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 we charge them with in Europe and yet the Papists so charge them still that they may seem to have reason for condemning them fearing that their non-subjection to the Pope will not seem enough with impartial men And as to the great Confidence that they seem to place in their succession to St. Peter and Christs words to him on this Rock I will build my Church and to thee I give the Keys c. and feed my sheep I have oft answered it more fully than is fit again to recite but these few hints I would commend to the Reader 1. That we affirm that Peter was among them as a fore-man of a Jury and no more and so Christ spake to the rest in speaking to him and the same power is given to the rest The Church is said to be built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ being the head Corner-stone Is not this as much as is said of St. Peter Christ gave them all the power of Holy Ghost and the remitting and retaining sins binding and loosing which is the Keys which he gave to Peter And they are all sent forth to feed Christs Sheep Now the Fathers give as high Titles oft to others as to the Pope yea and to Peter see what I have cited in my Key for Catholicks pag. 175. 176. and what Gataker hath cited out of Dionysius Tertullian Basil Ierome Augustine Theodoret Gildas Nicephorus c. Cin. 395. 396. 2. Peter never exercised any authority over any of the rest of the Apostles He called them not governed them not There is mention of Paul's reproving him Gal. 2. but none of his reproving them Schismes being among them and greatly lamented they are never directed to unite in Peter as the way to Concord nor to have recourse to him to end them Nay when the over-valuers of Peter made one party in the Schism among the Corinthians Paul seeks to take them off that way and set Peter in the same rank with himself and Apollos as Ministers only by whom they believed calling them Carnal for saying I am of Cephas never calling them to unite in him as the Head of all And had this been necessary what had this been but to betray the Churches 3. The Apostles were never properly Bishops but of a higher rank Bishops were the fixed Over-seers of particular Churches and no one had many But Apostles only planted them and governed them for their Confirmation and so passed on from one to another and had care of many such at once If any one Church might pretend superiority by vertue of succession it would be Ierusalem and next that Ephesus where it is said that Iohn the Beloved Disciple was as Bishop and which hath continued to this day 4. The Apostles as such had no Successors nor as Bishops in any distinct Seats The same Christ that called Peter called the rest and called especially the Beloved Disciple to whom on the Cross he commended his Mother when Peter had denyed him and he promised to be with them to the end of the World But no Bishops on Earth ever pretended to superiority over any other Churches as the Successors of the other eleven Apostles Where are those Seats or where ever were they If the Apostles Successors must rule the Churches as such tell us which be the other eleven and which be their Diocesses and of what extent Nay it is considerable that even in the times of domination there were but five Patriarchates ever set up and not twelve and not one of those claimed Power by vertue of succession from any Apostle Constantinople never pretended to it Alexandria claimed the honour of succession only from St. Mark who was no Apostle And Ierusalem from Iames whom Dr. Hammond laboureth to prove to have been none of the Apostles but a Kinsman of Jesus Only Antioch and Rome claimed succession from Peter and Antioch as his first Seat but they did on that single account claim Power then over other Churches And seeing the Church is built on the Foundation of Apostles and Prophets and that all the Apostles 1 Cor. 12. are mentioned equally as the noblest Foundation Members or Pillars and the People chidden sharply by Paul for making Cephas a Head What reason have we to believe that Peter only hath perpetual Successors fixed to a certain City and that no other of all the Apostles have any such What word of God will prove that Peter hath left his Power at Rome and no other Apostles no not one hath left theirs to any Place or Person on Earth yea and that he left it more to Rome than to Antioch when Antioch claimeth the first succession from him and Rome but the second and when Nilus and others have said so much to make it probable that Peter never was at Rome and when it is certain that Paul was there and those old Fathers that from some word of one of Eusebius his doubtful Authors do say that Peter was at Rome and Bishop there do also say that it was the Episcopal Seat of Paul and when it is certain that no Apostle was any-where a Bishop formaliter but only eminenter as being not fixed nor fixing their Power to any Seat And Dr. Hammond giveth very considerable conjectures That if Peter and Paul were both at Rome they had divers Churches there Paul being the Bishop of the Uncircumcision and Peter of the Circumcision only from whence we may see that the Spirit of God in his Apostles judged that there might be more Churches and Bishops in one City than one much more over a thousand Parishes though as the contrary Spirit prevaileth the contrary Interest and Opinion prevailed with it These things premised the Reader must know that the state of the Controversie between Mr. Terret alias Mr. Iohnson and me is this Finding the Church of Rome in possession of abundance of Errours and Vanities he would not only perswade us that they are of God and have ever been the same because it is so with them now but also concludeth that these Carbuncles are essential to Christianity and the Church and that we cannot prove that we are a Church and Christians unless we prove that we have had from the Apostles a continued succession of their Errours As if a man could not prove himself to be a man unless all his Ancestors from Adam had the French-pox or the Leprosie On the contrary I maintain that the Church of Christ which is his Body is essentiated by true consent to the Baptismal Covenant which is our Christening and integrated by all the additional degrees that this Covenant is expounded in the Creed Lord's Prayer and Christian Decalogue The Lord's Supper is but the same Covenant celebrated by other signs not for Essence but Confirmation That all that consent to the celebrated Baptismal Covenant heartily are Members of the invisible Church and all that profess consent in Sincerity or Hypocrisie are visible Members
on the 6th of Ianuary till after the middle of Chrysostom's time and so in the present case had it been as ancient as they pretend it was not Universal 2. But he saith that at least as Patriarch of the West by the Churches grant they were in full quiet possession of that Right or Power which we confess was lawful Ans. No such matter We make no such Confession Those Protestants who think that the superiority of Patriarchs is lawful do hold that it is by humane Laws and that if any such Laws were made by that which you call the Church that is by Councils it was by such Councils as in such matters received their Power from the Emperours without which they might not set up one City above another nor distribute Provinces and Diocesses and as was done and therefore that while the Imperial Laws enforced them they had the Law to bind Subjects to obey them but when any Kingdom was cut off from the Empire it was from under those Laws and under the Laws of their own Prince and the former decrees of Councils were no Laws to them any longer though they might by voluntary contract still associate with Forraign Lands So that such hold 1. That while Britain was under the Roman Empire they owed some respect or obedience to the Pope as Patriarch of the West as English-men do the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury 2. That before and after they owed him no more obedience than to the Bishop of Rhemes or Arles 3. That when the Saxon Kings permitted the first English Bishops voluntarily to subject themselves to the Patriarch of Rome they made themselves Debtors of all lawful obedience which they promised 4. That when the Saxon and Danish Kings Commanded their Subjects such lawful obedience to the Bishop of Rome they owed it him by the obligation of their Soveraigns Laws 5. And when those Laws ceas'd their obligation ceased and when those Laws forbad it it became unlawful And so the Roman Patriarch had no power in England when the King and Law did deny it him or cease to give it him This is the judgment of those Protestants that think such Patriarchs lawful The other that think them a sinful Usurpation think that they were never lawful yet he urgeth us with what Conscience we ceased to obey them Pag. 74. he saith Prove that any Church which now denyeth it hath been always visible and I am satisfied whether that Church always denyed it or no. Ans. This hath some moderation in it 1. There hath no Church but that of Ierusalem been always visible from the beginning of Christianity for no other was at first existent 2. And that was not visible from the beginning of the World 3. This Church of Ierusalem as it consisteth of the most Christians there now denyeth your Papal Power 4. The Churches of Alexandria Antioch and Abassia now deny it and have been always visible 5. The Church of Ephesus and many others of Greeks that now deny it have been always visible since Paul's time and Constantinople since the first planting 6. And I pray you note that the Church of Rome hath not been always visible for it did not exist till some years after that at Ierusalem Yea note that you cannot pretend that the Bishop of Rome was the Universal Bishop from the beginning for you confess Peter was first Bishop of Antioch and all that while Rome was not the Mistress Church And so if you should have the Supremacy it must be by a change from the first State Though indeed Peter himself never claimed nor exercised any such thing much less did he ever leave it to a Successor and least of all as fixed to one City any more than St. Iohn's power was to the Bishop of Ephesus And indeed Bellarmine himself dare not deny but that the Seat of the Universal Bishop may possibly be removed from Rome to some other place And then suppose it were to Avignion or to Constantinople where is St. Peter's Successor How must he be chosen or how shall his power above others be known when all the old pretensions faile Pag. 78. till then there 's nothing but vain words When I noted that They that make Christ corporally present in every Church in the Eucharist should not say that the King of the Church is absent He replyeth We dispute of a proper visible presence such as is not in the Eucharist Ans. You affirm that Christ is there corporally present under the Forms of Bread and Wine and that the Bread which we see is the Body of Christ and no Bread and yet that we see not the Body of Christ Sure we see something or nothing and if it be something and not Bread nor Christs Body what is it But suppose that it be not Christs Body which we see yet while the Bread is turned into his Body that which you do see is nearer to him than a Kings Crown or Clothing is to the King and yet if you see the King only in his Cloths his â—…ace being vailed will you say that he is not a visible King Doth clothing make Kings or the species of the Consecrated Bread make Christ to become invisible 2. Do you not bow towards him on the Altar Do you not carry him in procession about the Streets and do you not constrain all that meet you to kneel down and adore sure you do not think him to be out of sight or hearing or far off to whom you pray and whom you so honour as present As Paul said to the Iews God is not far from every one of us so that Christ who is adorably present in his Body on the Altar and corporally present in every Receivers hand and mouth surely hath not yet forsaken the Earth so far as to be uncapable of constituting a visible Kingdom without a Pope Pag. 79. I told him that When they prove 1. That Christ is so absent from his Church that there is need of a Deputy to essentiate his Kingdom and 2. that the Pope is so deputed they will have done their work He replyeth I have proved that Christ instituted St. Peter and his Successors to govern visibly his wholly Universal Church in all Ages Ans. Wonderful when was it and where Let the Reader find any such thing in your writing for I cannot no not a word Had that been done I had contradicted you no longer but if it be by an Invisible Proof that your Visible Head reigneth I cannot judge of it He next addeth I press you therefore once more to give an instance of something which hath been ever in the visible Church by Christs institution and yet is accidental to the Church Ans. 1. If I have not given you such Instances and Reasons also to prove that all that Christ instituted to continue is not essential let the Reader say that I have failed you 2. But if I had not what is it to your cause will it thence follow that
constitute the Essence And shall I obey a trifler so farre as to trouble you with more Syllogismes for this § 8. But he denyeth the Minor and saith that Protestants profess not the true Christian Religion in all it's Essentials I proved it thus Those that profess so much as God hath promised Salvation upon in the Covenant of Grace do profess so much as God hath c. Here the trifler wants all again and then denyeth the Minor I proved the Minor by several arguments 1. All that prosesse faith in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost our Creator Redeemer and Sanctifyer and Love to Him and Absolute obedience to all his Laws of Nature and Holy Scriptures with willingness and diligence to know the true meaning of all these Lawes as farre as they are able and with Repentance for all known sins do profess so much as God hath promised Salvation upon which I proved by many texts of Scripture But so do the Protestants c. Here the trifler wants form again The Covenant of Grace was left out when I cited the Covenant of Grace it self viz Ioâ—… 3. 16. 17. Mark 16 16. Heb. 5. 9. Rom. 8. 28. 1. Act. 26. 18. And after all this what is it that he denyeth Why this that the Protestants have willingness and diligence to know the true meaning of all the Law of Nature and Scripture Answ. This is the man of form that slily puts in Having willingness instead of professing it When he saw and knew that it was not what saith men have which God only knoweth but what they proâ—…ess that we dispute of And whether we profess such willingness to understand if our words our oaths and all our books and confessions published to the world will not prove it let this mans word go for a disproof we come now to the Transubstantiation reasoning where all men Eyes and Eares are to be denyed § 9. But he addeth a reason because else they would take the expositions of the universal Church and not follow novel intâ—…pretations and private judgements Answ. This Cant must delude the ignorant that never read the history of the Church nor know the present State of the World 1. Do not we profess to preferre that which is most ancient before that which is novel But these men must have us e. g. believe that the cup may be left out of the Sacrament of Eucharist which a Sect lately and sacrilegiously introduced or else we have a novel and private interpretation of the Sacrament when the most brazen faced of them cannot deny that their own way herein is novel and the contrary as old as Christs institution and that they are singular as differing from the farre greatest part of Christians upon Earth The same I might say of most other of our differences 2. When did the Universal Church write a Commentary on the Bible where shall we find their exposition of it How little of the Bible have General Councils expounded if you mean not them what mean you sure all your Laity have not expounded it nor all your Clergy yea their Commentaries yea and Translations fight with one another where is your Universal Commentary if you had such a work will your talk make us ignorant that Papists are not a third part of the Christian world but if it be Councils you mean which of them is it that we must believe and why That at Constance and Basil and Pisa or that at Florence or the Laterâ—…ne that de fide contradict them The first and second at Ephesus or that of Calcedon which contradicteth the first indeed and the second professedly The 28th Canon of Calcedon or the Popes that abhor it The General Councils at Ariminum Syrmium c. when the world was said to groan to find it self turned Arrian should we at the 2d Council of Ephesus have followed the greater number when there was not one refuser of Eutychianism save the Popes Legates and Binnius saith that sola navicula Petri only Peters Ship escaped drowning did Rome follow the most when Melch. Canus tells us that most of the Churches and the Armes of Emperors have fought against the Roman privileges Is it a convincing way to have such a Pope as Eugenius 4th at the same time to differ from the greater part of the Christian world and also be damned by his own Church or General Council and to say you do not receive all that 's necessary to Salvation nor are willing to know the truth because you take not the expositions of the Universal Church When you have blinded us so far as to take a domineering sect that liveth not by the Word but by the Sword and Blood to be the Universal Church and all your Decretals to be the Churches expositions of Scripture and all the Scripture and Fathers that are against you to be novelties and your many novelties to be all the ancient truth such as Pet. Moulin de novitate Papismi hath laid open by that time we may think that the Church wanteth an Essential Artâ—…ole of Christianity which taketh not all the Popes expositions of Scripture But seeing this is the great damning Charge against the Protestants faith I pray you tell us next 1. Did all the Christian Church want an Essential part of their Christianity in all those Ages before the Universal Church gave them any expositions of the Scripture what exposition had they besides each Churches Pastor's for the first 300 years And what exposition did the Council of Nice make save about the deity of Christ and Easter day or such things that indeed were deliver'd not as expositions of Scripture but Traditions OF rules of order And what exposition made any of the old General Councils save about the Natures and Person and Wills of Christ and Church policie which Suarez de legiâ—… saith God made no Law for where are their Commentaries 3. Where shall we find any Commentary that the Fathers agreed in though the Trent-Oath is that you will not expâ—…nd the Scripture but according to the Fathers consent Your writers tell us that most whose works be come to us for the first 300 years were Millenaries Dionys. Petavius hath gathered the words of Arrian doctrine from most of them lib. de Trinit till after the Council of Nice yea that the chief of the Anti-Arrians even Athanassus himself was for three Gods telling us that as Peter Paul and Iohn were three names but one in Essence that is in Specie so is the Father Son and Holy Ghost when your Doctors tell us that Iustin Clem. Alexander Dionysius Alexand. Talianus Tertullian Cyprian Origen Eysebius and I know not how many more taught Heresie and Chrysostom Basil and many others that we hoped had been Christians are noted as fautors of Origen and even many of the Martyrs were Hereticks when through the reign of Theodosius Senior Arcadius and Honorius Theodosius Junior Valentinian to say nothing of Constantius and Valens c. of