Apostles and this is but to know their doctrine delivered in that first age which we appeal to And after he expresly saith Ad hanc it aque formam provocabantur ab illis Ecclesiis quae licet nullum ex Apostolis vel Apostâ—licus auctorem suum proferant ut multo posteriores quae denique quotidie institutum tamen in eadem fidem conspirantes non minus Apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrinae The Apostles doctrine will prove an Apostolical Church when ever planted And c. 38. he draws them from disputing from the Scripture because they owned not the true Scripture but corrupted it and charged the Catholikes with corruption Sicut illis non potuit succedere corruptela doctrinae sine corruptela instrumentorum ejus Ita nobis integritaes doctrina non competisset sine integritate eorum not by real tradition alone per quae doctrina tractatur Etenim quid contrarium nobis in nostris quid de proprio intulimus ut aliquid contrarium ei in Scripturis deprehensum detractione vel adjectione vel transumtatione remediaremus Quod sumus hoc sunt Ab initio suo ex illis sumus antequam nihil aliter fuit quam sumus And cap. 36. He sends them by name to the particular Apostolical Churches and begins with Corinth then to Philippi Thessalonica Ephesus and then to Rome of whose Soveraignty he never speaks a syllable So more plainly l. 4. contr Marcion c. 5. because Marcion denied the true Scriptures he sends them to the Apostolike Churches for the true Scriptures first to the Corinthians then to the Galatians then to the Philippians Thessalonians Ephesians and last of all to Rome But it would be tedious to cite the rest of the Ancients that commonly describe the Church as we and such as we all own as members of it Arg. 3. If the Roman Church as Christian though not as Papal hath been visible ever since the daies of the Apostles then the Church of which the Protestants are members hath been visible ever since the daies of the Apostles But the Antecedent is their own therefore they may not deny the consequent The consequence also is past denyal 1. Because the Roman as Christian is part of the universal Christian Church 2. Because they profess to believe the same holy Scriptures and Creed as we do So that though they add more and so make a new form to their Church yet do they not deny our Church which is the Christian Church as such nor our Test and Rule of faith nor any Article that we account Essential to our Religion So that themselves are our sufficient witnesses Well! but this will not satisfie the Papists unless we shew a succession of our Church as Protestant 1. This we need not any more then a sound man lately cured of the Plague doth need to prove that he hath ever been not only sanus but sanatus a cured man before he was sick How could there be a Church protesting against an universal Vicar of Christ before any claimed that Vicarship 2. And when the Vicarship was usurped those millions abroad and even within the Roman territories that let the pretended Vicar talk and followed their own business and never consented to his usurpation were of the very same Religion with those that openly protested against him And so were those that never heard of his usurpation Object But at least say they you must prove a Church that hath been without the universal Vicar negatively though not against him positively Answ. 1. In all reason he that affirmeth must prove It is not incumbent on us to prove the negative that the Church had not such a Roman head but they must prove that it had Object But they have possession and therefore you that would dispossess them must disprove their title Ans. 1. This is nothing to most of the Catholike Church where they have no possession therefore with them they confess themselves obliged to the proof 2. This is a meer fallacious diversion for we are not now upon the question of their Title but the matter of fact and history we make good the negative that they have no Title from the Laws of Christ himself and so will not dispossess them without disproving their pretended Title But when the question is de facto whether they have ever had that possession from the Apostles daies they that affirm must prove when we have disabled their title from the Law 2. But what must we prove that all the Church hath been guiltless of the Papal usurpation or only some in every age of all its no more necessary to us then to prove that there have been no Heresies since the Apostles If a piece of the Church may turn Hereticks or but Schismaticks as the Novatians and African Donatists why may not another piece turn Papists 3. What will you say to a man that knoweth not a Protestant nor a Papist or believeth only Christianity it self and meddleth not with the Pope any further then to say I believe not in him Jesus I know and the Apostles and Scripture and Christianity I know but the Pope I know not and suppose he never subscribed to the Augustane English or any such confession but only to the Scripture and the Apostles and Nicene and other ancient Creeds By what shew of Justice can you require this man to prove that there hath been no Pope in every age 4. The foundation of all our controversie is doctrinal whether the Papal Soveraignty be Essential to the Church or necessary to our membership we deny it you affirm it If it be not Essential it is enough to us to prove that which is Essential to have been successive we be not bound in order to the proof of our Church it self to prove the succession of every thing that maketh but to its better being Yet professing that we do it not as necessary to our main cause we shall ex abundanti prove the negative that the Catholike Church hath not alwaies owned the Papal Soveraignty and so that there have been men that were not only Christians but as we Christians without Popery and against it and so shall both prove our Thesis and overthrow theirs Arg. 4. If there have been since the daies of Christ a Christian Church that was not subject to the Roman Pope as the Vicar of Christ and universal Head and Governour of the Church then the Church of which the Protestants are members hath been visible both in its being and its freedom from Popery But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the consequent I shall prove the Antecedent and therein the visibility of our Church and the non-existence in those times of the Papacy Arg. 1. My first Argument shall be from the general Council of Chalcedon If the priviledges of the Roman Sea were given to it by the Bishops consequently because of the Empire of that City and therefore equal priviledges after given to Constantinople on the same
be of your Church because it is so little Catholike I am of the one universal Church which containeth all the true Christians in the world And you are of a Party which hath separated it self from most of the Christians in the world I am of that one body that is centred in Christ the Head you are of a piece of this body that hath centred in a man and oft a confessed heretical wicked man whom you take while he lives to be the infallible Judge and foundation of all your faith and hope and when he is dead perhaps pronounce him to be in hell as Bellarmine did Pope Sixtus and others commonly I know as every Sect hath a kind of unity among themselves however divided from all the rest of the Church so also hath yours but nothing will satisfie me but a Catholike Unity Church and Faith So much being premised I answer your Questions Quest. 1. Whether the Church of Rome was a true Church in the Apostles dayes Answ. The word Church signifies more things then one 1. Sometime it is used to signifie the whole mystical body of Christ containing all and only those that are justified whom Bellarmine calleth living members And in this sense the Church of Rome in the Apostles dayes was not the Church but the justified members were part of the Church 2. Sometime it is used to signifie all that profess true Christianity in the world And thus the Church of Rome was not the Church but part of it 3. It is oft used by your writers to signifie one Church that by Prerogative is the Head or Mistris of all Christians in the world to which they must all be subject and from which they must receive their name as the Kingdom of Mexico of Tripolis of Fez c. are so called from the chief Cities of the same name and from which they receive their Faith and Laws as the body hath life and motion from the head or heart In this sense the Church of Rome was no Church in the Apostles dayes 4. Sometime it is used to signifie one particular Church associated for personal Communion in Worship And thus the Church of Rome was a true Church in the Apostles dayes 5. Sometime it is used to signifie a Collection or Conjunction of many particular Churches though not all under the Bishop of one Church as their Patriarch or Metropolitan And thus the Church of Rome was no Church in the Apostles dayes but about two hundred years after Christ it was It is only the Church in the third of these senses that is in controversie between the Roman and Reformed Churches Now to your next Question Quest. 2. When was it that the Church of Rome ceased to be a true Church Answ. In the first second and third sences it never ceased to be a true Church for it never was one In the first and second sence it never was one either in title or claim I hope In the third it was never one in Title nor yet in claim for many hundred years after Christ but now it is Therefore the Question between us should not be when it ceased but when it begun to be such a Capital Ruling Church Essential to the whole In the fifth sence it never ceased otherwise then as it is swallowed up in a higher Title It begun to be a Patriarchal Church about two or three hundred years after Christ and it ceased to be meerly Patriarchal when it arrogated the Title of Vniversal or Mistris of all In the fourth sence the Question is not so easie and I shall thus answer it 1. By speaking to the use of the Question 2. By a direct answer to it 1. It is of small concernment to my salvation or yours to know whether the Church of Rome be a true particular Church or not no more then to know whether the Church of Thessalonica or Ephesus or Antioch be now a true Church In charity to them I am bound to regard it as I am bound to regard the life of my neighbour But what doth it concern my own life to know whether the Mayor and Aldermen of Worcester or Glocester be dead or alive So what doth it concern my Salvation to know whether the Church of Rome be now a true particular Church If I lived at the Antipodes or in Aethiopia and had never heard that there is such a place as Rome in the world as many a thousand Christians doubtless never heard of it this would not hinder my salvation as long as I believed in the blessed Trinity and were sanctified by the Spirit of Grace So that as I am none of their Judge so I know not that it much concerneth me to know whether they be a true particular Church save for charity or communion 2. Yet I answer it more directly 1. If they do not by their errors so far overthrow the Christian faith which they profess as that it cannot practically be believed by them then are they a true particular Church or part of the universal Church 2. And I am apt to hope at least of most that they do not so hold their errors but that they retain with them so much of the essentials of Religion as may denominate them a true professing Church More plainly Rome is considered first as Christian secondly as Papal As Christian it is a true Church As Papal it is no true Church For Popery is not the Church according to Christs Institution but a dangerous corruption in the Church As a Leprosie is not the man but the disease of the man Yet he that is a Leper may be a mâ—â— And he that is a Papist may be a Christian But 1. Not as he is a Papist 2. And he is but a leprous or diseased Christian. So much to your Questions By this much you may see that it no way concerneth me to prove when Rome ceased to be a true Church For if you mean such a Church as Corinth Philippi Ephesus c. was that is but a part of the Catholike Church so I stick not much saving in point of Charity whether it be true or false But if you mean as your party doth a Mistris Church to Rule the whole and denominate the Catholike Church Roman so I say its Vsurpation is not ceased that 's the misery and its just title never did begin and its claim was not of many hundred years after Christ so that your Question requireth no further Answer But what if you had put the Question At what time it was that your Church began to claim this universal Dominion I should give you these two answers 1. When I understand that it is of any great moment to the decision of our controversie I shall tell you my opinion of the man that first laid the claim and the year when 2. But it is sufficient for me to prove that from the beginning it was not so Little did the Bishops of Rome before Constantines dayes dream of governing all
the Eutychians should sit in the Councill but be presented as a guilty person to be judged becuase he had celebrated a Councill in the Eastern Church without the consent of the Bishop of Rome which said the Legats never was done before nor could be done lawfully This order of Pope Leo was presently put in execution by consent of the whole Councill and Dioscorus was judged and condemned his condemnation and deposition being pronounced by the Popes Legats and after subscribred by the Councill Fifthly the Popes Legats pronounced the Church of Rome to be Caput omnium Ecclesiarum the Head of all Churches before the whole Council and none contradicted them Sixthly all the Fathers assembled in that Holy Councill in their Letter to Pope Leo acknowledged themselves to be his children and wrote to him as to their Father Seventhly they humbly begged of him that he would grant that the Patriarch of Constantinople might have the first place among the Patriarchs after that of Rome which notwithstanding that the Councill had consented to as had also the Third General Councill of Ephesus done before yet they esteemed their grants to be of no sufficient force untill they were confirmed by the Pope And Leo thought not fit to yield to their petition against the express ordination of the First Councill of Nice where Alexandria had the preheminence as also Antioch and Hierusalem before that of Constantinople Saint Cyril of Alexandria though he wholly disallowed Nestorius his doctrine yet he would not break off Communion with him till Celestinus the Pope had condemned him whose Censure he required and expected Nestorius also wrote to Celestine acknowledging his Authority and expecting from him the Censure of his doctrine Celestinus condemned Nestorius and gave him the space of ten daies to repent after he had received his condemnation All which had effect in the Eastern Church where Nestorius was Patriarch of Constantinople After this Saint Cyrill having received Pope Leo's Letters wherein he gave power to Saint Cyrill to execute his condemnation against Nestorius and to send his condemnatory letters to him gathered a Council of his next Bishops and sent Letters and Articles to be subscribed with the Letters of Celestine to Nestorius which when Nestorius had received he was so far from repentance that he accused St. Cyril in those Articles to be guilty of the Heresie of Apollinaris so that St. Cyril being also accused of Heresie was barred from pronouncing sentence against Nestorius so long as he stood charged with that Accusation Theodosius the Emperour seeing the Eastern Church embroyled in these difficulties writes to Pope Celestine about the assembling of a general Council at Ephesus by Petronius afterwards Bishop of Bononia as is manifest in his life written by Sigonius Pope Celestine in his Letters to Theodosius not only professeth his consent to the calling of that Council but also prescribeth in what form it was to be celebrated as Firmus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia testified in the Council of Ephesus Hereupon Theodosius sent his Letters to assemble the Bishops both of the East and West to that Council And Celestine sent his Legats thither with order not to examine again in the Council the cause of Nestorius but rather to put Celestines condemnation of him given the year before into execution St. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria being constituted by Celestine his chief Legate ordinary in the East by reason of that preheminency and primacy of his See after that of Rome presided in the Council yet so that Philip who was only a Priest and no Bishop by reason that he was sent Legatus à Latere from Celestine and so supplied his place as he was chief Bishop of the Church subscribed the first even before St. Cyril and all the other Legats and Patriarchs In the sixth Action of this holy Council Iuvenalis Patriarch of Hierusalem having understood the contempt which Iohn Patriarch of Antioch who was cited before the Council shewed of the Bishops and the Popes Legats there assembled expressed himself against him in these words Quod Apostolica ordinatione Antiqua Traditione which were no way opposed by the Fathers there present Antiochena sedes perpetuo à Romana dirigeretur judicareturque That by Apostolical ordination and ancient Tradition the See of Antioch was perpetually directed and judged by the See of Rome which words not only evidence the precedency of place as Dr. Hammond would have it but of power and judicature in the Bishop of Rome over a Patriarch of the Eastern Church and that derived from the time and ordination of the Apostles The Council therefore sent their decrees with their condemnation of Nestorius to Pope Celestine who presently ratified and confirmed them Not long after this in the year 445. Valentinian the Emperour makes this manifesto of the most high Ecclesiastical authority of the See of Rome in these words Seeing that the merit of St. Peter who is the Prince of the Episcopal Crown and the Dignity of the City of Rome and no less the authority of the holy Synod hath established the primacy of the Apostolical See lest presumption should attempt any unlawful thing against the authority of that See for then finally will the peace of the Churches be preserved every where if the whole universality acknowledge their Governour when these things had been hitherto inviolably observed c. Where he makes the succession from St. Peter to be the first foundation of the Roman Churches primacy and his authority to be not only in place but in power and Government over the whole visible Church And adds presently that the definitive sentence of the Bishop of Rome given against any French Bishop was to be of force through France even without the Emperours Letters Pattents For what shall not be lawful for the authority of so great a Bishop to exercise upon the Churches And then adds his Imperial precept in these words But this occasion hath provoked also our command that hereafter it shall not be lawful neither for Hilarius whom to be still entituled a Bishop the sole humanity of the meek Prelate id est the Bishop of Rome permits neither for any other to mingle arms with Ecclesiastical matters or to resist the commands of the Bishop of Rome c. We define by this our perpetual decree that it shall neither be lawful for the French Bishops nor for those of other Provinces against the ancient custom to attempt any thing without the authority of the venerable Pope of the eternal City But let it be for a law to them and to all whatsoever the authority of the Apostolick See hath determined or shall determine So that what Bishop soever being called to the Tribunal of the Roman Bishop shall neglect to come is to be compelled by the Governour of the same Province to present himself before him Which evidently proves that the highest Universal Ecclesiastical Judge and Governour was and ever is to be the
fair Remember it hereafter that you have discharged me from proving a Church that denied the Papacy formally expresly But as to what you yet demand 1. I have here given it you because you shall not say â—'le sail you I have answered your desire But 2. It is not as a thing necessary but ex abundanti as an overplus For you may now see plainly that to prove that the Church was without an universal Pastor which you require is to prove the Negative viz. that then there was none such whereas its you that must prove that there was such I prove our Religion do you prove yours though I say to pleasure you I 'le disprove it and have done it in two books already My reason from the stress of necessity which you lay on your Affirmative and Additions was but subservient to the foregoing Reasons not first to prove you bound but to prove you the more bound to the proof of your Affirmative And therefore your instance of Mahumetans is impertinent He that saith you shall be damned if you believe not this or that is more obliged to prove it then he that affirmeth a point as of no such moment To what I say of an accident and a corrupt part you say you have answered and do but say so having said nothing to it that is considerable Me thinks you that make Christ to be corporally present in every Church in the Eucharist should not say that the King of the Church is absent But when you have proved 1. That Christ is so absent from his Church that there 's need of a Deputy to essentiate his Kingdom and 2. That the Pope is so Deputed you will have done more then is yet done for your cause And yet let me tell you that in the absence of a King it is only the King and Subjects that are essential to the Kingdom The Deputy is but an officer and not essential Your naked assertion that whatsoever Government Christ instituteth of his Church must be essential to his Church is no proof nor like the task of an Opponent The Government of inferiour officers is not essential to the universal Church no more then Judges and Justices to a Kingdom And yet we must wait long before you will prove that Peter and the Pope of Rome are in Christs place as Governours of the universal Church Sir I desire open dealing as between men that believe these matters are of eternal consequence I watch not for any advantage against you Though it be your part to prove the Affirmative which our Negative supposeth yet I have begun the proof of our Negative but it was on supposition that you will equally now prove your Affirmative better then you have here done I have proved a visible Church successively that hâ—ld not the Popes universal Government do you now prove that the universal Church in all ages did hold the Popes universal Government which is your part or I must say again I shall think you do but run away and give up your cause as unable to defend it I have not failed you do not you fail me You complain of a deficiency in quality though you confess that I abound in number But where is the defect you say I must assert both that these were one Congregation and ever visible since Christs time Reply If by one Congregation you meant one assembly met for personal Communion which is the first sense of the word Congregation it were ridiculous to feign the universal Church to be such If you mean One as united in one visible humane Head that 's it that we deny and therefore may not be required to prove But that these Churches are One as united in Christ the Head we easily prove In that from him the whole family is named the body is Christs body 1 Cor. 12.12 13. and one in him Eph. 4.4 5 6 c. All that are true Christians are one Kingdom or Church of Christ but these of whom I speak are true Christians therefore they are one Kingdom or Church of Christ. And that they have been visible since Christs time till now all history even your own affirms As in Iudaea from the Apostles times in Ethiopia Egypt and other parts Rome was no Church in the time of Christs being on earth And to what purpose talk you of determinate Congregations Do you mean individual assemblies those cease when the persons die or do you mean assemblies meeting in the same place so they have not done still at Rome I told you and tell you still that we hold not that God hath secured the perpetual visibility of his Church in any one City or Country but if it cease in one place it is still in others It may cease at Ephesus at Philippi Colosse c. in Tenduc Nubia c. and yet remain in other parts I never said that the Church must needs be visible still in one Town or Country And yet it hath been so de facto as in Asia Ethiopia c. But you say I nominate none Are you serious must I nominate Christians of these Nations to prove that there were such you require not this of the Church Historians It sufficeth that they tell you that Ethiopia Egypt Armenia Syria c. had Christians without naming them When all history tells you that these Countries were Christians or had Churches I must tell you what and who they were must you have their names sirnames and Genealogies I cannot name you one of a thousand in this small Nation in the age I live in How then should I name you the people of Armenia Abassia c. so long ago You can name but few of the Roman Church in each age And had they wanted learning and records as much as the Abassins and Indians and others you might have been as much to seek for names as they You ask were they different Congregations Answ. As united in Christ they were one Church but as assembling at one time or in one place or under the same guide so they were not one but divers Congregations That there were any Papists of 400. years after Christ do you prove if you are able My conclusion that all have been against you for many hundred years must stand good till you prove that some were for you yet I have herewith proved that there were none at least that could deserve the name of the Church Do you think to satisfie any reasonable man by calling for positive proof from Authors of such Negatives yet proof you shall not want such as the nature of the point requireth viz. That the said Churches of Ethiopia India the outer Armenia and other extra-imperial Nations were not under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome 1. You find all these Churches or most of them at this day that remain from under your jurisdiction and you cannot tell us when or how they turned from you If you could it had been done 2. These Nations
transcribe if I thought that you could not as well read Print as M. S. of higher expressions then Caput and fundamentum given to Andrew by Isychius and equal expressions to others as well as Rome and Peter And who is ignorant that knoweâ—h any thing of Church-history that others were called successours of Peter as well as the Bishop of Rome And that the Claves regni were given to him is no proof that they were not given also to all the rest of the Apostles And where you say Arcadius condemneth Nestorius for contemning the command of the Apostolick Sea You tell me not where to find it I answer you still that its long since your Sea begun to swell and rage but if you must have us grant you all these consequences Celestine commanded therefore he justly commanded therefore another might not as well have commanded him as one Pastor may do another though equall in the name of Christ and therefore he had power to command without the Empire even over all the Catholick Church and therefore the Council was of this mind yea therefore the universal Church was of this mind that the Pope was its universal head You still are guilty of sporting about serious things and moving pity instead of offering the least proof Yet fear you not to say that in the time of the holy Oecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon the universal consent of the whole Catholick Church was for you in this point The Lord keep our consciences from being the servants of our opinions or interests 1. Was the Popes Legate the whole Catholick Church 2. Was there one man at either of these Councils but within the Empire yea a piece of the Empire So that they were but such as we now call National Councils that is consisting only of the subjects of one Republick 3. Did the Council speak a word for your power without the Empire 4. Do they not determine it so expresly to be of humane right that Bellarmine hath nothing regardable to say against it Can. 28. Conc. Chalced. but that they spoke falsly And yet your opinion or interest hath tempted you to appeal viz. to the Sun that there is no such thing as light 21. After the conclusion you have a supernumerary in your Margin from Greg. lib. 10. Epist. 30. But there is no such word in that Epistle nor is it of any such subject But is the 31. Epistle its like that your leader meant And there 's no more but that a Bishop not named person or place having fallen into Schism voluntarily swore never more to depart from the Unity of the Catholick Church or the sea of Rome But 1. So may a Bishop of the Roman Province do or Patriarchate without believing Rome to be the Universal Head So might one in any other Province have done And yet it follows not that he ought to do so because he did so You see now what all your proofs are come to and how shamefully naked you have left your cause In summ of all the testimonies produced 1. You have not named one man that was a Papist Pope Leo was the nearest of any man nor one testimony that ever a Pope of Rome had the Government of all the Church without the verge of the Roman Empire but only that he was to the Roman Church as the Archbishop of Canterbury to the English Church And as between Canterbury and York so between Rome and Constantinople there have been contentions for preheminency But if I can prove Canterbury to be before York or Rome before Constantinople that will prove neither of them to be Ruler at the Antipodes or of all the Christian world 2. Much less have you proved that ever any Church was of this opinion that the Pope was by Divine Right the Governour of all the world when you cannot prove one man of that opinion 3. Much less have you proved a succession of such a Church from the Apostles having said as much as nothing concerning the first 300 years 4. And yet much less have you proved that the whole Catholick Church was of this opinion 5. And least of all have you proved that the whole Church took this Primacy of Rome to be of necessity to the very Being of the Church and to our salvation and not only ad melius esse as a point of Order So that you have left your Cause in shameful nakedness as if you had confessed that you can prove nothing In the end you return to terms To what you say about the word Christians I only say that it s but equivocally applied to any that profess not all the Essentialls of Christianity of which Popery is none any more then Pride is About the word Monarch in good sadness do you deny the Pope to be an imperious sole Commander Which of these is it that you deny not that he is a Commander not that he is imperious not that he is sole in his Soveraignty I would either you or we knew what you hold or deny But perhaps the next words shew the difference as Temporal Kings But this saith not a word wherein they differ from Temporal Kings sure your following words shew not the difference 1. Kings may receive power from Christ. 2. Kings must rule in meekness charity and humility But I think the meekness charity and humility of Popes hath been far below even wicked Kings if cruel murdering Christians for Religion and setting the world on fire may be witness as your own Histories assure us 3. The Government of Kings also is for mens eternal good however Papists would make them but their executioners in such things 4. Brethren as such are no subjects and therefore if the Pope Rule men but as Brethren he rules them not by Governing authority at all 5. Children to him we are not You must mean it but Metaphorically And what mean you then Is it that he must do it in Love for their good So also must Kings So that you have yet exprest no difference at all But our Question is not new nor in unusuall terms What Soveraignty you claim you know or should know Are you ignorant that Bellarmine Boverius and ordinarily your Writers labour to prove that the Government of the Church is Monarchicall and that the Pope is the Monarch the supream Head and Ruler which in English is the Soveraign Are you ashamed of the very Cause or Title of it which you will have necessary to our salvation Next you say that you very much dislike the Title of Vice-Christ as proud and insolent and utterly disclaim from it neither was it ever given by any sufficient authority to your Popes or did they ever accept of it Reply Now blessed be God that makes sin a shame to it self that the Patrons of it dare scarce own it without some paint or vizard 1. Is not the very life of the Cause between you and us whether the Pope be the Universal Head of the Church vice Christi
istius non potuisse statuere prout statuit haeretiâ—um censeatur So that by your Law we must believe the power of your Lord God the Pope or be hereticks If you meet with any Impressions that leave out Deum take Rivets note haberi in editione formata jussu Greg. 12. â— corectoribus Pontificiis nec in censuris Glâ—ssae jâ—ssu Pii 5. editis quae in expurgatorio indice habintur nomen Dei erasum fuisse Pope Nicolas 3. de Elâ—ct cap. fundamenta in 6. saith that Peter was â—ssumed into the Society of the individuall Trinity Angelus Polit. in Orat. ad Alex. 6. Pontificem ad Divinitatem ipsam sublâ—tum asserit He saith the Pope was taken up to the Godhead it self At the foresaid Council at Laterane Antonius Puccius in an Oration before Leo the tenth in the Council and after published by his favour said Divinae tuae Majestatis conspectus rutilante cujus fulgore imbecilles oculimei caligant His eyes were darkened with beholding the Popes Divine Majesty None contradicted this In the same Council Simon Bâ—gnius Modrusiensis Episcopus in an Oâ—acion Sâ—ss 6. calls Leo The Lion of the Tribe of Juda the root of Jesse him whom they had looked for as the Saviour In the same Council Sâ—ss 10 Stephanus Patracensis Archiop saith Reges in compedibus magnitudinis magni Regis liga nobiles in manicis ferreis censurarum constringe quoniam tibi data est omnis potestas in coelo in terra and before qui totum dicit nihil excludit So that all Power in heaven and earth is given to the Pope Paulus Aemilius de gestis Francorum lib. 7. saith that the Sicilian Embassadours lay prostrate at the Popes feet and thrice repeated Thou that takest away the sins of the world have mercy on us And prove to me that ever any such man was reprehended for these things by the Popes of late August Triumphus in Praefat. sum ad Ioan. 22. saith That the Popes power is infinite for great is the Lord and great is his power and of his greatness there is no end And qu. 36. ad 6. he saith that the Pope influenceth or giveth the Motion of direction and the sense of cognition into all the Members of the Church for in him we live and move and have our being And a little after he saith The will of God and consequently of the Pope who is his Vicar is the first and highest cause of all corporal and spiritual motions Would you have any more witness of the falshood of your words saith Zabarella I.C. lib. de schism Innocent 7. Bened. pag. 20. For this long time past and even to this day those that would please the Popes perswaded them that they could do all things and so that they might do what they pleased even things unlawfull and so more than God Antonius parte 3. tit 21. cap. 5. § 4. saith The Pope receiveth from the faithfull adorations prostrations and kisses of his feet which Peter permitted not from Cornelius nor the Angel from John the Evangelist Cardinalis Bertrandus Tract de origin jurisd q. 4. num 4. in Glos. extrag com l. 1. fol. 12. saith Because Iesus Christ the son of God while he was in this world and even from eternity was a Naturall Lord and by Naturall right could pronounce the sentence of deposition on Emperours or any others and the sentence of damnation and any other as upon the Persons which he had created and endowed with naturall and free gifts and also did conserve it is his will that on his account his Vicar may do the same things For the Lord should not seem discreet that I may speak with his reverence unless he had left behind him one Vicar that can do all these things Tell me now whether you said true in the Paragraph about the Title Vice-Christ yea whether it be not much more that hath been given and accepted But what name else is it that you agree on as proper to express the power which is controverted I know no name so fitted to the reall controversie And therefore in disclaiming the Name for ought I know you disclaim your Cause and confess the shame of Popery If he that seeks to be King of England should say he disclaimeth the Title of King as insolent and proud doth he not allow me to conclude the like of the thing which he concludeth of the proper name The name Papa Pope you know its like was usually by the ancients given to other Bishops as well as to him of Rome and therefore that cannot distinguish him from other men The same I may say of the Titles Dominus Pater sanctissimus beatissimus Dei amantissimus and many such like And for summus Pontifex Baronius tells you Martyrol Rom. April 9. that it was the ancient custome of the Church to call all Bishops not only Pontifices Popes but the Highest or Chief Popes citing Hierom. Ep. 99. And for the word Head of the Church or of all Bishops it hath been given to Constantinople that yet claimeth not as Nilus tells you neither a precedency to Rome nor an Universall Government much less as the Vice-Christ And that the Bishop of Constantinople was called the Apostolick Vniversal Bishop Baronius testifieth from an old Vaticane monument which on the other side calls Agapetus Episcoporum Princeps The Title Apostolick was usually given to others Hierusalem was called the mother of the Churches A Council gave Constantinople the Title of Vniversal Patriarch which though Gregory pronounced so in pious and intolerable for any to use yet the following Popâ—s made an agreement with Constantinople that their Patriarch should keep his Title of Vniversal Patriarch and the Bishop of Rome be called the Vniversal Pope which can signifie nothing proper to him the name Pope being common more then Vniversal Patriarch doth The Foundations and Pillars of the Church and the Apostles successors yea Peters successors were Titles given to others as well as him and more then these It being therefore the point in controversie between us whether the Bishop of Rome be in the place of Christ or as his Vicar the Head Monarch or Governour of the Church universal and the terms Vice Christi Vicarius Christi being those that Popes and Papists choose to signifie their claim what other should I use As to what you say of the Council of Constance which you must say also of Basil and of the French Church Venetians c. you pretend the doubt to be only between Ordinary and extraordinary Governours But 1. of old the Councils called Generall indeed but of one Principality were more ordinary then now the Pope hath brought them to be and I blame him not if he will hold his greatness to take heed of them 2. The way not to have been extraordinary if the Council of Constâ—nce had been infallible or of sufficient power who decreed that there should be one every ten years 3. The Councils that continue
examine qui cuncta ejus membra tibimet conaris Vniversalis appellatione supponere Here you see 1. That the unity and concord of the Church is not maintained by universal Headship but by fraternal communion and humility 2. That it wounded Paul and should do us to see the Church make men as it were their heads though they were Apostles and though Peter was one of them and that extra Christum beside Christ none no not Peter should be as a Head to Christs members 3. Much more abominable is it for any man to pretend to be the universal Bishop or Head to all Christs members 4. That the sin of this usurpation was against Christ the Churches Head and that before him in Judgement the usurper of universal Episcopacy will be confounded for this very thing 5. And that the crime of this title of universal Bishop was that it endeavoured to put all Christs members under him that used it tibimet supponere not to exclude all other Bishops but to put under him all Christs members These are the words of Gregory and if men can make what their list of words so full and plain and oft repeated in many Epistles what hope have they that their Judge of Controversies should do any more to end their Controversies then Scripture hath done which they cannot understand without such an unintelligible Judge He proceeds ibid. Quis ergo in hoc tam perverso vocabulo nisi ille ad imitandum proponitur qui despectis Angelorum legionibus secum socialiter constitutis ad culmen conatus est singularitatis erumpere ut nulli subesse solus omnibus praeesse videretur He maketh him the imitator of the Devil that aspiring above the rest of the Angels fell by pride But Bellarmine hath three Reasons to prove yet that Gregory after all this meant not the universal Headship or Episcopacy indeed 1. Because the holy Council of Chalcedon offered it him Ans. 1. A fair offer because two or three Deacons inscribed their Libels to him with the name of universal Archbishop And we must believe that the Council approved of this though we cannot prove it Or if they called him the Head as the City of London is the Head City in England and the Earle of Arundel the Head Earle or the Lord Chancelour the Head Judge that yet have no Government of the rest what advantage were this to the Roman Vicarship 2. If Gregory judge the name so blasphemous when it signifieth an universal Governour of the Church surely he believed that the Council offered it not to him in that sence but as he was the Episcopus primae sedis 3. But again I say the matter of fact is it that I am enquiring of And I have the testimony of this Roman Bishop that none of his Predecessors would receive that name 2. But saith Bellarmine he saith that the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter which is all one Ans. 1. But so it was committed also to the rest of the Apostles Paul had on him the care of all the Churches that claimed no Headship 2. He exprâ—sly excludeth Peters Headship both in the words before recited and after saying Certe Petrus Apostolus primum membrum or rather as Dr. Iames Corrupt of the Fathers Part. 2. p. 60 saith he found it in seven written Copies Apostolorum primus membrum Sanctae Vniversalis Ecclesiae est Paulus Andreas Iohannes quid â—liud quam singularium sunt plebium capita Et tamen sub uno capite omnes membra sunt Ecclesiae that is Peter the first of the Apostles is a member of the holy and universal Church Paul Andrew Iohn what are they but the Heads of the singular flocks of the people And yet all are members of the Church under one Head that is Christ so that Christ is the only Head Peter is but a member as the other Apostles are but not a Head 3. But saith Bellarmine Gregory could not but know that the title of Episcopus Vniversalis Ecclesiae which is all one had been oft assumed by the Popes Ans. 1. Whether was Bellarmine or Gregory the wiser man at least the fitter interpreter of those words would Gregory have made them so blasphemous foolish prophane and devilish if he had thought them of the same importance with those which his Predecessors used Or was he so silly as not to know that this might have been retorted on him What a silly â—or what a wicked dissembling hypocrite doth Bellarmine feign Pope Gregory to have been 2. But verily did the Learned Jesuite believe himself that Vniversalis Episcopus Ecclesiae Episcopus Ecclesiae Vniversalis are of the same signification Every Bishop in the world that adhered to the common Communion of Chrâ—â—â—ians and was a Catholike was wont to be called a Bishop of the Catholike Church and is indeed such but he is not therefore the universal Bishop of the Church But Bellarmine will not charge Gregory of such horrid dissimulation without reason His first reason is that Gregory did it for caution to prevent abuse Ans. What! charge it with blasphemy prophaness devilism wronging all the Church and also to excommunicate men for it and all this to prevent abuse when he held it lawful Did hell ever hatch worse hypocrisie then this that he fathers on his holiest Pope But 2. His other reason is worse then this forsooth because the question was only whether Iohn of Constantinople should have this title and not whether the Bishop of Rome should have it and therefore Gregory simply and absolutely pronounceth the name sacrilegious and prophane that is as given to Iohn but not to himself yet he refused it himself though due to him that he might the better repress the pride of the Bishop of Constantinople Ans. The sum is then that Gregory did meerly lye and dissemble for his own end He labours to prove that blasphemous sacrilegious c. which he desired But we will not judge so odiously of the Pope as Papists do Doth he charge the other Patriarchs and Bishops to give it no man doth he blame them after in other Epistles that gave him that Title and doth he profess that never any of his Predecessors received it and make so hainous a matter of it and yet all this while approve it as for himself Who will believe a Saint to be so diabolical that calls it an imitation of the Devil You see now what the Roman Cause is come to and whether their Church as Papal that is their Universal Soveraignty be not sprung up since Gregories dayes Hear him a little further ibid. Atque ut cuncta breviter cingalo locutionis adstringam sancti ante Legem sancti sub Lege sancti sub Gratia omnes hi perficientes Corpus Domini in membris sunt Ecclesiae constituti nemo se unquam Vniversalem vocare voluit Vestra autem sanctitas agnoscat quantum apud se tumeat quae illo nomine vocari
examples of such like sophisms Whatsoever Nation is the true Kingdom of Spain is proud and cruel against Protestants But there is no protection there due to any that are not of that Kingdom therefore there is no protection due to any that are not proud and cruel Or whatsoever Nation is the true Kingdom of France acknowledgeth the Pope but no protection is due from the Governours to any that are not of that Kingdom therefore no protection is due to any that acknowledge not the Pope Or what ever Nation is the Kingdom of Ireland in the daies of Queen Elizabeth was for the Earl of Tyrone but there was no right of Inheritance for any that were not of that Nation therefore there was no right of Inheritance for any that was not for the Earl of Tyrone Or suppose that you could have proved it of all the Church If you had lived four hundred years after Christ you might as well have argued thus Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ is against kneeling in Adoration on the Lords daies But there is no Salvation to be had out of that Congregation of Christians which is now the true Church of Christ therefore there is no Salvation to be had out of that Congregation which is against kneeling on the Lords day c. But yet 1. There was Salvation to be had in that Congregation without being of that opinion 2. And there is now Salvation to be had in a Congregation that is not of that opinion as you will confess Or whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ doth hold the Canticles and the Epistle to Philemon to be Canonical Scripture and so have done c. But there is no Salvation to be had out of the true Church therefore there is no Salvation to be had out of that Congregation which holdeth the Canticles and Epistle to Philemon to be Canonical Scripture But yet 1. Salvation is to be had in that Church without holding it 2. and its possible hereafter a Church may deny those two books and yet you will think Salvation not thereby overthrown This is but to shew your fallacy from a corrupt accident and indeed but of a part of the Church and a small part Now to your proof of the Major Resp. ad Major The present matter of the Church was not visible in the last Generation for we were not then born but the same form of the Church was then existent in a visible Matter and their Profession was visible or audible though their faith it self was invisible I will do more then you shall do in maintaining the constant visibility of the Chruch Ad minorem 1. If you mean that no Congregation hath been alwaies visible but that Universal Church whose lesser corrupt part acknowledges the Popes Soveraignty I grant it For besides the whole containing all Christians as the parts there can be no other If you mean save that part which acknowledgeth you contradict your self because a part implyeth other parts If you mean save that Universal Church all whose members or the most acknowledge it there is no such subject existent 2. I distinguish of Visibility It s one thing to be a visible Church that is visible in its essentials and another thing to be visible quoad hoc as to some separable accident The Universal Church was ever visible because their Profession of Christianity was so and the persons professing But the acknowledgement of the Vice-christ was not alwaies visible no not in any part much less in the whole And if it had it was but a separable accident if your disease be not incurable that was visible and therefore 1. It was not necessary to Salvation nor a proper mark of the Church 2. Nor can it be so for the time to come I need to say no more to your conclusion Your Argument is no better then this whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath been alwaies visible since the time of Christ But no Congregation of Christians hath been so visible save only that which condemneth the Greeks which hath a Colledge of Cardinals to choose the Popes which denieth the cup to the laity which forbiddeth the reading of Scripture in a known tongue without license c. Therefore whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath all these 1. In a corrupt part it hath 2. But it had not alwaies 3. And may be cured hereafter To your proof of the Major 1. I grant your Major 2. Ad minorem 1. Either you mean Universal Pastors each one or someone having charge and Government of the whole Church or you mean unfixed Pastors having an indefinite charge of Preaching and Guiding when they come and have particular calls and opportunities or you mean the fixed Pastors of particular Churches In the first sense your Minor is false the Catholike Church was never so united to any Universal Head but Christ no one of the Apostles governed the rest the whole Church much less any since their time In the second sense I grant that the Church hath ever had Pastors since the Ascension In the third sense I grant that some parts or other of the Catholike Church have ever had fixed Pastors of Congregations since the first settling of such Pastors But any one particular Congregation may cease to have such Pastors and may cease it self and Rome hath been long without any true Pastors and therefore was then no such visible Church 2. If by Congregation you mean not the Universal Church but a part or if you mean it of all the parts of the Universal Church I deny your Minor Communities of Christians and particular persons have been and may be without any Pastors to whom they are united or subject The Indians that died in the faith while Frumentius and Edesius were there preaching before they had any Pastor were yet Christians and saved If a Lay-man Convert one or a thousand and you will say that he may baptize them and they die before they can have a Pastor or ever hear of any to whom they owe subjection they are nevertheless saved as members of the Church And if all the Pastors in a Nation were murdered or banished the people would not cease to be Christians and members of the Church Much less if the Pope were dead or deposed or a vacancy befell his seat would all the Catholike Church be annihilated or cease To your Confirmation of the Major that a visible Church is nothing but a Visible Pastor and people united I answer 1. It s true of the universal Church as united in Christ the great Pastor but not as united in a Vice-Christ or humane head 2. It is true of a particular Political or organized Church as united to their proper Pastors 3. But it is not true of every Community of Christians who are a part of the Universal Church A company converted to Christ
Bishop of Rome which the Council of Chalcedon before mentioned plainly owned when writing to Pope Leo they say Thou Governest us as the head doth the members contributing thy good will by those which hold thy place Behold a Primacy not only of Precedency but of Government and Authority which Lerinensis confirms contr Haeres cap. 9. where speaking of Stephen Pope he saies Dignum ut opinor existimans si reliquos omnes tantum fidei devotione quantum locī authoritate superabat esteeming it as I think a thing worthy of himself if he overcame all others as much in the devotion of faith as he did in the Authority of his place And to confirm what this universal Authority was he affirms that he sent a Law Decree or Command into Africa Sanxit That in matter of rebaptization or Hereticks nothing should be innovated which was a manifest argument of his Spiritual Authority over those of Africa and à paritate rationis over all others I will shut up all with that which was publickly pronounced and no way contradicted and consequently assented to in the Council of Ephesus one of the four first general Councils in this matter Tom. 2. Concil pag. 327. Act. 1. where Philip Priest and Legate of Pope Celestine sayes thus Gratias agimus sanctae venerandaeque synodo quod literis sancti beatique Papae nostri vobis recitatis sanctas chartas sanctis vestris vocibus sancto capiti vestro sanctis vestris exclamationibus exhibueritis Non enim ignorat vestra beatitudo totius fidei vel etiam Apostolorum caput esse beatum Apostolum Petrum And the same Philip Act. 3. p. 330. proceeds in this manner Nulli dubium imo saeculis omnibus notum est quod sanctus beatissimusque Petrus Apostolorum Princeps caput Fideique columna Ecclesiae Catholicae Fundamentum à Domino nostro Jesu Christo Salvatore generis humani ac redemptore nostro claves regni accepit solvendique ac ligandi peccata potestas ipsi data est qui ad hoc usque tempus ac semper in suis successoribus vivit judicium exercet Hujus itaque secundum ordinem successor locum-tenens sanctus beatissimusque Papa noster Celestinus nos ipsius praesentiam supplentes huc misit And Arcadius another of the Popes Legats enveighing against the Heretick Nestorius accuses him though he was Patriarch of Constantinople which this Council requires to be next in dignity after Rome as of a great crime that he contemned the command of the Apostolick See that is of Pope Celestine Now had Pope Celestine had no power to command him and by the like reason to command all other Bishops he had committed no fault in transgressing and contemning his command By these testimonies it will appear that what you are pleased to say That the most part of the Catholike Church hath been against us to this day and all for many hundred of years is far from truth seeing in the time of the holy Oecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon the universal consent of the whole Catholike Church was for us in this point As to what you say of Congregation of Christians in the beginning I answer I took the word Christians in a large sense comprehending in it all those as it is vulgarly taken who are Baptized and profess to believe in Christ and are distinguished from Jews Mahumetans and Heathens under the denomination of Christians What you often say of an universal Monarch c. if you take Monarch for an Imperious sole Commander as temporal Kings are we acknowledge no such Monarch in the Church if only for one who hath received power from Christ in meekness charity and humility to govern all the rest for their own eternal good as brethren or children we grant it What also you often repeat of a Vice-Christ we much dislike that title as proud and insolent and utterly disclaim from it neither was it ever given by any sufficient Authority to our Popes or did they ever accept of it As to the Council of Constance they never questioned the Supremacy of the Pope as ordinary chief Governour of all Bishops and people in the whole Church nay they expresly give it to Martinus Quintus when he was chosen But in extraordinary cases especially when it is doubtful who is true Pope as it was in the beginning of this Council till Martinus Quintus was chosen Whether any extraordinary power be in a general Council above that ordinary power of the Pope which is a question disputed by some amongst our selves but touches not the matter in hand which proceeds only of the ordinary and constant Supream Pastor of all Christians abstracting from extraordinary tribunals and powers which are seldom found in the Church and collected only occasionally and upon extraordinary accidents Thus honoured Sir I have as much as my occasions would permit me hastened a reply to your answer and if more be requisite it shall not be denyed Only please to give me leave to tell you that I cannot conceive my Argument yet answered by all you have said to it William Iohnson Feb. 3. 1658. Sir It was the 21. of January before your Answer came to my hands and though my Reply was made ready by me the third instant yet I have found so great difficulties to get it transcribed that it was not possible to transmit it to you before now But I hope hereafter I shall find Scribes more at leasure I must desire you to excuse what errors you find in the Copy which I send As also that being unwilling to make a farther delay I am enforced to send a Copy which hath in it more interlineations then would otherwise become me to send to a person of your worth Yet I cannot doubt but your Candor will pass by all things of this nature I am Sir Your very humble servant William Iohnson Feb. 15. 1658. Worthy Sir I have now expected neer three moneths for your rejoynder to the Reply which I made to that answer which you were pleased to send and return to my Argument concerning the Church of Christ but as yet nothing hath appeared I must confess I have wondered at it considering the earnestness which appeared in you at the first to proceed with speed in a business of this nature what the impediment hath been I am only left to guess but certainly truth is strong and it will not be found an easie thing to oppose her while we keep close to form I am now necessitated to go out of London so that if your Papers come in my absence I shall hope you will have the patience to expect untill they can be sent from London to me and my Answers returned by the way of London but I do engage not to make a delay longer then the circumstances of the place and times shall enforce Sir I do highly honour and esteem your parts and person and shall be very glad to bring that business to an handsome
profess it to be their Tradition that the Pope was never their Governour 3. No history or authority of the least regard is brought by your own writers to prove these Churches under your jurisdiction no not by Baronius himself that is so copious and so skilful in making much of nothing No credible witnesses mention your Acts of jurisdiction over them or their Acts of subjection which Church history must needs have contained if it had been true that they were your subjects 4. Their absence from general Councils and no invitation of them thereunto that was ever proved or is shewed by you is sufficient evidence 5. Their Liturgies even the most ancient bear no footsteps of any subjection to you Though your forgeries have corrupted them as I shall here digressively give one instance of The Ethiopick Liturgy because of a Hoc est corpus meum which we also use is urged to prove that they are for the corporal presence or Transubstantiation But saith Vsher de success Eccles. In Ethiopicarum Ecclesiarum universali Canone descriptum habebatur Hic panis est corpus meum In Latina translatione contra fidem Ethiopic Exemplarium ut in prima operis editione confirmat Pontificius ipse Scholiastes expunctum est nomen Panis 6. Constantines Letters of request to the King of Persia for the Churches there which Euseb. in vit Constant. mentioneth do intimate that then the Roman Bishop ruled not there 7. Even at home the Scots and Brittains obeyed not the Pope nor conformed about the Easter observation even in the daies of Gregory but resisted his changes and refused communion with his Ministers 8. I have already elsewhere given you the testimony of some of your own writers as Reynerius contra Waldens Catal. in Biblioth Patr. Tom. 4. p. 773. saying The Churches of the Armenians and Ethiopians and Indians and the rest which the Apostles converted are not under the Church of Rome 9. I have proved from the Council of Chalcedon that it was the Fathers that is the Councils that gave Rome its preheminence But those Councils gave the Pope no preheminence over the extra-imperial Nations For 1. Those Nations being not called to the Council could not be bound by it 2. The Emperours called and enforced the Councils who had no power out of their Empire 3. The Diocess are described and expresly confined within the verge of the Empire see both the description and full proof in Blondel de Primatu in Ecclesia Gall. And 10. The Emperours themselves did sometime giveing power to the Councils Acts make Rome the chief and sometime as the Councils did also give Constantinople equal priviledge and sometime set Constantinople highest as I have shewed in my Key p. 174 175. But the Emperours had no power to do thus with respect to those without the Empire But what say you now to the contrary Why 1. You ask Were those Primitive Christians of another kind of Church order and Government then were those under the Roman Empire Answ. When the whole body of Church history satisfieth us that they were not subject to the Pope which is the thing in question is it any weakening of such evidence in a matter of such publick fact to put such a question as this Whether they were under another kind of Government 1. We know that they were under Bishops or Pastors of their own and so far their Government was of the same kind 2. If any of them or all did suit their Church associations to the several Commonwealths in which they lived and so held National Councils and for order sake made one among them the Bishop primae sedis then was that Government of the same kind with that of the Imperial Churches and not of another kind The Roman Government was no other but One thus Ordered in one Empire And if there were also One so ordered in England one in Scotland one in Ethiopia c. this was of the same kind with the Roman Every Church suited to the form of the Common-wealth is even as to that humane mode of the same kind if a humane mode must be called a Kind It may be of that same kind and mode without being part of the same Individual But 2. You say that How far from truth this is appeareth from St. Leo in his Sermons de Natali suo where he sayes Sedes Roma Perri quicquid non possidet armis Religione tenet Reply If you take your Religion on trust as you do your authorities that are made your ground of it and bring others to it when you are deceived your selves how will you look Christ in the the face when you must answer for such temerity Leo hath no Sermons de Natali suo but only one Sermon affixed to his Sermons lately found in an oid book of Nicol. Fabers And in that Sermon there is no such words as you here alledge Neither doth he Poetize in his Sermons nor there hath any such words which might occasion your mistake and therefore doubtless you believed some body for this that told you an untruth and yet ventured to make it the ground of charging my words with untruth Yet let me tell you that I will take Pope Leo for no competent judge or witness though you call him a Saint as long as we know what past between him and the Council of Chalcedon and that he was one of the first tumified Bishops of Rome he shall not be judge in his own cause 3. But you add that The Abassines of Ethiopia were under the Patriarch of Alexandria anciently and he under the authority of the Roman Bishop Reply 1. Your bare word without proof shall not perswade us that the Abassines were under the Patriarch of Alexandria for above three hundred if not four hundred years after Christ. Prove it and then your words are regardable 2. At the Council of Nice the contrary is manifest by the sixth Can. Mos antiquus perdurat in Aegypto vel Lybia Pentapoli ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem c. And the common descriptions of the Alexandrian Patriarchate in those times confine it to the Empire and leave out Aethiopia Pisanus new inventions we regard not 3. I deny that the Patriarch of Alexandria was under the Government of the Bishop of Rome any more then the Jury are under the Foremen or the junior Justices on the bench are under the senior or York is under London or the other Earls of England are under the Earl of Arundel 4. But if both these were proved that Ethiopia was under Alexandria and Alexandria under Rome I deny the consequence that Ethiopia was under Rome for Alexandria was under Rome but secundum quid and so far as it was within the Empire and therefore those without the Empire that were under Alexandria were not therefore under Rome 5. And if it could as it never can be proved of Abassia what is that to all the other Churches in India Persia and the
their Diocess yet they might renounce all communion with him Churches that have no power over one another may have communion with one another and that communion they may hold and renounce as there is cause Now if a neighbour Patriarch with so many Bishops of the West had renounc'd Communion with Chrysostomes enemies and also written their Letters on his behalf and taken him still as in their Communion this he hoped would much further his restauration which yet he doubted as he had cause For in his second Epistle he thanks him for doing his part though it did no good or did not avail And it is to be noted that your Author Nicephorus tells you lib. 13. cap. 31. that Chrysostomes Letters and his fellow-Bishops also and the Clergies of Constantinople were all written both to the Emperour Honorius and to Innocent And therefore you may see by that on what account it was and what help they did expect The Emperour was not to excommunicate but his Letters might do much Well but you alledge Niceph. l. 13. c. 34. to prove 1. Chrysostomes appeal But you have better or worse eyes then I for I can find there no such thing but a seeking for help as aforesaid 2. You say Innocentius nulls his condemnation and declares him innocent Ans. So might another Bishop have declared him But how far it should be regarded was not in his power 3. You say he excommunicates Atticus and Theopilus and 4. Arcadius the Emperor also and Eudoxia Reply 1. If he did so and did well another Bishop might as well have done it Mennas excommunicated Vigilius of Rome Excommunicating is not alwayes an act of Jurisdiction but a renouncing of Communion with a Ministeriall binding which any Pastor on a just occasion may exercise even on those that are not of his Diocess examples in Church-history are common 2. But I would have you answer Dr. Whittakers Reasons by which he proves that Nicephorus is a fabler in this relation and that that Epistle is not Innocents which cap. 34. he reciteth Lib. de pontif Rom. Contr. 4. Qu. 4. pag. 454 455. 1. Neither Socrates Theodoret or Sozomen make any mention of this excommunication who yet write much of the Case of Chrysostome and Arcadius And would these men that lived so near that time have all silenced so great and rare a thing as the excommunication of the Emperour and Empress which would have made so great a noise and stir that yet mention Ambrose his censure of Theodosius 2. This Bull of Innocents as Nicephorus would have us believe it hath such falshoods contrary to more credible history as bewray the forgery For Socrates lib. 6. c. 19. writeth that Eudoxia died the same year that Chrysostome was banished and that Chrysostome died the third year of his banishment And Sozomen saith l. 8. c. 28. that Chrysostome was in banishment three years after the death of Eudoxia But if Nicephorus were to be believed Eudoxia was alive and excommunicated by Innocent after Chrysostomes death Nor can it be said that Innocent knew not of her death for his Legats were sent to Constantinople in Atticus time who succeeded Arsacius who outlived Eudoxia This is the summe of Dr. Whittakers confutation of Nicephorus And withall who knows not how full of fictions Nicephorus is In your Margin you pretend to confute Chamier p. 498. as saying That other Bishops restored those wrongfully deposed as well as the Pope to which you say that never single Bishop restored any who were out of their respective Diocess c. whereas the Bishop of Rome by his sole and single authority restored Bishops wrongfully deposed all the Church over Reply 1. It seems you took Chamiers words on trust peruse that page and see his words 2. Single Bishops have censured and therefore might as well remit their own censures Ambrose censured Theodosius who was no fixed Member of his charge and he remitted the Censure Epiphanius presumed even at Constantinople to excommunicate Dioscorus and his Brethren Socrat. lib. 6. c. 14. And many instances may be brought both of excommunicating and again receiving to communion by particular Bishops even as to those that were not of their charge And if the fact were not proved yet the forbearance proveth not the want of power 3. I deny your unproved assertion that the Bishop of Rome singly restored all the Church over It is a meer fiction How many restored he out of the Empire Or in the Empire out of his Patriarchate but suasorily or Synodically Your next instance of Theodosius his not permitting the Council at Ephesus to be assembled and his reconciling himself to the Church is meerly impertinent We know that he and other Princes usually wrote to Rome Constantinople Alexandria c. or spoke or sent to more then one of the Patriarchs before they called a Council You cannot but know that Councils have been called without the Pope and that neither this nor an Emperours forsaking his errour is a sign of the Popes Universal Government That Emperour gave sufficient testimony and so did the Bishops that adhered to Dioscorus that in those dayes the Pope was taken for fallible and controlable when they excommunicated him But when you cite out of any Author the words that you build on I shall take more particular notice of them Till then this is enough with this addition that the Emperours subjection if he had been subject not to an Ambrose or other Bishop but only to Rome would have been no proof that any without the Empire were his subjects No more then the King of Englands subjection to the Archbishop of Canterbury would have proved that the King of France was subject to him 12. Your twelfth proof from the Council of Chalcedon is from a witness alone sufficient to overthrow your cause as I have proved to you This Synod expresly determineth that your Primacy is a novel humane invention that it was given you by the Fathers because Rome was the Imperial Seat If you believe this Synod the Controversie is at end If you do not why do you cite it and why pretend you to believe Generall Councils But what have you from this Council against this Council Why 1. You say Martian wrote to Leo that by the Popes Authority a generall Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to choose Reply 1. Whereas for this you cite Act. Concil Chalcedon 1. You tell me not in what Author whether Crabbe Binnius Surius Nicolinus or where I must seek it I have perused the Act. 1. in Binnius which is 63 pages in Folio such tasks your citations set me and find no such thing and therefore take it to be your mistake But in the preambul Epist I find that Valentinian and Martian desire Leo's prayers and contrary to your words that they say Hoc ipsum nobis propriis liter is tua sanctitas manifestet quatenus in omnem Orientem in ipsam Thraciam
seems durst not pretend to a Divine Right and Institution nor to a succession of Primacy from the Apostles 6. But nothing is more false then your assertion that he extendeth the power over the whole visible Church The word Vniversitas is all that you translate in your comment the whole visible Church As if you knew not that there was a Roman Vniversality that Roman Councils were called Vniversall when no Bishops out of that one Common-wealth were present and that the Church in the Empire is oft called the whole Church Yea the Roman world was not an unusuall phrase And I pray you tell me what power Valentinian had out of the Empire who yet interposâ—th his authority there Nequid praeter authoritatem sedis istiusilliâ—itum c. ut pâ—x ubique servetur And in the end it is All the Provinces that is the Vniversity that he extends his precepts to 7. And for that annexed that without the Emperours Letters his authority was to be of force through France for what shall not be lawfull c. I Ans. No wonder â—or France was part of his Patriarchaâ—e and the Laws of the Empire had confirmed his Patriarchal power and those Laws might seem with the reverence of Synods without new Letters to do much But yet it seems that the rising power needed this extraordinary secular help Hilary it seems with his Bishops thought that even to his Patriarch he owed no such obedience as Leo here by force exacteth So that your highest witness Leo by the mouth of Valentinian is for no more then a Primacy with a swelled power in the Roman Universality but they never medled with the rest of the Christian world It seems by all their writings and attempts this never came into their thoughts And it s no credit to your cause that this Hilary was by Baronius confession a man of extraordinary holiness and knowledge and is Sainted among you and hath his Day in your Calendar And yet Valentinian had great provocation to interpose if Leo told him no untruths for his own advantage For it was no less then laying siege to Cities to force Bishops on them without their consent that he is accused of which shews to what odious pride and usurpation prosperity even then had raised the Clergy fitter to be lamented with floods of tears then to be defended by any honest Christian Leo himself may be the principal instance 18. You next return to the Council of Chalcedon Act. 1. seq where 1. You refer me to that Act. 1. where is no such matter but you add seq that I may have an hundred and ninety pages in Folio to peruse and then you call for a speedy answer But the Epistle to Leo is in the end of Act. 16. pag. Bin. 139. 2. And there you do but falsly thrust in the word thou governst us and so you have made your self a witness because you could find none The words are Quibus tu quidem sicut membris caput praeeras in his qui tuum tenebant ordinem benevolentiam praeferens Imperatores vero adornandum decentissime praesidebant Now to go before with you must be to Govern If so then Aurelius at the Council of Carthage and others in Councils that presided did govern them It was but benevolentiam praetulisse that they acknowledged And that the Magistrates not only presided indeed but did the work of Judges and Governours is express in the Acts it s after wrote in that Epistle Haec sunt quae tecum qui spiritu praesens eras complacere tanquam fratribus deliberasti qui pene per tuorum vicariorum sapientiam videbaris à nobis effecimus And haec à tua sanctitate fuerint inchoata and yet Qui enim locum vestrae sanctitatis obtinent iis ita constitutis vehementer resistere tentaverunt From all which it appeareth that he only is acknowledged to lead the way and to please them as his brethren and to help them by the wisdome of his substitutes and yet that the Council would not yield to their vehement resistance of one particular But I have told you oft enough that the Council shall be judge not in a complementall Epistle but in Can. 28. where your Primacy is acknowledged but 1. As a gift of the Fathers 2. And therefore as new 3. For the Cities dignity 4. And it can be of no further extent then the Empire the Givers and this Council being but the Members of that one Commonwealth So that all is but a novel Imperial Primacy 19. And for the words of Vincentius Lirinensis c. 9. what are they to your purpose quantum loci authoritate signifieth no more then we confess viz. that in those times the greatness of Rome and humane Ordination thereupon had given them that precedency by which their loci authoritas had the advantage of any other Seat Or else they had never swelled to their impious Usurpation I have plainly proved to you in the End of my safe Religion that Vincentius was no Papist But you draw an argument from the word sanxit As if you were ignorant that bigger words then that are applied to them that have no governing power Quantum in se sanxit he charged them that they should not innovate And what is it P. Stephen that is the Law-giver of the Law against unjust innovation Did not Cyprian believe that this was a Law of Christ before Stephen medled in that business What Stephens authority was in those dayes we need no other witnesses then Firmilian Cyprian and a Council of Carthage who slighted the Pope as much as I do I pray answer Cyprians testimony and arguments against Popery cited by me in the Disp. 3. of my safe Religion 20. You say you will conclude with the saying of your priest Philip and Arcadius at Ephesus And 1. You take it for granted that all consented to what they contradicted not But your word is all the proof of the consequence Nothing more common then in Senates and Synods to say nothing to many passages in speeches not consented to If no word not consented to in any mans speech must pass without contradiction Senates and Synods would be no wiser Societies then Billingsgate affords nor more harmonious then a Fair or vulgar rout What confusion would contradictions make among them 2. You turn me to Tom. 2. pag. 327. Act. 1. I began to hope of some expedition here But you tell me not at all what Author you use And in Binnius which I use the Tomes are not divided into Acts but Chapters and pâ—g 327. is long bâ—fore this Councâ—l So â—hat I must believe you or search paper enough for a weeks reading to disprove you This once I will believe you to save me that labour and supposing all rightly cited I reply 1. Philip was not the Council You bear witness to your selves therefore your witness is not credible Yet I have given you instances in my Key which I would
vicarius Christi Are not these the most common titles that Papists give them and that they take unto themselves Nay look back into your own papers here pag. 6. whether you say not that they are Instituted Governours in Christs place of his whole Visible Church 2. Doth not Bellarmine as I have cited elsewhere labour to prove that it is not as an Apostle that the Pope succeeds Peter but as a Head of the Church in Christs stead Doth not Boverius cited in my Key labour to prove him the Vicar of Christ and to be Vice Christi And what fitter English have we for the Kings deputy in a distant Kingdom who is Vice Regis then the Vice-King Or a Chancelors deputy then the Vicechancellor Vice Christi is your own common word and Vicarius Christi none more common scarce then the latter And what English is there fitter for this then the Vice-Christ or Vicar of Christ It is indeed the very term that expresseth properly as man can speak the true point and life of the Controversie between us And how could you suffer your pen to set down that the Popes did never accept of this when it is their own common phrase Vice Christi Vicarius Christi But here again remember and let it be a witness against you that you dislike and utterly disclaim the very name that signifieth the Papal Power as Proud and Insolent And if you abhor Popery while you tice men to it let my soul abhor it and let all that regard their souls abhor it Blessed be that Light that hath brought it to be numbred with the works of darkness Were it not more tedious then necessary I would cite you the words Vice Christi Vicarius Christi out of Popes and multitudes of your Writers But alas that 's not the highest The Vice-God is a Title that they have not thought insolent or words of the same signification Would you have my proof Pardon it then for proving your pen so false and deceitfull that 's not my fault Pope Iulius the second in his General Council at the Laterane saith Cont. Pragmat sanct monitor Binnius Vol. 4. pag. 560. Though the institutions of sacred Canons holy fathers and Popes of Rome and their Decrees be judged immutable as made by Divine inspiration yet the Pope of Rome who though of unequal Merits holdeth the place of the eternall King and the Maker of all things and all Laws on earth may abrogate these decrees when they are abused Here from your Judge of faith it self you hear that the Pope holds the place of the eternal King the Maker of all things and Laws Pope Sixtus Quartus in passagio sive Bulla contra Turcos sent to Philip Palatine Elector 1481. in Breheri Tom. 2. pag. 162. Vol. 2. saith Vniversos Christianos Principes ac omnes Christi fidâ—les requirere eisque mandare Vice Dei cujus locâ—m quamviâ— immeriti tenemus in terris that is we are constrained to require all Christian Princes and all believers of Christ and to command them in the stead of God whose place on earth we hold though undeserving Here is a Vice-God holding his place on earth and commanding all Princes and Christians to a War against the Turks in Gods stead I know to a particular people Gods Embassadours are said to speak in his name and stead as if God did beseech men by us 2 Cor. 5.19 But this is only as to a narrow and limited Embassage not that they hold Gods place on earth as Rulers over the Universal Church c. The same Pope Sixtus 4 saith ibid. pag. 163. Sola superest Romana sedes sedes utique immaculati agni sedes Viventis in secula seculorum Haec quippe praedictas Patriarchales genuit Ecclesias quae quasi filiae in ejus gremio residebant in circuitu tanquam famulae in ipsius adsistebant obsequio that is Only the Roman seat remaineth even the seat of the Immaculate Lambe the seat of him that liveth for ever my flesh trembleth to write these things This did beget the foresaid Patriarchal Churches notorious falshood which rested as daughters in her bosome and as servants stood about in her obedience Here you see from the Pope himself that the other Patriarchs are his servants and so to obey him and that Rome begot them all that were before it except Constantinople and neither made Christians nor Patriarchs by it and that Rome is now become the seat of the Immaculate Lambe and of him that liveth for ever Truly the reading of your own Historians and the Popes Bulls c. hath more perswaded me that the Pope is Antichrist then the Apocalyps hath done because I distrusted my understanding of it Benedictus de Benedictis wrote a Book against Dr. Whittaker to prove that it s as false that the Pope is Antichrist as that Christ is Antichrist and dedicated it to Pope Paul 5. with this inscription Paul 5. Vice Deo To Paul 5. the Vice-God printed at Bononia 1608. Caraffa's Theses printed at Naples 1609. had the same inscription Paulo 5. Vice Deo to Paul 5. the Vice-God Alcazar in Apocal. in carmine ad Johannem Apostolum saith of the same Pope Paul 5. Qâ—em numinis instar Vera colit pietas whom as a God true piety adores Christopher Marcellus in his Oration before Pope Iulius 2. in the approved Council at Laterane Sess. 4. and you take not contradicting to be consenting and verily to such blasphemy in a Council so it is saith thus Quum tantae reipublicae unicus atque supremus Princeps fueris institutus beatissime pontifex cui summa data potestas ad divinum injunctum imperium c. ante sub tuo imperio Vnus princeps qui summam in terris habeat potestatem But these are small things Teque omnis aevi omnium seculorum omnium gentium Principem Caput appellant But yet the Prince and Head of all ages and Nations is too low Cura Pater beatissime ut sponsae tuae forma decórque redeat But yet to make the Church his spouse is nothing Cura denique ut salutem quam dedisti nobis vitam spiritum non amittamus Tu enim Pastor tu medicus tu gubernator tu cultor tu denique alter Deus in terris That is See that we lâ—se not the health that thou hast given us and the life and spirit For thou art the Pâ—stor the Physician to conclude thou art another God on earth If you say that the Pope accepteth not this I answer it was in an oration spoken in a Generall Council in his presence without contradiction yea by his own command as the Oratour professeth Iussisti tu Pater sancte parui you commanded me Holy Father and I obeyed Binnius pag. 562 563 564. you may find all this In Glâ—ss extrav g. Ioan. 22. de Verb. signific câ—p Cum inter in Glâ—ssa Credere Dominum nâ—strum Dâ—um Papam conditorem dictae decretalis
Protestants are chief Members is clearly proved And the Papists exceptions against it confuted LONDON Printed in the year 1660. Qu. Whether the Church of which the Protestants are Members have been Visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth Aff. THe terms explained 1. The Church sometime signifieth a particular Congregation actually met or associated for such personal meeting for Communion in Gods worship 2. Sometime it signifieth an Association of Churches and that either of sewer or of more as they have opportunity of Communion or correspondency by their Pastors and also the Assemblies of the Pastors of the particular Churches so associated Scripture useth it in the first sense and Later custome whether Scripture also I omit in the later 3. Both Scripture and Custome have used the word to signifie the Church Universal of which all particular Churches are Members This is the Church that we speak of in the Question Defin. The Universal Church of which the Protestants profess themselves Members is The Kingdome of Iesus Christ or The whole company of Believers or true Christians upon earth subjected to Iesus Christ their Head The constitutive parts or the Relate and Correlate are as in every Politick Body the Pars Imperans and Pars subdita which is Christ and Christians The form consisteth in the mutuall Relation The End is the common good of the Church and the glory of the Head and the accomplishment of the will of God 2. The Protestants Defin. Protestants are Christians protesting against or disowning Popery The word Protestant expresseth not the essence of our Religion And therefore it must not denominate the Universal Church of which we are Members we are not to call it A Protestant Universal Church Nor doth it signifie an inseparable proper accident For when the Catholick Church had no Popery there was none to protest against and therefore there could be no Protestants And Ethiopia India and other Nations that never had Popery or those Nations that never heard of it have no occasion to protest against it Nor doth it signifie any Positive part directly of our Religion but only the Negation or Rejection of Popery Even as when a man is called Homo purgatus sanatus liberatus à leprâ peste tabe c. a man purged healed freed from the leprosie plague consumption c. it is no positive part nor inseparable proper accident much less any essential part of the man that is signified by the word Healed Purged c. Nor is it necessary in order to the proving him a man or a healthfull man to prove that he was ever a purged or healed man We undertake not therefore to prove that there have been alwayes Protestants that is men Protesting against Popery Nor have we any need in order to the proof of our Thesis to prove that the Catholick Church hath all been free from Popery in all ages or in any age since the Apostles no more then that it hath been free from Pride Ambition or Contention But yet we shall do it ex abundanti The Religion then of a Protestant is Christianity and he knoweth and owneth no other Which is called the Protestant Religion as cleansed from Popery Members that is true integral parts Of which are By Profession We profess our selves to be of no other Church And before men a man is to be taken to be of that Religion and Church of which he professeth himself to be till he be proved false in that Profession If a Papist affirm himself a member of the Roman Church in disputing with him we will take it for granted that he is so every man being best acquainted with his own mind and fittest to describe the Religion which he owns So that two things I here include 1. It is only such a Catholick Church that hath been still visible that Protestants own 2. And only such that really they are of their Profession being valid Note also that it is not directly the inexistency by internal invisible faith that is in question among us or that I mean but the inexistency by external Visible Profession Bellarmine thinks the bare Professors that are wicked are best termed Dead members and the true Professors Living members we will not stick needlesly on words We take the Living members only to be in strict propriety members but Sincerity and Hypocrisie being known only to God and the possessors we speak of Professors as Professors abstractively from their Sincerity or Hypocrisie Hath been Visible 1. Not visible to man in its Internal faith but in its external Profession 2. Not Visible at once to any one man for no man can see all the Christian world at once But Visible in its parts both in Congregations and individual persons 3. Not Visible in the soundness of its professed faith unto Infidels and Hereticks For they cannot see that faith to be sound which they take to be fabulous and false But Visible in the soundness of its professed faith to themselves that know the soundness of faith 4. Not Visible in the excellent degree of soundness in the better parts unto the corrupter or infirmer parts For though de facto they may know what Doctrine the better part do hold as Infidels know what Doctrine the Church holdeth yet they know it not to be true and sound in the points wherein they differ And note again that it is not the Visibility of every accident of the Church nor of every Truth or duty that is but of the Integrity of Religion and necessary only ad melius esse Ecclesiae to the Better being of the Church but it is the Visibility of the Church that we speak of Lastly it is the Body and not the Head whose Visibility is in Question by us Though the Head also is truly Visible in Heaven and Visus or seen to the most excellent Triumphant part of his Body who are fittest to be his Courtiers and in his presence and as much seen on earth as the Pope is to most of the Church which is not at all Ever since the dayes of Christ on earth 1. But not still in one and the same place on earth It might be in one age much of it in Iudea at Ephesus Sardis Laodicaea Colosse Philippi and other parts of Asia and in other ages removed thence either wholly or for the most part It might be in one age in Tenduâ— Nâ—bia and other great Kingdoms where it shall afâ—er cease to be But in some part or other of the earth it hath been still 2. Not equally visible in all Times and Places of the earth In some Times as in the Arrians prevalency it was so oppressed and obscured that the world groaned to find it self turn'd Arrian and the Arrians in General Councils and number of Bishops to whom the true Christians were very few did seem to carry away the Name and glory of the Catholick Church so that in their eyes and in the eyes of slanders by that were of neither
party the most Visible Catholick Church was theirs who yet had no part in it because they were not Christians as denying that which is essentiall to Christ the object of the Christian faith and therefore none of the Church and therefore though most visible and numerous yet not the visible Church And the Church which to others was as wheat hidden in this chaffe or rather a few ears among so many rares was yet Visible to it self in its Truth of faith and visible to its Enemies in its Profession and assemblies though in number far below them So also in some places it may be Latent through persecution the paucity of believers when in other places it is more Patent And its Degrees of soundness being various are accordingly variously visible One part may be really and visibly more strong and another more weak in the faith One part much more corrupt then others and other parts retain their purity And the same Countries increase or decrease in that purity as is apparent in the case of the Churches of Galatia Corinth the seven Asian Churches Rev. 2. and 3. c. Lastly note that it is only that part of the Church which is on earth whose visibility we assert though that in Heaven be also a true part of the Body of Christ. Nor is it in the same Individuals that the Church continueth Visible but in successive Matter So much for explication of the terms Thes. The Church of which the Protestants are Members hath been Visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth Arg. 1. The Body of Christians on earth subjected to Christ their Head hath been in its 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 the dayes of Christ on earth I have not sagacity enough to conjecture what any Papist can say against the Major proposition The Minor is proved by our own Professions As the profession of Popery proveth a man a Papist so the profession of Christianity as much proveth us to be Christians α Those that profess the true Christian Religion in all its essentials are Members of that Church which is the Body of Christians on earth subjected to Christ the Head But the Protestants profess the true Christian Religion in all its essentialls therefore the Protestants are Members of that Church which is the Body of Christians on earth subjected to Christ the Head The Major is undeniable The Minor is thus proved 1. Those that profess so much as God hath promised salvation upon in the Covenant of Grace do profess the Christian Religion in all its Essentials For God promiseth salvation in that Covenant to none but Christians But the Protestants profess so much as God hath promised salvation upon in the Covenant of Grace Therefore the Protestants do profess the Christian Religion in all its essentials The Minor is thus proved All that profess faith in God the Father Son and holy Ghost our Creator Redeemer and Sanctifier and love to him and absolute obedience to all his Laws of Nature and holy Scripture with willingness and diligence to know the true meaning of all these Laws as far as they are able and with Repentance for all known sin do profess so much as God hath promised salvation upon Ioh. 3.16 17. Mark 16.16 Heb. 5.9 Rom. 8.28 1. Act 26.18 But so do the Protestants Therefore the Protestants profess so much as God hath promised salvation on 2. 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 Baptism did profess do profess the true Christian Religion in all its essentials But so do the Protestants Therefore c. 3. Those that explicitely profess the Belief of all that was contained in the Churches Symbols or Creeds for six hundred years after Christ and much more holy truth and implicitly to believe all that is contained in the holy Scriptures and to be willing and diligent for the explicite knowledge of all the rest with a Resolution to obey all the will of God which they know do profess the true Christian Religion in all its Essentials But so do the Protestants Therefore c. Ad hominem I confirm the Major and most that went before from the Testimonies of some most eminent Papists Bellarmine saith de Verbo Dei lib. 4. c. 11. In the Christian doctrine both of faith and manners some things are simply necessary to salvation to all as the knowledge of the Articles of the Apostles Creed of the ten Commandments and of some Sacraments The rest are not so necessary that a man cannot be saved without the explicite knowledge belief and profession of them These things that are simply necessary and are profitable to all the Apostles preached to all All things are written by the Apostles which are Necessary to all and which they openly preacht to all Costerus Enchirid. c. 1. p. 49. We deny not that those chief heads of Belief which are necessary to all Christians to be known to salvation are perspicuously enough comprehended in the writings of the Apostles But all this the Protestants profess to believe ◠If sincere Protestants are Members of the true Church as intrinsecally informed or as Bellarmine speaks Living Members then professed Protestants are Members of the true Church as extrinsecally denominated or as it is Visible consisting of Professors But the Antecedent is true Therefore so is the Consequent The Reason of the Consequence is because it is the same thing that is professed by all Professors and existent in all true Believers and that as to Profession is necessary to Visibility of Membership and as to sincere inexistence is necessary to salvation The Antecedent or Minor I thus prove All that by saith in Christ are brought to the unfeigned Love of God above all and speciall Love to his servants and unfeigned willingness to obey him are Members of the true Church as intrinsecally informed But such are all sincere Protestants Therefore all sincere Protestants are Members of the true Church as intrinsecally informed The Major is granted by the Papists who affirm charity to be the form of Grace and all that have it to be justified And the promises of Scripture prove it to our Comfort The Minor 1. Is proved to others by our Professions If this be in our Profession then the sincere are such indeed But this is in our Profession Therefore c. 2. It s certainly known to our selves by the inward knowledge and sense of our souls I know that I Love God and his servants and am willing to obey him Therefore all the Papists Sophisms shall never make me not know what I do know and not feel what I do feel They reason in vain with me when
Roman Church and succession as being on the Catholicks side but never maketh them an Essentiall part of the Catholick Church nor talks of a Unity caused by subjection to them but Charity to all And therefore calls the Schismaticks lib. 3. p. 72. Charitatis desertores not subjectionis desertores Adding gaudâ—t totus Orbis de Vnitate Catholica but never de subjectione Romae Yea he saith more of the seven Asian Churches lib. 2. p 50. Extra septem Ecclesias quicquid foris est â—lienum est Never more iâ—â—o much can be found to be said to Rome and now Rome it self is extra septem Ecclesias So he supposeth God praising the Catholick p 77. lib. 4. Dissentio sehisma tibi displicuit Concordasti cum fratre tuo cum una Ecclesia quae est in toto orbe terrarum Communicasti septem Ecclesiis memoriis Apostolorum amplexus es unitatem So lib. 6. p. 95. he thus describeth the Catholick Communion An quia voluntatem jussionem Dei secuti sumus amando pacem communicando toti orbi terrarum societati Orientalibus ubi secundum hominem suum natus est Christus ubi ejus sancta sunt in pressa vestigia ubi ambuâ—averunt adorandi pedes ubi ab ipso factae sunt tot tantae virtutes ubi eum sunt tot Apostoli comitati ubi est septiformis Ecclesia à qua vos concisos esse c. Tertullian dealing with Hereticks indeed that denyed the Fundamentals thought it but a tiresome way to dispute with them out of Scripture who wrested so many things in it to their destruction but would have them convinced by Prescription because they lived near the Churches that were planted by the Apostles and near their daies And what doth he appeal to Rome as the Judge or Church that the rest are subjected to No but 1. It is the common Creed or Symbole of the Church that he would have made use of in stead of long disputes and not any other doctrine 2. And it is all the Churches planted by the Apostles that he will have to be the first witnesses 3. And the present Churches the immediate witnesses that they received this Creed not any supernumeraries from them as the Apostles doctrine So de praescript c. 13. he reciteth the Symbole it self and so cap. 20. he mentioneth the sending of the twelve to teach this faith and plant Churches which he describeth thus Statim igitur Apostoli primo per Iudaeam contestata fide in Iesum Christum Ecclesiis institutis dehinc in orbem profecti eandem doctrinam ejusdem fidei nationibus promulgaverunt proinde Ecclesias apud unamquamque civitatem condiderunt à quibus traducem fidei semina doctrinae caeterae exinde Ecclesiae mutuatae sunt quotidie mutuantur ut Ecclesiae fiant Ac per hoc ipsea Apostolicae deputantur ut soboles Apostolicarum Ecclesiarum Omne genus ad Originem suam censeatur necesse est Itaque tot ac tantae Ecclesiae una est illa ab Apostolis prima ex qua omnes Are not those too gross deceivers that would perswade us that he here meaneth the Church of Rome by the una illa when he plainly speaks of the Catholick Church of the Apostolick age from which all the rest did spring If of a particular Church it must be that of Ierusalem Did all the rest arise from Rome Can they say ex hac omnes Sic omnes primae omnes Apostolicae dum unam omnes probant unitatem Communicatio pacis appellatio fraternitatis contesseratio hospitalitatis quae jura non alia ratio regit quam ejusdem sacramenti una traditio Note here 1. That no Original Church is mentioned but those of Iudaea with the rest of the Apostles planting And 2. That the Churches planted by the Apostles themselvâ—s without any mentioned difference of superiority are that one Church which all the rest must try their faith by as the witnesses 3. That they are equally made traduces fidei and mother Churches to others propagated by them 4. That per hoc by this propagation without subjection to the Church or Pope of Rome all the rest are Apostolicall 5. And the sufficient proof to any Church then that it was prima Apostolica was not subjection to Rome but that nuam omnes probant unitatem That is of the Apostolick faith received from that one Apostolick Church 6. Yea when he reciteth the external Characters of the Church it is not subjection to Rome that is any one of them but Communicatio pacis appellatio fraternitatis contesseratio hospitalitatis 7. Yea utterly to exclude the Roman subjection he adds quae jura non alia ratio regit quam ejusdem sacramenti una traditio So he proceeds Si haec ita sunt constat proinde omnem doctrinam quae cum illis Ecclesiis Apostolicis matricibus originalibus fidei conspiret veritati deputandum id sine dubio tenentem quod Ecclesiae ab Apostolis Apostoli à Christo Christus a Deo suscepit reliquam verò omnem doctrinam de mendacio praejudicandam quae sapiat contra veritatem Ecclesiâ—rum Apostolorum Christi Dei Superest ergo ut demonstremus an haec nostra doctrina the Creed not the Popes additions cujus regulam supra edidimus de Apostolorum traditione censeatur ex hoc ipso an caeterae that contradict the Creed de mendacio veniant Communicamus cum Ecclesiis Apostolicis Rome is not made the standard quod nulla doctrina diversa hoc est testimonium veritatis And cap. 28. he doth not send us to the Roman Church as Head or Judge but calling the Holy Ghost only Vicarius Christi Christs Vicar makes it incredible that he should so far neglect his office as to let not Rome but all the Churches to lose the Apostles doctrine proving the certain succession of it by the Unity and not by Romes authority Ecquid verisimile est ut tot ac tantae in unam fidem irraverint Nullus inter multo seventus est unus exitus Variasse debuerat error doctrinae Ecclesiarum Caeterum quod apud multos unum invenitur non est erratum sed traditum Audeat ergo aliquis dicere illos errasse qui tradiderunt So c. 32. when he calls them to the Apostolical Church it is no more to Rome then another Aedant ergo origines Ecclesiarum suaerum ut primus ille Episcopus aliquis ex Apostolis vel Apostolicis viris qui tamen cum Apost lis perseveraverint habuerit auctorem antecessorem Hoc enim modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt sicut Smyrneorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum ab Iohanne Collocatum refert sicut Romanorum Clementem a Petro ordinatum edit proinde utique caeterae exhibent Here you see he puts Smyrna before Rome and Iohn before Peter and refers them to Rome but only as one of the Churches planted by the
account then had not Rome those priviledges from the Apostles and consequently the whole Catholike Church was without them But the Antecedent is affirmed by that fourth great approved Council In Act. 16. Bin. p. 134. We everywhere following the definitions of the holy Fathers and the Canon and the things that have been now read of the hundred and fifty Bishops most beloved to God that were congregate under the Emperour Theodosius the great of pious memory in the Royal City of Constantinople new Rome we also knowing them have defined the same things concerning the priviledges of the same most holy Church of Constantinople new Rome For to the seat of old Rome because of the Empire of that City the Fathers consequently gave the priviledges And the hundred and fifty Bishops most beloved of God being moved with the same intention have given equal priviledges to the most holy seat of new Rome reasonably judging that the City adorned with the Empire and Senate shall enjoy equal priviledges with old Regal Rome Here we have the Testimony of one of the greatest general Councils of the humane original of Romes priviledges Bellarmine hath nothing to say but that they spoke falsly and that this clause was not confirmed by the Pope which are fully answered by me elsewhere But this is nothing to our present business It is a matter of fact that I use their Testimony for And if all the Bishops in two of the most approved general Councils called the Representative Catholike Church were not competent witnesses in such a case to tell us what was done and what was not done in those times then we have none The Papists can pretend to no higher testimony on their part The Church it self therefore hath here decided the controversie And yet note that even these priviledges of Rome were none of his pretended universal Government It s in vain to talk of the Testimonies of particular Doctors if the most renowned general Councils cannot be believed Yet I will add an Argument from them as conjunct Arg. 2. Had the Roman universal Soveraignty as essential to the Catholike Church been known in the daies of Tertullian Cyprian Athanasius Nazianzen Nyssen Basil Optatus Augustine and the other Doctors that confounded the Heresies or Schisms of those times e. g. the Novatians Donatists Arrians c. the said Doctors would have plainly and frequently insisted on it for the conviction of those Hereticks and Schismaticks But this they do not therefore it was not known in those times The consequence of the Major is evident hence The Doctors of the Church were men at least of common wit and prudence in the matters which they did debate therefore they would have insisted on this argument if then it had been known The reason of the consequence is because it had been most obvious easie and potent to dispatch their controversies 1. When the Arrians and many other Hereticks denied Christs eternal Godhead had it not been the shortest expeditious course to have cited them to the barr of the Judge of controversies the infallible Soveraign Head of the Church and convinced them that they were to stand to his judgement 2. Had not this Argument been at hand to have confounded all Heresies at once That which agreeth not with the Belief of the Roman Pope and Church is false But such is your opinion therefore 2. So for the Donatists when they disputed for so many years against the Catholikes which was the true Church had it not been Augustins shortest surest way to have argued thus That only is the true Church that is subject to the Pope of Rome and adhereth to him But so do not you therefore Either the Arrians Donatists and such others did believe the Papal Soveraignty and Vicarship or not If they did 1. How is it possible they should actually reject both the Doctrine and Communion of the Pope and Roman Church 2. And why did not the Fathers rebuke them for sinning against conscience and their own profession herein But if they did not believe the Papal Soveraignty then 2. How came it to pass that the Fathers did labour no more to convince them of that now supposed fundamentall Errour when 1. It is supposed as hainous a sin as many of the rest 2. And was the maintainer of the rest Had they but first demonstrated to them that the Pope was their Governour and Judge and that his Headship being essentiall to the Church it must needs be of his faith all Heresies might have been confuted the people satisfied and the controversies dispatched in a few words 3. Either Arrians Donatists Novatians and such like were before their defection acquainted with the Roman Soveraignty or not If they were not then it is a sign it was not commonly then received in the Church and that there were multitudes of Christians that were no Papists If they were then why did not the Fathers 1. Urge them with this as a granted truth till they had renounced it 2. And then why did they not charge this defection from the Pope upon them among their hainous crimes why did they not tell them that they were subjected to him as soon as they were made Christians and therefore they should not perfidiously revolt from him How is it that we find not this point disputed by them on both sides yea and as copiously as the rest when it would have ended all And for the Minor that the Fathers have not thus dealt with Hereticks the whole Books of Tertullian Nazianzen Nyssen Basil Optatus Hierom Augustine and others are open certain witnesses They use no such Argument but fill their Books with others most imprudently and vainly if they had known of this and had believed it Otherwise the Papists would never have been put to gather up a few impertinent scraps to make a shew with We see by experience here among us that this point is Voluminously debated and if we differ in other matters the Papists call us to the Roman bar and bring in this as the principall difference And why would it not have been so then between the Fathers and the Donatists Arrians and such like if the Fathers had believed this It s clear hence that the Papall Vicarship was then unknown to the Church of Christ. Arg. 3. The Tradition witnessed by the greater part of the Universal Church saith that the Papal Vicarship or Soveraignty is an innovation and usurpation and that the Catholick Church was many hundred years without it Therefore there was then no such Papal Church This is not a single testimony nor of ten thousand or ten millions but of the Major Vote of the whole Church and in Councils the Major Vote stands for the whole If this witness therefore be refused we cannot expect that the words of a few Doctors should be credited Nor may they expect that we credit any witness of theirs that is not more credible And that the Antecedent is true is known to the world as
not at this day abhor the reading of the Office So that here is all invented new by Gregory which was hardly received in Spain and yet that changed since Arg. 9. If the Generality of Christians in the first ages and many if not most in the later ages have been free from the Essentials of the Papists faith â—hen 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 as I prove in some instances 1. It is an Article of their faith determined in a General Council at Laterane and Florence that the Pope is above a Council But that this hath not been successively received the Council of Basil and Constance witness making it a new Heresie 2. It is an Article of their faith that a Generall Council is above the Pope for it is so determined at Basil and Constance But that this hath had no successive duration the Council of Laterane and Florence witness 3. It is an Article of their faith that the Pope may depose Princes for denying Transubstantiation and such like Heresies and also such as will not exterminate such Hereticks from their dominions and may give their dominions to others and discharge their Subjects from their oaths and fidelity For it is determined so in a Council at Laterane But this hath not been so from the beginning Not when the 13. Chapter to the Romans was written Not till the dayes of Constantine Not till the dayes of Gregory that spake in contrary language to Princes And Goldastus his three Volumes of Antiquities shew you that there hath been many Churches still against it 4. It is an Article of their faith that the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is truly really and substantially in the Eucharist and that there is a Change made of the whole substance of Bread into the body and of the whole substance of Wine into the blood which they call Transubstantiation So the Council of Trent But the Catholick Church hath been of a contrary judgement from age to age as among many others Edm. Albertinus de Eucharist hath plainly evinced though a quarreller hath denyed it and little more And it s proved in that successively they judged sense and Reason by it a competent discerner of Bread and Wine 5. It is now de fide that the true Sacrament is rightly taken under one kind without the cup as the Councils of Constance and Trent shew But the Catholick Church hath practised and the Apostles and the Church taught otherwise as the Council of Constance and their Writers ordinarily confess 6. It is an Article of their faith as appears in the Trent Oath that we must never take and interpret Scripture but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers But the Catholick Church before these Fathers could not be of that mind and the Fathers themselves are of a contrary mind and so are many learned Papists 7. It is an Article of their faith that there is a Purgatory and that the souls there detained are holpen by the suffrages of the faithful But the latter was strange to all the old Catholick Church as Bishop Vsher and others have proved and the very being of Purgatory was but a new doubtfull indifferent opinion of some very few men about Augustines time 8. It is now an Article of their faith that the holy Catholick Church of Rome is the mother and mistris of all Churches But I have shewed here and elsewhere that the Catholick Church judged otherwise and so doth for the most part to this day 9. It is now an Article of their faith that their Traditions are to be received with equall pious affection and reverence as the holy Scripture But the Catholick Church did never so believe 10. The Council of Basil made it de fide that the Virgin Mary was conceived without Originall sin But the Catholick Church never judged so 11. It s determined by a Council now that the people may not read the Scripture in a known tongue without the Popes License But the Catholick Church never so thought as I have proved Disp. 3. of the safe Religion 12. The Books of Maccabees and others are now taken into the Canon of faith which the Catholick Church received not as such as Dr. Cosin and Dr. Reignolds have fully proved To this I might add the Novelty of their Worship and Discipline but it would be too tedious and I have said enough of these in other writings See Dr. Challoner pag. 88 89. In 16. points Dr. Challoner proveth your Novelty from your Confessions Indeed his Book de Eccles. Cath. though small is a full answer to your main Question Arg. 10. If Multitudes yea the far greatest part of Christians in all ages have been ignorant of Popery but not of Christianity then hath there been a succession of Visible Professors of Christianity that were no Papists but the antecedent is true therefore so is the consequent In this age it is an apparent thing that the far greatest part are ignorant of formal Popery 1. They confess themselves that the common people and most of the nobility of Habassia Armenia Greece Russia and most other Eastern Churches that are not Papists are ignorant of the Controversie 2. They use to tell us here among Protestants that there is not one of many that know what a Papist is 3. We know that of those that go under the name of Papists there is not one of a multitude knoweth We hear it from the mouths of those we speak with I have not met with one of ten of the poorer sort of them even here among us that knoweth what a Papist or Popery is but they are taught to follow their Priests and to say that theirs is the true Church and old Religion and to use their Ceremonious worship and to forbear coming to our Churches c. and this is their Religion And in Ireland they are yet far more ignorant And it s well known to be so in other parts Their Priests they know and the Pope they hear of as some person of eminent Power in the Church But whether he be the Universal Vicar of Christ and be over all others as well as them whether this be of Gods institution or by the grant of Emperours or Councils c. they know not And no wonder when the Papists think that the Council of Chalcedon spoke falsly of the humane Originall of the Primacy in the Imperiall territories And when the Councils of Basil and Constance knew not whether Pope or Council was the Head And that the people were as ignorant and much more in former ages they testifie themselves And before Gregories dayes they must needs be ignorant of that which was not then risen in the world Yea Dr. Field hath largely proved Append lib. 3. that even the many particular points in which the Papists now differ
necessary to the being of a true particular Church Bellarmine granteth Lib. 3. de Eccles. c. 10. that it is indeed to us uncertain that our Pastors have potestatem ordinis jurisdictionis and that we have but a moral certainty that they are true Bishops though we may know that they hold Christs place and that we owe them obedience and that to know that they are Our Pastors non requiritur nec fides nec Character Ordinis nec legitima electio sed solum ut habeantur pro talibus ab Ecclesia i. e. It is not requisite that they have faith or the Character of Order or lawful election but only that they be taken for such by the Church And if it be enough that their Church repute their Pastors to be elected ordained and believers though they are not so indeed then can no more be necessary to ours We repute ours as confidently to be lawfully elected and ordained as they do theirs 3. It is contrary to the Papists own opinion that any Consecration much less Canonical is necessary to the being of their Vniversal Head I need not cite their Authors for this as long as you have 1. The History of their Practices And 2. The confession of this learned man that I dispute with in the explication of the term Pope in these his last Papers And that which is not necessary to their Pope cannot by them be made necessary to our Bishops 4. Nothing in Church History more certain then that the Church of Rome hath had no continued succession of a truely elected or ordained Pope according to their own Canons 1. If Infidelity or Heresie judged by a Council in the case of Honorius Ioh. 23. Eugenius c. will not prove a nullity and intercision 2. If Simony Murder Adultery c. will not prove it 3. If about fourty years Schisme at once will not prove it none knowing who was the true Pope but by the prevalency of his secular power and their writers confessing that it is known to none but God 4. If intrusion without any just election will not prove it Then there is no danger to those Churches that are lyable to no such accusations But if any or all of these will prove it the Roman intercision is beyond dispute as I shall further manifest on any just call if it be denyed 5. The standing Law and Institution of Christ is it that gives the Power by imposing the duty of Ministration and Ordination only determineth of the person that shall receive it together with election and solemnizeth it by Investiture as Coronation to a King that is a King before I have already proved that an uninterrupted succession of Regular Ordination is no more necessary to the being of a Church then uninterrupted succession of Regular Coronation is to the being of a King or Kingdom which I am ready to make good 6. This whole case of Ordination I have already spoken to so carefully and fully according to my measure in my second Dispute of Church Government that I shall suppose that man hath said nothing to me requiring my reply on this point that doth not answer that And to write the same thing here over again cannot fairly be expected 7. Voetius de desperata causa Papatus hath copiously done the same against Iansenius which they should answer satisfactorily before they call for more 8. The Nullity which they suppose to make the Intercision is either the Ordination we had from the Papist Bishops before our Reformation or the Ordination that we received since If the former be a nullity then all the Papists Ordinations are null and so they nullifie their Church and Ministry That the latter is no nullity we are ready to make good against any of them all Object But if you own your Ordination as from the Church of Rome you own their Church Answ. We consider them 1. As Christian Pastors 2. As Popish Pastors As Christian Pastors in the Catholike Church their Ordination is no more a nullity than their Baptizing which we count valid But as Popish they have no authority for either Object But they gave both Baptism and Ordination as Papists and it must be judged of by the intention of the giver and receiver Answ. It is the Baptism and Ordination of Christs Institution as such which was pretended to be given and received Could we prove that they Administred any other or otherwise they say they would disown it As such therefore we must take it till we can prove that they destroy the very essence of it If it be given and taken secondarily as Popish the scab of their corruption polluteth it but not nullifieth it So they profess themselves first Ministers of Christ and but subordinately as they think of the Pope so much therefore as belongs to them in their first and lawful relation may be valid though so much as respecteth their usurped relation be sinful Had I been baptized or ordained by one of their Priests I would disown all the corruptions of them but not the baptism and ordination it self 9. There is no necessity to the being or well-being of a particular Church that it hath continued from the Apostles daies or that its particular Ministry have had no intercision If Germany were converted but lately to the Christian Faith it may be nevertheless a true part of the Catholike Church If Ierusalem had sometime a Church and sometime none it may have now a true Church nevertheless 10. If our Ordination had failed by an intercision it might as well be repaired from other Churches that have had a continued succession as from Rome And much better because without participation of their peculiar corruptions Or if any Bishops that were of the Papal faction should repent of their Poperie and not of their Ordination they might Ordain us as Bishops and repair our breach And indeed that was the way of our continued Ordination Many that repented that they were Popish Prelates continued the office of Christian Bishops and by such our Ancestors were Ordained As Christianity and Episcopacy were before Popery and so are they still separable from it and may continue when it is renounced Besides what I have more fully said in the foresaid dispute of Ordination I see no need of adding any more against this Objection about successive Ordination and Ministerial Power As to their other Objection which they make such a stir with and take no notice of the Answer which we have so often given viz. When every Sect pretend that they have the true Church and Ministry who shall judge I again Answer There is a Iudicium privatum and publicum A private judgement of discerning belongs to every man The publick judgement is either Civil or Ecclesiastical The Civil judgement is who shall be thus or thus esteemed of in order to Civil encouragement or discouragement as by corporal punishments or rewards This judgement belongeth only to the Civil Magistrate The Ecclesiastical
the Christians in the world But when the Emperours became Christians their great favour and large endowments of the Church and the greatness and advantage of the Imperial City did give opportunity to the Bishop of Rome as having both riches and the Emperours and Commanders ears to do so many and great favours for most other Churches in preserving and vindicating them that it was very easie for the Bishop hereby to become the chief Patriarch which he was more beholden to the Emperour for then to any Title that he had from Christ or Peter And then the quarrel with Iohn of Constantinople occasioned the thoughts of an universal Headship which Gregory did disclaim and abominate but Boniface after him by the grant of a murdering trayterous Emperour did obtain But so as the See swelled before into a preparatory magnitude And if we could not tell you the time within two hundred years and more it were no great matter as long as we can prove that it was not so before For who knows not that even some Kings in Europe have come from being limited Monarchs to be absolute and that by such degrees that none can tell the certain time Nay I may give you a stranger instance The Parliaments of England have part in the legislative power And yet I do not think that any Lawyer in England is able to prove the just time yea or the age or within many ages when they first obtained it which yet in so narrow a spot of ground may be easilier done then the time of the Popes usurpation over all the world For it could not be all at once for one Country yeilded to his late claim in one age and another in another age and many a bloody battle was fought before he could bring the Germane Emperours and Christian Princes to submit to him fully 3. But let me tell you one thing more Though as to an arrogant claim the Pope is Head and Governour of all the Catholike Church and Rome their Mistris as the Pope makes Patriarchs of Antioch Alexandria and Hierusalem that never come near the place or people yet as to any possession or acknowledgement on the Churches part he was never universal Head nor Rome the Mistris to this day For the greater half of the Christians did never subject themselves to him at all nor come under his power So that the Pope even now in his greatest height is only the head of the universal Church by his own claim and naming himself so without any Title given by God or acknowledged by men and without having ever been possessed of what he claims The King of France doth scarce believe that the King of England was King of France for all that he put it into his title nor do the Swedes take the Pole for their King because he so calls himself I am sure if the Turkish Emperour call himself the Emperour of the world that doth not prove that he is so Rainerius the Popes Inquisitor in catal post lib. cont Waldens saith plainly That the Churches that were planted by the Apostles themselves such as the Abassines 〈◊〉 are not subject to the Pope Once he 〈◊〉 the Government of no Church in the world but Rome it self After that he grew to have the government of the Patriarchate of the West since that he hath got some more and claimed all but never got neer half the Churches into his hands to this day Do I need then to say any more to disprove his universal Headship and that Rome is not the Catholike Ruling Church But having gone thus far in opening my thoughts to you I shall forbear the adjoyning the proof of my Assertions till I hear again from you If I understand it The Question between you and me to be debated must be this Whether the Roman Church was in the Apostles dayes the Mistris or Ruling Church which all other Churches were bound to obey and from it were to be called the Roman Catholike Church This I deny and you must maintain or else you must be no Papist The motion that I make is that by the next you will send me your Arguments to prove it for it belongs to you to prove it if you affirm it To which I will return you if they change not my judgement both my Answers and my Arguments for the Negative And if you do indeed make good but this one Assertion I do 〈◊〉 promise you that I will joyfully and resolvedly turn Papist and if you cannot make it good I may expect that you should no longer adhere to Rome as the Ruling or Catholike Church and the Pillar and Ground of Truth though charity should allow it to be a Catholike Church that is a member of the Catholike Church which is indeed the Pillar and Ground of Truth wherein Rome may have a part as it is part of the Church But I would it were not a most dangerously diseased part I crave your reply with what speed you can and remain An unfeigned lover of Truth and the friends of Truth Rich. Baxter Feb. 12. 1656 7. The two following Letters with the Narrative are annexed only to shew the effect of the former Sir THough the business in agitation betwixt your self and me be the one thing necessary and so to be preferred to all obligations and businesses of what concernment soever yet a resolution formerly taken up hath diverted me somewhat from the present earnest prosecution thereof as it deserves Temporal credit though it should give way to things of eternal moment yet it often sways the minds even of good men to neglect very important opportunities which though I cannot excuse my self of yet I desire it may be candidly interpreted and that this may be accepted as a pledge to an answer of what you have inserted And I desire your next may be directed to me to London to one Mr. T. S. who is a kinsman of mine and no small admirer of your self My thanks in the interim I return for the pains you have taken which I hope through the mercy of God will not prove successeless for the future one way or other the truth is I have not divulged my self or intentions as yet to any of my own way which I know will be very troublesome and I know I shall be beset with enemies from the ignorant that way affected as I doubt not of help from the learned Yet as I told you in my former without any carnal interest respecting or outward troubles regarding or inbred enemies combating I resolve by the grace and assistance of God to be guided by truth impartially where I shall find it lye clearest and shalt make it my work to implore the throne of mercy that my understanding may be so enlightned as to discern truth from heresie I desire Sir if it may be no prejudice to your more earnest occasions that I may have two or three lines from you by way of advice to meet me at London at the place
told me those with whom he had to do about it were much offended with him in so much that he intimated himself to be apprehensive of danger from some of them yet he seemed resolved to adventure whatsoever might befall him in that respect rather then he would stifle those convictions which by Mr. Baxters letter had been begotten in him This letter of Mr. Baxters together with The Safe Religion a Book which he did refer him to either then or near that time in the press which he went for and had of the Stationer upon Mr. Baxters account which I had almost forgot gave him such resolution and satisfaction that he thereupon altered his judgement and practice and waited upon the Ordinances here in London in our Congregations for some time I my self having seen him at the morning exercise in London what further effects it wrought upon him I know not for that he left the City and went over into Flanders as his Mother hath informed me and is since dead Sir Your affectionate friend to serve you T. S. For Mr. William Johnson Sir WHen I was invited to this Disputation with you I entertained hopes from your profest desires of close argumentation that we should speedily bring it to such an issue as might in some good measure answer our endeavours in taking off the covering that Sophistry and carnal interest had cast upon the truth When my necessary employments denyed me the leisure of reading over your second Papers for some weeks and when the loss of my Reply by the Carrier and the difficulty of procuring another Copy had caused a little longer delay you urged so hard for a Reply as put me in some further hopes that you were resolved to go through with it your self But after near a twelve months expectation of a Rejoinder and of the Proof of your own succession from the Apostles being here at London I desired you to resolve me whether I might expect any such Return and Performance from you or not And when you would not promise it I took up the thoughts of publishing what had past between us But upon further urging you some moneths after you renewed my hopes which caused me to make some stay of my publication and to desire you to give me your sense of the most used terms promising you that I shall do the like when you require it which I am ready to perform But yet I hear nothing to this day of your Answer to my Papers or the Performance of what is incumbent on you for the justification of your Church And therefore having waited and importuned you in vain so long and finding by your last that you cannot or will not so explicate your terms as to be understood without which there is no disputing and also perceiving that my abode in London is like to be but little longer my discretion and the ends of my writing have commanded me to forbear no longer the publication of what hath past between us For though the work be not copious and elaborate yet being on a subject which your party do so much insist upon I am assured it may be of common use And I know that the publication is no breach of any promise on my part nor do I perceive how it can be any way injurious to you and therefore I see nothing to prohibite it And I am not willing to be used as Mr. Gunning and Mr. Pierson were by the partial unhansome publication of another If yet I may prevail with you to justifie your cause as you are engaged I must entreat you specially to try your strength for the proof of your own succession for we are most confident that its a notorious impossibility which you undertake Our Arguments against it are such as these 1. That Church which since the time of Christ hath received a new essential part hath not its being successively from the Apostles But such is the Church of Rome Ergo The Major is undenyable The Minor is thus proved A Vice-Christ or Vice-head or Governour of the Universal Church is an essential part of the now Church of Rome But a Vice-Christ or Vice-head or Goveâ—â—â—â— of the Universal Church is new or a â—oveâ—â— or hath not been from the time of Christ on earth Ergo the Church of Rome since the time of Christ hath received a new essential part The novelty I have here and elsewhere proved And Blondel and Molinaeus against Perron have done it more at large 2. That Church which hath had frequent and long interceisions in its head or essential part hath not had a continued succession from the Apostles But such is the Church of Rome Ergo The Minor is here proved and some hints of it are in the Appendix 3. That Church which hath had many new essential Articles of Religion hath not had a continued succession from the Apostles For if the essence be new the Church is new But such is the Church of Rome Ergo First it is commonly maintained by you that all Articles are Essential or Fundamental and you deride the contrary doctrine from the Protestants Secondly that you have had many new Articles of Religion of faith and points of worship is proved by our writers and your own confessions See Molinaeus de Novit Papismi Prove a succession of all that is de fide determined in your Councils or but of all in Pope Pius his Creed and the Council of Trent alone or of all that with you is de fide of those two and thirty points which I have named in my Key for Catholikes p. 143 144 145. Chap. 25. Detect 16. and I will yeild you all the cause or I will profess my belief of every one of those points of which you prove such a succession as held by the Catholike Church as you now hold them Read and answer my Detect 21. Cap. 33. in my Key for Catholikes And how far you own Innovations see what I have proved ibid. cap. 35. and 36. But these arguings being works of supererogation I shall trouble you here with no more but wait for such proof of all your essentials as we give you of all ours In the mean time I shall endeavour so to defend the Truth as not to lose or weaken Charity but approve my self An unfeigned lover of the Truth and you Richard Baxter Sep. 1. 1660. FINIS Syll. 2. * * But how far from truth this is appears from St. Leo in his Sermons de natali suo where he saies Sedes Roma Petri quicquid non possidet almis Religione tenet and by this that the Abyssines of Ethiopia were under the Patriarch of Alexandria antiently which Patriarch was under the Authority of the Romane Bishop as we shall presently see * * See Rosse his view of Religions p. 99. 489 492 c. Where he saies that they circumcise their children the eighth day they use Mosaical ceremonies They mention not the council of Calcedon because saies he they