part that is there If the question be whether there be there fire water air earth gold silver or men or divels created by God I neither know nor believe that there is or is not A Sadducee or an Atheist may believe That all that is in heaven is good Is this an implicite actual belief that God Angels and Spirits are good when he believeth not that in heaven or any-where else there is any God or any Angel or Spirit A Protestant believeth that he can prove by the Bible that the Pope is a Traytor against Christ by claiming his prerogative Doth he also believe that he is Christs Vicar-General because he believeth that the Bible is true Protestants believe that all Tradition is true which really cometh down to us from Christ and his Apostles by credible evidence Doth it follow that they believe the Papists Traditions to be true when they believe multitudes of them to be novelties or fictions contrary to Scripture and to the Tradition of the greatest part of the Church The Papist woman mentioned by Dr. White believed the Creed but she knew and believed no more of Iesus Christ but that it was some good thing she knew not what or else it would not have been in the Creed But he goeth on You profess to believe that All men shall rise at the last coming of Christ and yet you have no actual knowledg of many thousands Ans. And what then If I know not that those thousands had a being and were men I cannot know or believe that they shall rise notwithstanding I believe that All shall rise and if the question be whether this or that or thousands that you may name shall rise I know not because I know not whether you feign not men that never were If any were so foolish as not to know that there ever were more men in the world than he hath seen he cannot believe that any more shall rise and yet may believe that All shall rise not all in true reality as signifying the whole that hath existed indeed but all as the subject-term in the proposition When I say all shall rise I do not only say that I believe that proposition but I know many individuals contained in the whole and I know that there are more than I personally know and that there have been more than I have heard of and by the word all I mean all these particulars inclusively and so the word being a General expressing A Totum some of whose parts I have known by sight and others by history and I know that other parts have been but some parts I know not at all that they have been accordingly my belief is according to the object partly singular partly particular partly indefinite and partly universal He proceeds Act. 24. 5 14. Credens omnibus quae in Lege Prophetis scripta sunt Yet Paul had not an actual understanding of every particular contained in them Ans. Then he had not an actual belief of those particulars He believed in general that all Gods word was true and he believed all in particular which he knew to be part of that word But when he thought that he ought to do many things against the Name of Jesus and persecuted and blasphemed him had he then an actual belief that This Iesus was the Messiah He addeth A Christian that hath forgotten some sin yet at death is sorrowful for all his sins Hath he no actual sorrow for that forgotten sin I answer No if he have no actual understanding of it There were some that Christ foretelleth would think that they did God service by killing his servants Do you think that if these repented of all sin in general and took this for a duty that this were an actual repentance for this sin Nay is a meer general repentance any actual repentance at all if it extend to no particulars If a man say I repent of all my sin but I think I have no sin but my hearing praying being a Christian c. doth he actually repent of any And as to your instance if you do but forget a sin it implieth that you did once remember it and perhaps repented of it then but if you know not or remember not that ever you committed any such thing or that it is any sin you have no actual repentance of that sin O but saith he What horrid Doctrine would this be Ans. What a childish exclamation is this It 's ten to one but if you were well examined your self you would confess that all this quarrel is but de nomine You confess that here is no particular repentance or faith of the thing in question nor are universals as containing the particulars known confusedly in themselves but with the bare name of an actual knowledg of Particulars you would cheat them that have only the knowledg of the universal Proposition That you may see it is no horrid Doctrine consider that 1. If this general repentance have also joined a particular repentance of all such sin as must be so repented of of necessity to Salvation then a virtual repentance of other forgotten particular sins will prove sufficient to pardon and salvation A general repentance which hath an actual hatred of sin as sin and a habit inclining the person unfeignedly to repent of all sin when he knoweth it joined with an actual repentance of all that he knoweth and a faithful endeavour to know all this is not an actual repentance of the unknown particulars but it may be called a virtual repentance of them because there is that cause that virtue that Grace which would produce an actual repentance if the impediment of forgetfulness were removed But even confused actual repentance hath not a total oblivion or ignorance of the particulars but only a confused knowledg and memory of them and is another thing than the knowledg of Universals He adds One that forgiveth all injuries and hath forgotten some doth he not forgive those forgotten Ans. Yes if the word forgiveness signifie the effect or his act as sufficient to that effect For it is in his power to discharge acquit or forgive another by a meer general remission or discharge though he remembred but one or no particular at all But if by forgiving you mean an act of his will whose object is the crime as well as the punishment and evil consequents remitted he so actually forgiveth in his own mental act no more than he knoweth But his general forgiveness sufficeth to all the ends without it and such a sufficient remission goeth commonly by the name of full forgiveness But instead of speaking to the point in hand you play with ambiguous words of another sense and subject Forgiving another is an act of the Will whose effect is extrinsecal and as a man may burn a house or give away or sell a house and all that is in it though he know not what is in it so a man may remit all debts or penalties
Church still three hundred Years before there was any General Council as well as the Scriptures And why do not Hierome Chrysostome Augustine c. Exhort Meâ—… and Women to read the Councils as much as the Scriptures At least methinks you should allow the Scripture an Equality with Councils But if God have spoken that which is nonsence or unintelligible till Councils or lopes Expound it Scripture is far from having such Equality Then Paul and Peter spake not intelligibly but P. Paul 4 and 5. and the Council of Trent did Then Councils may save them that know not Scripture but Scripture cannot save them that know not the Councils And do all the Papists Men and Women know the Councils In short If a Tyrannical Sect of Priests can get this Monopoly or Peculiar of expounding all Gods Laws and Word so that the Scripture will not save any but by their Expositions it will become more the word of the Pope or Council than of God And when all is done every Priest must be the pope and Council to us that never saw them and must be the immediate Object of our Infallible belief And if the Pope can so communicate to so great a swarm the sweetness of participating in his Universal Dominion and Infallibility no wonder if Self-love bid them serve his Usurpation But by that time every Woman must be sure 1. That the Pope is Christs Vicar General indeed 2. That with a Council he is Infallible 3. And that Gods Revelation must be received only on this Deliverers Authority 4. And the sence of all on his Exposition 5. And know how Men believed the first three hundred Years before such Popes or Councils ever were 6. And can tell certainly which Councils be true and which false and which of them must be believed and which not 7. And is sure that every Priest doth Infallibly Report all this to her 8. And doth give a true Exposition of each Council before another Council do Expound them 9. And be sure that she hath all that those Councils have made necessary and have not had a sufficient proposal of more I say by that time all this certainty be attained the Popish Faith will appear to be harder work than they think that hear Deceivers say Believe as the Church believeth and you shall be saved Judge how far the Pope Exalteth himself above God when it is thus confidently told us That we nor no Men believe with a Divine and Saving Faith any one word of God if we believe it meerly because God hath given it us in the Sealed Scriptures and add not the Expositions of the Papal Church § 12. My next Argument was Those that explicitely profess the belief of all that was contained in the Churches Creeds for six hundred Years after Christ and much more Holy truth and implicitely to believe all that is contained in the Holy Scriptures and to be willing and diligent for the explicite knowledge of all the rest with a resolution to Obey all the will of God which they know do profess the true Christian Religion in all its Essentials But so do the Protestants c. Here again the Formalist wants Form An Enumeration of particulars in a Description is not equal to an Universal with him unless he read All. And then he denyeth the Major 1. Because our General Profession is contradicted in particulars Answ. 1. Bare Accusation without Proof is more easie than honest 2. There is a contradiction direct and understood which proveth that the Truth is not believed and a contradiction by consequence not understood which stands with a belief of the Truth The latter all Men in the World have that have any Moral Error 3. O what self-condemning Men are these How certainly hath a Papist no true Faith if abundance of contrary Errors nullifie Faith His second Reason is You distinguish not between implicitely contained in general Principles and explicitely contained in the Creed and Scriptures Answ. A very Logical Answer To what purpose should I do it His third is the strength Creeds and Scriptures are not enough Traditions and General Councils in matters of Faith must be believed Answ. 1. I would matters of Practice were more at Liberty that Princes were not bound to Murder or exterminate all their Subjects as Hereticks that will not be Hereticks and inhumane and to Rebel perfidiously against those Princes that are Sentenced by his Holiness for not doing it 2. Alas who can be saved on these Mens terms If the belief of all the Creeds and all the Scriptures be not a Faith big enough to save him And yet perhaps you may hear again that Men may be saved without any of all this save believing that there is a Rewarding God and that the Pope and his Subjects are the Infallible Church Universal And it is but proving an insufficient proposal and we are delivered from Traditions Councils Scriptures Creeds and all And never was the proposal of Councils more insufficient than when Councils were most frequent when in the Reign of Constantius Valens Valentinian Theodosius Arcadius and Honorius good Theodosius junior Marcian Leo Zeno Anastasius Iustin Iustinian and long after Anathematizing one General Council and crying up another and setting Council against Council was too much of the Religion of those times 4. Again he denyeth that Protestants not excused by Invincible Ignorance believe any Article with a Saving Faith Answ. Easie Disputing Cannot a Quaker say so too by us and you But how unhappy a thing is Knowledge then and how blessed a thing is Invincible Ignorance which may prevent so many Mens Damnation § 13. I proved the Major by the express Testimony of many Papists ad hominem To which he saith It is to no purpose For our Question is not of what is to be believed expresly only but of what is to be believed both expresly and implicitely of all Christians respectively Answ. Reader Judge with what Ingenuity these Men Dispute And how they make nothing of giving up all their cause and yet Cant on with any of the most senseless words He had largely enough told us before that the belief of General Truths explicitely is the Implicite belief of the contained particulars though unknown to the Believer I am now proving that Protestants explicite Faith leaveth out no Article necessary to be explicitely believed To this end I cite Bellarmine and Costerus and after many others consessing what I say in plainest words even the sufficiency of our enumeration He denyeth none of my proof as to explicite belief And do we need any more Is not all that which he calleth explicite belief the meer denomination of the Explicite from the particulars implyed in it Can any Man want an Implicite belief that wanteth no Explicite belief If I am not bound explicitely to believe that the Pope and his Council is the Universal Church or the Infallible deliverer of Traditions or Expounder of Scripture or my rightful Governours how am I
sincerity but the very Being of them is the Papists confutation of us § 18. Secondly I proved it from our knowledge and sense of our own Acts. When I know and feelmy Love shall I believe a Pope that never saw me that tells me I do not know or feel it To this his easie Answer serveth He saith I do not feel that I truly Love God or his Servants if I be a Formal Protestant my Heart deceives me Answ. No wonder if all these Priests are Infallible that know all our Hearts so much better than we But who shall be Judge The true searcher of Hearts If the Fruits must be the Evidence I should rather fear that such Murderers of hundred thousands as killed the Waldenses Albigenses French English Dutch c. were like to be without Love than all those meek and Godly Protestants that I have known for no Murderer hath Eternal Life But forma is sometime taken for figura and for outward appearance only And such formal Protestants as have but the cloathing of Christianity have not indeed the Love of God § 19. He addeth What would you say to an Arrian a Turk or Jew that would urge the like knowledge or feeling Answ. The same that I would do to a bloody Papist And'I would tell him that if a Bediam think that he is a Prince or a Fool that he is Wise or a Beggar that he is a Lord or an illiterate Man that he is Learned it doth not follow that no Man can know that he is a Prince or a Lord or Wise or Learned I would tell him that there can be no effect without the adequate cause nor is there a cause where there is no effect And lie that perceiveth not God's amiableness in the necessary demonstrations of it cannot Love that Goodness he perceiveth not nor can any desire or seek the Heaven which he believeth not And I would tell him that he that believeth not in a Redeemer or a Sanctifier cannot Love him nor can he Love Believers and Godly Men as such who knoweth not that they as such are Lovely And that if really he Love God and Holyness and the hopes of Heaven before this World it will work in his seeking them above the World If you had Argued rationally against our Love of God and Holyness from any proved defect in the necessary cause which is in you we had been Obliged thankfully to hear and try your words But let Reason judge e. g. whether that man be like to love this world best and be loth to leave it who looketh to go at death into the flames of Purgatory or he that looketh to go to the glorious presence of his Redeemer And whether he be like to Love God best that look eth to be tormented by him in those flames or he that looketh to passe into heavenly perfect Love Christ telleth us that forgiving much causeth Love If a man were to torment you so long would it make you love him or at least is it a good proof that Protestants Love not God because they believe not that he will torment them in flames but presently comfort them § 20. II. My ad Argument to prove the perpetual visibility of our Church was this The Church whose Faith is contained in the Holy Scripture as its rule in all points necessary to Salvation hath been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on Earth But the Church whose Faith is contained in the Holy Scriptures as it's rule in all points necessary to Salvation is it of which the Protestants are members Therefore the Church of which the Protestants are members hath been visible c. Here he wanteth Form again because the praedicate of the Minor is the Subject of the conclussion and then he distinguisheth of the Maior of containing Involutely in General principles he granteth it but if expresly he denyeth it Answ. 1. The marvellous Logician it seems is but for one mood or figure but by what authority or Reason 2. He denyeth that the Churches Faith in all points necessary to Salvation is expresly contained in the Scripture I proved the contrary ad hominem before out of Bellarmine and Costerus plain words and shall by and by further prove it Mark again the Papists value of the Holy Scriptures he that explicitly believeth all that it expresly delivereth and no more say these men cannot be saved and yet if they believe none of it but a rewarding Deity say most or some more of the Creed say others men may be saved if they do but believe that all is Gods word and truth which the Pope and his Priests or Council say is such Next he distinguisheth of all things necessary to Salvation to be by all distinctly known and expresly believed and so he granteth the Scripture-sufficiency Very good Now all that is so necessary to a distinct knowledge and express belief is there But of all things to be Believed implicitly and distinctly known he denyeth it These distinctions supposed saith he I deny your Consequence Answ. Here is all new still 1. He calleth my Conclusion my Consequence and reciteth it 2. What he meaneth by things to be distinctly known by all and yet Believed but implicitely is past my understanding having to do with that man that hath all this while described implicite Belief by the express Belief of some meer General truth And must men know all that distinctly which they Believe not distinctly but in their general the man sure was confounded or confoundeth me The General to be Believed is the Pope and Councils authority in propounding and expounding Gods word This is their saving Faith the Belief of all that they propose is implicitely contained in this but must all this be distinctly known by all and yet not distinctly Believed The first would damn all that know not every one of their Councils decrees de fide the ad will shew that they Believe nothing at all for he that knoweth distinctly what the Pope saith and yet Believeth it not distinctly cannot Believe the general of his veracity But perhaps he spake distributively of two sorts of Faith viz. both the Implicite and the Explicite and so meant to deny the Scripture-sufficiency only to the first if so I shewed the flat contradiction of it before Where there is all that is necessary to be Believed expresly eo nomine there is all that is necessary to be Believed implicitely because to be Believed implicitly with this man is but to be the unknown consequent or inclose of that which is Believed expresly § 21. For the proof of my Major the Scripture-sufficiency as to all things commonly necessary to Salvation after Bellarmine and Costerus I have cited the plain words at large of 1. Ragus in Council Basil. Bin. p. 299. 2. Gerson de exam doct p. 2. cont 2. 3. Durandus in Praefat. Hierom. in hym 4. Aquinas 22. 9. 1. à 10. ad 1. de Verit. disp de fide q.
is that made that Law to all the world And it 's known that the Apostles Elders and Brethren were â—…senters at Ierusalem Act 15. 2. Inferiors may come as Deputies of the Bishops for he knew that the Bishop of Rome had oft sent such to Councils so far off as his gravity would not suffer him to go to But are these Priests capable persons or not If not how can a Bishops deputation make them capable what if a Priest depute a Lay-man to consecrate the Eucharist or a Bishop depute a Priest or Deacon only to ordain will the deputation make them capable but if they are capable why may they not be there by their own right If the business of Councils be as much as our modern Papists tell us to transmit the Traditions which the several Countries have received from their Ancestors why may not ten learned grave Priests as truly and credibly tell what are the Traditions of their Country as one unlearned or learned Bishop 3. Note here how the highest acts of a Pope or Prelate with them may be done per alios by Deputies that are no Bishops To preside in General Councils was of old in the Empire the top of the Popes prerogative and yet he may do that by a Presbyter and a Bishop may vote and do all his part in a General Council by a Presbyter And is that an office properly Ecclesiastical and Sacred which may be exercised by others not of that office why then may not a Lay-man be deputed to preach baptize pray consecrate and administer the Eucharist excommunicate absolve c. if deputed And if so what is proper to the office I told him of the Council of Basil where were a multitude of Priests And he answereth W. J. Basil in many things is not allowed of by us name those others received as General Councils by us that had simple Priests with power of giving Votes as such R. B. See Reader when they have talkt of Councils and Traditions of all the Church c. all signifieth but what please the Pope and his dislike can make Councils and their judgments null at a word Basil was one of the greatest Councils that ever was but they condemned and deposed the Pope and no wonder then if the Pope dislike them and now that 's an answer to all such authority Basil is not allowed by us Nor is any thing allowed by you that is against you But if any of them would see where Priests have had Votes in Councils let them read Blondel in the end of his Def. Sent. Hieron and he shall have proof enough For I will not tire the Reader with vain citations done by many long ago Only I note 1. If Abbots that are no Bishops have Votes in Councils why not Priests saving the Popes will what makes the difference 2d If Presbyters may have Votes in National and Provincial Councils why not in General ones the will of the Pope makes and unmakes all Thus we have no satisfaction what a General Council is CHAP. VII What mean you by SCHISME W. J. I understand by Schism a wilful separation or division of ones self from the whole visible Church of Christ. R. B. If this only be Schism it 's comfortable news to many a thousand and million that some call Schismaticks I hope then there are no Schismaticks in England of those that are called Presbyterians Erastians Independents Separatists or Anabaptists For I know not one of these that separateth from the whole visible Church of Christ. But I doubt with these Judges the Church of Rome goes for the whole visible Church of Christ. I asked here Q. 1. Is it no Schism to separate from a particular Church unless from the whole W. J. No it is no Schism as Schism is taken in the Holy Fathers for that great and Capital Crime so severely censured by them in which sense only I take it here R. B. 1. He first defineth without distinguishing and then tells us that he means only one sort of Schism 2. Let the Reader but peruse all the Texts of Scriptures which mention Schism and see whether he will not find that every Text or almost every one do use the Word only of Divisions made in the Church rather than of dividing or separating from the Church and whether such separating from the whole Church be not there called Heresie rather than Schism But seeing it is only this Capital Schism that he calleth by that name I have no mind to draw him now to more censoriousness and therefore I noted how by this he absolveth the Protestants from the guilt of Schism W. J. Did not your first Protestants in Germany separate as much from the Armenians Ethiopians Greeks as they did from the Romans If they did not shew the Communion they had with them R. B. Very willingly Sir They had the same God the same Saviour the same Spirit the same Faith Baptism and Hope and so were of the same Body of Christ which is all the Union predicated by St. Paul Eph. 4. 3 4 5 6. They had also the same Scriptures the same Rule of Prayer and Practice the Lord's Prayer and the Decalogue and Precepts of Christ as well as the same Creed the same Love the same Sacrament of the Eucharist Prayses of God the Lords day for Holy Communion Pastors of the same Order and had no other Diversities in such things than St. Paul tells us are in the Body of Christ 1 Cor. 12. Is this no Communion W. J. Did your Ministers first take either Mission or Iurisdiction to preach from any of their Bishops or Patriarchs Did they take the prescription of their Liturgies Discipline or Hierarchy from them Did they upon occasion joyn in Prayer Sacraments or Sacrifice with them R. B. 1. Do we hold Communion with none that we take not Mission and Iurisdiction from What Absurdities do you thrust upon us Did the Churches of Ephesus Corinth Galatia Philippi Colosse c. hold no Communion in Scripture-times unless they had Mission and Iurisdiction from each other Must the Greeks and Armenians have Mission c from us If not why must we have it from them Your Church receiveth no Mission or Jurisdiction from others Have you therefore no Communion with them Your Language favoureth of so much Tyranny and Pride as would tempt Men indeed to take you for Anti-christian As if Subjection to you and Communion with you were all one or you would have Communion with no Christians in the World bâ—…n the relation of Servants or Subjects to you 2. When we have Qualification Election and where it may be had due Ordination we know of no other Mission necessary besides Gods own Word which chargeth Christ's Ministers to preach the Gospel in season and out of season c. God's charging all Ministers to preach is their Mission when they are Ministers Princes leave and Peoples consent do give them their opportunity and for
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
People yea and Clergy it 's most probable never understood the Controversies 7. Yea he that with judgment readeth the Acts History and Debates of those times may well doubt whether Nestorius Eutyches or Dioscorus understood them themselves and whether the Heresie lay not mostly in an unskilfulness of interpreting of words and expressions Dioscorus solemnly professed that he held neither division of Natures nor confusion of them nor transmutation and that antecedent to their Union they were two These are unskilful expressions But one would think that he that held that Union did neither change nor confound them must needs mean that they were distinct though not divided and the Orthodox denyed division as well as he And if men had in those Councils but distin guished the senses of the word Union or One half as exactly as all Metaphysicks and Schoolmen use to do it 's a great doubt whether it would not have reconciled both Eutyches and Nestorius to the Orthodox it being most undeniable that there is a sense of the word in which Christs Natures may be said to be One and a sense in which they cannot be so said A sense in which he had two Wills and a sense in which he had â—…ut one A sense of the word person in which it might be said to have had two persons and a sense in which it could not be so said And he that readeth how Hierom was a while Hereticated for refusing the word hypostasis and what Controversie was about that word and persona between the Eastern and Western Bishops till it was found out by Nazianzene and other peaceable men that they meant the same thing may possibly hope that if such men as are peaceable and skilful in discussing ambiguous terms and driving unskilful men to understand others and speak aptly themselves had patiently searched the business to the bottom they would have found fewer Hereticks than were judged such And their own Writers have no other Argument to excuse Pope Honorius condemned for a Heretick by a Council as well as Nestorius and Dioscorus but that he understood not the words and was misunderstood And Nestorius whatever some say to the contrary denyed Christ to be two persons These are his words to Cyrils Papers In eo 〈◊〉 laudo quod distinctionem Naturarum secundum Divinitatis humanitatis rationem harumque in Una duntaxâ—…t persona proedicas His Heresie lay in two words 1. That he said Mary was not to becalled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deipara but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of Christ 2. That he said in the Synod He would not say that God was two or three months old and do not Cyril's answer to the objections of the oriental Bishops plainly shew that the aptness of the word Deipara was the Controversie And he that had but said that Christus non Qua Deus sed Qui Deus qua Deus Unitus humanitati was born of Mary had been like to have reconciled them all However the number so judged was inconsiderable as to all the Christians in those Countreys and among millions of Christians it is not twenty Bishops thought guilty that are a proof that the Country or Multitude was so 8. To conclude the Papists themselves ordinarily justifie them from that charge and confess that the Christians of those Countries are honest harmless men that understand not what such Heresies are or detest them as I have before shewed out of Brochardus that dwelt at Ierusalem and others And what man can tell us that millions of professed Christians are Hereticks that never declared any such thing themselves Were it lawful so boldly to censure others how much more excusable should we be if we judged the Pope and his Followers Hereticks who are far more corrupt and erroneous than these whom they accuse and deny to be Christians But page 86. 87. malignity is so hard put to it for some sorry pretensions against Christian charity and for Unchurching the most of the Church of Christ that he hath nothing to say but such stuff as this I require the nomination of the determinate Opinions of Societies as Hussites Waldenses Nestorians Eutychians c. not of their persons and therefore I say you nominate none much less prosecute you those with whom you begun Now these were Greeks Armenians Ethiopians Protestants So that I speak undeniably of the nomination of Sects and Societies not of Names and Sir-names and Genealogies of persons There were different Sects and Professions in different Countries as Armenia Abassia c. I require the nomination of which of those Sects or Parties you mean in those Times and Nations not what were their Names and Sir-names nor is it sufficient that you say there were Christians that is Christians univocally so called or true Christians in all Ages in Armenia Ethiopia Egypt c. who denyed the Popes supremacy for unless you nominate of what Party Sect Opinion or Profession they were how shall any man judge whether they held not some Opinion contrary to the essentials of Christianity and by that became no Christians c. Answ. I would not insult over Men in their sin and folly but I must say that I reverenee that Wisdom and Justice of God which hath made the Evidences of Christian Truth and the Rights of his Church and the Obligations to Love and Concord so clear that Learned Malice trained up in Satan's 〈◊〉 cannot speak against it without such impudencse as this Man here is put to exercise When he denyed most of the Church to be true Christians he puts me to prove that they have been such I convince him that I am not bound â—…o name the Men and even the Country it self may prove but a mutable Seat of Religion but I prove that Christians that deny the Pope's Supremacy or are none of his Subjects have successively from the beginning inhabited those Countries And now the Man is angry that I will not call them by the Names which their malice casteth on them but only call them Christians of Armenia Ethiopia c. Their factious Interest taught them to stigmatize better Men with odious Titles and I must needs do so too But Sir resume some modesty if I prove them Christians do you prove them unchristned if you can I prove that they are baptised and profess all these Creeds which were the Symbol of Christians for many hundred years and they receive the Holy Scriptures Do you prove that they invalidate all this Profession or confess your self a Calumniator Must I tell you what By Opinions they all hold that you may judge whether they are Christians or not Cannot you judge by their Baptism Creeds and Profession of Christianity till you are told their Opinions in controverted things Why then said you that you call not for their Names How can I tell the Opinions of Men un-named and unknown but by their Professions I know not the Opinions of my Neighbours at the next Doors and
and yet be punished if he do not come to Church and communicate 2. Lament Reader to think what engines Clergy-tyranny hath made against Christiaâ—… Love Peace and Concord to set the world into a war If the Council for want of understanding a point of doubtful words pronounce such words Heresie all people for feaâ—… of being burnt and damned must fly from all as hereticks that they think are for those condemned words All our Plowmen and women must be supposed to know that it is heresie e. g. to say that Christ hath but one will though the speaker mean objectively one or else One by Union of the divine and humane nature or to say that it was not God that was conceived and suffered and dyed and was passible when he meaneth only formalâ—…ter not As God but onâ—… he that is God and then every family must have an inquisition and people must fâ—… from one another before any judgment Doth not this give every lad and woman somâ—… power of the keyes and every subject a power of judging Kings and Judges 3. But mark Reader how sin condemneth it self as envy eateth its own flesh e. g. general Council condemneth Pope Eugenius as an Heretick or Iohn XXIII or others Tâ—… whole Church of Rome continued in communion and subjection to this condemned Herâ—…tick as they did with Honorius Therefore by their own sentence the whole Church 〈◊〉 Rome must be taken for Hereticks And if so 4. See how they justifie us for separating from them when they judge us hereticks themselves if we communicate with them Alas if a wrangling proud Clergy have but ignorance and pride enough to call Gods servants Berengarians Wicklefists Waldenses Lutherans Zuinglians Calvinists Iconoclasts Luciferians Quartodecimani c. hereticks all families and neighbourhoods are presently bound to fly from one another as if they had the plague or were enemies And must subjection come in for heresie If you call our King a heretick must all his subjects be taken for heretiâ—…ks for having communion and subjection to him Will the Popes chargeâ—… yea or real heresie disoblige us from Subjection And yet will you pretend to be loyal subjects § 21. I gave him the proof that he before called for from Thomas à Iesu Paulâ—… Veriditus Harris of Dublin against Usher that their writers vindicate the Greeks from heresie To which he saith that I could not but know that he meant of the modern Greeks as hereticks and not of the ancient fathers of which Bernard Aquinas Paul Harris speak Answ. This Answer hath a very bold face if it do not blush 1. It was the words of Thomas à sancto Iesu de convers Gent. a late writer that I recited to whose testimony as his he giveth not one word of answer And Thom. in the words cited expressely speaketh of the present Greeks and it is the very scope of his writing 2. Thomas cited ex junioribus Azorius 1. Iustit Moral l. 8. c. 20. To which he giveth not a word of answer 3. Paul Harris saith that when the Greeks had explicated their à Patre per filium viz. in the Council at Florence they were found to believe very orthodoxely and catholickly yeâ—… doth this man say that Harris speaks of the ancient Greeks expressely contrary both to his drisâ—… and words Is there any dealing with these false hereticaters It 's well that no Council hath anathematized falshood and calumny for heresies else we must have no communion with such that have no better meanes to dispute down christian Love and Concord Yea what need I more testimony than that Council of Florence it self which so judged and was supposed to heal the breach by explications Nor is it true that Bernard and Aquinas spake not of the Greeks in their times as owning the same cause that these do now § 22. I told him if Greeks and Latines will divide the Church and damn each other they shall not draw us into their guilt He saith again that the Church cannot be divided it is so perfectly One Answ. If I have not shamed the Saying let me bear the shame though we say that it cannot have any part totally divided from Christ for then it were no part and therefore none is divided relatively or really from the whole body But if the parts may not have sinful divisions from each other secundum quid Paul told the Corinthians amiss and the Papists Historians much mistook that talkt of about 40 Schisms at Rome and of the Popes adherents when part of the body had one head and part another for so long a time and to such sad effects § 23. Next I cited him the express words of their own Florentine Council professing that the Greeks and Latines were found upon conference to mean the same thing To which he saith 1. That it was but a few of them and that Marcus Ephesus dissented 2. Thaâ—… they revolted when they returned home Answ. 1. See still how they fight against their selves The seeming concord of this Council which did the Pope who was newly condemned and deposed by a great general Council more service than ever any did them is the great pretense of their false boasting that the Greek Church is subject to the Pope And yet he teaches us truly to say that it was but a few and that Marcus Eph. dissented and that they stood not to it when they came home The known truth is that the Emperor in distress constrained some to dissemble in hope of relief of which when he failed the submission was at an end And the Church never consented to it 2. But as to the point in hand it is not the Greeks recovery from an error that the Council mentioneth but the discovery of their meaning which was found to be Orthodox And though they yet use not the Romans phrase they never retracted the sense in which they were found to be orthodox § 24. Next he citing Nilus that the Greeks broke off from the Latines for the filioque alone I recited Nilus his title and words at large professing that There is no other cause of dissention between the Latin and Greek Churches but that the Pope refuseth to deferre the cognisance and judgment of that which is controverted to a general Council but he will sit the sole Master and Iudge of controversie which is a thing aliene to the Lawes and actions of the Apostles and Fathers The cause of the disserenâ—… saith he is not the sublimity of the point exceeding mans capacity for other matters that have divers times troubled the Church have been of the same kind This therefore is not the cause of the dissention much lesse the Scripture But who the fault is in any one may easily tell that is well in his wits Nor is it because the Greeks 〈◊〉 claim the Primacy N. B. He mentioneth that the Pope succeedeth Petâ—… only as a Bishop or dained by him as many other Bishops originally ordained by him do