including Godliness which is its final part R. By Christianity I mean both our Believing Loving and obeying Christ as the way to the Father and our Believing Loving and Obeying God our Father as the end of Christs Mediation The Knowledge of God and the Mediator being Eternal Life Joh. 17.3 And as Taking a man for my Physicion is taking him by his medicines to help me to my health and so Health is finally included so taking Christ for my Saviour is to take him by faith to be the means of bringing me to the Love of God and to Glory And so I include Godliness in Christianity and the Law of Nature in the Law of Grace P. We are agreed on the truth of this but not of the medium by which it must be made known to us R. At the present I ask no more than that we agree in Christianity as the true and sufficient Religion and way to life The tenth Principle That Baptizing is our Christening And that all that are truly Baptized are Christians and members of the visible Church untill they Apostatize or are justly excommunicate at least P. I grant you all this as a common Principle with Christians R. Then you grant us 1. That our Religion is the True Religion of Gods appointment sufficient to salvation For it is Christianity which you confessed to be such 2. You grant that we are baptized into the true Catholick Church which is the body of Christ The eleventh Principle That all that are truly Baptized have the pardon of all their sins and have present right to salvation if they so die R. I mean that they that are Internally true Consenters to the baptismal Covenant and are baptized have all these benefits of Baptism And that Infants have them as rightly dedicated to God and baptized Do not you Consent to this P. Yes you know we do R. Then you fully grant that all among the Protestants who in Infancy or at age are truly baptized are in a state of salvation Why then would you make people believe that there is no salvation in our Churches when you grant the right to all that are Baptized P. But you are not Baptized by lawful Ministers R. Take heed what you say Your party holdeth that even Schismaticks and Hereticks Baptism is valid if they have all that is essential to Baptizing in the doing of it Yea that a lay mans or womans baptizing is valid If you deny it I will shame you by producing the common consent of your Doctors and your censure of Cyprian and making the contrary doctrine to be a Heresie P. But you have not all that is essential to Baptism because you are not intentionally Baptized into the true Catholick Roman Church For while you are not subject to the Pope you are not baptized into the Church and therefore Bellarmine sheweth that indirectly we are obliged to the Pope by baptism which you intend not R. Come come strive not against your knowledge 1. If our Baptism have not all that is essential why do you never rebaptize Protestants when they turn to you Do you not find that you condemn your selves 2. Why do not you your selves put the name of the Pope into your words of baptism 3. Doth your Tradition tell you that the ancient Churches did baptize men into a subjection to the Pope 4. Did any of the Primitive Christians baptize men into the name or subjection of Peter or any Apostle 5. Doth not Paul expresly renounce it as to himself and Peter 1 Cor. 1.12 13 14 15. Every one of you saith I am of Paul and I of Apollo and I of Cephas and I of Christ Is Christ divided Was Paul Crucified for you or were ye baptized in the name of Paul c. 6. Did not Christ himself tell us all that was Essential to baptism in his institution Matth. 28 without making any mention of Peter or the Pope P. I cannot deny but our doctrine inferreth that all that are baptized among you have a true Sacrament but not the Benefit of it and so are not in a state of pardon and salvation Or at least when you come to age by refusing the Pope you turn Hereticks and lose it R. I know some of your divided writers say that we have Sacramentum but not Rem Sacramenti But 1. You say that a Character is imprinted by Baptism and all sin done away and the person in a state of life unless he come feignedly which you will not charge on Infants nor can you prove it by those of the Anabaptists themselves that are baptized at age And saith Aquinas when the fiction ceaseth the fruits of baptism are obtained 2. And it will be long ere you will prove that to be baptized into the name of the Trinity is uneffectual if we leave out the Pope 3. And you will hardly make a man understand what you mean by the validity of the Baptism of Hereticks and Schismaticks if it neither take the Baptized into the true Visible Church nor the invisible or a state of saving grace And as to Infants losing it as you say at age by Heresie 1. Will you save all the Anabaptists that are baptized at age If their baptism put them into a state of salvation and they continue just of the same faith and mind that they were baptized in sure that faith which put them in a state of salvation will keep them in it or not be damning through defectiveness to morrow which made them heirs of Heaven to day But you cannot make your doctrines hang together 2. And they that are Baptized in Infancy are baptized into the same faith which they continue in at age The Minister intendeth no other The Parents Sponsors c. intend no other And will that prove defective even to Salvation after which was saving then 3. If Baptism make us Christians and if Christianity be the true Religion sufficient in suo genere to salvation then we that continue in the Christianity which we were baptized into by your confession continue in the true saving Religion And this is all our Religion P. It is not every one that owneth Christianity that shall be saved Hereticks own it in general and yet contradict it by their Heresies R. It is every one that truly owneth Christianity in mind and will that shall be saved else Christianity were not a saving sufficient Religion The question is not whether objective Christianity or faith be sufficient to save him that believeth not or is not subjectively a Christian nor whether the doctrine of faith be sufficient in omni genere But whether it be a sufficient doctrine or obâ—ective faith in suo genere If a Heretick deny any essential part of it he believeth not that which he really understandingly and prevalently denyeth It is but the Name of Christianity and not the Thing which he owneth who disowneth any of the essence Our question is now whether our professed objective Faith be true and sufficient
of Christ though not to Grace or Justification And this is common in the Schools as Ferera shews that followeth it And for this Opinion Scotus is cited But I think he holdeth that explicite belief of Christ or the Gospel is not of necessity of means as to Grace or Glory as 4. d. 3. q. 4. What is plainer than that now men may be saved without the explicite belief of Christ And I plainly think its Scotus's and the common opinion which Vega followeth and Faber 4. d. 3. and Petigianis very well and of the Thomists Bannes 2.2 q. 2. a. 8. Canus and others Yea the Trent Council seemeth to favour it Sess 6. c. 4. p. 114. So Corduba Medina Bradwardine ☞ And such as have no explicite faith in Christ are not formally without the Church This way go Victoria in 4. Relect. 4. tit Richard de Villa med 3.25 a. 3. q. 1 c. Well saith Petigianis 2. d. 35. q. 1. a. 9. that if there were a simple old woman to whom some false Opinion were preached by a false Prophet e. g. that the substance of Bread remaineth with the body of Christ in the Sacrament and she believe it Doth she sin by this No. p. 119. Yea if she so err through piety thinking that the Church so believeth perhaps she should merit p. 120. For my part I think that the Vulgar committing themselves to the instruction of the Pastors trusting of their knowledge and goodness if they be deceived it will be taken for invincible ignorance or at least probable as Herera which excuseth from faultiness Yea some Doctors give so much to the Instruction of Pastors that have the care of the Sheep that if they should teach that ☞ hic nunc God would be hated the rude Parishioner were bound to believe him which yet I think false p. 123. It seemeth at this day to be the common judgement of the Schools and Divines that the Laity erring with their Doctors or Pastors are altogether excused from all fault ☞ Yea oft times so materially erring do merit for the act of Christian obedience which they owe their Pastors as you may see in Valent. To. 3. disp 1. q. 2. p. 5. and others So Angles 2. d. 22. q. 2. dub 7. Vasqu p. 2. disp 121. In case they never doubted of the Veracity of their Prelates Much more saith Sancta Clara there to prove that the ignorant Protestants here may be saved citing further to his end Zanchez in Decal l. 2. c. 1. n. 8. Alph. a Castro Simanca Argon Tanner Faber Emanâ—sa Rozell And out of Argon tells us when Faith is sufficiently proposed viz. When faith is so confirmed by Reasons holiness of life the confutation of the contrary errors and by some signs as that Reason it self beginneth prudently to prescribe that the matters of faith heard are to be believed and the contrary Sect is false p. 125. And probl 16. p. 127. Whether men may be blamelesly ignorant of the Law of Nature and the Decalogue The common opinion is that they may not of the first principles but 1. Of the easie conclusions for some time and of the remoter conclusions for a longer time Such are the Commandments of the Decalogue as to the substance of the act as in some lying theft fornication manslaughter in Will at least c. R. Qu. II. But do you think that men may not as invincibly and inculpably be unacquainted with the Authority of the Pope and Roman Councils or Church as you say they may be ignorant of Christ and the Law of Nature I instance in the millions of the Abassme Christians who for above a thousand years never heard from the Pope or his emissaries P. That cannot be denyed For they have not the necessary means R. How then do you make your Churches proposal to be the necessary point to be Explicitely believed of all P. We do not mean it of all that Will be saved For you hear that some may be saved without any explicite belief of Christ But we mean it of all that will be in the Church and be saved there R. But do you not hold and say that out of the Church there is no salvation P. Some say so and some say that It is rare out of the Church R. But are the Ethiopian Christians out of the Church P. They are out of the true Church being Schismaticks R. Why said your Author before that Infidels were not formally out of the Church who are invincibly ignorant P. But other Doctors are of another opinion R. But Christ is the Saviour of his body Are not those of the Church who are saved or in a state of salvation What hold you of that P. Some say They are all of the Church and others that Christ saveth more than his Church And some say that They are of the Church Regenerate but not of the Church Congregate But few own this because it is your distinction as of a visible and invisible Church R. Qu. III. But above all I would know of you what you mean by the Catholick Church whose proposal is necessary to the being of faith P. We mean the Roman Catholick Church that is the Pope and his Subjects R. Do you mean the Pope without a General Council or a General Council without the Pope or only both agreeing and conjunct R. You take advantage of our differences but those do but shew that this is no point of faith Some hold that the Pope alone may serve and some that the Pope in a Provincial Council and some that a General Council without him But you heard Veron taketh in the Council and it is no true Council without the Pope And therefore the surest opinion saith that it must be both in Concord R. But what is the Vniversal Church whose Practice is made sufficient instead of or without a General Council P. It is the whole Roman Church real distinct from the Representative R. Is it the Clergy only or the Laity only or must it be both P. Both but not equally but in their several places R. Must it be All the Church without any excepted Or only the greater part P. These are points not agreed of and therefore not of faith Some say that it must be so many as that the dissenters be not considerable But how many are considerable or inconsiderable is undetermined Others say It may be the minor part that practise so be it the rest do not contradict it or do contrarily R. I will trouble you with no more such questions though I have a multitude which should be here resolved for I perceive that we must expect nothing but a Maze of uncertainties and confusion We are next in order to Agree upon our common principles which must be supposed in our following Dispute For they that Agree in nothing are uncapable of disputing of any thing seeing all conclusions of which we doubt must be drawn from more evident truths of which we
how it is described by the Antient Christians Justin Athenagoras Origen Arnobius Minutius Foelix Tertullian Lactantius Eusebius Augustine c. you will say that they thought it a ridiculous unmanly Religion D. I think no better of it than they did R. And 1. Do you not know that almost all the world was then Heathen and Idolaters Alas what was Judaea less than England to all the world Was not the Roman Empire and Alexanders before that far Greater than any Christian Prince hath now And to this day are not four sixth parts of the whole world at least Heathens and Idolaters Brierwoods Calculation is that if you divide the world into thirty parts nineteen are Heathen six Mahometans and five only Christians of all sorts besides the vast unknown parts of the world which are not like to have any Religion of supernatural Revelation 2. And do you not know that Athens and Rome-Heathen were no Barbarians but of most polite literature and the Fathers of the Learning now in use and that when the Christians arose among them they accounted them Barbarians And at this day and long before us the Chinenses have been addicted to Arts and Literature And the Brachmanes and Bonzii are no Barbarians And have not all these souls to save or lose And are all these so mad as to cast away their souls upon a senseless contemptible Religion If your reason be good how much more will it hold for the Heathens than the Papists Alas what a handful are the Papists in comparison of the present Idolaters much more in comparison of the Antient Heathen world before Christianity and Mahometanism dispossessed them of those parts which they now hold With what greater shew of advantage did the Heathens use the Arguments which the Papists do now put their trust in and lay their Cause upon 1. Do they talk of Antiquity Why it was the Novelty of Christianity in comparison of Heathenism through the world which was it that hardned them to contemn and persecute it 2. Do they talk of Vniversality and Consent Alas how little a part of the world were the Christians at first and are the Papists now in comparison of the Heathens then and now 3. Do they talk of Greatness Empire Acts and Learning How little are they as to the first to the Heathen Empires And for Learning they received it of them And Aristotle still is the Schoolmens Oracle And yet doubtless all these advantages are not sufficient to disprove the follies of Heanism nor the badness of their Religion And yet will so much less serve to support the credit of senseless Popery D. But Christians may well expect greater helps from God than Heathens or Mahometans Therefore that so many Great and Learned and Religious Christians should go such a senseless way to another world methinks seemeth strange R. And are not Greeks Armenians Syrians Abassines and Protestants all Christians as well as they Their proud schismatical unchristening all but the subjects of the Pope is a silly proof that we are no Christians or that they are any better than others unless Malignity uncharitableness and Schism be the true Excellency 1. And are not other Christians More than the Papists Bishop Bramhall reckons the Papists to be about the fifth part of Christians Suppose they be a third part They are still the Minor part 2. And are not the Protestants as Learned as the Papists Why then will not your argument hold against them as well as for them Have not all these Christians souls to save or lose And do they not take that for the true Religion on which they trust their souls D. But though all these set together are more than the Church of Rome yet no one Sect of them is so great and what matter is it how many various Sects are R. 1. The Greek Church is judged by wise men te be yet bigger than the Roman even in this its broken state But there is no doubt but it was much bigger long after the first division before the Turk did win the Eastern Empire 2. But if it were not so your objection is frivolous The Question is either of Different Churches or of Different opinions and parties in the same Church As to the first There are but two opinions in the Christian world that I know of about the Constitution of the Catholick Church The one is the opinion of the Papists only ☞ that The Catholick Church is essentially constituted both of Christ and the Pope as his Vicar and universal Monarch with all his subjects as the pars Imperans and pars subdita The other is the judgement of all other Christians that I know or hear of that The Catholick Church is essentially constituted only of Christ as the supream Head or King or pars Imperans and his subjects as the pars subdita ☞ And that Patriarchs Archbishops Bishops c. are but Officiales subditi primarii vel nobiles constitutive parts indeed of their particular Churches some humane and some Divine but no essential parts of the Catholick Church ☞ This is the Grand difference between the Papists and all other Christians in the World What the Catholick Church is Whether it have any Constitutive Vniversal Head or Monarch besides Christ Now seeing that Greeks Abassines Armenians and all agree with us in this against the Papists it is evident to them that are willing to see that we are all of the same Catholick Church though not of the same particular Churches nor all for the same Official Ministers Because we are all for the same Constitutive Head and his subjects as such and agree in all the Essential parts ☞ So that our differences among all these parties or particular Churches or Countries is but the difference of Opinions and parties in one and the same Church and not a difference of Catholick Churches which can be but one And if that be the question I undertake to prove that there is no one Sect of Christians known under Heaven that hath so many different opinions within it self if half so many nor have written half so much against one another as the Papists have done 3. But I must not here anticipate my further work when I come to that I shall shew you how small and how disagreeing a part of the Christian world the Papists are I have elsewhere recited the words of their Melchior Canus who boasteth that the Papacy yet standeth though almost all the world and besides Princes almost all the Bishops and Churches have fought against it Was it then the Universal Church And the words of Reynerius who saith that the Churches of the Armenians and the others planted by the Apostles without the Empire he meaneth were not under the Pope of Rome I shall if I live to do that work yet fullier shew you that the Pope was but the chief Patriarch in one Empire as the Archbishop of Canterbury is the chief Bishop in England and that his General Councils