church It seems whoever adhered to the wrong Pope was none of the Church But saith Wernerus and other Historians sometimes the wisest were at their Wits end and knew not which was the true Pope nor is it known to this day Nay the matter is yet worse A great General Council deposed Euginius the Fourth as no Pope but an uncapable wicked Heretick and yet he kept in and became the only Head of their Church whom the rest succeed And so all that Church by this rule was unchurched Sure necessity must make you recant and say that yet both Parties in your long and odious Schisms were within the Church or else what a Wound will ye inflict
Church 6. Christ himself washed his Apostles Feet and taught them to do the like which was used in those hot Countries where it was a needful Act of Ministry but yet it is not essential to the Church 7. Baptism from the beginning as Instituted by Christ was Administred by dipping over Head in Water but you take not that to be essential to the Church 8. The Lord's Day 's holy Observation as Instituted by Christ and his Apostles hath ever been in the Church and yet many of your Doctors do equal it with other Holy Days and make it not essential to the Church 9. Christ and his Apostles distinguish Essentials from Integrals and Accidents in their time therefore they are still to be distinguished And it is a strange Society that hath not ever had Integrals and Accidents Christ Instituting Baptism saith He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved Thus the Essentials Yet he saith Teach them to observe all things whatever I have Commanded you But all those are not Essentials for Christ himself distinguished Tything Mint Annise and Cummin from the great things of the Law And yet saith These ought ye to have done And St. Paul saith The Kingdom of God is not Meat and Drink but Righteousness and Peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost c. And yet more than these were then a Duty All things were to be done decently and in order And yet who ever said but you that all this is essential to the Church Christ by his Apostles instituted that Collections for the Poor should be made on the first Day of the Week yet is not that essential to the Church 10. Afflictions are Accidents of the Church and of Christ's appointment and have been ever there and yet are not essential to it 11. All the numbers of Christians and the higher Degrees of Gifts and Grace have been of Christ and ever in the Church and yet it is not essential to it that Christians be just as many as they have been or of such measures of Gifts and Grace for even Perfection is a Duty 12. Few of your own do think that extreme Unction is essential to the Church and that if it ceased it would be no Church The like may be said of many other things But see how these Men Unchurch themselves For if this be true then the Church of Rome can be no true Church For it hath cast off that which they call Essential Were it but the Cup in the Lords Supper and Publick Prayers in a Known Tongue the change hath Unchurched them These Consequents fall on them that will Unchurch most of the Church of Christ. But Page 55 56. he saith That he doth not say that every such thing must be necessarily believed by every Member No not the belief of the Pope's Supremacy but to such only to whom they are sufficiently propounded Answ. 1. And yet these Men tell our People to affright them That they cannot be saved out of their Church or in our Religion And now it is not essential to believe the Pope's Supremacy 2. But who can ever know what will pass for a sufficient propounding while twenty degrees of Mens Capacities make twenty degrees of Proposal respectively sufficient what Man of Reason can believe that such self-confuting Disputes as yours are a sufficient Proposal of the Pope's Supremacy And sure the Christian Empire of Abassia then had no sufficient Proposal when but lately your Emissaries told them that they never heard from the Pope till now because he could not have access or send to them Q. Whether that Empire be true Christians through so many Ages seeing they received not the Scriptures on the Authoritative Proposal of the Pope or Papal Church and yet confessedly were never bound to believe the Pope's Supremacy 3. By this account all Christians essentially differ from each other in their Religion and Christianity is a word of such monstrous ambiguity that it signifieth as many several Religions as there be persons in the World whose divers Capacities maketh diversity of proposal become necessary or sufficient to them But he saith that these are all essential to the Church though not to the several Members More difficulties still 1. How shall we ever know the Church this way If the belief of the Popes Supremacy be essential to some and only to some how many must they be that so believe Will one serve or one thousand to make all the rest Church-Members that believe it not Or how many will this Leven extend to Why then may not the belief of Italy prove all the World to be the Church 2. How cometh another mans belief to be of such saving use to others If you say that it is not his belief but their own who believe not then all the World is of your Church that want sufficient proposal And Unbelievers are Christians or of the Christian Church so be it they never heard of Christ and so all the unknown World and Americans and most of the Heathens are of your Christian Church And why may not the Pope be saved then without believing his own Supremacy I verily think that there is not one Pope of twenty that believeth his own Infallibility Doubtless some illiterate or ill-bred Popes have had but very defective Proposals of their own Supremacy it being rather affirmed by Flatteries than ever proved to them Pag. 57. Having first called for sense in my words because the Printer had put as for is he turneth his former assertion whatever hath been ever in the Church by Christs institution is essential to it into another Because Christ hath instituted that it should be for ever in the Church it is essential And this yet more plainly shameth the asserter than the former For no man can deny but that Christ hath instituted 1. That every word of the Canonical Scripture should be ever after its existence in the Church 2. And that no Ministers should preach any thing but truth in the Church 3. And that no man should commit any sin at all 4. And that the Eucharist be delivered in both kinds in remembrance of Christ till he come c. And yet sure all this is not essential to the Church Pag 58. He would perswade me that I miscite Fr. Sta. Clara and that he saith not that Infidels may be saved but only those that have not an explicite Faith in Christ through invincible ignorance and that he saith not that it is most of the Doctors Opinions nor that any may be saved who are out of the Church and that my Friends will be sorry to see me so defective in my Citations and he hopes I will mend it in the next Ans. That I will if plain words transcribed be any amending but I cannot amend your deceitful dealing 1. I did not say that Sta. Clara saith They may be saved out of the Church but that such are in your Church and so may be saved who indeed are no
received by the Proposal of the Papal Church as such whereas now we perceive that it may be received from the Church though they know it not to be Papal And we thought it must have been received as from a General Council or the Church universal but it seems here it is needful but that it be from their particular Pastors 4. By this it seems that there are other Pastors that must be believed received and obeyed before the Pope and Subjection to them is of absolute necessity to salvation and Churchmembership when subjection to the Pope is of no such necessity How the Pope will take this we know not but 5. It leaveth us to new doubts as hard as any of the rest How to know that such indeed are our lawful Pastors before we know that there is a Christ or a Pope and how to know which are they We perceive now that Implicite Faith is not necessarily the believing Pope or Council but the believing those that Christ hath instituted to be our lawful Pastors Qu. 1. But can we know that Christ instituted them before we know that there is a Christ or that he is true Christ Q 2. Can you be true Pastors without derivation from and dependance on the Pope or be so known by the People O that you would but come into the light and tell us how And then Q. 3. tell us why the same People may not take Protestant Armenian Abassine Bishops or Presbyters for true Pastors by the same Proof Q. 4. And doth not the Proof or Knowledge that Men are our Lawful Pastors without knowing that they have Ordination Jurisdiction Mission or Confirmation as you distinguish them from the Pope or are subject to him also prove that quoad esse Men may be cur true Pastors without any of these relations to the Pope For the esse rei is presupposed to the Proof and Knowledge 〈◊〉 And in relations the Fundamentum entereth the Definition I conclude that being my self unfeignedly and earnestly desirous to know the truth whether the Pope be the appointed Church-Monarch of Government of all Christians that dwell on the Face of the Earth and having diligently read what you and abuâ—… 〈◊〉 more have written for it I profess that I never yet heard or saw any Proposal of it nor yet of abundance of your Doctrines which was sufficient to convince my understanding of it but much to convince me of the contrary And I may suppose this to be the case of most who need as clear evidence as I and therefore that we are none of us by your Concession obliged either necessitate medii or praecepti to believe you or to be your Subjects And I confess I like the preaching of these Men whose labour is only to subject Men to Christ and to their Lawful Magistrates and Domestick Governours and to the Teaching-Conduct of those that speak to them the Word of God better than theirs that make it the Foundation of their Religion to make all Men on Earth their Subjects And yet Teachers we acknowledge necessary to our Faith but it is not first necessary to believe them to be sent by Christ before we believe in Christ. But 1. The first Messengers Apostles did at once affirm that Christ is the Saviour of the World and that he sent them to witness his Resurrection Miracles and Works and to preach his Gospel And the Tongues Miracles c. by which they proved it was a Proof of both at once but principally of the former For if an un-called Preacher had wrought a Miracle it would have proved his Doctrine but not his Calling 2. But ordinary Preachers now give us the Evidences of the truth of the Gospel which were heretofore delivered to the Church The Doctrine's self-evidencing Divinity as it hath the Impress of God's Power Wisdom and Love his Holiness Justice and Mercy with the antecedent Prophesies fulfilled and the concomitant and subsequent Miracles and the continued Seal of the sanctifying Spirit in all Believers And by these we are first drawn by the inward operation of the Holy Ghost to believe in the Father Son and Holy Spirit before we believe that he sent these Men to be our Lawful Pastors Yea without believing them oft-times to be our Pastors or any Pastors at all We detest those Self-Preachers that would make the World believe that we must believe them to be our Lawful Pastors and receive them before we believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and receive him And we detest that false Doctrine that saith That a Lay-man may not convert Souls to the Faith of Christ and that God's Word and Spirit may not by his opening that Word win Souls that know not yet what Ministry Christ hath instituted To my Instance of the Iberians converted by a Maid and the Indians by Frumentius and Edesius he answers 1. That he can prove the Papacy preach'd to them as well as I can Iustification by Faith alone or any other parcicular Point of our Doctrine 2. We must both say that all important truths of Christianity were preached to them and till you have evinced this of the Supremacy to be none of those it is to be supposed it was sufficiently declared to them 3. Explicating the Article of the Catholick Church it 's supposed they were told it consisted of Pastor and People united and that they must obey their Lawful Pastors in which Doctrine the Pope is implicitely included Answ. 1. Our Doctrine as you call it is Christianity and I can prove nothing preached but what made them Christians which you confess may be without believing the Pope's Supremacy 2. A brave Argument All important truths were preached Ergo you must prove that this is not one of them 1. All important truths cannot in reason be supposed to be preached by those two Lay-men and by a Maid All essential truths we may suppose preached or else they could not be Christians We heard before that you would perswade us that every truth of continued institution is not only important but essential to the Church Whence you may infer in your way that the Maid and the two Lay-men had preached every such truth and left not one out or else there was no Christians and Church 2. It 's your part to prove that the Papacy is such an important truth and not mine to prove the Negative which yet I have oft and fully done 3. The Article of the Catholick Church was not at first in the Creed as the old Copies shew And Baptism was Administred without mentioning that Article 4. If holding that People must obey their Lawful Pastors will serve then we are all right 〈◊〉 if this be an implicite belief of the Papacy we are all Papists yea perhaps Mahometans and Heâ—…thens are Papists too by such a belief To 〈◊〉 Instance from Act. 2. he saith 1. Who can tell whether Peter told them not of his Supremâ—… 〈◊〉 2. They address'd their Speech first
Iudgments which he executeth Psal. 9. So all things and power now are given unto Christ and he judgeth the World as Lord of all For the Father judgeth no Man but hath committed all Iudgment to the Son Joh. 5. 22. 7. He denyeth Christ's final visible Judgment if he hold strictly to his words That the Exercise of Christ's Pastorship is only in spiritual Influences and internal Graces If you say that some of my Instances are not of his Pastoral but his Regal Offices I answer that it is but some that you so except 2. It is a mistake because his Pastoral and Regal Office are one and the same indeed not two Offices but two inadequate Metaphorical conceptions of one and the same Office of Christ And it belongeth to the Pastor to provide Food for his Flock to govern them to fetch them home and to defend them and destroy the Wolves He saith all that is visible is done by visible pastors and all that is invisible by Christ in the Pastoral Function as if Christ did nothing which they do or no more than they do And he reproacheth Christ's Church as being a Monster unless it have some other visible Head Like Cardinal Bertrand see his words in his Book in Biblioth Patrum that saith God had not been wise if he had not made one Universal Monarch over all the World And when we have fully proved that a mere Humane visible Church-Governour over all the round Earth is impossible and such Power never was deputed by Christ to any and that the far greatest part of the Church never owneth or did own such Will it not then follow that his reproach of Christ's Church and Government is unjust and rash And would it not follow by the same reason that the Earth as Gods Kingdom which Christ also is the King of is a Monster being a visible Body unless it had one mere Humane visible Head Are not Men as Men and governable by the Sword as visible as Men as Christians and governable by the Word and Keys If so which is undeniable Why is the Christian World any more a Monster without a Monarch Bishop than the Humane World without a Monarch King But pag. 66 67. he asks Whether Christ performed immediately any visible Action in relation to the Church and saith Men will expect that I shew that Christ not in his Person but in the Exercise of his Pastoral Headship works visibly by himself Answ. If it be not the Person 's Visibility that you require but the Action that is considered either as it is Agentis or as in Passâ—… in the Receiver The former is seen if ever only when it is the seen Moâ—…us of a Body If the latter I have named you divers visible Acts of Christ. But why must immediate come in Doth not my hand write visibly unless I do it without a Pen How little Government do great Emperours exercise immediately in all their Empire even none in the far greatest part in all their Lives but give out their Laws and Mandates to others What Government hath your Pope exercised immediately in Abassia Armenia Tartary Persia yea or Mexico much less at the terra australis incognita and all that side of the Earth which Lactantius Augustine c. denyed He confesseth that he cited not Ephes. 4. to prove the Papacie but successive Pastors Reader think seriously 1. whether the Pope be not an invisible Head and his Church a Monster by this mans rules Doth he rule all his Church immediately or by others If by others doth not Christ do so and better And was Pope Zachary the visible Head at the Antipodes when he commanded Boniface to excommunicate Vigilius for holding such a World under us as we call the Antipodes And is this Pope a capable Head of all the World that denyeth the very Being of them and holdeth that there is no such thing as so great a part of it O what a Pastor or Apostle is this that excommunicateth men for affirming the existence of the charge which he undertaketh The Answer to W. J's second-Chapter Whereas W. I. would perswade men that it is first incumbent on us to prove where there hath been a Church in all Ages without the Roman Papacie I first evidenced that it is incumbent on them as having the Affirmative to prove that the Universal Church hath been headed by the Pope in all Ages For 1. our Religion is nothing but Christianity as such And this they confess hath been in all Ages since Christs and Churches professing it so that all our Religion being past Controversie between us and them which is still to be noted we have no need to prove that which is not denyed who denyeth that there have been Christian Churches But it is their addition of the Papal Soveraignty over the Universal Church which is denyed by us and must be proved by them according to the common Rules of Disputation 2. And the denyal of their addition is the Renunciative Consequence and no direct and proper part of our Positive Religion True Faith is one thing and the Renunciation of all Errors contrary to it is another thing The one is such as may be defined the other in particulars hath no bounds I can soon say that There is one God the Father Almighty c. and in general that I deny any other but if I will undertake to name them all that are worshipped as Gods and say e. g. Sathan Iupiter Sol c. are no Gods I can never know when I have done and this is but a consequent of my Faith so it is to believe that Mahomet Amida Zachea c. are no Saviours Now if any would bid me prove Where there hath been Church in all Ages that did renounce Arrianism Macedonianism Nestorians Eutychians Monotheliâ—…es c. I cannot prove that any did expresly renounce these before they were known in the World and yet Christianity was the same Religion of the Church without any change before and after So W. I's demand upon his Plea of present possession is as if he should say The man of seventy years of Age which is now gray-headed and lame was ever so Or the Church which now honoureth St. Martin St. Thomas Aquinas as Saints is the true Church of Christ And if you cannot shew us that your Church hath in all Ages so honoured St. Martin c. you are not the true Church of Christ. What if it had been The Church that keepeth Easter-day as now we do and Christmas day on the 25th of December is the true Church of Christ therefore you must prove that your Church hath ever done so Could they prove their Papacy in the Empire as old it would have the same answer viz. It was but a part of the Church and not the whole that kept Easter and Christmas as we do now for one part kept Easter on another day till the Nicene Council ended that Controversie in the East and Christmas-day
People yea and Clergy it 's most probable never understood the Controversies 7. Yea he that with judgment readeth the Acts History and Debates of those times may well doubt whether Nestorius Eutyches or Dioscorus understood them themselves and whether the Heresie lay not mostly in an unskilfulness of interpreting of words and expressions Dioscorus solemnly professed that he held neither division of Natures nor confusion of them nor transmutation and that antecedent to their Union they were two These are unskilful expressions But one would think that he that held that Union did neither change nor confound them must needs mean that they were distinct though not divided and the Orthodox denyed division as well as he And if men had in those Councils but distin guished the senses of the word Union or One half as exactly as all Metaphysicks and Schoolmen use to do it 's a great doubt whether it would not have reconciled both Eutyches and Nestorius to the Orthodox it being most undeniable that there is a sense of the word in which Christs Natures may be said to be One and a sense in which they cannot be so said A sense in which he had two Wills and a sense in which he had â—…ut one A sense of the word person in which it might be said to have had two persons and a sense in which it could not be so said And he that readeth how Hierom was a while Hereticated for refusing the word hypostasis and what Controversie was about that word and persona between the Eastern and Western Bishops till it was found out by Nazianzene and other peaceable men that they meant the same thing may possibly hope that if such men as are peaceable and skilful in discussing ambiguous terms and driving unskilful men to understand others and speak aptly themselves had patiently searched the business to the bottom they would have found fewer Hereticks than were judged such And their own Writers have no other Argument to excuse Pope Honorius condemned for a Heretick by a Council as well as Nestorius and Dioscorus but that he understood not the words and was misunderstood And Nestorius whatever some say to the contrary denyed Christ to be two persons These are his words to Cyrils Papers In eo 〈◊〉 laudo quod distinctionem Naturarum secundum Divinitatis humanitatis rationem harumque in Una duntaxâ—…t persona proedicas His Heresie lay in two words 1. That he said Mary was not to becalled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deipara but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of Christ 2. That he said in the Synod He would not say that God was two or three months old and do not Cyril's answer to the objections of the oriental Bishops plainly shew that the aptness of the word Deipara was the Controversie And he that had but said that Christus non Qua Deus sed Qui Deus qua Deus Unitus humanitati was born of Mary had been like to have reconciled them all However the number so judged was inconsiderable as to all the Christians in those Countreys and among millions of Christians it is not twenty Bishops thought guilty that are a proof that the Country or Multitude was so 8. To conclude the Papists themselves ordinarily justifie them from that charge and confess that the Christians of those Countries are honest harmless men that understand not what such Heresies are or detest them as I have before shewed out of Brochardus that dwelt at Ierusalem and others And what man can tell us that millions of professed Christians are Hereticks that never declared any such thing themselves Were it lawful so boldly to censure others how much more excusable should we be if we judged the Pope and his Followers Hereticks who are far more corrupt and erroneous than these whom they accuse and deny to be Christians But page 86. 87. malignity is so hard put to it for some sorry pretensions against Christian charity and for Unchurching the most of the Church of Christ that he hath nothing to say but such stuff as this I require the nomination of the determinate Opinions of Societies as Hussites Waldenses Nestorians Eutychians c. not of their persons and therefore I say you nominate none much less prosecute you those with whom you begun Now these were Greeks Armenians Ethiopians Protestants So that I speak undeniably of the nomination of Sects and Societies not of Names and Sir-names and Genealogies of persons There were different Sects and Professions in different Countries as Armenia Abassia c. I require the nomination of which of those Sects or Parties you mean in those Times and Nations not what were their Names and Sir-names nor is it sufficient that you say there were Christians that is Christians univocally so called or true Christians in all Ages in Armenia Ethiopia Egypt c. who denyed the Popes supremacy for unless you nominate of what Party Sect Opinion or Profession they were how shall any man judge whether they held not some Opinion contrary to the essentials of Christianity and by that became no Christians c. Answ. I would not insult over Men in their sin and folly but I must say that I reverenee that Wisdom and Justice of God which hath made the Evidences of Christian Truth and the Rights of his Church and the Obligations to Love and Concord so clear that Learned Malice trained up in Satan's 〈◊〉 cannot speak against it without such impudencse as this Man here is put to exercise When he denyed most of the Church to be true Christians he puts me to prove that they have been such I convince him that I am not bound â—…o name the Men and even the Country it self may prove but a mutable Seat of Religion but I prove that Christians that deny the Pope's Supremacy or are none of his Subjects have successively from the beginning inhabited those Countries And now the Man is angry that I will not call them by the Names which their malice casteth on them but only call them Christians of Armenia Ethiopia c. Their factious Interest taught them to stigmatize better Men with odious Titles and I must needs do so too But Sir resume some modesty if I prove them Christians do you prove them unchristned if you can I prove that they are baptised and profess all these Creeds which were the Symbol of Christians for many hundred years and they receive the Holy Scriptures Do you prove that they invalidate all this Profession or confess your self a Calumniator Must I tell you what By Opinions they all hold that you may judge whether they are Christians or not Cannot you judge by their Baptism Creeds and Profession of Christianity till you are told their Opinions in controverted things Why then said you that you call not for their Names How can I tell the Opinions of Men un-named and unknown but by their Professions I know not the Opinions of my Neighbours at the next Doors and
forced the Imperial Churches to have owned him as Orthodox nor to have forborn renouncing Communion with him 3. And surely if it was Heresie which he was guilty of it was so before it was declared so by the Council and therefore might be so known by that Extraimperial Church to which he should remove § 5. Thirdly The same Answer serveth to his third Reason That If any Imperial Country were won from the Empire they would be free not free from other Mens disowning or renouncing them I told you before the plain words of Theodoret That James Bishop of Nisibis was at the Council of Nice for Nisibis was then under the Roman Empire § 6. Fourthly The same Answer sufficeth to his fourth Reason That a Nation Conquered would have been brought under the Council and Faith would have depended on the Fortune of War Answ. True If Faith were no Faith without a General Council's determination and if there was no Faith in the World before there was a General Council nor any Christian before Constantine's time What if only a Provincial Council had Condemned any Heresie Consider how far the Extraimperialists had been Obliged by it The Truth and Reason of the decision would have Obliged them § 7. Fifthly He saith It would follow that the Kingdoms that are now fallen from that Empire should have no Successive descending Obligation to the four first General Councils Answ. Not at all as Subjects to Men dead and gone nor as if the Canons of those Councils were a Law properly Divine and so bound us as meer Subjects of God nor yet as Subjects to the present Patriarchs of Rome Alexandria Antioch c. whose Predecessours made those Canons But 1. The Word of God which they declared bound Men before and bindeth them since in all Nations of the World 2. And God Obligeth us to do all things in as much Love and Concord as we can And when the greatest part of the Christian World agree upon any thing Lawful and convenient an Obligation for Concord may hence arise on others without any Subjection to a Governing Authority And in these two respects such Councils may Oblige us but not as Subjects § 8. Sixthly His last Reason is That those Extraimperial Christians who embraced the Heresies Condemned in any one of those Councils never alledged this Reason Answ. 1. Those Councils themselves had more Modesty than to say This is a Heresie because we have Iudged it so for it was so before by the Judgment of Gods Word It had been therefore a frivolous Defence of Heresie to say We are not Subject to the Council unless they could have said We are not Subject to the Law of God 2. What Extraimperial Nations mean you that owned Condemned Heresie If the Arrian Goths they Learned it from Valens and the General Councils of the Empire If the Nestorians and Eutychians prove that any Extraimperial Nations were such If they were guilty of any Heresie what Occasion had they to alledge such Reasons to Justifie themselves to Men that never sent or urged the Authority of such Councils on them Prove you first that ever any General Council for five hundred Years did Judge any Extraimperial Bishops or Depose any one of them for Heresie 3. But your Sect use to accuse the Abassines as Eutychians and Godiguus and others will tell you that they deny that they were under the Pope § 9. I told him that some Hereticks are not Christians univocally and others so called were better Christians than the Papists The former are not of the Christian Church the latter are It is not an Usurpers calling others Hereticks that will blot their Names out of the Book of Life To this he saith That I should have told him which of them I take for Univocal Christians and that they had the Names given them long agoe Answ. 1. By what Authority can you require me if you name Men by an hundred Nick-names to tell you all over which of these I account Christians Is it not enough that I tell you in General that I account all those Christians that hold all the Essential parts of Christianity and renounce none of them 2. How long soever Men are Calumniated that proveth not the Calumny Just. It is long since the General Council at Basil pronounced the Pope an Heretick and that it is Heresie to deny that a General Council may Judge him and yet the Papists believe not this Council § 10. I told him that I had rather be in the case of many that have been burnt as Hereticks than of the Pope and others that burnt them His Answer to this is He wisheth me better and he bringeth many Accusations against the Albigenses as if we had never disproved those Calumnies which hath been so long and fully done as among others by Bishop Usher Dâ—… Statu success Ecclesiar and Paul Perrin It being a Company of Manichees only that were scattered among the Albigenses and waldenses that were guilty of the Heresies mentioned by him as I have also shewed in my Confutation of Mr. Danvers the Anabaptist § 11. I told him that All those that were true Christians were of one Universal Church And he again canteth over the Nick-names of some and would know which of them I mean And I told him again that I mean all that owned the Essentials of Christianity Perhaps such a Monothelite as Pope Honorius might be a Christian. I told you before that Anatolius in the Council openly said that Dioscorus was not condemned for Heresie And I would most Papists were as good Christians as we have reason to think the Novatians were The name of Luciferians Quartodecimani Iconoclasts Waldensâ—…s Hugonotes Lutheranes Zuinglians Calvinists c. unchristian none no more than the name of Papists And it is worth the noting 1. How zealous Macedonius Nestorius and Dioscorus were against Hereticks and how hot in persecuting them and stirring up the Emperours against them and by this were carryed into those Errors for which they were condemned as Hereticks themselves 2. And how long it was oft in doubt which party should be accounted Hereticks till the countenance of Emperors turned the Major Vote of the Bishops Right In the dayes of Constantius and Valens the Orthodox went for Hereticks with the greater mumber And under Valentinian and Theodosius they were Catholicks under Theodosius junior the Eutychians went for Catholicks and under Martian they were condemned The same Bishops went one way at Sirmium and Ariminum with old Osius who after repented and went the other way And the same Bishops went one way at the Second Council of Ephesus who recanted at the Council of Calcedon and how long was the case of the Monothelites in doubt and the Iconoclasts much longer § 12. When I told him that it is only our Relation to Christ the Head that maketh all Christians one Church he saith that Christ is but our Causal and not Formal Unity and that Faith and Charity are not
necessary to make us Members Answ. As the union of King and Subjects maketh one Kingdom so the union of Christ and Christians maketh one Church and we call none Christians that profess not true Faith and Charity and their seed But he saith the Question is How a Heretick or Schismatick can be a true Christian. Answ. Ambiguous words are the game of deceivers and to open the ambiguity marreth their cause The word Heretick I have told you signifieth either one that denyeth an Essentiall part of Christianity or one that only denyeth an Integral part The former are no Christians the latter may § 13. But he will prove that no Heretick is a Christian or hath true Faith viz. Whoever hath true faith believeth the material object of faith for the Divine authority of God revealing it That is certain But so doth no Heretick That 's very false of both sorts of Hereticks 1. You call the Luciferians the Novatians c. Hereticks and who can see reason to doubt but they might believe that all that God saith is true 2. Overdoing is undoing As you are the greatest causes of Schisme by overdoing as against Schisme so you would justifie almost all the Hereticks in the world by your blind overdoing as against Hereticks and while you would make most or much of Christs Church to be Hereticks you would make men believe that there are none All that believe that there is a God believe that he is Verax no Lyar but true All that believe that God is no Lyar but true of his word believe all to be true which they judge to be his word But saith W. I no Heretick believeth any thing on the authority of God revealing that is because God that revealeth it is true And so all those that believe that God is true and that any thing is true because he revealeth it are no Hereticks And who knoweth other mens hearts better You or They You take me it's like for a Heretick I say that I believe that God cannot Lye and I believe in Christ because God the â—…evealer is true You say Then I am no Heretick If an Arrian can but truly say that he believeth all Gods word to be true but he taketh not Christs Consubstantial eternal Deity to be Gods word you will justifie him to be no Heretick And yet the poor Iconoclasts the Waldenses the Berengarians can find no place in this mans Church when yet he thus acquitteth almost all Hereticks in the whole world Nothing but humerous singularity can pretend any probable reason why an Arrian a Nestorian an Eutychian a Monothelite yea a Mahometan or other Infidel may not believe that God is no Lyar but all that is indeed his word is true § 14. But he will not be unreasonable without reason His Argument is Whosoever believeth the material object of Faith for the Divine Authority of God revealing it must believe all things which are as sufficiently propounded to him to be revealed of God as are the Articles which he believeth protesteth to and believe nothing as revealed which is as sufficiently declared to him to be erroneous and not revealed c. But every Heretick doth otherwise If he believe some and refuse others equally propounded it is not for Divine Authority Answ. If you believe this reasoning your self you deserve little belief from others 1. The word sufficiently propounded will never sufficiently be expounded by you nor ever is like to be Sometimes by sufficient as in the Dominicans controversie of sufficient grace is meant that which quo posito res fieri potest sine quo non potest And so taken as necessarium or possible for the minimum tale it hath no degrees But usually we take sufficient in such a latitude as that things may be in many degrees one more sufficient than another that is more apt and powerfull to produce the effect And for the first remember that if you judge so mercifully of Hereticks as that no one is such that hath not a proposal in the very first sense sufficient you can call no Arrian nor Photinian or Gnostick a Heretick till you know that the Proposal was to him sufficient And how much less can you call the Nestorians or Eutychians or the Abassines Syrians Armenians c. Hereticks when you know them not and know not the sufficiency of their proposals And to know that a proposal was sufficient to Nestorius Eutyches or Dioscorus doth not prove that there was such sufficient proposal to all others that go under such names either then or now Who knoweth not that an unlearned man hath need of clearer and ofter teaching than the Learned and one that by Education is prepossest with contrary conceptions hath need of more than the unprejudiced and one that is corrupted by sensual lusts hath need of more than the temperate And what man is well able to judge of the measures of sufficiency as to other then much less to whole Nations whom we know not 2. But as to your Minor which by the word as sufficiently sheweth that you take sufficiency as it hath degrees here you seem plainly to absolve all the Hereticks in the world e. g. As if a Monothelite were no Heretick unless it be as sufficiently in degree revealed that Christ hath two wills as it is that he is the Christ and rose again or as if an Arrian were no Heretick unless it be as sufficiently revealed that Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same substance with the Father as it is that he dyed 3. And the supposition in your Minor is notoriously false that all Hereticks have as sufficient a proposal of all they deny as of that which they believe For if the meaning of the words revealing be not equally plain and intelligible then the proposal is not equally sufficient But c Can any man not blinded by faction believe that God hath no more plainly told us that Christ dyed rose and ascended than that he hath two distinct wills or that he hath but one person or that his mother is to be called The parent of God and one that did beget and bring forth God and that God dyed yea or that Christ is God of God Light of Light very God of very God and yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only from the same substance but the same substance Though these are equally true they are not equally clear and evident Do the Quartodecimani the Luciferians the Iovinians deny Truthes as sufficiently proposed as that there is a God or a Christ If you say that though they be not equally proposed in Scripture yet they are by Councils or Traditions I Answer 1. Were they no points of Faith nor the denyal Heresie for 300 years before the first General Council 2. When they of Constance and Basil are for the Supremacy of Councils as de fide and they of Laterane and Florence against them when the Council of Basil decreed the Immaculate conception of the
Virgin Mary and yet you take it for a controversie c. are these as sufficiently proposed as that there is a God or Christ 3. When Petavius citeth the words of most of the Doctors or Fathers that wrote before the Council of Nice and of Eusebius himself that was of the Council and subscribed it as being for Arrianisme or dangerously favouring it did all these Fathers think that the proposal of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was as sufficient as of a God or Christ. § 15. He taketh upon him to clear his Argument by two deluding instances which suppose an equality in the revelation But he that knoweth not 1 that it was long before all the Canonical books were equally known to be Gods word 2. And that yet it is not equally certain what Councils are true and what Traditions 3. And that there is great difference between one Text of Scripture and another in intelligible places else why do their Expositions so disagree yea of Councils too 4. And that the Hereticks have still pleaded Scripture and Tradition and Councils as well as the Orthodox as the Eutychians c. did the Council of Nice all equally professing to believe Scripture Tradition and true Councils but not equally understanding them I say he that knoweth not all this knoweth not the matters of Fact which should be known in this Dispute But how he will excuse the Papists from Heresie by his Reasoning I know not e. g. Christ Instituting his Supper saith equally 1. This is my Body and This is the New Testament 2. And equally saith Take Eat and Drink this The Papists 1. Do not believe that literally this Cup is the New Testament though equally said 2. Nor do they believe that they must Drink of it though equally Commanded Ergo by W. I's Arguing The Papists believe not that the Bread is literally Christs Body or that it must be Eaten because of Christs Truth or Authority that spake it else they would have believed both § 16. He addeth a Supposition like the rest that a Calvinist is assured that the Pope is not the Antichrist by the same Authority which he acknowledgeth to be the sufficient proposer of the Articles of his Faith And yet here may lie one of his usual Equivocations The Authority of the Author and prime Revealer of the Gospel is one and the Authority of the prime Instrumental Revealers is another The first is Gods the second is the Prophets and Apostles Tell us where either of these say that the Pope it not Antichrist But the Authority of a distant Messenger and Teacher is of a third rank A Drunken or Fornicating Priest may be such a Messenger or Teacher and may give an Infidel those Reasons of the Faith which by Gods Blessing may bring him to Believe And it is possible such a Priest and a Synod of such may say that the Pope is not Antichrist and another Synod may say he is § 17. I came next to Answer a question of his own Whether I take the Church of Rome and the Protestants to be one Church I Answered that They have two Heads and We but one As they are meer Christians united in Christ they are one Church with us as Papists united in the Pope they are not And if any so hold the Papacy as not really to hold Christianity those are not of the Christian Church with us otherwise they are though a Corrupt Diseased Erroneous part To this he saith who ever called a King and his Viceroy a Captain and Lieutenant two Heads The Pope is a dependent Officer Answ. 1. But if you distinguish between a Visible Head and an Invisible and say that the Pope only is the Visible Head of the Church as Visible and that Christ is only the Invisible Head by Influx and that it were a Monstrous Body if it had not such a Visible Head as you do 2. And if this Visible Head be an Usurpation never owned by Christ then I have reason to distinguish the Policy which is of Gods making from that which is an Usurpation and of Mens relations accordingly If any King should say I am a Vice-God or Gods Viceroy to Govern all the Earth â—…nd that by Gods Appointment and none can be saved that Obey me not I would distinguish between the World or particular Persons as Gods Subjects and as this Vice-Gods Subjects § 18. But he saith Is it possible for two Persons to be Papists and one to destroy his Christianity and the other not Answ. Yes very possible and common That is one holdeth those Errors which by consequence subvert some Article of the Christian Faith but as to the Words not understood or not understanding the consequences or only speculatively and at the same time holdeth the subverted Articles not discerning the contradiction fastly and practically another doth the contrary Even as a Monothelite or a Nestorian or Eutychian may either be one that only as to the Words or superficially erreth and in sence or practically holds the Truth or one that is contrary This should seem no strange thing to you for even a Man that professeth only Christianity may do it but Nomine tenus not understanding it or superficially and not practically and be no true Christian indeed § 19. When I exprest my hope that even he and I as Christians are of one Church he will not believe it 1. Because I am of a Church by my self neither of theirs nor any other part 2. Because I have no Faith Answ. It seems then that meer Christianity is no Faith and that there are none of the meer Christian Church but I. But who will believe the latter and when will he prove either An Answer to W. J's Seventh CHAPTER § 1. TO his Question Why we separated from them I Answered that as they are Christians we separate not from them As Papists we were never of them but our Fore-fathers thought Repentance of Sin to be no Sin If by Popery they separate from Christianity they are damnable Separatists if they do not we are of the same Church whether they will or not 〈◊〉 To this he saith That We separate from them as much as the Pelagians Donatists Acacians Luciferians Nestorians and Eutychians did from the Church Answ. 1. The Doctrinal Errors and the Separation are of different consideration The Pelagians Erred as some Dominicans say the Iesuites do The Donatists like the Papists appropriated the Church to their own Bishops and Party we do none of this Lucifer Calaritanus was too Zealous against the Arrians not communicating with them upon so short Repentance as others did But they went not so far as Crab saith the Roman Council in Sylvester's dayâ—… did that Received no Repentance before forty Years Nor so far as the honest Elebertine Council in the number of Years of Mens exclusion from the Communion I take Lucifer for Erroneous and Schismatical but not comparable to the Papists who err far more and yet separate from most of the
shall be saved that holdeth all the Essentials of Christianity truly and practically 5. I have proved that your Definitions absolve more from 〈◊〉 and Schism than I do But it 's here to be noted That this Man maketh multitudes to be under the Papal Head that are no Subjects of Christ our Head and so that the Pope hath a Church of his own that is none of Christs Church § 7. I Noted That either their Church hath defined that 〈◊〉 and Sâ—…hismaticks are no parts of the Church or not If not how can he stand to it and impose it on me If they have then their Doctors that say the contrary named by Bellarmine are all 〈◊〉 themselves He saith None of ours ever held them parts as you do that is united to Christ by Faith and Charity Answ. Is not this Man hard put to it All this while he hath been Disputing us and all called by their Usurping censure Hereticks out of the Church Visible and calling on me to prove the perpetuity of our Church Visible and telling me that without a more Visible Head than Christ it is not Visible And yet now it is but the Invisible Church as Headed by Christ and endowed with true Faith and Charity which these Doctors of theirs exclude Hereticks and Schismaticks from § 8. I said Arrians are no Christians denying Christs Essence He replyeth True and so do all Hâ—…reticks I Answer If indeed they did so not only in words not understood but in the undâ—…tood sence so that this is really their belief and really Exclusive of the contrary Truth I place no such Hereticks in the Church He proveth his charge thus Whosoever denyeth Christs most Infallible Veracity and Divine Authority denyeth somewhat Essential to Christ but so doth every Heretick properly called Answ. Away with such Hereticks as do so indeed For the Minor he cometh to the old obscurity Whosoever denyeth that to be true which is sufficiently propounded to him to be Revealed by Christ denyeth Christs Verity and Divine Authority but so doth every Heretick Answ. I have oft enough shewed 1. That the Argument is useless because no Man can judge of the Sufficiency of Proposals till they come to very high degrees as to the capacities of other Men. 2. That the Major is false For a Man that doubteth not of Christs Verity and Authority may not understand and so may deny many Truths sufficiently propounded hindering the understanding of them by sloth senfuality partiality prejudice or other faults Can any Man doubt of this 3. That his Minor also is false He may be a Heretick that denyeth that which is not sufficiently proposed if his own crime either blinding his mind or forfeiting better proposals cause the insufficiency § 9. I noted how they charge one another with Pelagianisme And he saith Not in the point of Original Sin Answ. And is all the rest come now to be no Heresie Was it for nothing else that they were judged Hereticks The rest should have as fair play if your interest were but as much for it § 10. But saith he Who ever before you said that the Catholick-Church could be divided it self when it is a most perfect unity A grand novelty of yours Answ. This is because I said that some make divisions in the Church that divide not from it much less from the whole I proved before that in this sense Paul usually speaketh against Schisme or Divisions As when he tells the Corinthians of the divisions among them c. But this man would make Scripture and common sense and reason to be grand novelties may there not be divisions in a House in a Kingdom in an Army in a particular Congregation as that at Corinth and that after which Clement wrote his Epistle to heal Have there not been abundance of such at Alexandria Antioch Constantinople was there no Division in the Church of Rome when part cleaved to one Pope and part to another for above forty years Did the Councils of Constance and Basil meet to heal their Schismes upon mistake when there was no such thing And do all their Historians erroneously number their Schisms Reader pardon my oft answering such bold abuses These are their arguers that hope to subvert England § 11. And his reason is such as would shew him a Catharist viz. The Church is a most perfect Unity If so than all grace is perfect which is necessary to perfect unity Then the Popes and Anti-Popes the warring Papalines and Imperialists the Iesuites Dominicans and Iansinists are all at perfect Unity Then there is no disagreement of Judgement Will or Practice among any Papists in the world no Volumes written against other Alas how far are such words from proving it or from ending their present Controversies or Wars Watson and Preston had scarce perfect unity with Father Parsons and the Iesuites Doth perfect unity draw all the blood between France and the house of Austria or in France between King Hen. â—…d and the Leaguers It is enough for me to believe that all true Christians have a true unity in Christ with each as his members but that this Unity among themselves is sadly imperfect and so was when they had all the contentions in many General Councils and when the people have oft fought it out to blood about Religion and the choice of Bishops at Alexandria Rome c. Is this perfection It is in heaven that we hope for perfect unity where all is perfect § 12. I told him Heresie being a personal crime the Nations cannot be charged with it Without better proofs He saith if he hath 1. the testimony of one of our Writers Answ. Alas poor Kingdoms of Christians that can be proved Hereticks if Pet. Heylin or any one of our Writers do but say it 2. He tells a story of Prestor Iohn sending to Rome for instruction Answ. Confuted so oft and by their own Writers that it 's a shame to repeat it Nor doth that prove them so much as Papists much less Hereticks 3. That their Canon of the Mass proveth them Eutychians in that they name the three former Councils and not that of Calcedon Answ. Small proof will serve the turn with such willing men What if Dioscorus made them believe that That Council did condemn the doctrine of Cyril which he verily thought was the same which he defended and rejected the Nicene Creed which he appealed to and that they divided Christ Might not the consent of the neighbour Egyptian Bishops put them out of conceit with that Council though they owned no Heresie Do not your Writers now ordinarily quit them of such Heresie Do they that disown the Councils of Constance or Basil own all the Errors or Schismes which They condemned You justifie the Abassines when you tell men that your calumnies have no better show of truth § 13. Erasmus laments the Age when it became a matter of the highest wit and subtilty to be a Christian. This seemeth about Cyrils dayes when
so then you have said nothing If not you take a General Council to be indeed the Church representative â—…nd then how many of your Popes Essential parts of your Church have been Excommunicated and deposed as Hereticks by the Universal Church And your Church now is but the Successour of e. g. Eugenius the fourth so rejected Shew us when ever the Greeks did so by our Church or us § 17. I told him the Greek Church claimed but the Primacy or Supremacy in the Empire and not the Government of all the World At this he first wondreth and then takes upon him to disprove it 1. Because else Gregory the first had ill reprehended John of Constant. for claiming the Title of Universal Bishop 2. Because Jeremy saith 1. He was Vice Christi 2. And perswadeth Lucius c. to be Subject to the Church with them Answ. 1. It was the Arrogancy of the Title that Gregory reprehended as sounding like a real Universal Claim and the reality of an Universal Claim in the Empire I proved before that the Greeks knew that Constant. had no Title Iure Divine by the Can. 28 of Chalcedon and the notoriety of the thing And therefore they could not pretend it to be over all the World where the Empire had no Power And what need there more proof than that there is no Evidence brought by you or any that ever they gave Laws to all the Christian World or that ever they called Councils out of it or that ever they set up and put down Bishops in it Indeed they have Excommunicated Roman Popes but that was within the Empire and so did Alexandria Or if since as they do still it is not as their Governours but as any Churches may renounce Communion with Hereticks or Persons uncapable of their Communion 2. And as for Ieremy 1. Will not Cyril as much prove the contrary 2. Is one Man the Greek Church 3. Did every Apostle or doth every Minister of Christ proclaim himself Universal Head of the Church when he saith as 2 Cor. 5. 19. We beseech you Vice Christi in Christs stead to be reconciled to God It is one thing to be Preachers in Christs stead to our particular Flocks and another thing to Usurp Christs proper Office and be in his stead Universal Governour of the World 4. And may not one of us or any Christian perswade a Man to be Subject to the Church of Christ And if Ieremias had a mind to Rule further than the Empire now the Empire is Mahomeâ—…an and Subjects Voluntary and free what wonder is it We undertake not to Justifie him from all Ambition § 18. I told him out of his Ieremias and his Protonotary Iohn Zygomolas that they confessed Agreement with us In continuis causam fidei praecipuè continentibus articulis and that Quae videntur consensum impedire talia sunt si velit quis ut facilè â—…a corrigâ—…re possit He tells me That 1. Yet they consent with them in all save the Popes Authority Answ. 1. How far that is from Truth Thom. a Iesu and other of your own will tell you 2. And the Popes Authority is the ratio formalis of Popery 2. He saith That Ier. claimeth as Supream Authority over the whole Church as the Pope doth Answ. 1. I will not believe it till I see the proof I find he layeth all his Claim from Councils and therefore may possibly claim power over those Churches that were in the Empire when the Council of Chalcedon gave that power but I find no more And if he did they and we may yet be Christians 3. He saith Any of the Roman Church might write the like to the Lutherans But Zygomalas supposeth them of two Churches till united Answ. He supposeth them not in all things of the same mind nor of the same particular Churches But he that saith that we agree in the Articles of Faith and differ but in lesser things of easie reconciliation either supposeth both Parties to be Christians and of one Church of Christ or else that no Men are Christians that have any Difference that is no two explicite Believers perhaps in the World § 19. I told him 1. The Patriarch was not the Greek Church Nor 2. Their lesser Errors prove us of two Religions or Churches He Replyeth 1. But he knew the Extent of his own Iurisdiction Answ. 1. So do not all Ambitious Men If he do then the Papists are all deceived for he pretended say you a Jurisdiction over the Pope and his Church But the Question between him and the Protestants wâ—… not about his Jurisdiction 2. He saith That If the Errors be tolerable we are Schismaticks in Separating from them and should rather have suffered Answ. To separate from any sin and error by not consenting or committing it no Christian denyeth to be our duty and his supposition that we separated from the Catholick or the Greek Church is but his continued fiction We were not under the Government of the Greeks and therefore not obeying them is no separation and not sinning with them is no separation we own them as Christians and we renounce the sins of all the world and hate our own more than any others so far as we know them § 20. To his saying that It is against Christianity to hold condemned Hereticks to be in the Church I answered 1. That I detest that condemnation when even non judices condemn whole nations without hearing one man much-lesser all speak for themselves or any just witness that ever heard them defend a Heresie His Answer is that I mistake the way of their Churches condemnation They do but say whoever holds such errors let him be accursed or we excommunicate such as hold them c. Answ. There is some hope left then for the Nations that are no subjects of the Pope unlesse non-subjection be the Heresie But hath the Pope gone no further than this Hath he not put whole Nations under Interdicts But he saith those that profess their heresies or that communicate with them are esteemed hereticks and those that profess to disbelieve their heresie and yet live in communion with them and subjection to them are Schismaticks Answ. 1. Here 's new confounding doctrine indeed If their Canon only condemn indefinitely those that hold a heresie e. g. Nestorianism taking it to be unfit to say God dyed or God was born must all be taken for hereticks that communicate with any of these before the person guilty is convict and judged Must every private man be the judge of hiâ—… neighbour Every servant of his Master Every woman of her husband Every subject of the King and be burnt for a heretick for communicating with one that was never accused or condemned We live then with one another more dangerously than men converse in the time of pestilence Nay what if the Priest himself admit such to the Communion must the poor people be burned if they communicate with them in the parish Church
and that his primacy is nâ—… governing power nor given him by Peter but by Princes and Councils which he copiouâ—… proveth To this he saith 1. that yet this may stand with the â—…ioque being the first cause Answ. 1. But the question was of the sole cause 2. He denyeth it to be any cause but only an Occasion and the Popes usurpatâ—…on to be the only Cause 3. Is it not known that the Quarrel and Breach began long before about the Title of universal Bishop though the Greeks did not then excommunicate you 2. He saith that By this it 's implied that the Greeks agree with them in all things save the Popes Sovereignty Answ. Doth it follow that because he saith that this only is the cause of the division of your Churches therefore there are no other disagreements all sober Christians have learnt to forbear excommunications and separations when yet there are many disagreements and we never denyed but the Greeks agree more with you than they ought and specially in striving who shall be great § 25. To his repeated words that all these were not distinct congregations c. I told him again that we are for no congregations distinct from Christians as such To which he replyeth again 1. That no hereticks say they depart from the Church as Christian. Answ. But if they do so it 's no matter though they do not say so Whoever departeth from the Church for somewhat Essential to Christianity departeth from it as Christian but you say your self that all hereticks depart from the Church for somewhat Essential to Christianity Ergo c. Object Then they are Apostates Answ. Apostates in the common sense are those that openly renounce Christianity in terms as such but those that renounce any essential part are Apostates really though but secundum quid and noâ—… the usuall sense 2. He intreateth me to name him the first Pope that was the Head of the whole Church in the world Answ. 1. There never was any such for the whole Church never owned him Abussia Persia India c never was governed by him to this day and not past a third or fourth part is under him now 2. But I must name the first that claimed it had I lived a thousand years at every Popes elbow I would have ventured to conjecture but it is an unreasonable motion to make to me that am not 70 years old I must confess my ignorance I know not who was the first man that was for the Sacrament in one kind only without the cup nor who first brought in praying in an unknown tongue or Images in Churches nor who first changed the custome of adoring without genuflexion on the Lords dayes I leave such Taskes to Polydore Virgil de Invent. rerum Little know I who was the first proud Pope or Heretical or Simoniacal or Infidel Pope it satisfies me to know that 1. It was long otherwise 2 And that it came in by degrees nemo repentè sit pessâ—…mus 3. And that it should not be so The rest of his charge against the Greeks c. requireth no answer instead of doing it he tells me he has proved there must be governours of the whole Church which if he had done as to any Universal Head he might have spared all the rest of his labour § 26. I thought a while that he had answered all my book but I find that he slips over that which he had no mind to meddle with and among others these following words you may judge why P. 115. Many of the Greeks have been of brotherly charity to our Churches of late Cyril I need not name to you whom your party procured murdered for being a Protestant A worthy Patriarch of Constantinople who sent us by Sir Tho. Roe our Alexandrian Sept. and whose confession is published And why is not He as much the Greek Church as Ieremias Meletius first Patriarch of Alexandria and then of Constantinople was highly offended with the fiction of a submission of the Alexandrian Church to Rome under a counterfeit Patriarch Gabriel's name and wrote thus of the Pope in his Letters to Sigismund King of Poland An. 1600. Perspiciat Mojestas tua nos cum majoribus c. Your Majesty may see that we with our Ancestors are not ignorant of the Roman Pope whom you pray us to acknowledge nor of the Patriarch of Constant. and the rest of the Bishops of the Apostolical Stats There is one universal Head which is our Lord Iesus Christ. Another there cannot be unlesse it be a two-headed body or rather a monster of a body You may see most serene King that I may say nothing of that Florentine Council as a thing worthy of silence that we departed not from the opinions and traditions of the East and West which by seven General Councils they consigned and obsigned to us but that they departed who are daily delighted with novelties In the same letter he commendeth Cyril and what can a Protestant say more against the Vice-Christ and your novelties and the false pretended submission of the Greeks So much to that which he calleth his First part of his Book An Answer to W. J's second Part of his Reply § 1. IN this which he calls his Second Part there is so much of meer words or altercation and of his false interpretation of some particular histories and citations that should I answer it fully it would be a great snare to the Reader 1. To weary him 2. To lose the matter in controversie in a wood of words 3. And to suppose us both to strive about circumstances and so to cast it by that I shall not lose so much of my time to so ill a purpose All that I desire of the Reader that would have a particular answer is 1. That he remember the answer that is already given to much of it 2. That he observe that almost all his citations signifie no more than 1. That both the Romans and other Patriarchs were long striving who should be the greatest and therefore intermeddling with as many businesses as they could 2. That the supream Church-power being then placed by consent and by the Emperors in Councils the five Patriarchs ought to be at these Councils when they were Universal as to the Empire 3. That Rome had the first place in order of these Patriarchs or Seats 4. That the eastern Bishop when opprest by Arrlans and persecutions did fly for council and countenance to the Roman Emperors who held orthodox and to the Roman Bishops as the first Patriarchs and as having interest in the Emperors he that was one of the greatest might help the oppressed to some relief having an orthodox Emperor by which means Constantius was constrained and Athanasius restored by the threatning of a war by the western Emperor and not by the authority of the Pope And the like aid was oft sought from Alexandria and Antioch 5 That this man and the rest of them straineth all such words as
those General Councils in all their Decrees Constitutions and Canons intended to Oblige all Christians through the whole World and thereby demonstrated themselves to have Iurisdiction of the whole Church and never so much as insinuated that their Authority was limited within the Precincts of the Empire Answ. 1. I have proved the contrary at large already 2. They might well commend their Decrees or Judgments to all Christians on two accounts 1. For Concord sake it being desirable that all Christians should as much as may be be of one mind and way 2. Ratione rei decretâ—… And so all Churches are bound to receive the same Truth that one is bound to If the Bishop of the poorest City Excommunicate a Man justly for Heresie all the Bishops in the World that know it are bound to deny Communion to that Man and so Cyprian commended the Bishop of Rome for denying Communion to Felicissimus partly because they are bound to keep Concord with all Christians and Order and partly because they are bound to avoid Hereticks And yet such a Bishop is not Governour of all other Bishops nor Cyprian of the Bishop of Rome But let us hear your Proofs § 26. I. Thus saith W. I. the Council of Ephesus saith Their Decrees were for the good of the whole world Answ. I do not mean to search so large a Volumn to find where seeing you tell me not where When as he is unworthy to be Disputed with that knoweth not how commonly then the Roman Empire was called Totus Orbis and even the Scripture saith That all the World was Taxed by Augustus How oft doth Nazianzene complain that the Bishops and Councils had distracted and divided the whole World And also that all that is for the good of the whole World is not an Act of Government of the whole World e. g. The Works of Augustine Chrysostome c. § 27. II. Saith he Thus the Council of Chalcedon Act. 7. declareth the Church of Antioch to have under its Government Arabia Answ. But do you think that no part of Arabia was in the Empire Look but in the Maps of the Empire if you have no other notice And you will be put hard to it to prove that they meant the rest of Arabia § 28. III. And act 16. c. 28. saith he That the Bishop of Const. should have under him certain Churches in Barbarous Nations which you must prove to have been under the Empire Answ. 1. I thought you must have proved that it was out of the Empire who undertook to prove it as you affirm it 2. But seeing Papists lay Mens Salvation upon such skill in History Cosmography and Chronology which this great Disputer had so little of himself we must study it better for the time come And I did fully prove to you before that the Sauromatâ—… many of the Scythians and Goths were conquered and in the Empire and Barbarians were in the Empire And by the way Note 1. That this â—…uncil of Chalcedon even writing to Leo Bishop of Rome tell him That They were called by the Grace of God and Sanction of the most Pious Emperours not mentioning any call of Leo's 2. That the Emperour Martian in his Decree against Hereticks and for this Council saith All Men must believe as Athanasius Theophylus and Cyril believed not naming the Bishop of Rome and that Cyril Praefuit Concilio Ephesino not saying that the Bishop of Rome did it or Cyril as his Vicar And that the Council-Bishops contemptuously against the Romans cryed out They that gain-say let them walk to Rome and stood to their last Canon against the Popes dissent § 29. IV. Next he saith Nicephorus l. 5. c. 16. saith That Leo the Emperour Wrote to the Bishops of all Provinces together Circularibus per Orbem literis ad Ecclesias missis Leo haec sic ad omnes Episcopos misit which he accounts were above a thousand to have them subscribe to the Council of Chalcedon Answ. Some Men perceive not when they consute themselves 1. I tell you Totus Orbis was a common Title of the Empire 2. Had Leo any power out of the Empire His commands shew that they were his Subjects that he wrote to 3. Were any called or wrote to under the Name of Provinces but the Roman Provinces 4. Do you think that there were not more than a thousand Bishops in the Empire Yea many thousands if poor Ireland had as many hundred as Ninius speaks of 5. But remember hence that if all Bishops were written to then the Bishop of Rome was written to to Subscribe the 28 Canon of the Council of Chalcedon which he refused as Papists say But indeed the Epistle that Niceph. there mentioneth c. 16. was but to enquire of all the Bishops whether they stood to the Council of Chalcedon or no and what Bishop of Alexandria they were for to save the calling of a new Council and it is plain he wrote only to his Subjects § 30. V. Next he saith The Bishops of the second Armenia which seem to have been out of the Empire wrote an Answer and Adelphus Bishop of Arabia Subscribes among the rest to this Epistle Answ. 1. He tells me â—…ot where to find any of this In Nicephorus there I find it not 2. But if he know not that part of both the Armenias were Roman Provinces he may see it in the Titles of the Nicene Council and in the Maps and Histories of the Empire And of Arabia I spake before § 31. VI. He saith The Bishop of the second Messia which you must prove to have been then under the Empire writ that the Council of Nice delivered the Faith toti terrarum Orbi and style the Bishop of Rome the Head of Bishops and that the Council of Chalcedon was gathered by Pope Leo's Command Answ. Here is neither Matter nor Authority worthy an Answer 1. He citeth no Author for what he saith 2. Whether he meaneth Messua or Messia or Messina they were all in the Empire But what he meaneth I know not Since I find in his Errat Messia r. Toti But where or what Toti meaneth my Cosmographers tell me not If it be Tottaium that he meaneth it was a City of Bithynia under the Arch-Bishop of Nice But it seems he durst not say it was in the Empire but instead of proving it in I must prove it out without knowing Place or Author 2. He that yet understandeth not the Romans Terrarum Orbem and he that reading History can believe that Pope Leo called the Council at Chalcedon is not to be convinced by me if he maintain that the Turks called it He tells us out of no cited Author of an Epistle subscribed by Dita Bishop of Odyssâ—… in Scythia which I have nothing to do with till I know the Epistle But he should have known that Odyssus is a City of Mysia near the Euxine Sea within the Empire § 32. VII His last Instance is considerable viz. Of the Bishops of Spain
cause which they did not § 28. My 3d. proof was this The Tradition witnessed by the greater part of the Universal Church saith that the Papal Vicarship or Sovereignty is an innovation and usurpation and that the Catholick Church was many hundred years without it Therefore there was then no such Papat Church Here the man is angry and saith It is an abominable untruth set down by a fore-head of brass A man in his right wits would not have the confidence to utter so loud a falshood and all the world will see that I am one of the most unsufferablest out-facers of Truth and asserters of open Falshood that ever set pen to paper yea it brings in the talk of Rebellion against his Majesty c. Answ. The apprehensions of men are very different when reading it's like the same books leaveth me past doubt on one side and him so vehemently confident on the other My proof is this 1. The greatest part of the Universal Church doth now deny the Papal Universal Sovereignty 2. The greatest part of the Universal Church do suppose and say that they hold herein to the ancient truth which was delivered down from the Apostles 3. Therefore the greatest part of the Universal Church do hold that the ancient truth delivered from the Apostles doth teach them to deny the Popes Universal Sovereignty and consequently that it is an innovation and usurpation I. As to the first it is a matter of present fact such as whether most of England speak English 1. That the great Empire of Abassia renounce the Pope and plead tradition for it Godignus the Jesuite besides others fully testifieth and justifieth Pet. Maffeius Ribade Nica and other Jesuites against 〈◊〉 new author that falsly saith they were subject to the Pope He tells us that they take the Romans for Nestorian Hereticks p. 318. 328. c. and that they resolved never to be subject to the Pope that he that told them otherwise misinformed them yea saith one of the Jesuites pag. 330. I think the Emperour had rather be under the hardest yoak of the Saracens than under the mild and gentle Empire of the Roman Pope It 's true that many errors they have and many more are charged on them which they deny and believing that Dioscorus was the true follower of Cyril and the Council of Ephes. and that Leo and the Council of Calcedon were Nestorians of which more anon they are for Dioscorus against Leo and the Council But few if any of them understand the bottom of that controversie And the Emperor told the Jesuite that he falsly charged errors on them and his mother saith seeing your Faith and ours do nothing differ but are the same why do you write to trouble quiet minds without cause The Jesuite answereth I certainly affirm to your Majesty that if you had no other Errors this one that you are separated from the Pope of Rome the Vicar of Christ on Earth is enough and too much to your everlasting destruction II. To this she replyed that she and her Countrey were subject to the Apostles Peter and Paul and first to Christ himself The Jesuite answered I deny that they are subject to Christ that are not subject to his Vicar Saith she neither I nor mine deny obedience to St. Peter we are now in the same Faith that we were in from the beginning If that were not right why for so many Ages and Generations was there no man found that would warn us of our error He answered The Pope of Rome that is the Pastor of the whole Church of Christ could not in the years past send Teaâ—…hers into Abassia c She answered To change the old Customs and Rites and receive new ones is a matter full of danger and offence He answered that their Faith was old and had nothing new c. p. 323 324 325. The Emperor also spake to the like purpose p. 319. 320 321. So that it is confessed by the Jesuites and best information from Abassia 1. That they abhorre or refuse the Papal Government 2. And that for this they plead Tradition and Antiquity And the same is notorious of the Greek Armenian and other Oriental Churches How large they were in the East when Iacobus de Vitriaco was there I have formerly shewed out of his words who saith that those Eastern Christians were more than either the Greek or Latin Church and as the Greeks anathematize the Pope every year so the rest are known to reject him To say that these are Hereticks and not the Church is but to beg the question and fitter for contempt than an answer That all such rejecters of the Papacy are the farre greatest part of professed Christians is past doubt 2. And that Greeks Armenians c. plead Tradition and the judgment and custome of their fore-fathers for what they hold is so farre past question that I will not vainly wast time in citing authors to prove it Even the Papists confess it when they tell us that these Churches joyn with them in pleading for tradition Is not then the consequence clear which W. I. is so angry at I know not what can be said against it unless that both the Greeks and Protestants do confess that once they were under the Pope but the Greeks say that they were never under him as a Governour of the whole Christian world set up by God but as the Primate of one Empire set up by man upon such reasons the Seat of the Empire as are alterable as well as unnecessary I have proved this fully before 1. From the words of the Council of Calcedon 2. From their equalling and after preferring the Patriarch of Constantinople who pretended not to a Divine Right and that as over all the world and they were not so blind as to set up a humane Law above that which they believed to be divine many other proofs I gave And even the Protestants hold that in rejecting the Papacy they follow the Tradition of the Church of Christ however some Countreys where they live and their progenitors fell under the Papal errour or terrour There are some late Papists that think that what is held in this age was certainly held in the former and that no Countreys Tradition can be false Which is contrary to all experience But if other Countreys Tradition may be false so may the Roman Niceph. saith of the Armenians They do these things from Tradition which resteth on no Reason and their ancient Legislators and Doctors do calumniously boast that Gregory the Bishop of great Armenia delivered them by hands c l. 18. c. 54. And the Abassians that received the Gospel from the Eunuch and St. Matthew being before too much addicted to some Jewish ceremonies and never cured of them retain them as by Tradition to this day And it is known how Tradition differed about Easter-day and the Millenaries opinion By all this it is evident that most of the Christian world take the
sottish stuff as this 1. When will he make me know how his sufficient proposal may be discerned 2. And how the Hereticaters can know the sufficiency of the proposals to others Even many Kingdoms of men that they never saw seeing variety of Capacities Opportunities Educations Temptations c. maketh that insufficient to one that is sufficient to another 3. When will he prove that the plainest Scripture is no sufficient proposal till the credit of the Papall Clergy make it so and yet that the obscure volumnes of militant Councils that curse one another are sufficient proposals 4. Or that the word of a Jesuite is a sufficient notice to us what is in the Councils or what is their sence 5. Or who shall expound dark Councils to us when there are no Councils in our age in Being 6. How shall we know that a culpable neglect of a sufficient proposal through prejudice or temptation may never stand with Faith If so is there any man living that is not an Infidel or Heretick I challenge any man living to dare to make good that he never erred or doth erre in any point revealed in Scripture or Councils against sufficient proposal taking sufficiency as it is commonly in the controversie of sufficient Grace What if a man through culpable negligence know not how many years it was from Adam to the flood or know not who was the Father of Arphaxad c. when these are sufficiently proposed Doth this prove that he believeth not Gods Veracity As if there were no other sin that could frustrate any one sufficient proposal 7. But it is the fate of rash condemners to condemn themselves most notoriously If the plain words of Scripture in the institution of the Cup in the Eucharist against praying in an unknown tongue c. If the sensible evidence of Bread and Wine to all sound Senses that are neer be not a sufficient proposal what is Surely not such self-contradicting disputes as this of W. I. and others like him nor the Cant of the Church and all the world by a partial Sect but if Scripture the Tradition and Judgment of the most of Christians Reason and Sense can make up a sufficient proposal out of their own mouths are these men condemned as Hereticks to be avoided by all good Christians But I have more Charity for some of them then herein they exercise to themselves or others And in particular I will be so far from partiality as to profess that though Pope Honorius was an anathematized Heretick in the judgment of the 6th and other General Councils and of his Successors Popes I am not one of those that take him really for such in W. I's sence as held a Doctrine that did unchristen him Nay I take his Epistles to Sergius read in the 6th General Council to be two of the honestest peaceable Epistles that I have read from a Pope except some of Leo's and few more and I think that his counsel for to avoid contention to forbear both the name of two operations and of one operation and leave it to Grammarians and hold to plain Scripture-words was honest counsel And the hereticating of him and the rest by that Council increaseth not my veneration but my great dislike of Hereticating Councils and the factions of the Bishops it was not long after under the Emperour Philipicus when another General Council so great as it 's said it consisted of Innumerable Bishops at Constantinople revoked undid and destroyed all this that was done against Honorius and the Monothelites at the said 6th Council so ordinarily did General Councils condemn each other But what I say in excuse of Honorius I must say also in excuse of Sergius Constant. For he said but the same that Honorius did viz. that he would have had the controversie and the names of Two or One Operation laid by and yet Binnius can call Sergius a lying Heretick while he with others excuseth Honorius for the same And on this occasion I will conclude with a note out of the two Epistles of Cyrus to Sergius read in the same 6th General Council which hath this title Deo honorabili meâ—… Domino benigno Principi Pastorum Patri Patrum Universali Patriarchae Sergio à Cyro humilâ—… vestro I would know whether the Pope can shew that ever any one of his Predecessors had higher titles given him than these And if these prove not an universal Sovereignty of the Patriarch of Constantinople whether the like or less will prove it for Rome if you say that it was but an Heretick that gave it him I answer 1. That 's nothing to the matter in hand 2. He was but such a harmless Heretick as Honorius 3. The Council reprehended not the title Many such instances might be given of as high titles given to Jerusalem Alexandria Antioch Constantinople as Rome pretendeth for the proof of its Universal-church-monarchy And if it prove no such power in others it proveth it not in the Pope FINIS ☞ Sect. 1. Sect. 2 Sect. 3. Sect. 4. Sect. 5. Sect. 6. Sect. 7. Sect. 8. Sect. 9. Sect. 10. Sect. 11. Sect. 12. Sect. 13. Sect. 14. Sect. 15. Sect. 16. Sect. 17. Sect. 18. Sect. 19. Sect. 20. Sect. 21. Sect. 22. ☞ Sect. 23. Sect. 〈◊〉 Sect. 25. Sect. 26. Sect. 27. Sect. 28. Sect. 2. * See them answered by Ioh. Rossens Bishop Buckeâ—…idge Sect. 3. Sect. 4. Sect. 5. Sect. 6. Sect. 7. So all that take not every Priest for a lawful superior to contradict him though about a word must be burned damned Sect. 8. Sect. 9. Sect. 10. ☞ ☞ Sect. 11. Sect. 12. Sect. 13. Sect. 14. Sect. 1. * Yet he maintaineth himself that Hereticks are no Christians but equivocally Baronius Binnius Bellarmine Genebrard your greatest flatterers confess it and much more Who that ever read the Councils and Church-history doubted of it see then the impudency of men pretending to lay their cause on tradition and history I said that the charge of Simony made many of them uncapable to which he giveth no answer for their most flattering Historians assert it and lament it Sect. 2. Sect. 3. ☞ Sect. 4. Sect. 5. Sect. 6. Sect. 7. Sect. 8. Sect. 1 Sect. 2. ☞ Sect. 4. Sect. 5. Sect. 6. Sect. 7. Sect. 8. * Or rather the Emperour For some Bishops put in several names and the Emperour chose Nectarius an unbaptized man and so no Christian in the Churches judgment Sect. 9. Sect. 10. Sect. 11. Sect. 12. Sect. 13. Sect. 14. Sect. 1â—… Sect. 2. Sect. 3. This seâ—…ms to confess that your people have no â—…ivine faith for our belief of a Priest saying This book is canonical is but humane Sect. 4. ☞ Sect. 5. Sect. 6. Sect. 1. Sect. 2. Sect. 4. Sect. 5. Sect. 6. Sect. 7. Sect. 8. Sect. 9. Sect. 1. Sect. 2. Sect. 3. Sect. 4. Sect. 5. Sect. 6. Sect. 7. Sect. 8. Sect. 9. Sect. 10. Sect. 11. Sect. 12. Sect. 13. Sect. 14. Sect. 1. Sect. 2. Sect. 3. Vid.
Christians and so not of the Church indeed 2. We know of no Faith in Christ but that which you call Explicite Faith in Christ Common custome calleth those Infidels that never heard that there is a Christ or who he is or hearing it doth not believe it And he cannot believe it that doth not hear it Most of the Infidel and Heathen World profess to believe Gods veracity and that all that he saith is true if this be an implicite believing in Christ almost all the Heathen World believeth in him use Names and Words as you see cause These are Infidels in our use of speech 3. The place in Sancta Clara is pag. 113. besides 109 110. c. the words are too large to be transcribed he citeth many Authors to prove such in the Church and saved where after much to that purpose he saith What is clearer than that at this day the Gospel bindeth not where it is not authentically preached that is that at this day men may be saved without an explicite belief of Christ For in that sense speakes the Doctor concerning the Iews And verily whatever my illustrious Master hold with his Learned Mr. Herera I think that this was the Opinion of Scotus and the Common one and he citeth many for it Read the rest your self in the Book and I defie your pretence that this is unjust Citation I cite none of this as if I were handling the question whether any besides Christians are saved But whether the Nations that never heard of Christ be Christians and Members of your Church But pag. 60. he will prove that nothing which Christ hath instituted to be ever in the Church is accidental to the Church For every accident is separable from the subject without destroying the subject whose accident it is But what Christ hath instituted to be ever in his Church is inseparable from it Ans. 1. What if it were not an Accident must it therefore needs be Essential Are there not Integral parts that are not Essential parts 2. You that boast so greatly of your Logick faculty should not so absurdly erre as you do in your major Do you not hereby deny all proper accidents which agree as omni soli ita semper Is not Risibilis an accident of man and yet inseparable 2. Is not quantity inseparable from a Body or natural substance 3. What the Porphyrians speak of an Intellectual separation you ignorantly or deceitfully apply to an actual eventual separation If Christ had been otherwise put to death than by crucifying or else-where than at Ierusalem if his Bones had been broken if he had not had the same integral parts and accidents of Body as he ever had he had been Christ still But yet it was Logically impossible that any of these should have been otherwise than they were they being fore-decreed of God If the Sun should cease moving illuminating heating you may say it would be still the Sun But yet it is certain that these accidents are eventually inseparable from it If you will cause Humidity to cease from Water or separate Gravity from Earth of Stone c. I shall think you have made them other things 4. But to instance as you do in such a being as the CHURCH dishonoureth your boasted Logick greatly The ratio formalis of a Church is Relative and Relation is an accident and to say that accidents may all be separated from the Church without destroying it is to say that Relation may be separated that is the Church from it self or formal Essence without destroying it Do you conquer by such disputing as this was it by such that you had your boasted printed victory over such great Logicians as Bishop Gunning and Bishop Pierson Can you also prove that all accidents that is Relation may be separable from Families Schools Kingdoms without destroying them I hope you will not say that you mean that the separation destroyeth not the humanity of the Members and that this is the subject you mean for no more would Apostasie or Unchurching them destroy Humanity 3. And that no part may be sound your minor is false as well as your major What Christ by his Law commandeth or prescribeth to be in the Church that he instituteth But all cometh not to pass which Christ commandeth or instituteth He commandeth us higher degrees of Faith Love and other Duty than we perform You say No Man may change his institution but doth it follow that no man doth change it No man ought to plead for Errour or deceive poor Souls Doth it follow that therefore you and such others do not so It is Gods command that we never sin It doth not follow that we never do sin When the Apostles strove who should be greatest it was Christs institution that they should not seek for domination or superiority as the Princes of the Earth do but be as little Children and strive who should be most humble and serviceable and take the lowest place and it was St. Peters Doctrine that Bishops must not Lord it over the Flocks nor rule them by constraint but voluntarily but doth it follow that all this is done by all no nor by your pretended Head who is made an essential part of the Church I conclude then 1. That many accidents are not separable without destruction of the subject 2. That many more shall never be separated 3. That relation is not separable from the Church nor numbers neither 4. That there are Integral parts which are neither Accidents nor Essentials 5. That every thing is not ever in the Church nor in any man which Christ hath commanded or instituted to be ever in it And if that may be in a man which Christ forbiddeth so may it be in the Church and so that be absent which he commandeth 6. That it is a novel Opinion contrary to common Reason and all true Theologie and which a Catechized Child should be ashamed of to hold that all that Christ hath instituted to be ever in the Church is essential to it And so that the Church would be nullified if one word of the Holy Scriptures perished by the carelesness of Scribes or Printers or if one decent order were changed or if one Office were depraved c. 7. It aggravateth the errour to hold that every instituted apex or perfection for continuance is Essential to the Church and yet even the explicite belief that Iesus is the Saviour is not essential to a Church-Member or a Christian. 8. That this Disputer absolutely nullifieth the Roman Church which hath changed the Sacrament and Prayer and Church-Officers c. which were instituted by Christ to be ever in the Church But I noted to him that our question to him was Whether the holding such thing to be instituted be essential to the Church and not whether the institution it self be so May not the Opinion be but integral or an accident Here he replies without blushing 1. That thus I yield up