so then you have said nothing If not you take a General Council to be indeed the Church representative â—…nd then how many of your Popes Essential parts of your Church have been Excommunicated and deposed as Hereticks by the Universal Church And your Church now is but the Successour of e. g. Eugenius the fourth so rejected Shew us when ever the Greeks did so by our Church or us § 17. I told him the Greek Church claimed but the Primacy or Supremacy in the Empire and not the Government of all the World At this he first wondreth and then takes upon him to disprove it 1. Because else Gregory the first had ill reprehended John of Constant. for claiming the Title of Universal Bishop 2. Because Jeremy saith 1. He was Vice Christi 2. And perswadeth Lucius c. to be Subject to the Church with them Answ. 1. It was the Arrogancy of the Title that Gregory reprehended as sounding like a real Universal Claim and the reality of an Universal Claim in the Empire I proved before that the Greeks knew that Constant. had no Title Iure Divine by the Can. 28 of Chalcedon and the notoriety of the thing And therefore they could not pretend it to be over all the World where the Empire had no Power And what need there more proof than that there is no Evidence brought by you or any that ever they gave Laws to all the Christian World or that ever they called Councils out of it or that ever they set up and put down Bishops in it Indeed they have Excommunicated Roman Popes but that was within the Empire and so did Alexandria Or if since as they do still it is not as their Governours but as any Churches may renounce Communion with Hereticks or Persons uncapable of their Communion 2. And as for Ieremy 1. Will not Cyril as much prove the contrary 2. Is one Man the Greek Church 3. Did every Apostle or doth every Minister of Christ proclaim himself Universal Head of the Church when he saith as 2 Cor. 5. 19. We beseech you Vice Christi in Christs stead to be reconciled to God It is one thing to be Preachers in Christs stead to our particular Flocks and another thing to Usurp Christs proper Office and be in his stead Universal Governour of the World 4. And may not one of us or any Christian perswade a Man to be Subject to the Church of Christ And if Ieremias had a mind to Rule further than the Empire now the Empire is Mahomeâ—…an and Subjects Voluntary and free what wonder is it We undertake not to Justifie him from all Ambition § 18. I told him out of his Ieremias and his Protonotary Iohn Zygomolas that they confessed Agreement with us In continuis causam fidei praecipuè continentibus articulis and that Quae videntur consensum impedire talia sunt si velit quis ut facilè â—…a corrigâ—…re possit He tells me That 1. Yet they consent with them in all save the Popes Authority Answ. 1. How far that is from Truth Thom. a Iesu and other of your own will tell you 2. And the Popes Authority is the ratio formalis of Popery 2. He saith That Ier. claimeth as Supream Authority over the whole Church as the Pope doth Answ. 1. I will not believe it till I see the proof I find he layeth all his Claim from Councils and therefore may possibly claim power over those Churches that were in the Empire when the Council of Chalcedon gave that power but I find no more And if he did they and we may yet be Christians 3. He saith Any of the Roman Church might write the like to the Lutherans But Zygomalas supposeth them of two Churches till united Answ. He supposeth them not in all things of the same mind nor of the same particular Churches But he that saith that we agree in the Articles of Faith and differ but in lesser things of easie reconciliation either supposeth both Parties to be Christians and of one Church of Christ or else that no Men are Christians that have any Difference that is no two explicite Believers perhaps in the World § 19. I told him 1. The Patriarch was not the Greek Church Nor 2. Their lesser Errors prove us of two Religions or Churches He Replyeth 1. But he knew the Extent of his own Iurisdiction Answ. 1. So do not all Ambitious Men If he do then the Papists are all deceived for he pretended say you a Jurisdiction over the Pope and his Church But the Question between him and the Protestants wâ—… not about his Jurisdiction 2. He saith That If the Errors be tolerable we are Schismaticks in Separating from them and should rather have suffered Answ. To separate from any sin and error by not consenting or committing it no Christian denyeth to be our duty and his supposition that we separated from the Catholick or the Greek Church is but his continued fiction We were not under the Government of the Greeks and therefore not obeying them is no separation and not sinning with them is no separation we own them as Christians and we renounce the sins of all the world and hate our own more than any others so far as we know them § 20. To his saying that It is against Christianity to hold condemned Hereticks to be in the Church I answered 1. That I detest that condemnation when even non judices condemn whole nations without hearing one man much-lesser all speak for themselves or any just witness that ever heard them defend a Heresie His Answer is that I mistake the way of their Churches condemnation They do but say whoever holds such errors let him be accursed or we excommunicate such as hold them c. Answ. There is some hope left then for the Nations that are no subjects of the Pope unlesse non-subjection be the Heresie But hath the Pope gone no further than this Hath he not put whole Nations under Interdicts But he saith those that profess their heresies or that communicate with them are esteemed hereticks and those that profess to disbelieve their heresie and yet live in communion with them and subjection to them are Schismaticks Answ. 1. Here 's new confounding doctrine indeed If their Canon only condemn indefinitely those that hold a heresie e. g. Nestorianism taking it to be unfit to say God dyed or God was born must all be taken for hereticks that communicate with any of these before the person guilty is convict and judged Must every private man be the judge of hiâ—… neighbour Every servant of his Master Every woman of her husband Every subject of the King and be burnt for a heretick for communicating with one that was never accused or condemned We live then with one another more dangerously than men converse in the time of pestilence Nay what if the Priest himself admit such to the Communion must the poor people be burned if they communicate with them in the parish Church
His shameful reformation of Syllogisms and pretence of Logical form Sect. 6. He denieth Protestants to be of the Church of Christ. I prove it His silly cavils at the form of the Argument Sect. 7. Protestants profess all the Essentials of Christianity Proved His cavils shamed Sect. 8. His oft repeated Reason confuted of not receiving the Churches expositions Sect. 9. The novelty and discord of Popery The confusions in Councils Sect. 10. My second Argument's to prove that we hold all essentials The Popish faith explained Sect. 12. My third Argument Creed and Scriptures are with them too little and yet an insufficient proposal makes Christianity it self unnecessary Sect. 12. He giveth up his Cause confessing the sufficiency of our explicite belief Sect. 13. My fourth Argument His ridiculous denying that to deny the minor is to deny the antecedent Sect. 14. The minor proved All Protestants as such profess to love God Ergo sincere Protestants do love him What miracles believing in the Pope doth Sect. 15. He had no way to deny that Protestants profess true faith but by his impudent denying 1. That we profess to love God 2. And that we feel that we do love him Sect. 20. My second Argument to prove the perpetual visibility of our Church confoundeth him Sect. 21. Scripture sufficiency Sect. 22. My third Argument and his shameful Answer Sect. 25. My fourth Argument proveth the visibility of our Church not only as Christian but as without Popery Ten sub-arguments for that 1 From the twenty-eighth Canon of Conc. Calced 2. From the silence of the old Writers against Hereticks Sect. 28. 3. From Tradition proved 4. From Churches never subject to Rome His citations briefly confuted Sâ—…ct 30. 5. From the non-subjection even of the Imperial Churches Sect. 32. 6. From Gregory the first 's testimony Sect. 33. 7. From their confessions Aen. Silvius Reynerius Canus Binnius vindicated Sect. 38. 8. Phocas giving the Primacy to Boniface Sect. 39 9. Their Liturgy new Sect. 40. Twelve instances of new Articles of the Papists Faith which he durst not Answer Sâ—…ct 42. The tenth Argument he yieldeth the cause in sense Sâ—…ct 43. Notable testimonies unanswered Sâ—…ct 44. Papists differ de fide Sect. 47. What Hereticks are or are not in the Church fully opened His shameful exclaiming against me for distinguishing Sect. 48. Fifty six of Philastrius Heresies named many being small matters and many notorious certain truths Sect. 49. The woful work of Hereticating Councils Sect. 50. Councils hereticated Popes and one another Almost all the Christian world hereticate one another Sect. 55. His reasons answered for unchurching all Hereticks Sect. 60. Their Doctrine of sufficient proposal fullier confuted and their hereticating and unchurching themselves evinced Mr. Iohnson's alias Terret's Explication of seven Terms of our Questions examined and his confusion manifested CHAP. I. Question 1. WHAT mean you by the Catholick Church W. J. The Catholick Church is all those Visible Assemblies Congregations or Communities of Christians who live in unity of true faith and external Communion with one another and in dependance of their lawful Pastors R. B. Qu. 1. Whether you exclude not all those converted among Infidels that never had external communion nor were members of any particular visible Church of which you make the Catholick to to be constituted W. J. It is sufficient that such be subject to the supreme Pastors in voto or quantum in se est resolved to be of that particular Church actually which shall or may be designed for them by that Pastor to be included in my definition R. B. You see then that your definitions signifie nothing No man knoweth your meaning by them W. J. You shall presently see that your Exceptions signifie less than nothing R. B. 1. You make the Catholick Church to consist only of visible Assemblies and after you allow such to be members of the Church that are no visible Assemblies W. J. I make those converted Infidels visible Assemblies as my definition speaks though not actual members of any particular visible Church For though every particular visible Church be an assembly of Christians yet every assembly of Christians is not a particular visible Church I do not therefore allow such to be of the Church who are no visible assemblies as you misconceive R. B. 1. Would any man have understood that by Visible Assemblies the man had not meant only Churches but also Families Schools Cities c 2. Doth he not here expresly deny all those persons to be of the Church who are not members of some other visible assemblies And if a man be a Pilgrim a Hermite or if one or many be cast upon an uninhabited coast and if any are members of no visible assembly as Merchants Embassadors to Infidels c. when will he prove that this unchristeneth or unchurcheth them R. B. 2. You now mention subjection to the supreme Pastor as sufficient which in your description or definition you did not W. J. Am I obliged to mention all things in my definition which I express after in answering your Exceptions Ans. All that belongs to a notifying definition R. B. 3. If to be only in Voto resolved to be of a particular Church will serve then inexistence is not necessary To be only in Voto of the Catholick Church proveth no man a member of it because it is terminus diminuens but the contrary Seeing then by your own confession inexistence in a particular Church is not of necessity to inexistence in the Catholick Church why do you not only mention it in your definition but confine the Church to it W. J. I make them actually inexistent in some visible assembly according to my definition and in Voto only in a particular Church Now every particular family or neighbourhood nay two or three gathered in prayer is an actual assembly R. B. Strange Doctrine so it is of necessity to our Christianity and Salvation that we be members of a Christian City or Village or Fair or Market or some Meeting And so all Christians that live solitarily in Wildernesses or among Turks or Heathens are all unchristened and damned W. J. St. Hierome saith Ecclesia est plebs unita Episcopo In this consists your fallacy that you esteem none to be actually members of the Universal Church unless they be actual members of some particular Church which I deny R. B. I thought verily it had been I that was denying it all this while This is dispuâ—…ing in the dark Will you say that you meant in Voto who can understand you then when you say They must be of visible assemblies and mean that they need not be of any but wish they were or purpose to be so W. J. It is sufficient if they be actually of some assembly or congregation of Christians though it be no particular Church R. B. 1. Here is a new Exposition of Solomon's Vae soli Wo to him that is alone for he is unchristened by it or
unchurched O poor Anchorites Hermites that are alone and shipwrackt Christians c. 2. Here is a new found priviledg of having company if in a Tavern or Alehouse and of being married and in a family such may be Christians when the solitary cannot Who would have thought that the Papists had held this But you say nothing to the case of them that are converted to Christ by a solitary Preacher that never tells him of a supreme Pastor as the English and Dutch convert many Indians Can they be subject to him that they hear not of W. J. Whether he be named or no the Church must be supposed to be sufficiently explicated to them as having some prudent manner of Government so that they must be instructed to render obedience to such Governours as Christ instituted in his Church which is virtually to a chief Pastor R. B. 1. So they that take the Pope for Antichrist may virtually be Papists Be content with that virtue 2. But I think that even that general belief of Pastoral Government is necessary ad bene esse rather than ad esse of a Christian. R. B. 1. I note by the way to be hereafter remembred his description of a particular Church as given by Hierome that it is Plebs unita Episcopo and Cyprian saith Ubi Episcopus ibi Ecclesia And Ignatius To every church there is one Altar and one Bishop with the Prosbyters and Deacons But by this Rule they make those that are now called Parish-Churches to be no Churches but only parts of a particular Church 2. Note that in his Definition he maketh living in external communion essential to those Congregations or Communities of Christians who make up the Catholick Church but tells us not whether it must be a Civil or only a Religious Communion or what Religious Communions besides unity of faith and dependance on Pastors it must be If by those words pag. 3. every particular family or neighbourhood he express that external communion then if their Pastors never give them Gods Word Sacraments or Prayer it may serve 3. He saith p. 4. In this consists your fallacy that you esteem none to be actually members of the universal Church unless they be actual members of some particular Church which I deny Which is his meer fiction of which I was so far from giving him any occasion that I was charging it as an error on himself reasonably supposing that by Visible Assemblies he had meant Churches 4. Note that he maketh it essential to the members of the Catholick Church that they depend on their lawful Pastors and yet that it is but a virtual subjection to the Pope by subjecting themselves to Christs manner of Government which is essential 1. Are not all Protestants and other Christians that own not the Pope true members of the Church then while they subject themselves in general to Christs manner of Government 2. He subjecteth himself to no Governour who doth it not to some existent individual For the universal existeth not but in the individuals And if it be not necessary that the Pope be this individual then subjection to some other is more essential than to the Pope And who is that who must be preferred before him Q. 2. What is that Faith in unity whereof all members of the Catholick Church do live Is it the belief of all that God hath revealed to be believed or of part and of what part W. J. Of all either explicitely or implicitely R. B. He might easily have known that it is explicite belief which the question meant for his implicite belief is the actual belief of nothing but the general and not of any unknown particulars Where there is no object in esse cognito vel percepto there is no act of faith for the object essentiateth the act in specie And where only the general object is perceived and no particular e. g. All that God saith in Scripture is true when one word of Scripture is not known there is no object for a particular belief But it is the belief of this or that in particular that we enquire of e. g. that Jesus is the Christ c. Your implicite belief is actual belief of the general but of particulars it is actually none at all as common reason tells us His reply to this I shall answer by parts in order R. B. We have here a most implicite account of the implicite faith which is essential to a Church-member The man would make the ignorant believe that their Schools are agreed of the sense when he might easily know the contrary I mentioned different senses of implicite faith 1. When Particulars are known and believed actually but confusedly and not distinctly but in gross So Dr. Holden in Analys sid seemeth to take it so the parts are seen or known oft in the whole so a purblind man seeth all the letters men trees c. before him I see all the sand in the hour-glass or much but not distinctly one sand from another This is a real knowledg of the very things but an imperfect knowledg 2. But besides this there is a knowledg of things only in their general nature which is a real knowledg but partial and imperfect As when I see something coming towards me afar of and know not whether it be a man or a beast I say it is an animal or a wight but what I know not This is not to know the thing formally but to know aliquid rei somewhat of that thing 3. There is also a knowledg which besides the general nature extendeth to some inadequate conception of the form but leaveth out other parts of the conception which are essential As when one knoweth so much of a man as that he hath a rational soul and not that he hath a body or that his soul is a virtus intellectiva but not that it is volitiva or when one knoweth that fire is formally a virtus illuminativa but not that it is calefactiva or motiva This is a real knowledg but partial and not formal being not of the whole essence So when one knoweth Christ to be God but not to be man or man and not God or to be a Teacher but not a King or Priest this is not properly to know Christ but somewhat of Christ. 4. There is a knowledg of meer universal Propositions which is but Organical as to things And this is no knowledg of all the particular things spoken of nor oft of many nor sometimes of any of them nor of the particular Propositions which should be further known nor of the conclusion that should be infer'd from both For instance Men may say that Omnis spiritus est immaterialis And one may mean and know by it but as the Sadducees or Hobs or Gassendus that a spirit is a chimaera si daretur spiritus immaterialis foret And another may doubt and mean si detur spiritus immaterialis est And another may hold that there
is no spirit but God and the Anima Mundi and say that these are immaterial and never the more believe that Angels or Souls are spirits And no man can reasonably imagine that omnis spiritus est immaterialis doth include omnis anima est spiritus or that W. I's est spiritus immaterialis So one may say that all that are sanctified shall be glorified and yet not believe that Peter Paul yea or Christ were Holy of this sort of knowledg I mentioned that which is a belief of no more but the formal object of Faith that is Gods veracity that God cannot lye and so that all that God saith is true when yet one that confesseth this denieth all the Bible to be his Word and believeth rather Mahomet Amida or Confutius to have been Gods Messengers or the ancient Oracles at Delphos c. to have been his word But the confused Head of W. I. confoundeth several of these different sorts and because he thought that he might handsomly call a meer general knowledg or faith confused therefore he confoundeth the true confused faith with the general which are easily distinguished And first he calls for my proof That a meer general belief is no belief at all of the particulars though a confused faith may I prove it 1. Where there is no intellectual conception of the particulars there is no actual belief of the particulars But where there is only a conception of a general proposition there is no intellectual conception of the particulars Ergo c. the major is undeniable and the minor no less 2. Where the particular Object is not understood or believed there is not the particular Act of knowing or believing that Object for the Object is essential to the Act But where there is only a knowledg and belief of the general Object there the particular Object is not understood or believed Ergo c. 3. That is not an actual belief of the particulars which may consist with the actual belief of the contradictory But a meer belief of the General Proposition may consist i h the contradictory to the belief of particulars Ergo c. But he comes upon me with some instances so worded as may deceive the ignorant 1. Saith he Doth not this Proposition Omne animal vivit contain the substance of these truths Equus vivit Leo vivit Aquila vivit c Answ. No surely unless by substance you mean not the other Proposition but somewhat else what you list for it containeth not the very subject that there is such a thing as Equus Leo Aquila in being and that they are animalia May not a man that never heard or believed that there was such a creature as an Eagle Lyon c. no more than a Unicorn or Phaenix yet know that omne animal vivit 2. He saith Believing all that is in Scripture is the Word of God and true expresly I believe in confuso all that is in Genesis c. Answ. Yes if in confuso be terminus diminuens to actual belief of the particulars By meer believing the first you do not actually believe a word of Genesis or Exodus c. for your Proposition saith not that there is any such Book in the Scripture As I believe all the holy Scripture to be true and yet believe not Tobit Iudith Bell and the Dragon to be true because I believe them not to be the Holy Scriptures so may others by Genesis Exodus c. as the Hereticks of old denied many Books and as Infidels may believe all that is Gods Word to be true and yet not believe that the Scripture is his Word 3. Saith he Is not an express knowledg of the Genus a confused knowledg of species under it and so the species of the individua Answ. Yes if by confused knowledg you mean no knowledg of them it is no true knowledg of them at all 4. But he saith that my words not knowing whether you be Animal or Cadaver is a contradictory Proposition Answ. Say you so May not I see you asleep and think that you are dead Doth this Proposition Omne animal vivit include that there is such a Wight in being as W. I. or N. N or that he is now alive or that it is really a Man and not a Horse that is so called any more than that Bucephalus was a Man Yet doth he back these absurdities with advising me to a little more heed to what I write Note that page 9 he asserteth that The object of implicite faith delivered in the Schools is nothing save particular truths contained in substance under some general propositions so that they be neither known nor believed distinctly and expresly yet in confuso they are by the knowledg or belief of their general proposition Answ. But there is a confused knowledg of particulars which is actual of the Being of them though not distinct not fit or ripe for words to utter it This is different from the knowledg of meer Generals which is indeed no knowledg of the particulars that any such are contained in those generals at all He next comes to expound his words That faith believeth all that God revealeth explicitely or implicitely that is now some things explicitely and some things implicitely when as I asked him What was the faith in which we must unite who would have expected such an answer That it is a general belief of all things revealed and a particular belief of some things That it is such a belief of all particulars as is no real actual belief of some of them and it is an actual belief of other some But is any man ever the nearer the knowledg of their minds by this 1. Here is no notice what the General is that must be believed He professeth that it is not the formal object only that is The veracity or faithfulness of God the Revealer And what else it is whether that all that the Scripture revealeth is true or that all that the Church declareth to be Gods word is true and whom we must take for that Church c. he hath not told us and so hath given an answer which is no answer 2. Nor hath he told us what the Particulars are that must be believed But we may know what faith it is that the Church must unite in by hearing that it is something we know not what or that it is somewhat in general and somewhat in particular Doth this account satisfie themselves or do they look that it should satisfie us Will this distinguish their Church from Hereticks or Mahometans Do not these believe somewhat in general and somewhat in particular And do not Heathens do the same If this be enough for Christianity or Concord why do they call us Hereticks Are we not all of that Faith which believeth somewhat in General even that all Gods Word is true and somewhat in Particular But it 's well that he saith that the explicite belief of somewhat is necessary though
you mean that they have not the same extâ—… communion of Pastors in dependance on one as the 〈◊〉 Pastor or Governour of all the rest indeed there is none such but you For it is in that that they differ from you Reader is not here an excellent Disputer I affirm that the judgment of most of the Christian world is against the Papists in the point of an Universal Head or Governour of all Churches He saith that no one party which is for an Universal Governour and yet is against an Universal Governour is so big as their party I grant it Had they all dependance on one as an Universal Governour they were not against on Universal Governour The Abassines have one Abuna but he claimeth no Universal Government The Armenians have their Catholick Bishop but he claimeth no Universal power The Greeks have their Patriarch at Constantinople but he pretendeth not to govern all the World We are all against any Head of the whole Church on Earth but Christ and therefore are united under no other You say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 patcht body of a thousand different professions c. Ans Reproach not the Body of Christ they are far more united than your Church as Papal Are not the seâ—…en points of 〈◊〉 mentioned by Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4 5 6 7 as good as yours 1. They have one â—…ead that never â—…arieth and whom all receive you have a Head rejected by most Christians and oft turn'd into two or three Heads one saying I am the Head and another I am the Head and setting the world in blood and contention to try it out which of them shall get the better as your forty years Schisms shewed 2. Therefore this Church which you reproach as patcht is but one But yours is really many and not one specifically as well as oft numerically when there were two or three Popes you had two or three Churches For it is the pars imperans that individuateth the Society And de specie you are still three Churches as holding three several heads one holdeth the Pope to be the Head another a Council and a third the Pope and Council agreeing And these Heads have oft condemned and deposed one another Councils namned Popes as Hereticks Infidels Simonists Murderers Adulterers and Popes accused Councils of schism and rebellion at least And to this day there is no certainty which were true Popes nor which were true Councils some being called by you Reprobate because they pleased not the Popes and some approved But our Head of the Church is not thus divided nor schismatical 3 Our common faith is still the same and its rule the same but yours is mutable by new additions as long Councils will make new Decrees and no man can tell when you have all and your faith is come to its full stature Nay and your Decrees which are your rule of faith are so many and obscure that you are not agreed your selves in the number or the meaning of them 4. It is a notorious truth that all these Churches which you say have a thousand professions as they all agree in one Christian profession so do less differ among themselves than your seemingly united Church doth with it self whether you respect the number or the weight of differences 1. For the Number sint libri judices all the Christian World besides hath not so many nor I think half so many Volumes of Controversies as your Writers have written against one another as far as is come to the notice of this part of the World 2. And for the Weight 1. I have shewed that you are divided in your very Fundamentals the Supremacy you confess here that your Church is not at all agreed what the Christian faith is or who is a Christian some say he that believeth the Church and that God is a rewarder others say a Christian must believe in Christ c. 2. Your Commentators differ about the sense of hundreds or thousands of Texts of Gods own word 3. Your Disputers about Grace and Free-will accuse one the other of making God the cause of Sin and of denying the Grace of God 4. Your Moralists differ about many instances of Excommunicating Kings and then killing them and of the Popes power to depose them and of perjury lying murder adultery fornication false witness yea about loving God himself whether it be necessary to love him once a year or whether attrition that is repentance from bare fear with penance may not serve turn to Salvation with abundance such And we confess that other Christians have their differences And what wonder while they are so imperfect in knowledg and all grace And now if Concord or Discord must tell us whose Tradition or Judgment is most regardable let the Impartial judg whether the moâ—…â—…egardable Tradition of the far greatest part of the Church be not against you and whether your reproaching them for discord condemn not your selves much more than them If a subject should stile himself the Kings Vicegerent and claim much of his Prerogative without his Commission and a third part of the Kingdom should unite in receiving and obeying him and have otherwise a thousand contentions among them Qu. Whether these or the rest of the Kingdom were the more and better united When I next questioned Whether the vulgar that know not Councils resolve not their faith into the belief of the Parish-priest he saith no. And saith That the Priest is but the means by whom we come to believe and tells us that else we know not whether there were any Christians 500 years ago c. Ans. But if they will be content with Ministerial teaching and Historical proof of things past we would not differ from them we do not only assert these as well as they but we say that as we have sounder teaching so we have far better Historical Tradition of our faith than that which dependeth on a pretended fanâ—…tick Infallibility or authority of their Pope and Sect even the Historical Tradition of the whole Christian World and of many of the enemies themselves CHAP. VI. What mean you by a GENERAL COUNCIL W. I. A General Council I take to be an Assembly of Bishops and other chief Prelates called convened confirmed by those who have sufficient spiritual authority to call convene and confirm it R. B. Here is nothing still but flying and hiding his cause is such that he dare not answer Note that 1. Here is no mention of what extent it must be at all whether these Prelates must be sent from all the Christian world or whence The least Provincial Council that ever was called may be a General Council by this description 2. He tells us of other chief Prelates and yet never tells what sort of things he meaneth by chief Prelates that are no Bishops And when he hath told us doubtless he will never prove nor I hope affirm that any such Prelates are of Christs institution And if the
received by the Proposal of the Papal Church as such whereas now we perceive that it may be received from the Church though they know it not to be Papal And we thought it must have been received as from a General Council or the Church universal but it seems here it is needful but that it be from their particular Pastors 4. By this it seems that there are other Pastors that must be believed received and obeyed before the Pope and Subjection to them is of absolute necessity to salvation and Churchmembership when subjection to the Pope is of no such necessity How the Pope will take this we know not but 5. It leaveth us to new doubts as hard as any of the rest How to know that such indeed are our lawful Pastors before we know that there is a Christ or a Pope and how to know which are they We perceive now that Implicite Faith is not necessarily the believing Pope or Council but the believing those that Christ hath instituted to be our lawful Pastors Qu. 1. But can we know that Christ instituted them before we know that there is a Christ or that he is true Christ Q 2. Can you be true Pastors without derivation from and dependance on the Pope or be so known by the People O that you would but come into the light and tell us how And then Q. 3. tell us why the same People may not take Protestant Armenian Abassine Bishops or Presbyters for true Pastors by the same Proof Q. 4. And doth not the Proof or Knowledge that Men are our Lawful Pastors without knowing that they have Ordination Jurisdiction Mission or Confirmation as you distinguish them from the Pope or are subject to him also prove that quoad esse Men may be cur true Pastors without any of these relations to the Pope For the esse rei is presupposed to the Proof and Knowledge 〈◊〉 And in relations the Fundamentum entereth the Definition I conclude that being my self unfeignedly and earnestly desirous to know the truth whether the Pope be the appointed Church-Monarch of Government of all Christians that dwell on the Face of the Earth and having diligently read what you and abuâ—… 〈◊〉 more have written for it I profess that I never yet heard or saw any Proposal of it nor yet of abundance of your Doctrines which was sufficient to convince my understanding of it but much to convince me of the contrary And I may suppose this to be the case of most who need as clear evidence as I and therefore that we are none of us by your Concession obliged either necessitate medii or praecepti to believe you or to be your Subjects And I confess I like the preaching of these Men whose labour is only to subject Men to Christ and to their Lawful Magistrates and Domestick Governours and to the Teaching-Conduct of those that speak to them the Word of God better than theirs that make it the Foundation of their Religion to make all Men on Earth their Subjects And yet Teachers we acknowledge necessary to our Faith but it is not first necessary to believe them to be sent by Christ before we believe in Christ. But 1. The first Messengers Apostles did at once affirm that Christ is the Saviour of the World and that he sent them to witness his Resurrection Miracles and Works and to preach his Gospel And the Tongues Miracles c. by which they proved it was a Proof of both at once but principally of the former For if an un-called Preacher had wrought a Miracle it would have proved his Doctrine but not his Calling 2. But ordinary Preachers now give us the Evidences of the truth of the Gospel which were heretofore delivered to the Church The Doctrine's self-evidencing Divinity as it hath the Impress of God's Power Wisdom and Love his Holiness Justice and Mercy with the antecedent Prophesies fulfilled and the concomitant and subsequent Miracles and the continued Seal of the sanctifying Spirit in all Believers And by these we are first drawn by the inward operation of the Holy Ghost to believe in the Father Son and Holy Spirit before we believe that he sent these Men to be our Lawful Pastors Yea without believing them oft-times to be our Pastors or any Pastors at all We detest those Self-Preachers that would make the World believe that we must believe them to be our Lawful Pastors and receive them before we believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and receive him And we detest that false Doctrine that saith That a Lay-man may not convert Souls to the Faith of Christ and that God's Word and Spirit may not by his opening that Word win Souls that know not yet what Ministry Christ hath instituted To my Instance of the Iberians converted by a Maid and the Indians by Frumentius and Edesius he answers 1. That he can prove the Papacy preach'd to them as well as I can Iustification by Faith alone or any other parcicular Point of our Doctrine 2. We must both say that all important truths of Christianity were preached to them and till you have evinced this of the Supremacy to be none of those it is to be supposed it was sufficiently declared to them 3. Explicating the Article of the Catholick Church it 's supposed they were told it consisted of Pastor and People united and that they must obey their Lawful Pastors in which Doctrine the Pope is implicitely included Answ. 1. Our Doctrine as you call it is Christianity and I can prove nothing preached but what made them Christians which you confess may be without believing the Pope's Supremacy 2. A brave Argument All important truths were preached Ergo you must prove that this is not one of them 1. All important truths cannot in reason be supposed to be preached by those two Lay-men and by a Maid All essential truths we may suppose preached or else they could not be Christians We heard before that you would perswade us that every truth of continued institution is not only important but essential to the Church Whence you may infer in your way that the Maid and the two Lay-men had preached every such truth and left not one out or else there was no Christians and Church 2. It 's your part to prove that the Papacy is such an important truth and not mine to prove the Negative which yet I have oft and fully done 3. The Article of the Catholick Church was not at first in the Creed as the old Copies shew And Baptism was Administred without mentioning that Article 4. If holding that People must obey their Lawful Pastors will serve then we are all right 〈◊〉 if this be an implicite belief of the Papacy we are all Papists yea perhaps Mahometans and Heâ—…thens are Papists too by such a belief To 〈◊〉 Instance from Act. 2. he saith 1. Who can tell whether Peter told them not of his Supremâ—… 〈◊〉 2. They address'd their Speech first
Christian World These Schismaticks named by you Sinned by unjust separation from the Imperial Churches near them but they did not separate from all the World save themselves as the Papists do And if you believe History you will find that some of them did not separate themselves till they were Anathematized and cast out by others Nestorius retired and Lived four Years in great repute in his Old Monastery near Antioch The Novatians were too scrupulous of joyning with Wicked Priests and People And your Writers say that Pope Nicholas forbad hearing Mass from a Fornicator Priest I had rather be in this of the Pope and the Novatians mind than of those Catholick Priests 2. But I think this is a considerable Difference The Erroneous Schismaticks of those times much more the proper Hereticks did sinfully withdraw from the Communion of most of the Universal Church to profess some Error of their own in singular Conventicles But we who take meer Christianity for our Religion do own Communion with the far greatest part of the Church on Earth yea with all as Christian and sepaâ—…ate not for Error but only from Error and Sin We separate from Pelagians as Pelagians from Novatians as Novatians and from Papists as Papists but not as Christians You say No more did they then I Answer 1. They separated from Truth and we from Error as the Council that condemned him did from Pope Honorius 2. The Luciferians and Novatians separated Voluntarily we are cast out by you from Christian Communion and are counted Separatists unless we will Sin with you or be burnt as Hereticks 3. Let the Reader still note the cheating ambiguity of your word Separation The Schismaticks named separated from Brotherly Communion but we separate from Tyrannical Usurped Domination and are called Schismaticks not because we will not have such Communion with you in all Christian Truth and Duty but because we will not be your Vassals or Subjects and Sin as oft as you command us § 2. Pag. 155. He saith That Had we deserted the sole Communion of the Papacy it might have born some show of Defence but seeing when we separated from that we remained separated as much from all particular Visible Churches in the World as that you have no Excuse Answ. If the Reader have not a very gross Head he shall see your Calumny As your Church is Essentiated by the Papal Head so far we renounce the very Essence of your Church None of the rest of the Christian World pretend to any such Universal Head but Christ. Therefore we separate not from their Head or any Essential part of their Church as such We separate as far as we are able from the corrupt Accidents and faults of every Church and Christian and would fain separate more from our own As we separate from the Abassines in the point of their oft Baptizing and from the Muscovites Greeks Armenians as to their Ignorance and some Mistakes and Vices And so we would separate from Drunkenness Fornication Covetousness Simony false Subscriptions Lies c. in any where we find them in the World But this is not Schism or separating from the Church Dare you say that this is not our Duty Will you joyn in Sin with every Sinful Church for fear of Schism § 3. But he saith That any Arrian will say so That he separateth not from the Church as Christian. Answ. We have brave Disputing with a Man that cannot or will not distinguish between Saying and doing Doth it follow that an Arrian doth not separate from the Church as Christian because they say they do not I prove the contrary He that separateth from the Church for an Essâ—…ntial part of Christianity separateth from the Church as Christian but so do the Arrians Ergo I prove the Minor He that separateth as denying the God-head of Christ separateth for and from an Essential part of Christianity but so do the Arrians Eunomians Photinians Samosatemans Socinians c. Ergo § 4. Next I opened their dealing with us that call us Schismaticks because we will not willingly Sin with them and be burnt by them as if it were our Ashes that refused their Communion or because Princes will punish wicked Priests or as Solomon cast out Abiathar and put Zadok in his place or will not be Subject to a Foreign Usurper c. To this he saith It is a Rhetorical Exclamation and whole Kingdoms condemned by the Popes Canons to the Flames must take such an Answer as that for their Lives And he again calls on me to name any Visible Church which we separated not from which I am aweary of answering so oft § 5. He ask'd me whether Subordination and Obedience to the same State and Government is not as well required to our Church as to our Common-wealth I Answered Yes But as all the World is not one Humane Kingdom so neither is it one Humane Church To this he repeateth his old Visible and Invisible taking it for granted that the Church must have one meer Humane Visible Head or Governour Personal or collective which yet he knoweth is the great thing which I deny and he had to prove which if he did all his work were done § 6. I Noted that their own Divines are not agreed whether Hereticks and Schismaticks are parts of the Church To this he saith That 1. He speaks of Parts of the Church as I understand parts Answ. Who would have thought till now but he had spoken as he thought himself 2. He saith That I hold that some Hereticks properly so called are parts of the Church of Christ and united to Christ their Head believing the Essentials of Christianity and so are Christians though Erring in some Accidents and this is contrary to all Christianity and a Novâ—…lty never held before by any Christian. Answ. But such gross Falshoods as yours and such deceits have been used before by many Papists 1. Where did I say that such as err only in some Accidents are properly called Hereticks I distinguished De re ratione nominis but undertook not to tell from the Etymology of the word which is the only proper sence of Heresie but according to the vulgar use of the word among us it is taken for one that denieth some Essential But with such as you I see it is taken more largely and I am not sure that at first it was not taken for any Separation or Schism into distinct Sects All that I say you may be ashamed to call me so oft to repeat it is That 1. Many are called Hereticks by Papists yeaâ—… by Philastrius and Epiphanius that were true Christians for ought is said against them yea Philastrius numbereth some certain Truths with Heresies when his contrary Errors are liker such 2. That they that erre in some Accidents may be true Christians or else I think there is none at Age in the World 3. That there is much lamentable Schism which is no Separation from the whole Church 4. That he
which they may shortly expect by the perswasions of some I have attempted to make this Return to this one Reply which is all that ever they published against me that I know of And because true Order requireth first that we understand each others terms I must begin with that though it be the last thing in his Book in which you will see what a sandy fabrick it is which is adorned by them with the great Epithetes of Apostolical Ancient Universal Infallible and how little they know or can make others know what it is of which they do dispute or what that Church is to which so many hundred thousand Christians called by them Hereticks have been sacrificed by sword and flames In the second Part I defend the Visibility of the Church which the Protestants are members of against his vain Objections And in the third Part I defend those Additional arguments by which I proved it In all which I doubt not but the impartial understanding Reader may see that their Terrestrial Universal Monarchy and their condemnation of the greatest part of the Church of Christ are contrary to Sense Reason Tradition Consent Antiquity and Scripture and that their Kingdom standeth but on three Legs IGNORANCE and deceit worldly INTEREST and the SWORD and violence And when these and especially the sword of Princes do cease to uphold it it will presently die and come to nothing For though Melchior Canus say that the Roman Priviledges as he calleth them have stood though the greater number of Bishops and Churches and the Arms of Emperours have been against them yet was it upheld against all these by no better means than those aforesaid The greater number of Churches and Bishops viz. of East and South being against them and all the other four Patriarchates renouncing them as they do to this day they laid the faster hold of the West and by mastering Italy flattering and advancing France promising Kingdoms and Empire to their Adherents threatning the deposition of others dividing Germany and all Europe that many might need the Pope and few be able to resist him and by keeping men ignorant that they might be capable of their Government by these means they overcame the Arms of Emperours and made them their Subjects whose Subjects they had been If there were nothing else to satisfie the Reader against Popery but these following Particulars it were a shame to humane nature to receive it 1. The natural incapacity of one man to be a Church-Monarch any more than to be a Civil Monarch of the whole Earth 2. That Bellarmine confesseth that the Pope succeedeth not Peter as an Apostle but as an Universal Pastor But Peter never had any higher office than to be the first Apostle 1 Cor. 12. 28. God hath set in the Church first Apoctles not first a Vice-Christ 3. That they affirm that it is not de fide that the Pope is Peter's Successor 4. That none of the other Apostles had Successors as in superior seats nor did any Patriarch much less twelve claim power as Successors of any Apostle save Antioch and Rome and Antioch as from the same St. Peter but no Universal Soveraignty 5. That whoever will turn Papist must confess that he was an ungodly hypocrite before and that all professed Christians are so save the Papists that know their doctrine 6. That he must renounce the senses of all sound men and believe them all deceived by Miracle The Contents of the first Part. CHAP. 1. Sect. 1. HIs Explication of the terms CATHOLICK CHURCH 1. He excludeth all from Christs Universal Church and Christianity that are no Members of Christian Congregations Yet meaneth not only Churches but Families Ships or any civil Assemblies Damning all solitary Christians or that are alone among Infidels 2. He maketh subjection to the supreme Pastor necessary and yet saith the Votum of it alone will serve Sect. 2. He unchurcheth Parish-Churches He maketh dependance on lawful Pastors in general necessary but not on the Pope particularly Sect. 3 What Faith must be in a Church-member His implicite discourse of implicite faith which indeed is no faith of any particular Article Several senses of implicite faith opened His general faith proved No particular faith In what sense we believe all that God hath revealed Sect. 8. His instances explained Sect. 9. When virtual repentance sufficeth Sect. 10. His avoiding to answer Sect. 11. The Papists Church invisible Sect. 12. His strange Doctrine of generals Sect. 13. What Christianity is is no point of faith with them Sect. 14. The invisibility of their Church further proved Sect. 15. Their contradictions about receiving all faith on the Churches Authority Sect. 16. 17. The true method of believing Sect. 18. Humane faith is joyned with Divine Sect. 20. What the Essentials of Christianity are Sect. 21. Papists utterly disagreed what a Christian is and confounded and their Church invisible Sect. 22. Notes of great moment hereupon The baptizing of men that believe only that there is a rewarding God is a new false baptism Sect. 23. Q 3. Who are the Pastors whose rejection unchurcheth men Of Parish Priests Q. 4. How shall all the world be sure that Popes and Priests had a just Election or ordination Sect. 24 25 26 27 28. CHAP. 2. Their sense of the word HERESY Whether Heresie be in will or understanding Sect. 1. Hereticks by their definition are unknown Sect. 2. The power of judging of the Sufficiency of proposals make 's the Clergie Masters of all men lives Sect. 3. He maketh none Hereticks that deny not Gods Veracity Sect. 4. And all Hereticks to deny it Yea all that receive not every truth safficiently proposed Yet unsaith all and saith that not culpable neglect of sufficient proof of all but contradiction to the known proposal of lawful superiours makes a Heretick Sect. 7. Q. What sufficient proposal is Sect. 8. 9. He saith that the true Church-Governours may be known without Revelation Sect. 10. Sufficiency further examined Sect. 11. He hereticateth themselves or none Sect. 12. Whether every misunderstanding of an intelligible Text of Scripture be Heresie Sect. 13. What Heresie is indeed Sect. 14. CHAP. 3. Their meaning of the word POPE Sect. 1. Popes judged Herteicks by many Councils Where Christs institution of the Papacy must be found Sect. 2. Who ad esse must elect the Pope Sect. 3. W. J. cannot and dare not tell Consecration denyed to be necessary to the Pope Sect. 6. Neither Papal nor Episcopal Iurisdiction he saith depends on Papal or Episcopal ordination Sect. 7. So they may be Laymen What such jurisdiction is Sect. 8. What notice or proof is necessary to the subjects CHAP. 4. Their sense of the word BISHOP The Pope is not of Gods ordaining in their way Sect. 1. 2. Their Bishop of Calcedons testimony put off Sect. 3. They make all men that will or no men to be Bishops His great confusion and contradictions Saying we want not Episcopal Consecration but Election
we may not know what And he tells us That while they have an explicite belief of some Articles they can never be thought to be without faith Answ. Either he meaneth that faith which was in the question which must notifie us from Hereticks and from others without and which the Church must unite in or some other faith If any other doth he not wilfully juggle and fly from answering when he pretends to answer If he means the faith in question then Mahometans and Heathens are of their Faith and Members of their Church yea and all that they call Hereticks and anathematize themselves yea and the Devils that believe and tremble But one would think that pag. 11 he described the necessary implicite Faith when he saith Our ordinary sense is so to believe that point that we have no distinct or express knowledg of it but only a confused understanding because it is contained in confuso under this proposition I believe all that God hath revealed or I believe all that is delivered to be believed in the Holy Scripture Answ. 1. But I must again repeat that here the word confused is used but to confound This is no actual belief of any particular under that proposition When a thing is actually known in it self but only by a General knowledg or not dâ—…stinct this is truly an Impersect knowledg It is to know somewhat of that thing though not its form or individuation If I see something which I know not whether it be a Man or a Tree a Steeple or a Rock I verily know somewhat of that thing it self but not the form of it If I see a Book open at two-yards distance I see the Letters distinctly but not formally for I know not what any one of them is If I see a clod of Earth or a River I see much of the very substance of the earth and water but I discern not the sands or the drops as distinct parts Here something is known though the special or numerical difference much more some accidents be unknown But in knowing W. I's general proposition only I know nothing at all of the particulars as shall yet be further manifested 2. And mark what his general Proposition is which he saith is the object of their Implicite saith viz. I believe all that God hath revealed or all that is delivered to be believed in the Holy Scripture Either he really meaneth that this is the implicite faith by which Christians are notifiâ—…d and which uniteth the Members of the Church and distinguisheth them from those without or he doth not If he do not what doth he but deceive his Râ—…ader If he do then as I said All Christians Hereticks most Mahometans and Heathens believe the first proposition viz. That all is true that God revealeth And Protestants and Papists and most other sorts of Christians agree in the second The Scripture-truth Here then is a justification of our Faith so far But do you think that he meaneth as he seemeth to mean Do they not hold it also necessary that men must take their Church to be the declarer of this Scripture-truth And also that Tradition not written in the Bible be believed Must not both these make up their Implicite Faith If our general Faith and theirs be the same what maketh them accuse us herein as they do But now pag. 11. he proceeds to assault me with such reasoning as this No man knoweth all that God hath revealed to wit with an actual understanding of every particular Ergo say I No man believes all that God hath revealed Now I proceed If no man believe all that God hath revealed then you believe not all that God hath revealed Then further Whoever believeth not all that God hath revealed is no good Christian nor in state of salvation But you believe not all that God hath revealed Ergo you are no good Christian nor in a state of salvation See you not how fair a thred you have spun Or will you say that he that believes not all that God hath revealed is a good Christian If you will you may but no good Christian will believe you Answ. The man seemeth in good sadness in all this Childish Play And must Rome be thus upheld And must poor mens Faith and Consciences be thus laid upon a game at Cheating Words No wonder that this Hector would have nothing said in dispute but syllogism c. Few Lads and Women would unmask his pitiful deceits whether the great disputer saw their vanity himself I know not But men at age that can speak and try sense will see that all this Cant is but the sporting-equivocation of one syllable ALL This ALL is either a term of a meer general proposition e. g. All Gods word is true Here I believe what is predicated of this general word ALL and take this for a true proposition ALL Gods word is true Or it signifieth the very things species or parts as in themselves known and so if the very things species or parts generally expressed by the word ALL be not themselves known as such things species or parts it is no actual knowledg of them at all to know that truth of the said general proposition And doth not every novice in Logick know this The same I say of Beliefs as of Knowledg He is no good Christian who believeth not that all Divine Revelations are true which Hereticks and Heathens believe But neither I nor any Christian known to him or me knoweth or believeth ALL the particular verities which God hath revealed And he believeth not one of them beside that proposition it self which is found among the rest who believeth but that general But yet he will justifie his vanity by more instances pag. 12 he saith When you profess in tâ—…e Creed that God is the Creator of all things visible and invisible I demand Do you believe as you profess If you do then you may believe with an actual belief that he is the Creator of many things visible and invisible whereof you have no actual understanding or which are wholly unknown particularly or distinctly to you or by any other knowledg than as confusedly contained in the word ALL. Ans. 1. What 's all this but to say that I believe this proposition All things of which many are unknown to â—…e are created by God This proposition I know and believe but the things themselves as such I no further believe than I know if I know not that they are I believe not that they are if I know not what they are I believe not what they are that is if I have not an intellectual conception That they are and What they are for believing is indeed but a knowing by the medium of a Testimony or Revelation and the veracity of the Revealer I believe that God maâ—… all that is about the Center of the earth and yet I neither know nor actually believe any one thing species or individual or
nothing is necessary to you to do which you cannot do without coming into the light It 's a dispute among the Papists Divines what a Christian is or what Christianity is And yet they have an Infallible Judg of all the Scripture and all Controversies And yet they can tell that Protestants are Hereticks And yet they can tell who are members of their Church though it be a dispute among Divines But mark that this is not then with them de fide any point of faith what a Christian is or what must be believed For their Divines dispute not that which they take to be de fide I told him that a man may believe that the Bible is true and Gods word and yet not know a word that is in it or that Christ is the Messias or that there was ever such a person He answereth that This is morally impossible For either such a person believes the Bible rashly and imprudently and then according to all Divines his faith cannot be supernatural and divine or sufficient to constitute him a Christian or he believeth it prudently by prudential motives of credibility Now that can be no other than the authority of the Catholick Church which he cannot be ignorant to profess the faith of Christ there being no other save that though he know not by experience that Christ is mentioned in the Bible he cannot but know that he is professed to be the Son of God and Saviour of the world by those of the Catholick Church who delivered the Bible to him as the word of God and that such a faith is necessary to Salvation Ans. Here are many things worthy our consideration 1. That a man is not a member of the Church that is a Christian unless his faith be supernatural and divine not only in the object but his act And surely no man knoweth what other mans act of faith is supernatural and divine Therefore no man knoweth who is a Christian and so their Church is still invisible 2. No man that believeth the Bible rashly and imprudently is a Christian And no man knoweth whether another believe it not rashly and imprudently yea whether he believe it at all Therefore no man knoweth who is a Christian or member of the Church of Rome 3. No other motive than the authority of the Catholick Church can serve to free a man from this rashness imprudence and nullity of his Christianity 1. But why then had we not this General The Church Catholick is to be believed and the Scripture to be received only by its authority before in the description of implicite or explicite faith 2. Was that man no Christian in the Primitive times who was converted by a single Apostle and took not the faith on the authority of the Catholick Church Did the Eunuch converted by Philip Act. 8. or the Jaylor and Lydia converted by Paul Act. 16. or the 3000 converted by Peter Act. 2. receive faith on the authority of the Catholick Church Or the Indians when converted by Frumentius and Edesus or the Abassian Empire that till lately knew nothing of the Pope and his pretensions Or do we read that the Apostles did use that argument The authority of the Catholick Church to convert their hearers or that they always first told them of the authority of such a Church If by the Church you mean any single Apostle or Teacher hold to that and we shall do well enough with you 3. But Authority is an ambiguous word and may deceive We maintain that a preserving and teaching ministerial authority is usually needful to mens conversion to the faith though not absolutely necessary to be first believed by the hearer But a judging authority viz. Whether there be a God a Christ a Scripture a Heaven c. or not which determineth by a sentence rather than teacheth by opening that evidence which caused belief in the Teacher himself this is not necessary to mans faith 4. And what if a man should hear a Preacher open the other reasons of Christianity without talking of the Catholick Church and its authority and should hereupon believe or should believe by the bare reading of a Bible how prove you that this man is no Christian nor shall be saved when Christ saith He that believeth shall be saved and shall not perish and saith not He that believeth on any other motive than the authority of the Catholick Church and that must be the Romans believeth rashly and impudently and shall perish 4. But it 's well worth the enquiry could we possibly find it out what he meaneth by knowing the Church and its profession and its authority and whether this be an act of necessary faith before any thing else can be believed Or what other points of faith are contained in our belief of this Church and its authority And what is the foundation of this faith It seems that he supposeth that the Church must be known before that the Christian faith be believed And that in knowing the Church we must know the faith of the Church It is one thing to know that they are a company of men called the Christian Church and another thing to know what a Christian Church is and another thing to know that this company of men is that Church Must all these be known before we can believe or but one or two and which 1. If the name were enough a man may know that a company of men are called Christians or Mahumetanes who knoweth not at all what Christianity or Mahumetanism is You say that it must be known that they profess to trust in Christ this they may do and not know who Christ is whether God or man or what he hath done or will do for us If you say that they must know that they profess that Christ is the Saviour so they may do and yet not know what the word Saviour signifieth or what Christ ever did or will do for our Salvation 2. But if he mean here that every one that will believe Gods Word must first know the Church as defined or know it in all its essence then 1. How few will he be able to prove to be Christians And how will he know who they are 2. And still the question recurreth what is it that must be particularly believed to essentiate the Church For if he know not that he cannot know that he knoweth what the Church is 3. And when that is done it seems he must know which is that Church considered in existence as different from all Heresies and other Societies But by this method our difficulties are multiplied 1. How shall I be sure that this Church doth not deceive me in saying that this and not that is Gods Word Is this by an act of knowledg or of divine faith If of knowledg what evidences prove it If of faith then I must believe God before I can believe him that is I must believe that this is his Revelation and true that the Roman-Catholick
Church cannot or doth not err in telling me what is Gods Revelation before I can know or believe any of his Revelation If they mean that this act of faith must go first before I can have any other why may I not know and believe other articles of faith without the divine belief of the Churches authority or infallibility as I may believe this one God hath revealed that the Church is infallible or true in telling me what I must believe If one Article may be believed without that motive and sure it is not believed before it is believed why not others as well as that 3. And which way or by what Revelation did God confer this Infallibility on the Church If by Scripture it is supposed that yet you know not what is in the Scripture or believe it not to be true till you have first believed the Churches Veracity Therefore it cannot be that way If by verbal tradition it is equally supposed that you know not that Tradition to be Gods word and true before you know the Churches Veracity that tells you so So that the Question How I must believe the Churches Veracity herein by what divine revelation before I can believe any other revelation is still unanswered and answerable only by palpable contradiction But were it not for interpreting him contrary to his company I should by his words here judg that it is no Divine faith of the Churches Veracity which he maketh pre-requisite to all other acts of faith but it is Prudential motives of creâ—…bility which must draw him to afford credit to that authority as derived from God which commends to him the Bible as the word of God now that can be no other than the Authority of the Catholick Church Ans. Mark Reader It can be no other than the authority of the Church which must be the prudential motive to credit the authority of the Church as derived from God So the Churches Authority must be first credited that he may credit it or else the Authority not credited must move him to credit it which is all contradiction unless he mean that the Churches Authority credited by a humane faith or by some notifying or conjectural evidences besides divine revelation must move him to believe that it is authorized by God When they have told us whether that first credit given to the Church have any certainty for its object and also what and whence that certainty is we shall know what to say to them Knot against Chillingworth is fain tosay That it is the Churches own Miracles by which it is known to have divine authority before we can believe any word of God And so no man can be sure that Gods word is his word and true till he be first sure that the Church of Rome hath wrought such miracles as prove its veracity as from God which will require in the Catechumene so much acquaintance with Historical Legends which the more he reads them the less he will believe them as will make it a far longer and more uncertain way to become a Christian than better Teachers have of old made use of And 2. it seems when all is done that he taketh this Authority of the Church but for a prudential motive But is it certain or uncertain If uncertain so will all be that 's built upon it If certain again tell us by what ascertaining evidence Reader it is the crooked ways into which byassing-interest hath tempted these men to lead poor souls which are thus perplexing and confounding How plain and sure a way God hath prescribed us I have told you in a small Tractate called The Certainty of Christianity without Popery In short it is possible if a man never hear but one Sermon which mentioneth not the authority of the Church or find a Bible on the high-way and read it that he may see that evidence in it that may perswade him savingly to believe through grace that it truly affirmeth it self to be the word of God But the ordinary method for most rational certainty is To have first Historical ascertaining evidence of the matter of fact viz. that This Book was indeed written and these miracles and other things done as it affirmeth Or first perhaps That this Baptismal Covenant Lords Prayer Creed and Decalogue have been delivered down from the first witnesses of Christ and Miracles wrought to confirm the Gospel which is also written at large in that Book This we have far greater Historical Certainty of than the pretended authority of a judging-Church of Rome even the infallible testimony of all the Churches in the world and as to the essentials Baptism the Creed c. of Hereticks Infidels and Heathens which I have opened at large in a Book called The Reasons of Christian Religion and another called The Unreasonableness of Infidelity and in other writings And the matter of fact with the Book being thus certainly brought down to us as the Statutes of the Land are we then know the Gospel and that Book to be of God by all those evidences which in the foresaid Treatises I have opened at large and more briefly in a Treatise called The Life of Faith the sum of which is the Holy Spirit as Christs Agent Advocate and Witness in his Works of Divine Power Wisdom and Goodness or Love printed first on Christ himself his Life and Doctrine and then on the Apostles their Works and Doctrine and then on all sanctified believers in all ages and especially on our selves besides his antecedent prophesies Pag. 16. He again pretendeth that he need not name the necessary Articles of Faith because I my self say They must be the Essentials and it is supposed I understand my own terms Ans. A candid Disputant The light followeth him while he flyeth from it Doth it follow that if I know my own meaning I therefore know yours and if I know which are the essentials that therefore you know them and are of the same mind Pag. 17. The man would make me believe that I speak not true divinity when I say that Divine and Humane Faith may be conjunct when the testimonies are so conjunct as that we are sure that it is God that speaks by man who is therefore credible because God infallibly guideth and inspireth him He would make you believe that I am singular and erroneous here Ans. And why He saith that would make Christian faith partly humane But 1. when I talk but of two faiths conjunct what if I called the former divine faith only the Christian faith May not a humane yet be conjunct with the Christian 2. But words must be examined If Christian faith be so called from the Object then Christ and not his Apostles are the reason of the name materially we are called Christians for believing in Christ and not for believing in them 2. If Christian faith were taken subjectively it is humane faith for men are the subjects of it 3. If Christian faith be
denominated from the prime or second efficient of the revelation it is the belief of God and of Christ as Mediator and not of the Apostles and so Gods own Veracity and not mans is the objectum formale fidei divinae 4. But why may not a subordinate humane faith be conjoined with this and so we believe Christ to be the Messiah at once 1. By the testimony of God 2. Of Christ as man 3. And of the Prophets and Apostles 1. Did not the union of the Divine nature with the humane make Christ as man to be credible If so why should we not believe him 2. Did not the sanctifying work of the Holy Ghost and divine inspiration joined to it make the Apostles and Prophets credible persons If so why should we not believe them 3. Did not the Miracles which they wrought render the persons and their testimonies credible together with the circumstances of their being eye-witnesses and such-like 4. Is not every honest man credible according to the measure of his skill and honesty 5. Doth not every man know that there may be many efficient causes conjoined in producing one effect May not faith now be wrought by the Preachers word and Spirit Why else doth Christ say to Paul Acts 26. 17 18 I send thee to open their eyes and turn them c. And Paul directeth Timothy to save himself and those that hear him Why may not believing God believing Christ as man and believing Peter and Iohn c. that saw him risen be conjunct causes of our faith in Christs Resurrection If they might not produce one faith at least they might produce three faiths united by conjunction But would one ever have expected this from a Jesuit or Roman Priest Remember Reader that Divine belief and a belief of the Church Council Pope or Priest are not to be taken for conjunct causes of our believing the Gospel or Christian faith in this mans opinion But he saith Though the Prophet be a humane person yet he speaks when he is inspired by God not by humane but divine authority God speaking by his mouth Ans. It is Veracity that is the thing that we now speak of and is the authority in question And doth not Gods Veracity give Veracity to the Speaker and use it Doth God speak by Prophets and Christs Humanity as through an inanimate Pipe or Whistle or as by Balaam's asse Doth he make no use of the reason and honesty of the speaker nor make them more knowing and more honest true and careful that they may be the fitter to be believed Is this Roman Divinity Why then do the Apostles so oft protest that they speak the truth and lye not even of that which they had seen and heard Would the Gospel have been equally credible to us if all the witnesses had in other matters been knaves and lyars 2. Reader judg whether those that accuse the Roman Clergy of Fanaticism and Enthusiasm do them any wrong while they think that God maketh them infallible by such inspiration as maketh no use of their Reason Learning or Honesty And read but what their own Historians say of Fifty Popes together besides all the rest and of the Ninth and Tenth Centuries of the Church and of the Popes that were lads and could not read Mass but were illiterate Read what their Councils have said of some whom they deposed as inhuman Monsters and judg whether it be easie to believe that any inspiration used those men as infallible deliverers of that Christian faith and see here why it is that they think wit and honesty no more necessary in Pope or Councils if God use them but as an organ-pipe or trumpet Pag. 18. When he is urged to tell me what it is that is the necessary belief of their Church which must make a man a member of it he again bids me tell him what points I make essential to a Christian and I shall save him the labour Ans. And are we indeed agreed And yet do they writeso many Volumes to the contrary Reader I take him at his word I have said that it is The belief and consent to the Baptismal Covenant that is the constitutive essence of a Christian. Remember this when they jest at Fundamentals and tell us of damnation if we believe not their Councils and the Country-Priests that are the reporters of them Remember now the extent of the Christian Church that it reacheth to all that believe and consent to the Baptismal Covenant But will these wavering men long stand to this and confess their Sect to be but a fourth or third part of the Church But perhaps they will say That words not understood are no true faith we are yet to seek what believing in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost do mean and comprehend Answ. These ignorances or artifices have too long abused unstudied men It is not now the unsearchable truth of mens subjective faith or internal acts which we dispute of But it is of necessary objective faith or what ex parte objecti is essentially necessary to true subjective faith in case it be truly believed which God only can tell And I say 1. It is no meer words spoken more or less which can prove to another the sincerity of the speakers belief of them 2. But the words of the Baptismal Profession and Covenant if sincerely believed contain all essential to the Christian faith 3. And for more or fewer words I say that the more understanding any man hath the more fully and easily he may understand the sense of those words though general and few but to an ignorant person there must be many words and oft repeated to make him understand the same thing which the other doth by these few And must we therefore have as many symbols of Christianity as there are various degrees of Understandings 4. And the Church hath in its best times taken up with the Creed as the Exposition of the Baptismal faith and if it now contain any words more than essential that crosseth not its use which was to be a just and satisfactory Explication of that Baptismal faith which had nothing but the Essentials And accordingly till faith and piety degenerated into opinion and tyranny Baptized persons were accounted Christians and members of the Catholick Church and as obliged to live as Christs Disciples in love to one another it being none but Christ himself who instituted Baptism as our Christening to be the symbol and badg of his Disciples Pag. 19. When I had prest him to a particular answer and told him what would follow upon the Answers which I supposed he might make he tells me that Divines have a hundred times told us that some things must be believed necessitate praecepti and some things necessitate medii Ans. We have heard some things some things so oft that we would fain know what things at last are necessary ut media Reader if these Writers must not be ashamed of their
tergiversation what sort of Disputants should blush would you think after all this what his answer is You shall have it in his own words And know you not that Divines are divided what are the points necessary to be believed explicitely necessitate medii Some and those the more ancient hold that the explicite belief of God of the whole Trinity of Christ his Passion Resurrection c. are necessary necessitate medii Others among the Recentiors that no more than the belief of the Deity and that he is a rewarder of our works is absolutely necessary with that necessity to be explicitely believed Now to answer your Question what it is whereby our Church-members are known I answer that 1. All those who are baptized and believe all the points of our faith explicitely if any such are to be found are undoubted members of our Church 2. All those who believe explicitely all the Artiales whatever belongs to them in particular by reason of their respective offices in the Church 3. Those who so believe all things necessary necessitate medii or necessitate praecepti extended to all adulti 4 All those who believe in that manner all things held necessary necessitate medii according to the first opinion of the more ancient Doctors 5. It is probable though not altogether so certain as the former that such as believe explicitely the Deity and that he is a rewarder of our works and the rest implicitely as contained in confuso in that are parts of the Catholick Church Baptism supposed 〈◊〉 Nowâ—… seeing all those in my four first Numbers which comprehend almost all Christians are certainly parts of the Catholick Church we have a sufficient certainly of a determinate Church consisting at least of these by reason whereof our Church has a visible consistency those of the fifth rank though not so certain not taking away the certainty of the former See you not by this Discourse that we answer sufficiently to your question by telling which are undoubted members Ans. Reader how sad is the case of mankind when such a talker as this shall go for a Champion and prevail with silly souls in the matters of Salvation against common reason and the notices of Christianity Mark here 1. He asketh me Know you not that Divines are divided Yes and I know how lamentably you have divided the Christian world See Reader what is the unity and concord of the Church of Rome Not only the Laity but their Divines are divided about the very essence of a Christian and their Church These are the men that cry up Unity as a mark of their Church and cry out of us as Schismaticks as if we were all crumbled into dust by Sects because we differ about some small circumstances of Worship or Exposition of some imposed words of men or of some difficult point of no flat necessity 2. Note here also the Infallibility of their Church and what a priviledg they have in having a Iudg of Controversies While their Doctors are divided on the question what a Christian is And Pope and Council dare not or cannot or will not determinate what maketh a Christian or member of their Church O happy infallible Judg of Controversies 3. Note also the extent of the Roman faith 〈◊〉 it is so big as that it and its circumstances fill large Volumes called the Councils and yet it is no article of their faith what Christianity is or what must constitute a member of their Church but this is left at liberty to disputes 4. Note also the great partiality of the Papists The Doctors may be divided about the essence of Christianity and may deny faith in Christ to be particularly necessary to a Christian. But if a man believe not that Rome is the Mistris of all Churches and the Pope the Universal Governourr and that there is no bread and wine in the Lords Supper when the Priest hath consecrated he is to be exterminated or burnt as a Heretick and Princes deposed that will not execute it 5. Note here that here is not a word in all this of believing the Pope to be the Governour of all the Churches in the world Either they take this to be essential to a member of their Church or not If they do are they not juglers and ashamed of their faith when they thus hide it If not what is become of their Sectarian Church and all their accusations and condemnations of most of the Christian World who believe no such office of the Pope And what a Society is that where the reception of the Pars Imperans is not necessary to every subject 6. Note here whether the Roman Religion be mutable or not and whether constancy be a note of their verity When he professeth that the ancient Doctors and the Recentiors or Novelists do differ about the very essence of Christianity Have these Recentiors antiquity to boast of 7. Note also from hence the validity of their common argument from Tradition As if all their Church were now and always of one mind when at present they are divided about the essence of Christianity and the Recentiors forsake the Ancients But had these Ancients Tradition for their opinion or not If they had how come the Recentiors to forsake it If not what an insufficient thing is your Tradition that hath not told you what a Christian or Church-member is And yet we must take this Tradition as sufficient to tell us what orders and ceremonies Peter setled at Rome 8. I pray you note that even their ancient Doctors opinion which is all that must keep his cause from utter shame he durst not describe in answer to my question but having named five words God the whole Trinity Christ his Passion and Resurrection he craftily shuts it up with an Eâ—… caetera so that if you suppose him to say that these five things are all that they require he may deny it because he added an c. If you ask what are the â—…est you are where we begun an c. is all the answer 9. Well let us peruse his five particular sort of members distinctly which make up their Church and try 〈◊〉 be the mâ—…ey 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 or whether the Reader will not wonder that such trained disputers have no more to say nor a more plausible sort of fraud to use 1. His first sort of visible members are All those that are baptized and believe explicitely all the points of our faith if any such are to be found Ans. Is not this a modest Parenthesis whether any such are to be found he seemeth uncertain and yet saith These are the undoubted members of our Church The undoubted members when he doubteth himself whether any such are to be found And can we find the Church by them then And no wonder that they are not to be found for note Reader that he never tells you here yet at all what the faith of their Church is but only that if any have it all they
ignorant but of some few Priests authority among thousands am I cut off from all the rest and the Church His answer is It is not all Priests but all Pastors in relation to their flocks Ans. 1. But if my Parish-priest be but one of twenty or an hundred thousand doth my culpable ignorance of his authority cut me off from all the Church It may be I believe Pope Nicolas Decrees that a man must not hear Mass of a Priest that hath a Concubine Or that a Simonical Pope or Bishop is no true Pope or Bishop 2. And remember that my Parish-Priest and my Bishop Metropolitan Patriarch and Pope can never make a General Council Either I may be safely ignorant of the Priesthood of all the rest in such a Council or not If not then I must know the certain Priesthood of all others as well as of my own Pastors contrary to what you say If yea then I have no certainty of the Priestly authority of Councils I next argued That it is not the rejecting of a Constables authority which maketh him no subject thâ—… owns the Soveraign To this he rejoineth That yet if I reject the Constable and with him all superior Magistrates and at last the Sovereign I am a rebell And so if I reject the authority first of a Parish-priest and then the Bishop of the Diocess and after of all his Superiors to the highest I am a rebel to the visible Church and cast out and reject Christs authority Ans. 1. Do you see what all our dispute is come to at last All this while it was the rejecting of any one Pastor that cut us off and now it is the rejecting of him and all above him to the bighest Is it not lost labour to dispute with these men 2. When you have proved that Christ hath such a thing as you call the visible Church that is all the world obliged to obey any one man or Governour besides Christ when he is naturally as uncapable of it as of being the Universal Physician even at the Antipodes and where he can never send then we will take it for rebellion to reject that Head Till then we shall take it to be Treason against Christ to claim and own that which is his prerogative How cometh it to pass that no one yet learned to call himself the Universal King of the Earth or the Universal Iudg Physician School-master c. as well as the Universal Priest and Teacher of Religion Next I craved his answer to much which I had written on this subject before in my Safe Relig. which he refuseth and tells me That I make a visible body with an invisible head to the Church which Government is internal and invisible abstracting from visible supreme authority Ans. 1. Christ was seen on Earth 2. He is seen in the Court of Heaven 3. He hath left a visible Universal Law by which he governeth 4. He hath appointed visible Officers over the world though no Head which is the way that the Pope pretendeth to govern even per alios when he never sent to a quarter of the world 5. His subjects are men visible known by audible profession and visible worship 6. He will visibly judg the world in Glory and be seen by all his Church for ever And when you prove that he hath a Church that is otherwise visible we will hear you They that assert an Anima Mundi and they that think one Intelligence or Angel ruleth all the Earth say that which is possible though they can never prove it But to talk of a Governour of all the World that never heard who dwelleth on a third part of it and that can get no Ships to sail about the Earth in many ages and when they do come not near the hundredth part of the world this is a prodigious claim for a waking man My fourth Question about his definition of the Church was Why exclude you the chief Pastors that depend on none He answereth I include them Ecclesia est plebs Episcopo unita Ans. 1. But he had defined the Church as those that depend on the Pastors which seemed to exclude the Popes that depend on none 2. Hierome defineth a particular Church and not the universal 3. They oft call the Clergy the Church He rejoineth That Terms have different acceptions Ans. But by all this ado I can have no reasonable satisfaction from you what you mean by the Church or what that Church is which you call us to unite with and which you accuse us as separating from We are like to dispute well with men that cannot or will not explain the terms of the question CHAP. II. Of their sense of the Word HERESIE W. J. HERESIE is an obstinate intellectual opposition against Divine Authority revealed when it is sufficiently propounded R. B. Q. 1. Is the obstinacy that maketh Heresie in the Intellect or the will W. J. In the Will by an imperate act restraining the understanding to that R. B. Still your descriptions signifie just nothing you describe it to be an Intellectual Obstinate opposition and now say that it is in the will He replieth that the error is in the Understanding but the obstinacy in the Will Ans. Indeed the obstinacy is in both but radically in the Will but did Intellectual opposition notifie this R. B. And you contradict your self by saying that it is an imperate act For no imperate act is in the will but of or from the Will The imperant act is in the Will but the imperate as Intelligere in the commanded faculty To this he replieth That 1. he meant not the act was in the Will though he said it was an act of the Will 2. That all Philosophers are against me and say that the Will may command Charity and other acts in it self Ans. 1. Who could conjecture that by an act of the Will you meant not an act in the Will but from it 2. It 's true that Volo velle is a proper speech and one act of the Will may be the object of another and a good man willeth nothing more here than to will better and if you will call this commanding I will not contend about the word But certainly all these Volitions are such acts as they call elicite which they usually distinguish from imperate and thus you confound them Otherwise every act of the will which is willed by a former act should be called imperate and so none but the first should be elicite And who knoweth when that first act was in being seeing the will doth still will its own future action R. B. 2. I hence noted that if wilful obstinacy be essential to Heresie their Church cannot know a Heretick while they burn them For they know not the heart and many that they burn would take their oaths that they are not willing to err He answereth W. J. We enter not into mens hearts that we leave to God only the Church presumes
formal Hereticks if any such were R. B. As Iohn 22 23 Eugenius 4th c. W. J. Prove that R. B. The Articles brought against them and the judgments thereupon are a proof if any thing may be called a proof viz. in the Council at Rome against Iohn in the Councils of Constance against divers at Basil against Eugenius and others much elder against Honorius c. Is a General Council no proof I added that so they were no Christians and he answers Prove that To which I say General Councils are your Catholick Church representative and those charge these Popes with Heresie and Infidelity If you are so frontless as to deny it I will not therefore tire the Reader with transcribing Councils as oft as you can say Prove it I added And all those that wanted the necessary abilities to the essentials of their works He saith Prove that there were such Popes I answer That you have had children Popes and some that were illiterate and ignorant I have oft proved by the express testimonies of your own Historians How oft must I repeat them I added That therefore their Church hath oft been headless and the Succession interrupted Councils having thus censured many Popes W. J. When you have proved the precedents prove that R. B. Reader is not the cause of the Papacy in a desperate case if Arms upheld it not when their Champion hath no more to say for the very successive being of the Popes but to bid me prove that which all men that read them know is commonly and copiously asserted by their Councils and Historians How oft have I cited their Platina Werverus yea Baroâ—…us Binnius Genebrard their greatest flatterers telling us that some were Children and some illiterate and fifty together were not Apostolical but Apostatical c. W. I. Prove that they were lawful Councils which so censured any Popes which we admit as true and lawful R. B. Alas poor men are you driven to that 1. If you have the face to deny those to be lawful Councils that censured Honorius the two Iohns Eugenius c. we may as well and a little better use the same liberty and question whether that of Trent Florence Lateran c. were lawful 2. May not the world see now what is the foundation of your faith and the validity of your Authority and Tradition even your own wills General Councils tell you the sense of the Church and the Tradition of your fore-fathers if you like them But if the Pope dislike them they are no lawful Councils and their testimony null The sum is whatever Councils say the Pope shall never be proved a Heretick or Infidel till he will say that he is one himself and will subscribe as Marcellinus did to his own condemnation or with Liberius confess his fault 3. And have not these men a notable advantage to proselyte Ladies and illiterate persons when if General Councils damn their Popes it is but bidding them Prove those to have been lawful Councils And though I can prove to them that even their own Popes have affirmed them lawful yet few women are so far skilled in History and so they must yield to every impudent deceiver And when I have proved all it is but as Bellarmine's fetching a denial out of the word Conciliariter against the approbation of Martin 5. 4. But is this enough for you what if none were lawful Councils that displease the Pope Are they therefore no competent witnesses of a matter of fact In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established And are not so many hundred Bishops and other Clerks as were at the Councils of Basil Constance Pisa c. competent Witnesses that the Pope was a Heretick Simonest Murderer c. had the Pope but consented these Councils had been the Catholick Church and infallible And may they not be credible Witnesses against him till he consent How shall we believe them when they tell us what was held and done in all the Christian World a thousand or fourteen hundred years ago if after examination of Witnesses we may not believe them concerning one man one publick sinner in their own time and known to many of themselves What then would the testimony of a Historian or an hundred Historians signifie if the testimony of many hundred Bishops congregate and deliberately examining consulting and sentencing be false R. B. I next asked Q. 2. Where and how must this Institution of Christ of the Papacy be found W. J. In the revealed Word of God written or unwritten R. B. 1. Remember Reader that even now he told us that the Church-Governours are known without Revelation else God had made an imprudent Government He could not mean that they are known to be men but Governours distinct from Usurpers or else he had spoke non-sense or impertinently And yet now it is in the revealed word of God 2. I answered That they never gave the world assurance how to know the measure of their unwritten word nor where to find it so as to know what it is W. J. We say we have R. B. Just as now you do to me If that Word of God be still unwritten and neither to be found in your Councils nor any of your Books I challenge all the reason in the world to tell us where we may certainly come to know what it is and when we have all especially when so great Councils as Ariminum Ephes. 2 Constance and Basil may be deceived in your very Fundamentals of Authority in matter of fact so near at hand R. B. Till you prove Christs institution which you have nevâ—… done you free us from believing in the Pope W. J. All are free from believing in the Pope we believe in God but not in the Pope who of us ever charged you to do so R. B. Even they that charge us to trust our very Salvation upon his Infallibility Veracity or Authority as from which only with his Council we must know what is Gods Word and what the meaning of it what is it to believe in but to believe his Authority and Veracity and trust upon it But we thank you for discharging us from believing in the Pope But I doubt when we are in your power you will call us to an after-reckoning and burn us for not believing on him when you acquit us from believing in him so much of your faith doth lie on a Letter R. B. Quest. 3. Will any ones Election prove him to be Pope or who must elect him ad esse W. J. Such as by approved custom are esteemed by those to whom it belongs fit for that charge and with whose election the Church is satisfied R. B. Now we come to their desperation never were men put to more open confusion in the very essence of their cause Something must be said but they know not what I noted here that if no Election or any ones Election will serve turn the Scholars
taught thee to understand what a Pope is and what makes him so and who is he thou art far more teachable than I am for he leaveth me more at a loss than he found me CHAP. IV. What mean you by the word Bishop W. J. I mean by Bishop such a Christian Pastor as hath power and jurisdiction to govern the inferior Pastors Clergy and people within his Diocess and to confirm and give holy Orders to such as are subject to him R. B. Here I desired to know of him whether he meant a power given by God or by men and if by God whether mediately or immediately But this he was not willing to answer Saying W. J. The definition abstracts from particulars and subsists without determining that question R. B. But sure equivocals make no good definitions and power or Episcopacy given by God and given by man cannot be ejusdem speciei and therefore the word as to them is equivocal Here therefore I asked Q. 1. Whether seeing they seem to make the Pope himself but a humane creature or jure humano they set not the Bishop above him if the Bishop be jure divino And if not whether they make not all their Churches humane things or however the Roman Church to be humane and so its form not necessary to Salvation if the Pope be humane W. J. Where said I that Election was jure humano that there be an election of him is jure divino by competent Electors the determination who hic nunc are competent is jus Ecclesiasticum Know you not that neither the Electors nor Consecrators of him give him Papal jurisdiction but Christ R. B. 1. You say that there is no need of Revelation to know the Church-Governours therefore they are not of Gods making unless it be jure naturali which none pretend For God no way giveth right but by natural evidence of this will or by Revelation either natural in the constitution of the Creatures or natural by Providential alterations or by Supernatural notice 2. If God have not annexed the power to any one sort of Electors choice or have given no power to any determinate persons to choose a Pope nor to any to choose the Choosers then either God giveth no power to the Pope or else he giveth Papal power to every one that shall be chosen by whomsoever The later you abhor for then any man might be Pope at his pleasure and there might be a thousand at once The former consequence is plain because if God make not every man a Pope but one man in the world the Donation of God must by God be some way applied to that person rather than to others Now if God hath neither impowred any determinate or specified persons to elect him rather than others nor any to elect Electors nor yet made the Consecrators the determining appliers there is no way by which God applieth it more to that man than to others You neither do nor can name any other way Now you confess that God hath not given the power of Election to any determinate persons but that the Electors may be sometimes people sometime Presbyters or both sometime Princes sometime Bishops sometime Cardinals All that God saith you hold is that they be competent But this determineth of none And you neither do nor can tell us to whom God hath given the power to judg antecedently of the Electors competency and to choose the choosing persons without which it will never be any mans work unless all that think themselves competent may choose Popes You dare not undertake to tell us whether it be all the Christian world or only the City of Rome Princes Prelates Presbyters people or who that God hath made choosers of the choosers So that you cannot say that God giveth the Pope his power by your way 3. But on the by I desire those that say that their Electors or Ordainers give Ministers their power to learn here this truth from you that God giveth the power by his Donative word and men do but determine of the person that shall from God receive it But yet a determination there must be and that of Gods appointment R. B. I told him that R. Smith called Bishop of Calcedon Governour of the English Papists ubi supra confesseth it to be no part of their faith that the Pope is St. Peters successor jure divino He answereth W. J. You should have done well to cite the place for I have no time to seek whole books over R. B. Note what trust is due to this sort of men I had to him in the same book cited the words in pag. 289. of my book and R. Calcedons book cap. 5. the words are To us it suffereth that the Bishop of Rome is St. Peter 's successor and this all the Fathers testifie and all the Catholick Church believeth but whether it be jure divino or humano is no point of faith Now when he came to the words where I cited them he wisely takes no notice of them And now when I refer him to the citation which was a few leaves before the weary wary man instead of an answer saith I should have done well to cite the place for he hath not time to seek whole books But what good will well-doing do to such a one as you where the better it is the worse you like it Is not this a false intimation that I did not cite them R. B. Qu. 4. I asked How shall we know who hath this Episcopal power What election or consecration is necessary to it If I know not who hath it I am never the better He answereth W. J. As you know who hath temporal power by an universal or most common consent of the people The Election is different according to different times places and other circumstances Episcopal Consecration is not absolutely necessary to true Episcopal Iurisdiction R. B. More hard things still 1. I know who is King in temporal power in our hereditary Kingdom by the constitution of the Monarchy confest by all men to be hereditary and so attested by Law and History and by most credible testimony and uncontrouled fame that CHARLES the Second is the true Heir And in Elective Kingdoms as Poland it is known by publick undenied testimony But do Bishops become such by their birthright and hereditary Title who hath asserted that If it be by Election the Electors must have just power to elect 2. But what mean you by common consent of the people No man can tell whether you join those words to know or to hath If you mean that I must know it by the peoples consent as notifying it to me it 's nothing to our question now nor is it always true The greater part of the people may mistake the Prince's right and suppose it to be in a Usurper and yet the Prince doth not lose his right by that nor must I believe them And I think in your Schisms
deny the Popes Soveraignty and that as by tradition And how lame their tradition is which is carried but by their private affirmation and is but the unproved saying of a Sect. To this he saith W. J. That this belongs to our Controversie and not to the explication of our terms And so I must pass it by R. B. Q. 2. What proof or notice must satisfie as in particulars what is true tradition W. J. Such as with proportion is a sufficient proof or notice of the Laws and Customs of temporal Kingdoms R. B. But you durst not tell us what that is that is proportionable This was answered before I added Is it necessary for every Christian to be able to weigh the credit of contradicting-parties When one half of the world say one thing and the other another thing what opportunity have ordinary Christians to compare them and discern the moral advantages on each side As in the case of the Popes Soveraignty when two or three parts are against it and the rest for it Doth salvation lye on this W. J. As much as they have to know which books are and which are not Canonical Scripture among those that are in controversie R. B. That these books were sent to the Churches from the Apostles 1. Is a matter of fact 2. And an assertion easily remembred 3. And all the Churches are agreed of all that we take as Caâ—…cal 4. And yet men that practically believe but the Creed and Summaries of Religion shall certainly be saved though they erroneously doubted of some of the uncontroverted books as Chronicles Esther Canticles c. much more that receive not the controverted Apocrypha But 1. Your Traditions in question are many particulars hard for to be remembred 2. And that of matter of faith and fact where a word forgotten or altered changeth the thing 3. And most Christians in the world are against it 4. And you would lay the peoples salvation on it yea and make it one of your cheating quibbles to prove your religion safer than ours because some Protestants say a Papist may be saved but you say that Protestants cannot be saved that is because you have less sincerity and charity Is not here difference enough If you hold that all they are damned that believed not that all the Apocryphal books were Canonical peruse Bishop Cousins Catalogue of Councils and Fathers that received them not and see whether you damn not almost all the Church But if you confess that there is no more necessity to salvation for men to be the subjects of your Pope than there is that they try all the Apocrypha whether it be Canonical and know it why then do you found your belief that Christ is the Son of God upon your forebelieving that the Pope is his Vicar or your Church his Church And why do you make such a stir in the world to affright poor people to believe and be subject to your Pope I here asked him Must all the people here take the words of their present Teacher And he durst not answer yea or nay but as much as they do for the determination of Canonical Scriptures Ans. If it be no more it giveth them no certainty but by the belief of one man as a Teacher they are brougâ—…â—…o â—…cern themselves those notifying evidences by which the Teacher himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 books are 〈◊〉 And if they attain no higher than to believe fide Dâ—… the 〈◊〉 Doctrines the doubting or ignorance of some texts or books will not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Scripture that impress of Divine authority which to a prepared heaâ—… oâ—… reader will 〈◊〉 convince him that they are of God though not râ—…e him of every particular Text and Book R. B. Then most of the world must believe against you because most of the teachers are against you Tradition quite â—…eth Pâ—…er W. J. There is no Congregation of Christians united in the same profession of faith external Communion and dependance of Pastors which is contrary in belief â—…o 〈◊〉 any way to be parallel with us in extent and multitude Prove there is and name it All our adversaries together are a patcht body of a thousand different professions and as much adversaries one to another as they are to us the one justifying us in that wherein the other condemn us so that no beed is to be taken to their testimonies non sunt convenientia R B. They agree not with your interest But if the Testimonies and Tradition of two or three parts of the Christian world be not to be heeded I doubt the testimony of your third or fourth part will prove much less regardable Let us try the case for here you are utterly confounded 1 Indeed none that our ordinary language calleth a Congregation that is men that meet locally together are so big as all your party But a Church far better united than you are is far greater than yours Those that have all the Essentials of the one Church of Christ are that one Church of Christ But the Reformed Churches the Greeks Armenians Abassines Syrians Iacobites Georgians Copties c. have all the Essentials of the one Church of Christ Therefore they are that one Church of Christ. The Major is undeniable The Minor is thus proved They that hold the same Head of the Church believing in the same God the Father Son and â—…ly Gâ—…st and are devoted to him in the same Baptismal Covenant and believe all the Articles of faith desire and practice essential to Christianity in the Creed Lords-prayer and Decalogue and receiâ—…e all the â—…re as Gods â—…ord which iâ—…â—…y here received by us as Canonical these have all the â—…ls of the one Church of Christ and much more But such are all the forementioned Christians Ergo c. The Head and the Body are the constitutive parts of the Church The Head is Christ the Body are Christians 1. They are united in the same profession of faith viz. the same Baptism â—…reed and Scriptures 2. They are united in the same external communion if you mean external worship of God in all the Essentials of it and much more They have the same Scriptures read and 〈◊〉 they preach the same Gospel they use the same Sacraments of the Covenant of Grace viz. Baptism and the Lords Supper yea they are commonly for some Confirmation Ordination 〈◊〉 of penitence and absolution of Pâ—…nitents Matrimony c. though they agree not whether the name of Sacraments be fit for them all much less Sacraments of the Coveâ—… Grace they observe the same Lords day for publick worship they pray confess sin give thanks and praises to God and hold the communion of Saints and communication to each other in want This is their external communion 3. They have the same depenâ—… of the people on their Pastors as the Ministers of Christ authorized to 〈◊〉 and guide the Churches and to go before them in the publick worshipping of God But if
matter of General Councils be not of Divine right whether such Councils can be of Divine right I leave to censure A Council of humane Officers is but a humane Council and yet he leaveth out yea excludeth Presbyters who are of Gods institution 3. He tells us not who it is that must call convene and confirm them And he had reason for it lest he reprobate all those that were otherwise called Here therefore I first asked Q. 1. Who is it ad esse that must call convene and confirm it Till I know that I am never the nearer knowing what a Council is and which is one indeed W. J. Definitions abstract from inferior Subdivisions For your satisfaction I affirm it belongs to the Bishop of Rome R. B. This you must needs say for your cause sake But he justifieth his definition as having a sufficient Genus An Assembly and Differentia Bishops and chief Prelates convened c. Ans. You do ill to refuse all disputes but what are exactly Logical which is your custom for advantage to amuse the women if your Logick be no better should not a Relative Assembly be defined by its subject fundamentum terminus 1. Your Genus is too general it should have been a nearer Genus 2. Your subject is partly false as taking in besides Bishops other chief Prelates and excluding Presbyters and partly ambiguous what other chief Prelates you mean and specially too narrow not at all differencing this Council from any inferior Synod 3. Here is no end or terminus expressed and so no difference put between a Council and an Assembly of Prelates called for any common civil use as if it were but to choose or attend a Prince 4. Here is no just notice of the fundamentum or the ratio fundandi the true fundamentum is totally omitted which is the mutual consent 1. of the Churches chusing and sending their Bishops or Delegates 2. of the Bishops to go in that Relation 3. of all the Bishops to convene and agitate conciliar business for the proper ends And a fundamentum is mentioned which is 1. Insufficient and as nothing being but a Genus called by those that have sufficient authority instead of a species in your own opinion who think that the Authority is only in the Pope 2. And when you so explain your self it is false as shall he shewed 5. Yea the very formal Relation is not mentioned which is the relation which the assembled members have to the Churches which they represent and to each other and to the intended end and work So that here is a definition that is no definition nor hath any thing like a definition yet defended by this great disputer Nor can any man tell what a General Council is by it And how can we dispute intelligibly when you can no better explain your terms Here I urged from his making the Popes call convening and confirmation necessary ad esse that this nullifieth the chief Councils called General this he denieth to be true To which instead of transcribing long Histories I only say that whoever readeth the true Histories of the calling and convening of the Councils at Nice Constantinople divers at Ephesus the first and second yea that at Calcedon though Leo desired it of the Emperour and many others in those ages and yet will not confess that most of them were called by the Emperours special command sometime requiring the Bishop of Alexandria to call them sometime the Bishop of Constantinople and sometime writing or sending to all the Patriarchs or most to come and send their Bishops and usually also to his Civil and Military Officers to concur and to be Judges I shall not think that man fit to be disputed with about such matters who hath the face to contradict such consent of History and Records R. B. Q. 2. Must it not represent all the Catholick Church Doth not your definition agree to a Provincial or the smallest Council W. J. My definition speaks specifically of Bishops and those Prelates as contradistinct from the inferior Pastors and Clergy and thereby comprized all the Priests contained in the species and consequently makes a distinction from the National or particular Councils where some Bishops are only conven'd noâ—… all that being only some part and not the whole speciâ—… or specifical notion applied to Bishops of every age and yet I said not all Bishops but Bishops and chief Prelates because though all are to be called yet it is not necessary that all should come R. B. O what a disadvantage is an ill Cause The man is so confounded that the further he goeth the worse he makes it 1. He must needs intimate that it is all the Church that must be represented and yet he durst not speak that out 2. He intimateth that his speaking specifically of Bishops and Prelates is equivalent to all Bishops and Prelates 3. He intimateth that naming Bishops as contradistinct from inferior Pastors and Clergy was necessary to difference a General Council from a National or other as if a National or Provincial one might not consist of Bishops only or as if the inferior Clergy might not be of a General one as they oft have been 4. He makes the difference here to be that some bishops are convened not all when yet he after saith that all come not to General Councils 5. Our question being What constitutâ—… a General Council He saith It is All the Bishops and 〈◊〉 All are not there though â—…alled As if those that come not were any part of the Council 6. He would perswade us that yet he well left out the word ALL though it must be all that are â—…alled because they come not To this I further answered him That then you have had no General Councils much less can you have any more for you have none to represent the greatest part of the Church unless by a mock representation 〈◊〉 If all must be called your Councils were not General a great part of the Church being â—…t called W. J. We are â—…ow buâ—… explicating terms that all were not called is denied R. B. Then let never modesty forbid you to deny any thing I have elsewhere proved against Mr. Hutchâ—…son that your Councils were generali but as to the Roman Empire and seldom if ever so much as that 1. Had the Emperors who certainly called them any power to call any of other Princes Dominions 2. Doth any History mention that ever the Emperors did so 3. Did the Pope of Rome call to the Councils at Nice Constantinople Ephesus Calcedon c. all the Bishops of all the extra-Imperial Churches 4. Were the businesses there agitated any of theirs 5. Were any Conciliaâ—… Decrees executed on them Any extra-Imperial Bishops put in or out or suspended by them 6. Were all the bishops of the Greek Churches of the Armenians and all other Southern and Eastern Nations called to the Councils at Trent Lateran c. What is it that some
Jurisdiction we need and desire none but a Ministerial Power of guiding Souls towards Heaven by God's Word preached and applyed And he that ordaineth a Minister thereby giveth him all the Jurisdiction which is necessary to his Office If a Man be licensed a Physitian must he have also Mission and Iurisdiction given him after before he may practice 3. How could we take Ordination Mission and Jurisdiction from Men on the other side of the World What need we go so far for it when the Gospel is near us which telleth us how God would have Ministers more easily called than so 4. And as for the prescript of our Liturgy Discipline and Hierarchy that is one of the differences between us and you Must you needs have a Liturgy Discipline and Hierarchy of Man's forming so you have But we can live in Christian Communion with so much as Christ and his Apostles by his Spirit have prescribed us Is there no Communion to be had with any Church but that which hath arrived at that heighth of Pride as to make Liturgies Discipline and Hierarchy for all the Chrstian World and to suffer none to speak publickly to God in any words but those which they write down for them to read to God We make no such Laws to any other Church in the World nor do we receive any such Laws from any and yet we have Communion with them fraternal and not subjective Communion There is one Law-giver who is able to save and to destroy who are you that make Laws for another's Servants and judge them Had the Churches no Communion for the first 400 years when no Liturgies were imposed or when the first Law made hereabout was but that no one should use a Form of Prayer till he had shewed it to the Synod No nor when Gregory's and Ambrose's Liturgies were striving for pre-eminence Had the Church at Neocesaria no Communion with that at Caesarea because they had so different Liturgies as their quarrel against Basil intimateth And when every Bishop used what Liturgy he pleased in his own Congregation Was there then no Communion between the Churches We refuse not any meet Liturgy that is found needful to our Concord But truly for Hierarchy and Species or Forms of Churches and the substantials of Discipline we earnestly wish that no Church had any but what God hath himself prescribed to them 5. But how should we joyn with Men many hundred or thousand miles off us in Word and Sacraments otherwise than by useing those of the same species We do not locally hold such Communion with the next Parishes to us nor with many in the World for we cannot be in many places at once much less can we be every Lords day in every Assembly in Ethiopia and Armenia As for Sacrifice we know of none acceptable but the Commemmoration of Christ's Sacrifice once offered for Sin and the offering of our selves and our Thanksgivings praise and other duties to God And why you distinguish the first from Sacraments I know not W. J. Aâ—…d did they profess the same Faith in all points of Faith and those the very same wherein they dissented from the Church of Rome R. B. 1. Ad hominem it might suffice to say to you that explicitely or implicitely they did 2. But I better answer you We profess the same Faith in all points essential to Christianity and in abundance more I have told you before that we agree in all the Old Creeds and in the truth of the Canonical Scriptures 3. But do you Papists agree in all points of Faith no not by a thousand For all is of Faith which God hath intelligibly revealed in the Holy Scriptures to be believed But there is above a thousand intelligible Texts of Scripture about the sence of which your Commentators differ If all Christians agree in all that is de fide then all Christians fully understand every intelligible Word in the Scripture And then every Woman and Rustick is as wise in Divinity as the greatest Doctors yea far are the Doctors from such Wisdom W. J. If so they may as well be said not to have separated fom the external Communion of the Roman Church R. B. Some will tell you that we did not separate from you but you from us but I must say that the Roman Church is considered either materially as Christians and a part of the Church of Christ and so we neither did nor do separate from you or else formally as Pâ—…pal and so we renounce you and all Communion with you as being no Church of Christ but a Sect that treasonably usurpeth his Prerogative The pars imperans specifieth or informeth the society Christ only is the Universal Head of all Christians as such and of all the Churches with which we profess Concord and Communion In this Head Greeks Armenians Ethiopians and Protestants unite But the Pope falsly pretending to be Christ's Vicar-General is taken for the Universal Head by the Papists and in renouncing this Head we renounce no other Church but yours R. B. Not from you as Christians but scandalous Offenders whom we are commanded to avoid we separate not from any but as they separate from Christ. W. J. 1. No sure for if you did you must be Iews Turks or Infidels 2. Was there no more in it Did not the Primitive Persons who begun your breach and party owe subjection to their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors Diocesans and Pastors R. B. No none at all as they were Papal that is the subordinate Ministers of the usurping Universal Bishop W. J. And is it lawful for a Subject to subtract himself from the obedience of a lawful Pastor because he is a scandalous Offender R. B. Yes if his Offence be a ceasing to be a lawful Pastor and taking on him a false Office by usurpation Or if he remained lawful quoad hoc as Christian and adde a treasonable addition we must have no Communion with him at least in that unlawful part W. J. If you say he remaineth not in his former Power you contradict our Saviour commanding obedience to the scandalous Pharisees c. R. B. 1. The Pharisees set not up a new usurped Office of Head-ship constitutive pretendedly to the Universal Visible Church but only abused a lawful Office that God had made 2. Yet Christ requireth obedience to them no farther than as they sate in Moses's Chair and delivered the Law but warned men to renounce them as Corrupters and to take heed of their Doctrine 3. And this much was but till they shewed themselves uncurable and he set up new Officers over his Church and then all men were to forsake the Pharisees Government W. J. You destroy all Ecclesiastical Government and open a way to tread under foot all temporal Authority If you hold these Offences deprive him of all Ecclesiastical Power why not so of Kings and Magistrates and Parents and then you have spun a fair Thread c. R. B. Confusion
coram Ecclesia That the true Church of Christ hath no other Head than Christ himself no Vicarious Universal Head Pope nor Council That the Protestants profess themselves Members of no other Universal Church but that of which Christ only is the Head and all Christians at least not cast out are Members that this Christian Church hath been visible to God by real consent and visible to man by professed consent from the first being of it to this day And when they ask us Where was your Church before Luther we say where there were Christians before Luther Our Religion is nothing but simple Christianity We are oâ—… no Catholick Church but the Universality of Christians We know no other but lament that the pride of the Clergy growing up from Parochial to Diocesan and from Diocesan to Metropolitical and Patriarchal and thence to Papal hath invented any other and that the Serpent that tempted Eve hath drawn them from the Christian simplicity They deny not the successive visibility of Christianity and the Christian Church We desire no more we own we know no other Religion and no other Church But the Roman Artifice here comes in and when their HUMANE UNIVERSAL HEAD hath made the grand Schism of the Christian World hence they have learnt to make Christians of no Christians and no Christians of Christians as Pride and Ignorance serving this usurping interest please Their Doctors are not agreed whether any more be necessary explicitely to be believed to Salvation than that there is a God and that our works shall be rewarded without believing a word of Christ or the Gospel and whether they that believe not in Christ are Christians or whether being no Christians yet they are Members of the Christian Church And the greater part are here on the wider Latitudinarian side as you may see in Fr. S. Clara's Problemes Deus Nat. Grat. and in the words of this W. I. before answered And yet these charitable men conclude that two or three parts of the true Christian world Abassines Copties Syrians Iacobites Georgians Armenians Greeks Moscovites Protestants are all out of the Church of Christ though their own Fryars that have lived among some of them in the East profess that they are no Hereticks and are better Men than the Papists are and none worse of Life than the Roman Party And whence is this strange difference Why it is because that these are none of them subject to the Pope which it is supposed that those are that believe only that there is a God and a Reward But how is this their only explicite Faith if they must also believe that the Pope is the Vice-Christ And some of them tell you further that he that should so far believe his Ghostly Father the Priest as to hold that he is not bound to love God because the Priest tells him so is not only excusable but he meriteth by it So much more necessary to Salvation is it to love the Priest than to love God And yet after all this their own Leaders confess that it is no Article of their Faith that the Pope is Peter's Successour and that it is not by Revelation that the Church-Governours must be known as I have shewed out of Ri. Smyth Bishop of Calcedon and of England and in the fore-confuted Writings of W. I The things that I maintain are I. That the Protestants Religion and Church being only the Christian as such had an uninterrupted succession as such which the Papists deny not II. That the Papal Church as such cannot prove its constant visibility and succession Nay though it be their part to prove it we are ready to prove 1. That it is a Novelty 2. That it hath been often and notoriously interrupted and their Papacy hath not had any continued succession of Men truly Popes by their own Laws and Rules and in their own Account CHAP. I. The Confutation of W. J's Reply THE first regardable Passage in W. I's Reply is p. 53 54. Where he maintaineth that whatsoever hath been ever in the Church by Christ's institution is essential to the Church and nothing meerly Integral or Accidents Because I had omitted the word ever in the Confutation he taketh that as the Insufficiency of all that I said against him and challengeth me still to give an Instance of any Institution not essential to the Church of Christ that hath been ever in it But Reader is Perpetuity any proof of an Essential He was forced to confess that as other Societies so the Church hath Accidents but he faith no Accidents instituted have been ever in it It may be we shall have a Quibble here upon the sense of the word ever whether it was from Everlasting or from the Creation or before Christ's Incarnation or before his Resurrection or the forming of his Church by the Spirit in the Apostles But in Consistency with his own Cause which is That the Papacie hath been ever in the Church he must take up with this last sense Well Let us see what work these Men make and how they are taken in the Traps that they lay for others But first he shall have some confuting Instances 1. Every word of Christ's own Doctrine and Speeches recorded in the Gospel hath been ever in the Church and instituted by Christ but every word of Christ's own Doctrine and Speeches recorded in the Gospel is not essential to the Church Therefore every thing instituted by Christ that hath been ever in the Church is not essential to it If you say that it was not all written till after some years it was yet all in the Church even in the Minds of them that wrote it and the other Apostles and in their Preachings as is like If you say that all this is essential alas then if false Copies have lost us a word the Church is lost and those Churches that received not some words were Unchurched That Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate hath been ever in the Church's Creed and yet the Name of Pontius Pilate is not essential to Christianity 2. The Administring the Lord's Supper in both kinds Bread and Wine hath been ever in the Church and of Christ's own Institution Is this essential to the Church Perhaps some will have the impudence to say that it is not now in it because the Pope hath cast it out but it is now in all the rest of the Church And we might as well say the Papacie is not now in because other Churches do reject it 3. Prayer in a known Tongue was ever in the Church and of Christ's Institution and yet you think it not essential to it 4. The use of the second Commandment as such Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image c. was ever in the Church and yet you have left it out of the Decalogue 5. The Office of Deacons hath been ever in the Church since their Institution Act. 6. yet few think them essential to the
to him c. Answ. 1. Who can tell that Peter did preach his own Supremacy I prove he did not Because if he did it was as necessary to be believed or not If not he preached it not among things necessary If yea then had he so preached it that Text or some other would have mentioned it Peter or Paul or some Apostle would have express'd it on Record which they have not done yea have denyed it 2. Those that Paul preach'd to Act. 16. and other places address'd their Speech first to him But doth it follow that therefore he was Governour of all the Apostles How unhappy are great Conquerours that must fight many bloody Battels to win one Kingdom of another Mans in Comparison of the Pope who without a blow or a word of good reason can hope by such gross Sophismes as these to get the Monarchy of the whole Earth To my Instance of those converted by the English and Dutch in the Indies he bids me prove them to be instructed in the true Faith Answ. They that are instructed in the Baptismal Covenant the Creed and in general the truth of all the Sacred Scriptures and are devoted to God by the Baptismal Covenant and taught to conform their Desires to the Lord's-prayer and their Practice to the Decalogue to live soberly righteously and godly and in love to God and Man and in good works and hope of Heaven are instructed in the true Faith But such are they in question c. Do you so oft say that less than all the Creed is necessitate medii to be believed and many of you not so much as Christ himself and yet is not all that Protestants teach the true Faith O Impartiality Next to my Instance of the Abassian Empire he bids me also prove them to be Orthodox Catholick Christians Answ. 1. I must first know what you mean by Orthodox and Catholick which your ill faculty of expounding makes me despair of If by Orthodox you mean such as have no errours I cannot prove it but it 's shame for such erroneous Men as you to demand it But if you mean but such as hold all the Essentials of Christianity and much more the former Argument joyned with all just Testimonies of them such as you have in Damianus a Goes Alvarez Godignus c. prove it So if by Catholick you mean a Papist I cannot prove it but the eontrary But if you mean Parts of the Universal Church it 's proved as afore Note here what vafritious Men these are that save or â—…amn Empires to and fro as the interest of their arguing requireth When we prove that the rest of the Christian Church is twice or thrice as great as all the Papal Church then they tell us that Greeks Abassines c. are of their mind and they feign that the Greeks Armenians Abassines c. are all subject to the Pope and have submitted to him Godignus wrote to confute one of their own Writers that affirmeth the Abassines to be for the Pope But when their Cause bids them say otherwise then we are challenged to prove them Catholick Christians and Orthodox Had you put me to prove the Papists such you had put me harder to it Our next Point is of the Visibility of Christ as Head of the Church where he saith p. 65. He is most certainly an invisible Pastor both in Heaven and on Earth For though his Person may be seen there yet the Exercise of his Pastorship consisting only in spiritual Influences and internal Graces cannot be seen by any Corporal Eye whatsoever Therefore as a Pastor of the Militant Church he is wholly invisible so you put a visible Body without a visible Head all that is visible in the Pastoral Function being performed by visible Pastors and all that is invisible by our Saviour So you by a strange piece of Novelty constitute a visible Body without a visible Head you destroy the visible Church and frame a Monster Answ. What abundance of Heresies must I charge on such Men if I judged them according to their terms and rigour of judging 1. Christ as a visible Head of the Church is here denyed Whereas 1. It is not that he is Visus but Visibilis that we assert 2. And he was seen till about thirty three years of Age on Earrh He was seen to do Miracles suffer rise ascend 3. He was seen of Paul and Stephen after his Ascension 4. The poor scattered Flock on Earth is but a Handful to the Church Triumphant that see him still in Heaven and it is the same Body 5. He will come visible in Glory to Judgment 6. Every Believer after a few hasty hours passeth to the sight of him 7. And we shall all see him in Heaven for ever Compare this now with the Visibility of the greatest Earthly Monarchs who are never seen to the thousandth Person of their Empires and rarely to any but their Courtiers and some of them rarely to the most of them but to some very few and quickly die and are seen here no more And yet may not Christ be called a Visible Head And yet we say but that he is visible in tantum and not every-where nor to every one 2. But it is not his Person that he saith is invisible but worse than that it is the Exercise of his Pastorship which he erroneously that I say not heretically affirmeth to consist only in spiritual Influxes and internal Graces So that here 1. He denyeth all Christ's visible teaching and government while he was on Earth were his words to be strictly understood and all his Mission and Commissioning of his Apostles c. 2. He denyeth all the Sacred Scriptures which are Christ's visible Doctrine Laws and Promises and so the visible Exercise of his Office as the King's Laws are of his 3. He denyeth all Christ's visible Administrations by his Officers Princes and Pastors as if it were a good Argument that Christ doth it not because they do it whereas it is he that visibly ruleth as to the effect here questioned by them as it is the visible Government of the King which is exercised all abroad the Kingdom by his Command 4. He denyeth Christ's visible Mercies Provision Protection Deliverances of many sorts which are all parts of the Exercise of his Office 5. He denyeth all the visible Miracles which Christ hath wrought by others whilst yet their Church so boasteth of them as if they were their very Foundation as I shewed out of Knot against Chillingworth who ultimately resolveth their Faith into them and they would have us think that they are costant things If you say that Christ is not seen here I answer It is not Christ's Person now whose Visibility he speaks of but the Exercise of his Office 6. He denyeth all the visible punishments which Christ himself inflicteth on his sinning People and on his Enemies though they are many and notorious and as God is known by the
Churches from the beginning of the Christian Church nor was Rome it self so but ever since their beginnings they have been visible sometimes obeying the Pope and sometimes rejecting him the Abassines and several other Extra-imperial Churches never obeyed him The most of the Churches of the Empire the Eastern and African sometimes obeyed him as the chief in the Empire by the Laws of the Empire amd sometimes they cast him off when the Eastern Empire cast him off but they never obeyed him as the Soveraign Bishop of the whole World III. In the third sense of the word Congregation as it signifieth the Universal Church I confess that I can shew you no Universal Church now visible rejecting the Pope for the Universal leaveth out no part though a corrupt part and while Papists own him I cannot say that the Universal Church disowneth him but I can prove 1. That the Primitive Universal Church never owned any Universal Head or Governour but Christ and his twelve Apostles whose indefinite charge may be called Universal 2. That the Universal Church never owned the Roman Universal Soveraignty 3. That the far greatest part of the Church doth not own it at this day and therefore if the whole may be denominated from the major part we may say that now the Universal Church disowneth him And now Reader answer these like Sophisms and you have answered this man of Art 1. No Congregation of Christians hath been perpetually visible but that which acknowledgeth the Patriarchs in the Empire at least heretofore Ergo no other is the true Church of Christ. Answ. 1. But another is part and the best part of the Church of Christ. 2. And none that doth or ever did acknowledge those Patriarchs was the whole Church 3. And none of the Church acknowledged them at first before they were erected So 2. Inst. No Congregation of Christians hath been perpetually visible but that which condemneth the Monothelites the Nestorians the Eutychians the Audians the Luciferians the Quartodecimani c. Ergo no other is the true Church Answ. 1. Part of the Church condemn them and part never heard of them And before they rose none of the Church condemned them So another Instance is No Congregation of Christians hath been perpetually visible but that which Administreth the Eucharist only in one kind without the Cup and which useth publick Prayers in an unknown Tongue and which forbiddeth the reading the Scripture translated without special License c. Ergo no other is the true Church Answ. 1. Only a corrupt part now doth these The most discover it and none were guilty of it in many Generations Doth there need any other Answer to such palpable Sophismes His Argument plainly should run thus No Congregation of Christians hath been perpetually visible but that which now owneth the Trayterous Usurpation of the Pope and the Council of Trent and of Lateran and part of whose Religion is for exterminating or burning all that will not renounce all belief of Humane Senses in believing Transubstantiation and for casting out Princes that execute not this and absolving Subjects from their Oathes of Allegiance to them and which hath corrupted the Doctrine Worship and Government of Christ Ergo no other is the true Church Answ. A diseased part of the Church only is guilty of this now and the whole Church was far from it heretofore But pag. 83. he telleth me that he meaneth neither one present Assembly nor yet one as united in one visible Humane Head but abstracting from that also be it but truly and properly one whencesoever the Unity is drawn 't is all alike to the solution of the Argument Answ. Then sure our business is in a hopeful way if not as good as ended Remember this and fly not from it Our Unity is in Christ our Head One King maketh us one Kingdom All Christians are one Body of Christ. Yea moreover we are one in all the seven Points of Unity required by the Holy Ghost Eph. 4. viz. We have 1. One Body of Christ not of the Pope 2. One Spirit 3. One hope of our Calling viz. Eternal Glory 4 One Lord without a Vice-Christ 5. One Faith summarily in the Creed and integrally in the Holy Scriptures 6. One Baptisme or solemnised Baptismal Covenant 7. One God and Father of all who is above all and through all and in us all Yea as to the Integrals though our Grace hath various degrees we all receive the inspired Prophets Apostles and Evangelists Authority and Doctrine and the ordinary Pastors and Teachers that are sent by the Holy Ghost and called by the way which God hath appointed though we receive not an Usurper that maketh himself the Governour of the whole World in Title while he Governeth not the tenth part of it nor any according to God's Law and who is oft obtruded by Whores and Murders and is a wicked Slave of Satan so judged by his own General Councils We acknowledge that there are among us different Opinions but neither for Kind or Number comparable to the differences of the Papal Sectaries among themselves Not for Kind such as about Murder Adultery Perjury Lying False-witness yea about the Love of God it self are by the Iansenists charged on the Iesuits and proved out of their express words Nor such as Mr. Clarkson hath collected from the express words of their most famous Doctors of all Parties Nor such about King-killing dissolving Subjects Oathes c. as H. Fowlis hath gathered from the express words of your greatest Doctors And for Number all the Sects in the World of Christians set together have not half the Controversies and contentious Writings against each other as your Schoolmen and other Writers of your Church have For our parts we look not that our Union should be perfect till our wisdom and holiness and patience and we our selves be perfect They that know but in part will err in part and differ in part We believe that there are diversities of Gifts but the same Spirit and differences of Administrations but the same Lord and diversity of Operations but the same God who worketh all in all For as the Bedy is one and hath many Members and all the Members of that one Body being many are one Body so also is Christ For by one Spirit we are Baptised into one Body and have been all made to drink into one Spirit Thus are we the Body of Christ not of the Pope and Members in particular And God hath set some in this Body the Church first Apostles not first a Vice-Christ secondly Prophets thirdly Teachers but no Universal Vicar-Head All these are Members and should so live in love that there be no Schisme in the Body But pag. 84. the Man is not satisfied though I name them what I mean by These Churches united in one Christ. Answ. How should I make a Man know that is unwilling or how but by naming them by their Country and Profession I mean All the Christians of
Andrew cited by me elsewhere and many a Protestant that taketh Peter to have been among the Apostles as the Fore-man of a Jury to the rest would say the same words But he intimateth that the Pope is Peter's Successor True he so supposed him as a Bishop but not as an Apostle and therefore not in equality of Power And common reasâ—…n will interpret him in the common sense of all the Councils and those times viz. as having the first place in the Imperial Councils and being the chief of the Patriarchs in the Empire but not as being the Bishop of all the World There is no probability that this one Man extended his Power further than the Empire and so that he was a Papist and yet you have not proved one in 400 years and more But he saith had not the Council of Ephesus consented they would have contradicted one imposing a Superiour and a Iudge Answ. 1. They never took him for a Judge any further than as the first Patriarch had the first Seat and Vote 2. Cyril was there the first the Legates coming after the Decrees past 3. Cyril was glad of the consent of the West it being become too much of the cause of the day Whether Nestorius or he was the wiser Speaker and should prevail 4. What 's this to the Government of all the World Shew us when that Council subjected any without the Empire to the Pope or to themselves 5. Yea in the Empire he is blind that seeth not that Councils were above Popes and when the major Vote carried it they condemned Popes as well as others as they did Honorius and many since Pag. 90. You have another Instance of his saying and unsaying When I named the Churches of Ethiopia India the outer Armenia c. that were not under the Popes jurisdiction he faith I must mean that they were never under it for if they were under him in any Age and for any time since Christ you can never make them an instance of those who were perpetually in all Ages a visible Congregation of Christians not acknowledging the Popes Supremacy Ans. And yet this same man said before that he did not put me to prove that in all Ages they did not own the Pope but that they that own him not now had been a Church any other way truly united who can answer him that saith and unsaith and changeth his Cause as the occasion tempteth him I have oft told him 1. I prove that the extra-imperial Churches never were subject to the Pope unless when any of them by conquest fell under the Empire or on such an odd accident in some singular instance which I have enumerated in my Naked Popery 2. And that no Church in the whole World owned him as the Bishop of all the World for above 400 if not above 600 years 3. And that those that owned him not as Britain at the first and owned him after and disowned him again were still Christian Churches united in Christ. But the man is loth to understand and pag. 91. saith You mean all other extra-imperial Nations or some If all I find the quite contrary for the Gothes successively Inhabitants of Spain never acknowledged themselves Subjects of the Empire who yet are now subject to the Roman Bishop and consequently were and are sometime under him Ans. I have oft and plain enough told you my meaning This is very cautelously written 1. If the Gothes in Spain were not subject to the Empire the old Inhabitants were before the Gothes conquered them and the Gothes themselves when by Theodosius's leave they dwelt in Thrace and near it And though the Gothes became their Masters they did not exterminate all the Inhabitants who had been used to some subjection to the Pope 2. Yet how little Spain then depended on the Pope is known even by the current of all the Gothick Councils the Toletane Hispalense c. where their Kings called them and were oft present and made certain parts of their Canons and were over and over magnified and Canons made for their honour and security and the due election of Successors when there was not a word of subjection to the Pope 3. And you do well in affirming no more but that Spain is now and therefore sometime under the Pope that they are now so indeed their Inquisition witnesseth nor was it ever in my thoughts to deny it But what of that 〈◊〉 He addeth And the Swedes and Danes though now they reject all obedience to him yet in the year 1500 they acknowledged him c. Ans. Very true and what of all this no doubt but long before 1500 the Pope got possession of the Western Churches we doubt not of it But he tells me that to maintain my Cause I must shew that all the extra-imperial Churches were from under the Pope Ans. My Causâ—… is not of your stating but my own I maintain 1. That the Pope was never made the Bishop of all the World 2. And that the Primacy so much mentioned in the ancient Canons was only over or in the Imperial Churches and was a humane institution and that the Councils and Emperours never pretended to give or acknowledge any more Nor did the Councils themselves and all the Patriarchs pretend to any more nor dream of Governing all the World 3. That the Churches that were from the beginning without the Empire were none of them subject to the Pope for above 400 if not 500 or 600 years 4. That the Empire of Abassia and all the Eastern and Southern extra-imperial Churches Persia India c. were never under the Pope to this day save that the Portugâ—…ls and Spaniards have lately got some Footing in part of the Indies 5. That the whole Greek Church the Armenians Georgians Syrians Egyptians c. never were under the Pope as Pope that is as the Universal Bishop of all the World but only as the primate of the Empire 6. That even in that relation he was not properly the Governour of any of the Diocesses of the other Patriarchs nor the other distinct as Diocesses Carthage Iustinianâ—… c. but the prime Patriarch that had the first Seat in Councils which put in and out Bishops at their pleasure with the Emperours will even Patriarchs and all 7. That those that were under him for some time as Britain were divers of them from under him before and after And yet that the Reader may not mis-understand the matter and this mans importunity I must repeat the exceptions laid down in my Naked Popery pag. 106. 107. and tell him what I grant him 1. Some Cities that were near to Scythia and Persiâ—… had Bishops to whom some Neighbour Scythians and Persians might be voluntary Subjects 2. Some Cities and Countries were sometime under the Roman Power and sometimes under the Enemies Persians Parthians Armenians Gothes Vandales as Africa c. when they were of the Empire their Bishops came to Councils and when they were under Heathen
by voluntary subjection yet so are not the Churches which the rest of the Apostles planted without the Empire aâ—… those Apostles were not subject to St. Peter 6. And why do you so arrogantly accuse such vast Churches as Armâ—…nia Ethiopia India and all the rest of the Apostles planted besides Peter and Paul and take them all for Rebels and Schismaticks and yet bring no word of proof for your Accusations But the truth is Reynerius though he revolted from the 〈◊〉 of his times was an honester man than the Pope that shall thus be his Expositor and yet W. I is not the Pope and therefore I question his partial exposition Next I mentioned the Canon of the Council of Calcedon which saith that the Fathers in Council gave Rome the preheminence c. He replyeth that 1. The Greek word is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exhibited or deferred to Rome as ever before due to it by the right of the Apostolick See of St. Peter established there Ans. You are hard put to it when you have no better shift than so useless a Criticism 1. You know I suppose that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may have a signification as remote from doâ—…ation as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that your own common Translation is tribuere and I desire no more 2. Is here ever a word in the Canon that saith It was ever before due not a word 3. Is not the same word used of the giving of equal priviledges to Constantinople as â—…is of giving or deferring it to Rome the same word And did they mean that this belonged ever to Constantinople and that of Divine Right You dare not say so 4. Did they not say that by the same reason they judged that Constantinople should have equal priviledges because it was the Royal City And was this famous Council of which you boast as obeying Leo's Epistle so sottish and absurd as to argue thus because old Rome had the first Seat assigned to it on this account because it was the imperial Seat and that was because it was ever before its due as St Peter's Chair therefore we judge that by the same reason Constantinople should have equal priviledges because it is now new Rome the imperial Seat though it was never due to it before as the Seat of any Apostle O what cannot some men believe or seem to believe And how much doth it conern your Church to be the Expositor and Judge of the sense of all Councils as well as of God's Word He addeth that the Canon saith not that this was the sole reason Ans. 1 But the Canon saith This was the reason and assigneth no other 2. And if it made not it the great reason which the Church was to take for the fundamentum juris they would never have laid the Right of Constantinople on the same Foundation as by parity of reason The plain truth is but interest and partiality cannot endure plain truth he that will not be deceived by cited By-words of the Ancients must distinguish between the Titâ—…lus or fundamentum juris and the Ratio or Motives of the Statute or Constitution The first was the Law of Emperours and Councils This only giveth the Right The second was prevailingly and principally that which the Canon here assigneth that Rome was the great City and the imperial Seat but as a honorary Tittle adding to the Motive they say sometimes that it was the Seat of Peter and sometimes of Peter and Paul and sometime they mention Paul alone and cry as at Ephesus Magno Paulâ—… Cyrillo Magne Paulo Celestino But note that they give often the same reason for the Patriarchal honour of Antioch that it was Sedes Petri and therefore never took this to be either the Foundation of the Right or the chief determining Motive of the Constitution He addeth that else it had been a contradiction when the Fathers say that Dioscorus had extended his Felony against him to whom our Saviour had committed the charge and care of his Vineyard that is of the whole Catholick Church Ans. 1. No doubt but they acknowledged that Christ committed the care of his Vineyard to Peter and every one of the Apostles and to all Bishops as their Successors though not in Apostleship and they acknowledged Rome the primate in the Empire and when Dioscor us undertook to excommunicate Leo they supposed that he transgressed the Laws of the imperial Church and therefore Anatolius in the Council when the Indices said that Dioscor us condemned Flavian for saying Christ had two Natures answered That Dioscorus was not condemned propter fidem but for excommunicating Leo and for not appearing when he was sent for 2. Is here any word that saith that the Pope was Soveraign of all the Earth Doth not the Council in that very Letter to Leo say that the Emperour had called the Council not ascribing it to any Authority of the Pope And also that the saying Mat. 28 Go teach all Nations c. was delivered to them which is the care of the vineyard and not only to the Pope Quam nobis olim ipse salvator tradidit ad salutem But saith W. I. The true reason why this Canon mentioneth rather the Imperial Authority of that City than the right from St. Peter was because it suited better with the pretensions of Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople and his Complices for the elevaton of that Sea than any other for they had no other c. Ans. It 's true But did Anatolias and his Complices that is the Council speak sincerely and truly here or falsly If truly that 's all that I cite them for If falsly as worldly unconscionable men that were setting up themselves why hoast we of General Councils even of this and of their words to Leo How can we tell when to trust them and whether they that subscribed against Flavian at Ephes. 2. and after cryed omnes peccavimus at Calcedon when they were under a Martian and not Theodosius would not have acquit Dioscorus and condemned Leo and Elavian again if another Theodosius had come But if they were credible believe them But he tells us that a Law of Theodosius and Valentine put both reasons together c. Ans. I told you in what sense even now even as they put the name of Peters Seat as a reason of the honour of Antioch a honorary motive to their Law And he here confesseth himself That Alexander and Antioch had the second and third places because they were the second and third great Cities of the Empire But he saith that St. Peter thought it convenient that the highest spiritual Authority should be placed in that City which had the highest temporal power Ans. Say you so 1. Where is that Canon of St. Peter's to be found and proved 2. If so then why is not this Canon produced for the regulating of all other Churches Why doth Canterbury take place of London
de Pontifice Romano and others that so speak c. is a vain digression not worthy an answer nor the rest I will here briefly recite some undeniable Reasons which I have given pag. 100 c. of my Naked Popery to prove what we have been all this while upon 1. That the Papal Power was not held to be jure divino but humano 1. It stood by the same right as did the other Patriarchs but it was jure humano 2. The Africans Aurelius Augustine c. of the Carthage Council enquired not of Gods Word but of the Nicene Canons to be resolved of the Papal Power 3. The whole Greek Church heretofore and to this day is of that Judgment for they first equalled and after preferred Constantinople which never pretended to a Divine Right but they were not so blind as to equal or prefer a humane right before a Divine 4. The fore-cited Ca. 28. of the Council of Calcedon expresly resolves it 5. Their own Bishop Smith confesseth that it is not de fide that the Pope is St. Peters Successor jure divino II. The Roman Primacy was over but one Empire besides all the Reasons fore-going I added That the Bishop of Constantinople when he stood for to be Universal Bishop yet claimed no more therefore no more was then in contest but Power in the Empire III. That Councils then were called General in respect only to the Empire I proved by ten Arguments p. 104. 105. adding five exceptions Page 114. he had put a Verse under the name of Pope Leo with a Testimony c. I shewed that there was no such and he confesseth the Errour but he supposeth a confident Friend of his put it into his Papers and now saith the Verse was Prosper's and some words to the like purpose are Leo's de Nat. Pet. Prosper he saith is somewhat ancienter than Leo and less to be excepted against Ans. 1. He was Leo's Servant even his Secretary as Vossius and Rivet have shewed and so his Words and Leo's are as one's 2. It is in a Poem where liberty of phrase is ordinarily taken 3. No wonder if Caput Mundo be found in a Poet either as it is spoken de Mundo Romano or as Caput signifieth the most excellent great and honourable And so Rome it self is oft called by Historians Caput Mundi before and since Christianity entered it And it may well be said that this was Pastoralis Honoris though not ex Pastorali Regimine Universali For one Bishop was a Caput or chief to others Pastorali Honore that was not their Governour as the chief Earl or chief Judge among us is to the inferiours 3. And the Pope did Nihil possidere armis 4. And Tenere and Regere be not all one He may be said thus Tenere in that the Religion which he professed had possession of more than the Roman Empire and he was the Chief Bishop in honour of that profession The sense seemeth to be but this As great a honour as it is to be the Bishop of the Imperial City of a Conquering Empire it is a greater to be the Prime Bishop of that Christian Religion which extendeth further than the Roman Conquests He citeth a sentence as to the same sence out of Prosper de Vocat Gent. l. 2. c. 6. viz. That the Principality of the Apostolick Priesthood hath made Rome greater through the Tribunal of Religion than through that of the Empire Which I take to be the true sence of the Poet but to be greater by Religion than Empire is no more to be Ruler of the World than if I had said so of Melchizedeck that he was greater as he was Priest of the most high God than as he was King of Salem But there is in the cited place of Prosper none of these words nor any about any such matter at all but there is somewhat like it in cap. 16. which indeed is expository Ad cujus rei effectum credimus providentia Dei Romani regni latitudinem praeparatam ut Nationes vocandae ad Unitatem Corporis Christi prius jure unius consociarentur imperii quamvis gratia Christiana non contenta sit eosdem limites habere quos Roma multosque jam populos sceptro Crucis Christi illa subdiderit quos armis suis ista non domuit Quae tamen per Apostolici sacerdotii principatum amplior facta est arce Religionis quam solio potestatis All this we acknowledge that Prosper then said about 466 years after Christ being Pope Leo's Secretary and seeing the Church in its greatest outward Glory The Unity of the Empire prepared for the greatness of the Church and those that were United in one Empire were United after in one Religion and yet the Gospel went further than the Empire and Rome it self became more honourable in being the seat of the most honourable Christian Bishop whose Religion extended further than the Empire than in being the Imperial Seat of Power The words which he citeth of Leo I made the lightest of because he was a Pope himself and pleaded his own cause more highly than any of his Predecessors and lived so late but yet the words do not serve the Papists turn for he at large sheweth that his meaning was that Rome which was domina mundi before it waâ—… Christian and yet not the Ruler of the World was prepared to be the Seat of Peter and Paul that even the outer Nations by their Neighbourhood to the Empire might be capable of the Gospel which is a certain Truth Ut hujus inenarrabilis gratiae per totum mundum diffunderetur effectus Romanum regnum divina providentia praeparavit cujus ad eos limites incrementa perducta sunt quibus cunctarum undique gentium vicina contigua esset universitas Disposito namq divinitatis operi maxime congruebat ut multa regna uno confâ—…derarentur imperio cito pervios haberet populos praedicatio generalis quos unius teneret regimen civitatis Nec mundi dominam times Romam qui in Caiphae domo expaveras sacerdotis ancillam And mentioning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Rome he saith ut cos in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 caput est Christus quasi geminum constituerit lumen oculorum de quorum meritis atque viâ—…tutibus que omnem loquendi superant facultatem nihil diversum nihil debemus sentire discretum quia illos electio pares labor similes finis fecit aequales And in the next Sermon expounding super hanc petram thus saith super hanc inquit 〈◊〉 â—…ternum extruam templum ecclesiae meae caelo inserenda sublimitas in hujus fidei firmitate consurget Hanc confessionem portae Inferi non tenebunt c. And of Tibi dabo claves Transivit quidâ—…m in Apostolos alios vis illius potestatis sed non frustra uni commendatur quod omnibus intimetur Petro enim singulariter hoc creditur quia cunctis ecclesiae rectoribus Petri forma proponitur Manet
Virgin Mary and yet you take it for a controversie c. are these as sufficiently proposed as that there is a God or Christ 3. When Petavius citeth the words of most of the Doctors or Fathers that wrote before the Council of Nice and of Eusebius himself that was of the Council and subscribed it as being for Arrianisme or dangerously favouring it did all these Fathers think that the proposal of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was as sufficient as of a God or Christ. § 15. He taketh upon him to clear his Argument by two deluding instances which suppose an equality in the revelation But he that knoweth not 1 that it was long before all the Canonical books were equally known to be Gods word 2. And that yet it is not equally certain what Councils are true and what Traditions 3. And that there is great difference between one Text of Scripture and another in intelligible places else why do their Expositions so disagree yea of Councils too 4. And that the Hereticks have still pleaded Scripture and Tradition and Councils as well as the Orthodox as the Eutychians c. did the Council of Nice all equally professing to believe Scripture Tradition and true Councils but not equally understanding them I say he that knoweth not all this knoweth not the matters of Fact which should be known in this Dispute But how he will excuse the Papists from Heresie by his Reasoning I know not e. g. Christ Instituting his Supper saith equally 1. This is my Body and This is the New Testament 2. And equally saith Take Eat and Drink this The Papists 1. Do not believe that literally this Cup is the New Testament though equally said 2. Nor do they believe that they must Drink of it though equally Commanded Ergo by W. I's Arguing The Papists believe not that the Bread is literally Christs Body or that it must be Eaten because of Christs Truth or Authority that spake it else they would have believed both § 16. He addeth a Supposition like the rest that a Calvinist is assured that the Pope is not the Antichrist by the same Authority which he acknowledgeth to be the sufficient proposer of the Articles of his Faith And yet here may lie one of his usual Equivocations The Authority of the Author and prime Revealer of the Gospel is one and the Authority of the prime Instrumental Revealers is another The first is Gods the second is the Prophets and Apostles Tell us where either of these say that the Pope it not Antichrist But the Authority of a distant Messenger and Teacher is of a third rank A Drunken or Fornicating Priest may be such a Messenger or Teacher and may give an Infidel those Reasons of the Faith which by Gods Blessing may bring him to Believe And it is possible such a Priest and a Synod of such may say that the Pope is not Antichrist and another Synod may say he is § 17. I came next to Answer a question of his own Whether I take the Church of Rome and the Protestants to be one Church I Answered that They have two Heads and We but one As they are meer Christians united in Christ they are one Church with us as Papists united in the Pope they are not And if any so hold the Papacy as not really to hold Christianity those are not of the Christian Church with us otherwise they are though a Corrupt Diseased Erroneous part To this he saith who ever called a King and his Viceroy a Captain and Lieutenant two Heads The Pope is a dependent Officer Answ. 1. But if you distinguish between a Visible Head and an Invisible and say that the Pope only is the Visible Head of the Church as Visible and that Christ is only the Invisible Head by Influx and that it were a Monstrous Body if it had not such a Visible Head as you do 2. And if this Visible Head be an Usurpation never owned by Christ then I have reason to distinguish the Policy which is of Gods making from that which is an Usurpation and of Mens relations accordingly If any King should say I am a Vice-God or Gods Viceroy to Govern all the Earth â—…nd that by Gods Appointment and none can be saved that Obey me not I would distinguish between the World or particular Persons as Gods Subjects and as this Vice-Gods Subjects § 18. But he saith Is it possible for two Persons to be Papists and one to destroy his Christianity and the other not Answ. Yes very possible and common That is one holdeth those Errors which by consequence subvert some Article of the Christian Faith but as to the Words not understood or not understanding the consequences or only speculatively and at the same time holdeth the subverted Articles not discerning the contradiction fastly and practically another doth the contrary Even as a Monothelite or a Nestorian or Eutychian may either be one that only as to the Words or superficially erreth and in sence or practically holds the Truth or one that is contrary This should seem no strange thing to you for even a Man that professeth only Christianity may do it but Nomine tenus not understanding it or superficially and not practically and be no true Christian indeed § 19. When I exprest my hope that even he and I as Christians are of one Church he will not believe it 1. Because I am of a Church by my self neither of theirs nor any other part 2. Because I have no Faith Answ. It seems then that meer Christianity is no Faith and that there are none of the meer Christian Church but I. But who will believe the latter and when will he prove either An Answer to W. J's Seventh CHAPTER § 1. TO his Question Why we separated from them I Answered that as they are Christians we separate not from them As Papists we were never of them but our Fore-fathers thought Repentance of Sin to be no Sin If by Popery they separate from Christianity they are damnable Separatists if they do not we are of the same Church whether they will or not 〈◊〉 To this he saith That We separate from them as much as the Pelagians Donatists Acacians Luciferians Nestorians and Eutychians did from the Church Answ. 1. The Doctrinal Errors and the Separation are of different consideration The Pelagians Erred as some Dominicans say the Iesuites do The Donatists like the Papists appropriated the Church to their own Bishops and Party we do none of this Lucifer Calaritanus was too Zealous against the Arrians not communicating with them upon so short Repentance as others did But they went not so far as Crab saith the Roman Council in Sylvester's dayâ—… did that Received no Repentance before forty Years Nor so far as the honest Elebertine Council in the number of Years of Mens exclusion from the Communion I take Lucifer for Erroneous and Schismatical but not comparable to the Papists who err far more and yet separate from most of the
shall be saved that holdeth all the Essentials of Christianity truly and practically 5. I have proved that your Definitions absolve more from 〈◊〉 and Schism than I do But it 's here to be noted That this Man maketh multitudes to be under the Papal Head that are no Subjects of Christ our Head and so that the Pope hath a Church of his own that is none of Christs Church § 7. I Noted That either their Church hath defined that 〈◊〉 and Sâ—…hismaticks are no parts of the Church or not If not how can he stand to it and impose it on me If they have then their Doctors that say the contrary named by Bellarmine are all 〈◊〉 themselves He saith None of ours ever held them parts as you do that is united to Christ by Faith and Charity Answ. Is not this Man hard put to it All this while he hath been Disputing us and all called by their Usurping censure Hereticks out of the Church Visible and calling on me to prove the perpetuity of our Church Visible and telling me that without a more Visible Head than Christ it is not Visible And yet now it is but the Invisible Church as Headed by Christ and endowed with true Faith and Charity which these Doctors of theirs exclude Hereticks and Schismaticks from § 8. I said Arrians are no Christians denying Christs Essence He replyeth True and so do all Hâ—…reticks I Answer If indeed they did so not only in words not understood but in the undâ—…tood sence so that this is really their belief and really Exclusive of the contrary Truth I place no such Hereticks in the Church He proveth his charge thus Whosoever denyeth Christs most Infallible Veracity and Divine Authority denyeth somewhat Essential to Christ but so doth every Heretick properly called Answ. Away with such Hereticks as do so indeed For the Minor he cometh to the old obscurity Whosoever denyeth that to be true which is sufficiently propounded to him to be Revealed by Christ denyeth Christs Verity and Divine Authority but so doth every Heretick Answ. I have oft enough shewed 1. That the Argument is useless because no Man can judge of the Sufficiency of Proposals till they come to very high degrees as to the capacities of other Men. 2. That the Major is false For a Man that doubteth not of Christs Verity and Authority may not understand and so may deny many Truths sufficiently propounded hindering the understanding of them by sloth senfuality partiality prejudice or other faults Can any Man doubt of this 3. That his Minor also is false He may be a Heretick that denyeth that which is not sufficiently proposed if his own crime either blinding his mind or forfeiting better proposals cause the insufficiency § 9. I noted how they charge one another with Pelagianisme And he saith Not in the point of Original Sin Answ. And is all the rest come now to be no Heresie Was it for nothing else that they were judged Hereticks The rest should have as fair play if your interest were but as much for it § 10. But saith he Who ever before you said that the Catholick-Church could be divided it self when it is a most perfect unity A grand novelty of yours Answ. This is because I said that some make divisions in the Church that divide not from it much less from the whole I proved before that in this sense Paul usually speaketh against Schisme or Divisions As when he tells the Corinthians of the divisions among them c. But this man would make Scripture and common sense and reason to be grand novelties may there not be divisions in a House in a Kingdom in an Army in a particular Congregation as that at Corinth and that after which Clement wrote his Epistle to heal Have there not been abundance of such at Alexandria Antioch Constantinople was there no Division in the Church of Rome when part cleaved to one Pope and part to another for above forty years Did the Councils of Constance and Basil meet to heal their Schismes upon mistake when there was no such thing And do all their Historians erroneously number their Schisms Reader pardon my oft answering such bold abuses These are their arguers that hope to subvert England § 11. And his reason is such as would shew him a Catharist viz. The Church is a most perfect Unity If so than all grace is perfect which is necessary to perfect unity Then the Popes and Anti-Popes the warring Papalines and Imperialists the Iesuites Dominicans and Iansinists are all at perfect Unity Then there is no disagreement of Judgement Will or Practice among any Papists in the world no Volumes written against other Alas how far are such words from proving it or from ending their present Controversies or Wars Watson and Preston had scarce perfect unity with Father Parsons and the Iesuites Doth perfect unity draw all the blood between France and the house of Austria or in France between King Hen. â—…d and the Leaguers It is enough for me to believe that all true Christians have a true unity in Christ with each as his members but that this Unity among themselves is sadly imperfect and so was when they had all the contentions in many General Councils and when the people have oft fought it out to blood about Religion and the choice of Bishops at Alexandria Rome c. Is this perfection It is in heaven that we hope for perfect unity where all is perfect § 12. I told him Heresie being a personal crime the Nations cannot be charged with it Without better proofs He saith if he hath 1. the testimony of one of our Writers Answ. Alas poor Kingdoms of Christians that can be proved Hereticks if Pet. Heylin or any one of our Writers do but say it 2. He tells a story of Prestor Iohn sending to Rome for instruction Answ. Confuted so oft and by their own Writers that it 's a shame to repeat it Nor doth that prove them so much as Papists much less Hereticks 3. That their Canon of the Mass proveth them Eutychians in that they name the three former Councils and not that of Calcedon Answ. Small proof will serve the turn with such willing men What if Dioscorus made them believe that That Council did condemn the doctrine of Cyril which he verily thought was the same which he defended and rejected the Nicene Creed which he appealed to and that they divided Christ Might not the consent of the neighbour Egyptian Bishops put them out of conceit with that Council though they owned no Heresie Do not your Writers now ordinarily quit them of such Heresie Do they that disown the Councils of Constance or Basil own all the Errors or Schismes which They condemned You justifie the Abassines when you tell men that your calumnies have no better show of truth § 13. Erasmus laments the Age when it became a matter of the highest wit and subtilty to be a Christian. This seemeth about Cyrils dayes when
France and Germany To which I say 1. That none but Rome much medled in the Empire after their Conquest Nor Rome much in comparison of Alexandria Constantinople and Antioch 2. I easily confess that those Churches within the Empire had been settled in their several powers by the Councils at Nice and Const. did plead the same Canonical Settlement to keep their possession when they were conquered And that e. g. Rome under Theodorick and other Arrians was willing to keep their Relation to the Orthodox Churches of the Empire for their strength And Neighbours that were under Heathens or Arrians were glad of a little countenance from Councils of great Bishops in the Empire as Basil and the Easternes under Valens were from the West without Subjection to the Pope § 33. Pag. 116. After some trifling Quibbles he Answereth my Charge That their Church is not one but two having at times two Heads The Pope to some and a Council to others To this he saith 1. That this belongs to them that take Councils to be above the Pope and not to him who is of a contrary Opinion Answ. It is to your Party in general I did not say that W. I. was two Churches but that those called Papists are so 2. He saith That they also can answer me with a wet finger for the Pope is in the Council and not excluded Answ. Such wet-fingerd Answers serve to deceive the Ignorant The Question is not of the Popes Natural Person but of his Political Two summa potestates make two Polities The Pope in a General Council is not the summae potestas if a Council be above him and may Judge and Depose him To be a Member of a Council that hath the Sovereignty is not to have the Sovereignty Did you not know this § 34. I urged him as his proper work to answer these Questions Whether the Church of which the Subjects of the Pope are Members hath been Visible ever since Christ's days on Earth And therein 1. Whether the Papacy that is their Universal Papal Government over all the Earth hath so long continued 2. Whether all the Catholick Church did still submit to it 3. Whether those that did submit to it took it to be necessary to the Being of the Church and Mens Salvation or only to the more Orderly and Better being But he would not be driven to touch at any of these or prove the perpetual Visibility of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over my last 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over many of his Imâ—… 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 that I refer him but to the pâ—…sing of the Histories which 〈◊〉 coâ—…th with the General Answers which I have before given And he will find 1. That the Pope was but a National Primate 2. And that by Humane Institution 3. And under a General Council 4. Striving upon every Advantage to be greater 5. Under the power of Princes 6. And when he lost his power over all the other four Patriarchs the West falling from the Empire he sought to bring the Western Princes under him and claimed a Government over all the World The Third Part A Defence of my Arguments to prove That the Church of which the Protestants are members hath been visible ever since the daies of Christ on Earth § 1. I Began with an Explication of the termes but this Disputer saith that this is of no concern to his Argument nor much to my answer Answ. It pleaseth not those that are all darkness such Explications as you gave me are indeed of little Use. 1. He saith I make Believers and true Christians Synonyma's whereas one may be a Believer as an unbaptized Catechumene but is not a Christian till baptized Answ. As a Pope once told one how little wit in a place of power would serve to govern the world so I see by this man How little Reason will serve to set up a Iesuite for an â—…nanswerable disputant among the ignorant The word Christian as well as Believer signifieth 1. A heart-consenter to the Baptismal Covenant 2. Or a Professor of that consent And 1. Regularly by Baptism 2. Or without it when it cannot be â—…ad 1. As soon as a man Believeth and Consenteth he is a Christian before God 2. As soon as he solemnly professeth it he is an incompleat Christian before men 3. As soon as he professeth it in Baptism he is orderly and regularly a Christian before the Church Even as two secretly maâ—…rying are marryed before God and when they publish their mutual Consent and Covenant as suppose it were where a priest is not to be had they are irregularly married before men but solemn Matrimony maketh it a Legal Marriage in fore And this distinction holds of the word Beleiver as well as of Christian A Beleiver a Disciple and a Christian were Synonyma's before Popery was born § 2. Next he saith that my words Subject to Christ their Head are equivocal Because Subject may signifie but inferior and Head but a principal member Answ. What is not equivocal to a Jesuite 1. Did I not put this first The Church is the Kingdom of Iesus Christ 2. When I said It is the whole company of Believers subject to Christ their head are not the words significative enough of a governing Head And did I not adde the constitutive parts are Christ and Christians as the pars imperans subdita are there more notifying words in use If there are tell'them me if you can or was not this a cavil that had more of Will and Interest than of Conscience § 3. I said Protestants are Christians protesting against and disallowing Popery To this he cavils 1. That the name had another original 2. That the Greeks Arrians Antitrinitarians Socinians Hussites Anabaptists Familists Millenaries Quakers are not Protestants Answ. 1. Did I undertake to tell you the first Rise of the name or only to tell whom I mean in my dispute If I had the German protestation immediately against a particular Edict was principally and finally against Popery and in that sence is the name continued But it is not the Name but the Church and Religion that I dispute of You know that the Name Reformed Catholick Christians pleaseth us better than the Name of Protestants Were not Christians after they were first called so at Antioch of the same Religion as before when they were called but Disciples and Believers yea and Nazarens by their adversaries 2. Who would have thought that you had taken Arrians Antitrinitarians Socinians or any that deny an Essential part of Christianity for true Christians Did you not here oft profess the contrary and those that are no Christians are not in my definition those that are Christians as Greeks Millenaries and Hussites and most Anabaptists with us are Protestants but not meer Protestants they have somewhâ—…t more and worse which giveth them another name but if Christians protesting against Popery they are of the same Church universal as we are § 4. When I call Popery
the Arrians yea and of Marcian Leo Zeno Anastaslus Iustine almost all the Churches of the Empire continued charging each others with Heresie and Councils charging and condemning Councils Bishops deposing and cursing Bishops and Monks as their Souldiers fighting it out to blood when the obeying or cursing the Council of Calcedon divided the Bishops for many Princes reigns and when one part called the other Nestorians and the other called them Eutychians almost every where and when after that the Monothelites cause was in many Emperors Reign uppermost one while and down another and navicula Petri that alone scaped before was thus drowned by Honorius if Councils belie him not and Popes with the rest When the very same Bishops as at Ephesus and Calcedon went one way in one Council and another way in the next and subscribed to one Edict e. g. of Basiliscus and quickly to the contrary of another and cryed 〈◊〉 we did it through fear How should we then know by Fathers Bishops and Councils what was their concordant Commentary of the Scripture 4. I ask you what exposition of the Universal Church is it that we profess to differ from for our novelties name them if you can Either by the Universal Church you mean properly all Christians or most If All alas when and where shall we find their agreement in any more than we hold with them If most do we not know that the most two parts to one are against the Popes Sovereignty which is Essential to your Church Do not the Greeks once a year excommunicate or curse you To tell us now That above two parts of the Christian world are none of the Church because they differ from the Universal Church and that the third part is that Universal which he that believeth not is no Christian are words that deserve indignation and not belief and without the medium of Swords and Flames and tormenting inquisitions on one side and great Bishopricks and Abbies Wealth Ease and Domination on the other had long ago been scorned out of the Christian world § 10. But he also denyeth that we believe with a saving divine faith any of the said mysteries and that our Profession general and particular affirmeth it Answ. It 's like the Devil the Accuser of the brethren will deny it too of our Hearts we will not enter a dispute of our Professions let our books be witnesses Reader canst thou believe that we profess not to believe any Christian verity with a Divine faith yea but the man meaneth that it is not a Divine faith if it be not from the beleif of the Pope and his Party And how then shall we believe the Popes own authority § 11. II. My ad Argument to prove that we hold all the Essentials of Christianity was Those that profess as much and much more of the Christian Faith and Religion as the Catechumens were ordinarily taught in the ancient Churches and the Competentes at Baptisme did profess do profess the true Christian Religion in all it's Essentials but so do the Protestants c. To this he calls for Form again as if here were no Universal and then denyeth the Major but his words shew that indeed it is the Minor Because the Catechumens professed to believe implicitly all that was taught as matter of Faith by the Catholick Church in that Article I believe the Holy Church which the Protestants do not Answ. An unproved fiction on both parts 1. Shew us in Fathers Councils or any true Church-Records that Catechumens were then used to make any other exposition of those words than we do Did they ever profess that a Pope or a General Council cannot erre de fide did they not call many of those Councils General though violent and erroneous which they cursed The great doubt then was which party was the true Church and Christians then judged not of Faith by the Church-men but of the Church by the Faith else they had not so oft rejected and Hereticated many Popes Patriarches and the farre greater part of the Bishops as they did 2. And Protestants deny no article which ab omnibus ubique et semper as Lerinens speaks was accounted necessary to â—…ation yea it is one reason why they cannot be Papists because most of the Catholick Church are against the Papacy and all were against it or without it for many hundred Years after Christ. Let the Reader peruse Cyril Hieros Catech. August and all others that give us an account of the Churches Catechism and see whether he can find in it I believe that the Bishop of Rome is made by Christ the Governour of all the World and is Infallible in himself or with his Council and that we must believe all that they say is the Word of God because they say it or else we cannot be saved But it is an easie way to become the Lords of all the World if they can perswade all Men to believe that none but their Subjects can be saved 3. And what an useless thing to they make Gods Word that they may set up their own Expositions in its stead We know that the Word supposeth that the Ignorant must have Teachers Without Teaching Children cannot so much as learn to Speak And Oportet discentem credere fide humanâ that is he must suppose his Teacher wiser than himself or else how can he judge him fit to Teach him But what is Teaching but Teaching the Learner to know the same things that the Teacher doth by the same Evidence Is it only to know what the Teacher holdeth without knowing why If so must we know it by Word or Writing If by Word only when and where shall every Man and Woman come to be Catechized by the Universal Church That is by all the Christian World Or is every Priest the Universal Church Or is he Infallible And how come Words spoken to be more intelligible than words written Doth writing make them unintelligible Why then are their Councils and Commentaries written But if Writing will serve why not God's writing as well as theirs If God say Thou shalt Love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart Are not these words intelligible till a Pope Expound them When the Pope permitted his Casuists to expound them so as that Loving God once a Moneth or once a Year will serve for Salvation and that Attrition which is Repeating only out of Fear with the Sacrament of Penance will also serve Cannot a Man be saved that Believeth Repenteth and Loveth God upon the bare Commands of God and Scripture without hearing what all the Christian World or Councils say If I make to my self no Graven Image so as to bow down and Worship towards it by virtue of the second Commandment will this damn me because I receive not the Papists obliteration or contradiction of this Commandment as an Exposition If all the Docrees of Councils be as necessary as the Creed and Scripture why were not the Councils read in the
cause which they did not § 28. My 3d. proof was this The Tradition witnessed by the greater part of the Universal Church saith that the Papal Vicarship or Sovereignty is an innovation and usurpation and that the Catholick Church was many hundred years without it Therefore there was then no such Papat Church Here the man is angry and saith It is an abominable untruth set down by a fore-head of brass A man in his right wits would not have the confidence to utter so loud a falshood and all the world will see that I am one of the most unsufferablest out-facers of Truth and asserters of open Falshood that ever set pen to paper yea it brings in the talk of Rebellion against his Majesty c. Answ. The apprehensions of men are very different when reading it's like the same books leaveth me past doubt on one side and him so vehemently confident on the other My proof is this 1. The greatest part of the Universal Church doth now deny the Papal Universal Sovereignty 2. The greatest part of the Universal Church do suppose and say that they hold herein to the ancient truth which was delivered down from the Apostles 3. Therefore the greatest part of the Universal Church do hold that the ancient truth delivered from the Apostles doth teach them to deny the Popes Universal Sovereignty and consequently that it is an innovation and usurpation I. As to the first it is a matter of present fact such as whether most of England speak English 1. That the great Empire of Abassia renounce the Pope and plead tradition for it Godignus the Jesuite besides others fully testifieth and justifieth Pet. Maffeius Ribade Nica and other Jesuites against 〈◊〉 new author that falsly saith they were subject to the Pope He tells us that they take the Romans for Nestorian Hereticks p. 318. 328. c. and that they resolved never to be subject to the Pope that he that told them otherwise misinformed them yea saith one of the Jesuites pag. 330. I think the Emperour had rather be under the hardest yoak of the Saracens than under the mild and gentle Empire of the Roman Pope It 's true that many errors they have and many more are charged on them which they deny and believing that Dioscorus was the true follower of Cyril and the Council of Ephes. and that Leo and the Council of Calcedon were Nestorians of which more anon they are for Dioscorus against Leo and the Council But few if any of them understand the bottom of that controversie And the Emperor told the Jesuite that he falsly charged errors on them and his mother saith seeing your Faith and ours do nothing differ but are the same why do you write to trouble quiet minds without cause The Jesuite answereth I certainly affirm to your Majesty that if you had no other Errors this one that you are separated from the Pope of Rome the Vicar of Christ on Earth is enough and too much to your everlasting destruction II. To this she replyed that she and her Countrey were subject to the Apostles Peter and Paul and first to Christ himself The Jesuite answered I deny that they are subject to Christ that are not subject to his Vicar Saith she neither I nor mine deny obedience to St. Peter we are now in the same Faith that we were in from the beginning If that were not right why for so many Ages and Generations was there no man found that would warn us of our error He answered The Pope of Rome that is the Pastor of the whole Church of Christ could not in the years past send Teaâ—…hers into Abassia c She answered To change the old Customs and Rites and receive new ones is a matter full of danger and offence He answered that their Faith was old and had nothing new c. p. 323 324 325. The Emperor also spake to the like purpose p. 319. 320 321. So that it is confessed by the Jesuites and best information from Abassia 1. That they abhorre or refuse the Papal Government 2. And that for this they plead Tradition and Antiquity And the same is notorious of the Greek Armenian and other Oriental Churches How large they were in the East when Iacobus de Vitriaco was there I have formerly shewed out of his words who saith that those Eastern Christians were more than either the Greek or Latin Church and as the Greeks anathematize the Pope every year so the rest are known to reject him To say that these are Hereticks and not the Church is but to beg the question and fitter for contempt than an answer That all such rejecters of the Papacy are the farre greatest part of professed Christians is past doubt 2. And that Greeks Armenians c. plead Tradition and the judgment and custome of their fore-fathers for what they hold is so farre past question that I will not vainly wast time in citing authors to prove it Even the Papists confess it when they tell us that these Churches joyn with them in pleading for tradition Is not then the consequence clear which W. I. is so angry at I know not what can be said against it unless that both the Greeks and Protestants do confess that once they were under the Pope but the Greeks say that they were never under him as a Governour of the whole Christian world set up by God but as the Primate of one Empire set up by man upon such reasons the Seat of the Empire as are alterable as well as unnecessary I have proved this fully before 1. From the words of the Council of Calcedon 2. From their equalling and after preferring the Patriarch of Constantinople who pretended not to a Divine Right and that as over all the world and they were not so blind as to set up a humane Law above that which they believed to be divine many other proofs I gave And even the Protestants hold that in rejecting the Papacy they follow the Tradition of the Church of Christ however some Countreys where they live and their progenitors fell under the Papal errour or terrour There are some late Papists that think that what is held in this age was certainly held in the former and that no Countreys Tradition can be false Which is contrary to all experience But if other Countreys Tradition may be false so may the Roman Niceph. saith of the Armenians They do these things from Tradition which resteth on no Reason and their ancient Legislators and Doctors do calumniously boast that Gregory the Bishop of great Armenia delivered them by hands c l. 18. c. 54. And the Abassians that received the Gospel from the Eunuch and St. Matthew being before too much addicted to some Jewish ceremonies and never cured of them retain them as by Tradition to this day And it is known how Tradition differed about Easter-day and the Millenaries opinion By all this it is evident that most of the Christian world take the
it was at once specially when Binnius said that at Eph. 2. Concil Only Peter's Ship escaped drowning As to his Cavil at my Translation Whether Ab aliis plerisque totius orbis Episcopis be not to be Translated if not almost all the rest at least most of the rest of the Bishops of the whole World rather than very many others I leave to the ordinary Readers Judgment And as for either Canus or his own saying that all these the Greeks and most of the Bishops of the whole World the greater number of Churches and the Armed Emperours were all Schismaticks Hereticks and no Christians but Equivocally it is no weak proof of the falseness of their Cause and Tyranny that cannot stand without unchristening most of the Bishops and Churches in the World with such Emperours Canus his confession of the Historical Truth may be pleaded by me while I hate their Robbing Christ of the greatest part of his Church because they are not the Popes § 38. My Eighth Proof of the Novelty of the Papal Sovereignty was from Historical Testimony that the Papal sovereignty was no part of the Churches Faith nor owned by the Ancients This is done at large by Bloudel de Primatu and Pet. Moulin de Novitate Papismi usher Field of the Church lib. 5. Chaucer Whittaker Io. White and many other I instanced only in many Historians Regino Herman Contract Marian Scotus Beneventus de Rambaldis and others that say Phocas first constituted saith one or Boniface obtained of Phocas say others that the Church of Rome should be the Head of all Churches To this 1. He thinks I have forgot my first Thesis because he forgot that when I had proved by three Arguments my Thesis in the fourth to satisfie their importunity I proved it with the Addition that there hath been a Christian Church still visible that Obeyed not the Pope and so added ten more Arguments to prove this Negative or Exclusive part After he cometh to this again and would have ut Caput esset to be no more than an acknowledgment of a controverted Title But at least the Primus constituit confuteth that and it is not ut diceretur haberetur or denuò esset He citeth Platina as if it were a wonder for the Popes Houshold Servant to say that it was his Right 2. But I specially note that both what is said of Phocas and by him of Iustinian Gratian c. who constitute and command this Primacy and Subjection to it shew that it was but Imperial as to bounds and Authority I before mentioned Suarez himself in his Excellent Book De Legibus saying That God hath made no Laws of Church-policy And if so not of the Papacy § 39. I noted their Novelty out of Platina in Gregor saying What should I say more of this Holy Man whose whole Institution of the Church-Office specially the Old one was Invented and Approved by him which Order I would we did follow then Learned Men would not at this day abhor the reading of the Office Hence I Note 1. That all their Church-Office was new being Gregory's Invention though no doubt much of the Matter had been in use before that form 2. Therefore the maintainers of Tradition cannot prove that because they thus Worship God now therefore they always did so 3. Gregory's Invented Office hardly received in Spain was so altered in Platina's time that Learned Men abhorred the Reading of it 4. Why might they not corrupt Church-Government where Ambition had a thousand times greater baits as well as Church-Offices This is their Antiquity and constancy This W. I. thought meet in silence to pass by § 40. My Ninth Proof of the Novelty of the Papal Sovereignty was If the Generality of Christians in the first Ages and many if not most in the latter Ages have been free from the Essentials of the Papists Faith then their Faith hath had no Successive Visible Church professing it in all Ages but the Christians that are against it have been Visible But the Antecedent is true The Antecedent I proved in twelve Instances To this he saith It followeth not that though our Church as Papal had no Successive Visibility the Church whereof the Protestants are Members had ever since Christs time on Earth a Successive Visibility When you have proved this Consequence I Oblige my self to answer your Instances and so he durst not meddle with that matter but puts it off Answ. Reader see here what an Issue our Dispute is brought to Can you wish a plainer I proved that our Religion being nothing else but Christianity our Church hath been still Visible because it is confessed that the Christian Church hath been still Visible But the Papists must have us prove also that our Church-hath been still Visible as without Popery I now prove Popery a Novelty and doth not that then fully prove my Consequence that the Christian Church was Visible without it And I prove that this Novelty of Popery is yet received but by the third part of Christians of whom I am perswaded ten to one are either compelled to profess what they believe not or understand it not Therefore the Christian Church was once wholly and is yet mostly without Popery I know not when a Cause is given up if here he give not up his Cause § 41. Twelve new Articles of the Papal Faith I named 1. That the Pope is above aâ—… General Council Decreed at Later and Florence 2. Contrarily That the Council is above the Pope and may Iudge him c. Decreed at Basil and Constance True before as a point of Humane Order but not made ever an Article of Faith 3. That the Pope may Depose Princes and give their Dominions to others if they exterminate not all their Subjects that deny Transubstantiation Decreed at Later sub Innoc. 3. 4. That the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Iesus Christ is truly and really and substantially in the Eucharist and that there is a change of the whole substance of Bread into the Body and of the whole substance of Wine into the Blood which they call Transubstantiation Decreed at Trent and proved new by Ed. Albertinus Bishop Cousin's History of Trans and by my self 5. That the Eucharist is rightly given and taken under one kind without the Cup Decreed at Constance and Trent 6. That we must never take and Interpret Scripture but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers See the Trent-Oath whereas 1. We have no certainty whom to take for Fathers a great part being called both Fathers and Hereticks by the Papists 2. And they greatly disagree among themselves 3. And have not unanimously given us any sence at all of a quarter of the Bible if of the hundredth part 7. That there is a Purgatory and that the Souls there detained are holpen by the Suffrages of the Faithful 8. That the Holy Catholick Church of Rome is the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and
yet it is the Catholick that is the whole it self 9. That Traditions are to be received with equal pious Affection and Reverence as the Holy Scripture 10. That the Virgin Mary was conceived without Original sin Decreed at Basil. 11. That the people may not read the Scripture Translated into a known Tongue without a special License 12. That the Books of Maccabees and other such are part of the Canon of Faith against which see Bishop Cousins and Dr. Io. Reignolds See in Dr. Challenor's Credo Eccles. Cath. sixteen of their Novelties See Dallaus De cultu Latinorum their Worship proved new All this W. I. passeth over § 42. My Tenth Argument was If multitudes yea the far greatest part of Christians in all Ages have been Ignorant of Popery but not of Christianity then there hath been a Succession of Visible Professours of Christianity that were no Papists But the Antecedent is true Ergo c. Here I brought full proof of the Antecedent 1. From the Ignorance which they themselves accuse the Aethiopians Armenians Greeks Russians c. of and the Protestants also 2. The known Ignorance of the far most of the Vulgar in their own Church 3. The Papists charge on the Council of Chalcedon and others about their power 4. The difference of the Councils of Constance and Basil and Later and Florence about their Essentials 5. The large proof brought by Dr. Field Append. l. 3. Potter p. 68. Bishop Morton Apol. To this he Answers as to the last by notorious giving up his cause neither granting nor denying That there hath been a Succession of Visible Professours of Christianity that were no Papists which he saith is all that I prove Answ. And what need I more Is not the Succession of the Church as Christian granted by him Therefore if I prove it also Successively Christian without Popery I know not what else the Man would have But he saith Arrians may say so too Answ. Arrians are not Christians If his meaning be that besides our rejecting Popery we have some other Heresie which unchristeneth us 1. That 's nothing against my Argument which is but Christians Visibility ... 2. Why did he never tell us what that Heresie is Would he not if he could And was he not concerned to do it 3. It 's known that it is our rejecting Popery that is the Heresie they charge us with as to any other we defie their Accusation And 4. If any individual person be Accused let it be proved Our Religion Objective is justified by themselves from Heresie and all positive Error For it is nothing but the Sacramental Covenant briefly explained in the Creed Lords Prayer and Decalogue in the Essentials and in that and the Integrals all the Canonical Scriptures So that our proof of our Churches Visibility as Christian and not Papal is all that Reason can require of us And so this Task is done § 43. After these Arguments I added some Testimonies of Historians which shew how Melch-Canus words de facto are to be understood and how the word Catholick Church was then taken and how small a party the Papal Sovereignty had in the very worst times viz. Rog. Hoveden Mat. Paris in H. 2d shew that it was Avitas leges consuetudinis Angliae which the Pope here Damned and Anathematized all that favoured and observed them Here is Tradition Antiquity and the immutability of Rome The German History collected by Reuberus Pistorius Freberus and Goldastus fully shew That the Papal Tyranny only kept under by a Turbulent Faction the greater part by fraud and force which never consented to them The Apology of Hen. 4. the Emperour in M. Freberus To. 1. p. 178. saith Behold Pope Hildebrand's Bishops when doubtless they are Murderers of Souls and Bodies such as deservedly are called the Synagogue of Satan Yet they write that on his and on their party is the Holy Mother-Church When the Catholick that is the Universal Church is not in the Schism of any Side or Party but in the Universality of the Faithful agreeing together by the Spirit of Peace and Charity And p. 179. See how the Minister of the Devil is besides himself and would draw us with him him into the Ditch of perdition Who writeth that God's Holy Priesthood is with only thirteen N. B. or few more Bishops of Hildebrand's and that the Priesthood of all the rest through the World are separated from the Church of God our Mr. W. I. would say that only these thirteen Bishops were Univocal Christians when certainly not only the Testimony of Gregory and Innocent but the Judgment of all the Holy Fathers agree with that of Cyprian that he is an Aliene profane an Enemy that he cannot have God for his Father that holds not the Unity of the Church And p. 181. But some that go out from us say and write that they defend the party of tâ—…r Gregory not the whole which is Christ's which is the Catholick Church of Christ so the Catholick Church and the Popes Sect are distinct And p. 180. But our Adversaries that went from us N. B. not we from them use thus to commend themselves We are the Catholicks We are in the Unity of the Church So the Writer calls them Catholicks and us that hold the Faith of the Holy Fathers that consent with all good Men that love Peace and Brotherhood Us he calls Schismaticks and Hereticks and Excommunicate because we resist not the King He addeth out of Isidore Etymol l. 8. The Church is called Catholick because it is not as the Conventicles of Hereticks confined in certain Countries but diffused through the whole World Therefore they have not the Catholick Faith that are in a part and not in the whole which Christ hath Redeemed and must Reign with Christ They that confess in the Creed that they believe in the Holy Catholick Church and being divided into Parties hold not the Unity of the Church which Unity Believers being of one Heart and Soul properly belongs to the Catholick Church So far this Apol. of the Emperour Here you see what the Catholick Church is and that the Papalines were then a little Sect of thirteen or a few more Bishops And now Reader open thine Eyes and Judge whether the Emperour and all the rest of the Western Churches besides all the rest a greater part of the Christian Word are therefore no Univocal but Equivocal Christians because a Papal Faction and an Equivocating Jesuite may call them so All this the prudent Disputer thought best to Answer by silence § 44. I added because of their noise of Heresies charged on the Abassines Syrians Armenians Greeks Protestants c. 1. That they differ in greater matters yea de fide than many things which they call Heresies are 1. I repeated the differences of their Councils Const. and Basil against Later and Florence c. 2. Pighius words Hierarch Eccl. l. 6. That these Councils went against the undoubted Faith and Judgment of the