or may baptize many without their owning the Pope who yet would be Christians And a Pastor not known or believed or owned is actually no Pastor to them To your confirmation I Reply You misread my words I talk not of Invisible I say it is true that the Universal Church is united to Christ as their universall Head and is Visible 1. In the members 2. In the Profession 3. Christ himself is visible in the Heavens and as much seen of most of the Church as the Pope is that is not at all As the Pope is not Invisible though one of a million see him not no more is Christ who is seen by most of the Church and by the best part even by the glorified You know my meaning Whether you will Call Christ visible or not I leave to you I think he is visible But that which I affirm is that the universal Church hath no other visible universal Head or Pastor But particular Churches have their particular Pastors all under Christ. Of Eph. 4. I easily grant that the whole Church may be said to have Pastors in that all the particular Churches have Pastors But I deny that the whole have any one universal Pastor but Christ. Of that which is the point in controversie you bring no proof If you mean no more then I grant that the whole Church hath Pastors both in that each particular Church hath Pastors and in that unfixed Pastors are to preach to all as they have opportunity then your Minor hath no denyall from me Instead of prosecuting your Argument when you had cast the work of an Opponent upon me you here appeal to any true Logician or expert Lawyer Content I admit of your Appeal But why then did you at all put on the face of an Opponent could you not without this lost labour at first have called me to prove the successive visibility of our Church But to your Appeal Ho all you true Logicians this Learned man and I refer it to your tribunal whether it be the part of an Opponent to contrive his Argument so as that the Negative shall be â—is and then change places and become Respondent and make his adversary Opponent at his Pleasure We leave this cause at your bar and expect your sentence But before we come to the Lawyers bar I must have leave more plainly to state our case We are all agreed that Christianity is the true Religion and Christ the Churches Universal Head and the holy Scriptures the Word of God Papists tell us of another Head and Rule the Pope and Tradition and judgement of the Church Protestants deny these Additionals and hold to Christianity and Scripture only Our Religion being nothing but Christianity we have no Controversie about Their Papall Religion superadded is that which is Controverted They affirm 1. the Right 2. the Antiquity of it We deny both The Right we disprove from Scripture though it belongs to them to prove it The Antiquity is it that is now to be referred Protestancy being the Denyall of Popery it is we that Really have the Negative and the Papists that have the Affirmative The Essence of our Church which is Christian is confessed to have been successively visible But we deny that theirs as Papal hath been so and now they tell us that it is Essential to ours to deny the succession of theirs and therefore require us to prove a succession of ours as one that still hath denyed theirs Now we leave our case to the Lawyers seeing to them you make your appeal 1. Whether the substance of all our cause lie not in this Question Whether the Papacy or universal Government by the Pope be of heaven or of men and so whether it hath been from the beginning which we deny and therefore are called Protestants and they affirm and are therefore called Papists 2. If they cannot first prove a successive visibility of their Papacy and Papal Church then what Law can bind us to prove that it was denied before it did arise in the world or ever any pleaded for it 3. And as to the point of Possession I know not what can be pretended on your side 1. The Possession of this or that particular Parish Church or Tythes is not the thing in question but the universal Headship is the thing But if it were yet it is I that am yet here in Possession and Protestants before me for many ages successively And when possessed you the Headship of the Ethiopian Indian and other extra-imperial Churches never to this day No nor of the Eastern Churches though you had communion with them 2. If the Question be who hath Possession of the universal Church we pretend not to it but only to be a part and the soundest safest part 3. The case of Possession therefore is whether we have not been longer in Possession of our Religion which is bare Christianity then you of your superadded Popery Our Possession is not denied of Christianity Yours of Popery we deny and our denyal makes us called Protestants Let therefore the reason of Logicians Lawyers or any rational sober man determine the case whether it do not first and principally belong to you to prove the visible succession of a Vice-Christ over the universal Church As to your contradictory impositions I Reply 1. Your exception was not exprest and your imposition was peremptory 2. I told you I would be a Papist if you prove that the whole visible Church in all ages hath held the Popes universal headship you say that you have proved it by this argument that either he hath that supremacy or some other Church denying that he hath alwaies had it hath been alwaies visible and that Church you require should be named I Reply 1. Had not you despaired of making good your cause you should have gone on by Argumentation till you had forced me to contradict some common principle 2. If you should shew these Papers to the world and tell them that you have no better proof of the succession of your Papacy then that we prove not that it hath alwaies been denied by the visible Church you would sure turn thousands from Popery if there be so many rational considering impartial men that would peruse them and believe you For any man may know that it could not be expected that the Churches should deny a Vice-Christ before he was sprung up Why did not all the precedent Roman Bishops disclaim the title of universal Bishop or Patriarch till Pelagius and Gregory but because there was none in the world that gave occasion for it How should any Heresie be opposed or condemned before it doth arise But you fairly yield me somewhat here and say that you oblige me not to prove a continued visible Church formally and expresly denying it but that it was of such a constitution as was inconsistent with any such supremacy or could and did subsist without it Reply I confess your first part is very ingenuous and
Protestants are chief Members is clearly proved And the Papists exceptions against it confuted LONDON Printed in the year 1660. Qu. Whether the Church of which the Protestants are Members have been Visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth Aff. THe terms explained 1. The Church sometime signifieth a particular Congregation actually met or associated for such personal meeting for Communion in Gods worship 2. Sometime it signifieth an Association of Churches and that either of sewer or of more as they have opportunity of Communion or correspondency by their Pastors and also the Assemblies of the Pastors of the particular Churches so associated Scripture useth it in the first sense and Later custome whether Scripture also I omit in the later 3. Both Scripture and Custome have used the word to signifie the Church Universal of which all particular Churches are Members This is the Church that we speak of in the Question Defin. The Universal Church of which the Protestants profess themselves Members is The Kingdome of Iesus Christ or The whole company of Believers or true Christians upon earth subjected to Iesus Christ their Head The constitutive parts or the Relate and Correlate are as in every Politick Body the Pars Imperans and Pars subdita which is Christ and Christians The form consisteth in the mutuall Relation The End is the common good of the Church and the glory of the Head and the accomplishment of the will of God 2. The Protestants Defin. Protestants are Christians protesting against or disowning Popery The word Protestant expresseth not the essence of our Religion And therefore it must not denominate the Universal Church of which we are Members we are not to call it A Protestant Universal Church Nor doth it signifie an inseparable proper accident For when the Catholick Church had no Popery there was none to protest against and therefore there could be no Protestants And Ethiopia India and other Nations that never had Popery or those Nations that never heard of it have no occasion to protest against it Nor doth it signifie any Positive part directly of our Religion but only the Negation or Rejection of Popery Even as when a man is called Homo purgatus sanatus liberatus à leprâ peste tabe c. a man purged healed freed from the leprosie plague consumption c. it is no positive part nor inseparable proper accident much less any essential part of the man that is signified by the word Healed Purged c. Nor is it necessary in order to the proving him a man or a healthfull man to prove that he was ever a purged or healed man We undertake not therefore to prove that there have been alwayes Protestants that is men Protesting against Popery Nor have we any need in order to the proof of our Thesis to prove that the Catholick Church hath all been free from Popery in all ages or in any age since the Apostles no more then that it hath been free from Pride Ambition or Contention But yet we shall do it ex abundanti The Religion then of a Protestant is Christianity and he knoweth and owneth no other Which is called the Protestant Religion as cleansed from Popery Members that is true integral parts Of which are By Profession We profess our selves to be of no other Church And before men a man is to be taken to be of that Religion and Church of which he professeth himself to be till he be proved false in that Profession If a Papist affirm himself a member of the Roman Church in disputing with him we will take it for granted that he is so every man being best acquainted with his own mind and fittest to describe the Religion which he owns So that two things I here include 1. It is only such a Catholick Church that hath been still visible that Protestants own 2. And only such that really they are of their Profession being valid Note also that it is not directly the inexistency by internal invisible faith that is in question among us or that I mean but the inexistency by external Visible Profession Bellarmine thinks the bare Professors that are wicked are best termed Dead members and the true Professors Living members we will not stick needlesly on words We take the Living members only to be in strict propriety members but Sincerity and Hypocrisie being known only to God and the possessors we speak of Professors as Professors abstractively from their Sincerity or Hypocrisie Hath been Visible 1. Not visible to man in its Internal faith but in its external Profession 2. Not Visible at once to any one man for no man can see all the Christian world at once But Visible in its parts both in Congregations and individual persons 3. Not Visible in the soundness of its professed faith unto Infidels and Hereticks For they cannot see that faith to be sound which they take to be fabulous and false But Visible in the soundness of its professed faith to themselves that know the soundness of faith 4. Not Visible in the excellent degree of soundness in the better parts unto the corrupter or infirmer parts For though de facto they may know what Doctrine the better part do hold as Infidels know what Doctrine the Church holdeth yet they know it not to be true and sound in the points wherein they differ And note again that it is not the Visibility of every accident of the Church nor of every Truth or duty that is but of the Integrity of Religion and necessary only ad melius esse Ecclesiae to the Better being of the Church but it is the Visibility of the Church that we speak of Lastly it is the Body and not the Head whose Visibility is in Question by us Though the Head also is truly Visible in Heaven and Visus or seen to the most excellent Triumphant part of his Body who are fittest to be his Courtiers and in his presence and as much seen on earth as the Pope is to most of the Church which is not at all Ever since the dayes of Christ on earth 1. But not still in one and the same place on earth It might be in one age much of it in Iudea at Ephesus Sardis Laodicaea Colosse Philippi and other parts of Asia and in other ages removed thence either wholly or for the most part It might be in one age in Tenduâ— Nâ—bia and other great Kingdoms where it shall afâ—er cease to be But in some part or other of the earth it hath been still 2. Not equally visible in all Times and Places of the earth In some Times as in the Arrians prevalency it was so oppressed and obscured that the world groaned to find it self turn'd Arrian and the Arrians in General Councils and number of Bishops to whom the true Christians were very few did seem to carry away the Name and glory of the Catholick Church so that in their eyes and in the eyes of slanders by that were of neither
they reason against the knowledge and experience of my soul. Your scope is to prove me in a state of damnation You confess that if I have charity I am in a state of salvation I know and feel that I have charity Therefore I know that your Reasonings are deceit Arg. 2. The Church whose faith is contained in the holy Scriptures 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 its 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 ever since the dayes of Christ on earth That the Catholick Church which hath been Visible till now hath received the Holy Scriptures which we receive is confessed by all Papists that ever I heard or read making mention of it And no wonder for it cannot be denied That this Church hath taken these Scriptures for the Rule of faith in all points necessary to salvation allowing Church-Governours to make Canons about the circumstantials of Government and worship which in the Universal Law are not determined but left to humane prudence to determine 1. I have proved in my third Dispute of the safe Religion already 2. It is confessed by the Papists the forecited passages of Bellarmine and Costerus are sufficient But in the great Council at Basil Orat. Ragus Bin. p. 299. it is most plainly and with fuller authority asserted The holy Scripture in the Literal sense soundly and well understood is the infallible and Most sufficient Rule of faith See my vindication of this Testimony in my Catholick Key and the like from Card. Richlieu Gerson saith de exam doctr p. 2. cont 1. Nihil audendum dicere de divinis nisi quae nobis à sacra Scriptura tradita sunt Durandus in his Preface is wholly for the excellency and sufficiency of the Scriptures Three wayes he saith God revealeth himself and other things to man The lowest way is by the book of the creatures so heathens may know him The highest is by manifest Vision as in heaven and the middle way is in the Book of holy Scripture without which there is no coming to the highest way And going on to extoll the Scripture he citeth Ieromes words ad Paulinum Let us learn on earth the knowledge of those things which will abide with us in heaven But this is only saith he in the holy Scripture And after ex Hierom ad Marcell If Reason be brought against the authority of the Scriptures how acute soever it is it cannot be true And after We must speak of the mysterie of Christ and universally of those things that meerly concern faith conformably to what the holy Scripture delivereth So Christ Iohn 5. Search the Scriptures It is they that testifie of me If any observe not this he speaks not of the mysterie of Christ and of other things directly touching faith as he ought but falls into that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 8. If any man think he knoweth any thing he yet knoweth nothing as he ought to know For the measure is not to exceed the measure of faith of which the Apostle bids us Rom. 12. Not to be wiser then we ought to be but to be wise to sobriety and as God hath divided to every man the measure of faith Which Measure consisteth in two things to wit that we subtract not from faith that which is of faith nor N.B. attribute that to faith which is not of faith For by either of these wayes the measure of faith is exceeded and men deviate from the continence of the sacred Scripture which expresseth the measure of faith That is from the full sufficiency of the Scripture measure And this measure by Gods assistance we will hold that we may write or teach nothing dissonant to the holy Scripture But if by ignorance or inadvertency we should write any thing dissonant let it be taken ipso facto as not written This is a confession of the Religion of the Protestants And though he adjoyn a submission to the Roman Church because he was bred in it it is only as to an interpreter of doubtfull Texts of Scripture So that the sufficiency of our Rule and measure of faith is granted by him and zealously asserted and that without Bellarmine and Costerus limitation to points necessary to the salvation of all he extendeth it to all the faith Aquin. 22. q. 1. a. 10. ad 1. saith That in the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles the truth of the faith is sufficiently explicated even when he is pleading for the Popes power to make new Creeds to obviate errours And in his sum de Verit. disp de fide q. 10. ad 11. he saith That all the means by which the faith cometh to us are free from suspicion The Prophets and Apostles we believe for this reason because God bore them witness by working Miracles as Mar. 16. confirming their speech with following signs But their successors we believe not but so far as they declare to us those things which they have left us in the Scripture This is the Religion of the Protestants Scotus in Prolog in sent 1. makes it his second Question Whether supernaturall knowledge necessary to us in the Way be sufficiently delivered in the holy Scâ—ipture which he proveth having first given ten arguments to prove the Truth of Scripture And first he shews it containeth the Doctrine of the End and 2. of the things necessary to that end and the sufficiency of them summarily in the Decalogue explained in the other Scriptures as to matter of faith hope and practice and so concludes that the holy Scripture sufficiently containeth the doctrine necessary viatori to us in the way And he answereth the objection of Difficulties in it without flying to the Church that no science explaineth all things to be known but those things from which the rest may conveniently be gathered and so many needfull truths are not expressed in Scripture though they are virtually there contained as conclusions in the Principles about the investigation whereof the labour of Expositors and Doctors hath been profitable This is his doctrine out of Origen Gregor Ariminensis in Prol. q. 1. act 2. Resp. ad act fol. 3. 4. saith A discourse properly Theologicall is that which consisteth of words or propositions contained in the holy Scripture or of those that are deduced from them or at least from one of these This is proved 1. by the forealledged authority of Dionys. For he will have it that there can be no leading of that man to Theologicall science that assenteth not to the sayings of the holy Scripture It follows therefore that no discourse that proceedeth not from the words of holy Scripture or of that which is deduced from them is Theologicall 2. The same is proved from the common conception of all men For
all men judge that then only is any thing proved Theologically when they prove it from the words of the holy Scripture This is more then the former say For to extend the sufficiency and necessity of Scripture to all that 's Theologicall is more then to extend it to matter of faith No Protestant goeth higher then this that I know of And note that he makes this the very common conception and judgement of all men See then where our Religion and Church was before Luther even among all Christians Yet more fully he proceeds ibid. Hence it further appeareth that Principles of Theology thus taken that is which is acquired by Theologicall discourse are the very Truths themselves of the holy Canon because the ultimate Resolution of all Theologicall discourse doth stand or belong to them and all Theologicall conclusions are deduced first from them But distinguishing the Conclusions Theologicall from the Principles I say that all truths are not in themselves formally contained in the holy Scripture but of necessity following from those that are contained in them and this whether they are Articles of faith or not N B and whether they are knowable or known by another science or not and whether they are determined by the Church or not But of other Truths to wit not following from the words of the holy Scripture I say there is no Theologicall conclusion This is proved c. When I read over the Schoolmen and Divines of all sorts that wrote before the Reformers fell so closely upon the Pope and find how generally even the Papists themselves maintained the sufficiency of the holy Scripture just as the Protestants now do I am convinced 1. of the succession of the Protestants Religion in the Universal Visible Church and 2. that it was the Reformers Arguments from Scripture that forced the Papists to oppose this holy Rule as to its sufficiency and to invent the new doctrine of supplementall Tradition for conservative Ministeriall Tradition of the holy Scriptures we are for as much at least as they The words of Guil. Parisieâ—sis too large to be recited in extolling the fulness and perfection of the Scripture even for all sorts of men you may read de Legibus cap. 16. pag. 46. Bellarmine de Verbo Dei lib. 3. cap. 10. ad Arg. 15. saith We must know that a Proposition of faith is concluded in such a syllogism Whatsoever God hath revealed in Scripture is true But this God hath revealed in Scripture Therefore it is true Though he require another word of God by the Pope or Council to prove that this is revealed in Scripture But if so then Scripture containeth all that 's true in points of faith 2. And that all things that are revealed and which we ought to believe are not Essentiall to the Christian faith and therefore that all are of the Church that hold these Essentialls and that such a distinction must be maintained the Papists have still confessed till lately that disputing hath encreased their novelties and errours Bellarmines and Costerus confession I recited even now Guliel Parisiensis in Operum pag. 9 10 11 12. de fide industriously proveth the necessity of distinguishing the fundamentalls or essentialls from the rest of the points of faith and it is they that constitute the Catholick faith which he saith is therefore called Catholick or Universal because it is the common faith or the common foundation of Religion And he proves that hence it is that the Catholick faith is but One and found in all Catholicks these fundamentalls being found in all By many arguments he proveth this And that there are some points even these common Articles necessary to be known of all necessitati medii the Schoolmen commonly grant as Aquin. 22. q. 2. a. 5. c. Bannes in 22. q. 2. a. 8. c. Of these saith Espencaeus in 2. Ti. c. 3. dig 17. which are the objects of faith per se and not the secondary objects the adult must have an explicite faith and the Colliers faith at this time decantate by the Catholicks will not serve the turn And we have both the Scripture sufficiency to all points of faith even the lowest and also the foresaid distinction given us together by Tho. Aquinas 22. q. art 5. c. We must say that the object of faith per se is that by which man is made blessed But by accident and secondarily all things are the object of faith which are contained in the holy Scripture See the judgement of Occham Canus Tolet and many more cited by Dr. Potter and yet more for the sufficiency of the Symbole or Creed as the test of Christianity pag. 89 90 91 92 93. Where you have the sense of the Ancients upon the point and p. 102 103. I conclude therefore with the Jesuite Azorius par 1. lib. 8. c. 6. The substance of the Article in which we believe One holy Catholick Church is that no man can be saved out of the Congregation of men professing the reception of the faith and Religion of Christ and that salvation may be obtained within this same Congregation of godly and faithfull men And as to the Essence of the Christian faith and Church we say with Tertullian of the Symbole Fides in Regula posita est habes legem salutem ex observatione legis exercitatio autem in curiositate consistit habens gloriam solam ex peritiae studio Cedat curiositas fidei Cedat gloria saluti Corte aut non obstrepant aut quiescant adversus regulam Nihil ultra scire est omnia scire That is Faith lieth in the Rule Here you have the Law and salvation in the observation of that Law but it is exercise that consisteth in curiosity having only a name or glory by the study of skill Let curiosity give place to faith Let glory give place to salvation Let them not prate or let them be quiet against the Rule To know nothing further is to know all things De Praescript cap. 13 14. So cap. 8. Nobis curiositate opus non est post Christum Iesum nec inquisitione post Evangelium Cum credimus nihil desideramus ultra credere hoc enim prius credimus non esse quod ultra credere debeamus That is As for us we need not curiosity after Jesus Christ nor inquisition after the Gospel When we believe we need to believe no further For we first believe this that there is nothing further that we ought to believe And here on the by for the right understanding of Tertullians Book de Praescript note 1. That the Rule of Essentialls extracted from the whole Scripture is the Churches ancient Creed 2. That the compleat Rule of all points of faith is the whole Scripture And that Tertullian had to do with Hereticks that denied the Essentials and desired the whole Scripture to dispute their case from both because they had questioned or rejected much of it and because it was a larger field to exercise their
examine qui cuncta ejus membra tibimet conaris Vniversalis appellatione supponere Here you see 1. That the unity and concord of the Church is not maintained by universal Headship but by fraternal communion and humility 2. That it wounded Paul and should do us to see the Church make men as it were their heads though they were Apostles and though Peter was one of them and that extra Christum beside Christ none no not Peter should be as a Head to Christs members 3. Much more abominable is it for any man to pretend to be the universal Bishop or Head to all Christs members 4. That the sin of this usurpation was against Christ the Churches Head and that before him in Judgement the usurper of universal Episcopacy will be confounded for this very thing 5. And that the crime of this title of universal Bishop was that it endeavoured to put all Christs members under him that used it tibimet supponere not to exclude all other Bishops but to put under him all Christs members These are the words of Gregory and if men can make what their list of words so full and plain and oft repeated in many Epistles what hope have they that their Judge of Controversies should do any more to end their Controversies then Scripture hath done which they cannot understand without such an unintelligible Judge He proceeds ibid. Quis ergo in hoc tam perverso vocabulo nisi ille ad imitandum proponitur qui despectis Angelorum legionibus secum socialiter constitutis ad culmen conatus est singularitatis erumpere ut nulli subesse solus omnibus praeesse videretur He maketh him the imitator of the Devil that aspiring above the rest of the Angels fell by pride But Bellarmine hath three Reasons to prove yet that Gregory after all this meant not the universal Headship or Episcopacy indeed 1. Because the holy Council of Chalcedon offered it him Ans. 1. A fair offer because two or three Deacons inscribed their Libels to him with the name of universal Archbishop And we must believe that the Council approved of this though we cannot prove it Or if they called him the Head as the City of London is the Head City in England and the Earle of Arundel the Head Earle or the Lord Chancelour the Head Judge that yet have no Government of the rest what advantage were this to the Roman Vicarship 2. If Gregory judge the name so blasphemous when it signifieth an universal Governour of the Church surely he believed that the Council offered it not to him in that sence but as he was the Episcopus primae sedis 3. But again I say the matter of fact is it that I am enquiring of And I have the testimony of this Roman Bishop that none of his Predecessors would receive that name 2. But saith Bellarmine he saith that the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter which is all one Ans. 1. But so it was committed also to the rest of the Apostles Paul had on him the care of all the Churches that claimed no Headship 2. He exprâ—sly excludeth Peters Headship both in the words before recited and after saying Certe Petrus Apostolus primum membrum or rather as Dr. Iames Corrupt of the Fathers Part. 2. p. 60 saith he found it in seven written Copies Apostolorum primus membrum Sanctae Vniversalis Ecclesiae est Paulus Andreas Iohannes quid â—liud quam singularium sunt plebium capita Et tamen sub uno capite omnes membra sunt Ecclesiae that is Peter the first of the Apostles is a member of the holy and universal Church Paul Andrew Iohn what are they but the Heads of the singular flocks of the people And yet all are members of the Church under one Head that is Christ so that Christ is the only Head Peter is but a member as the other Apostles are but not a Head 3. But saith Bellarmine Gregory could not but know that the title of Episcopus Vniversalis Ecclesiae which is all one had been oft assumed by the Popes Ans. 1. Whether was Bellarmine or Gregory the wiser man at least the fitter interpreter of those words would Gregory have made them so blasphemous foolish prophane and devilish if he had thought them of the same importance with those which his Predecessors used Or was he so silly as not to know that this might have been retorted on him What a silly â—or what a wicked dissembling hypocrite doth Bellarmine feign Pope Gregory to have been 2. But verily did the Learned Jesuite believe himself that Vniversalis Episcopus Ecclesiae Episcopus Ecclesiae Vniversalis are of the same signification Every Bishop in the world that adhered to the common Communion of Chrâ—â—â—ians and was a Catholike was wont to be called a Bishop of the Catholike Church and is indeed such but he is not therefore the universal Bishop of the Church But Bellarmine will not charge Gregory of such horrid dissimulation without reason His first reason is that Gregory did it for caution to prevent abuse Ans. What! charge it with blasphemy prophaness devilism wronging all the Church and also to excommunicate men for it and all this to prevent abuse when he held it lawful Did hell ever hatch worse hypocrisie then this that he fathers on his holiest Pope But 2. His other reason is worse then this forsooth because the question was only whether Iohn of Constantinople should have this title and not whether the Bishop of Rome should have it and therefore Gregory simply and absolutely pronounceth the name sacrilegious and prophane that is as given to Iohn but not to himself yet he refused it himself though due to him that he might the better repress the pride of the Bishop of Constantinople Ans. The sum is then that Gregory did meerly lye and dissemble for his own end He labours to prove that blasphemous sacrilegious c. which he desired But we will not judge so odiously of the Pope as Papists do Doth he charge the other Patriarchs and Bishops to give it no man doth he blame them after in other Epistles that gave him that Title and doth he profess that never any of his Predecessors received it and make so hainous a matter of it and yet all this while approve it as for himself Who will believe a Saint to be so diabolical that calls it an imitation of the Devil You see now what the Roman Cause is come to and whether their Church as Papal that is their Universal Soveraignty be not sprung up since Gregories dayes Hear him a little further ibid. Atque ut cuncta breviter cingalo locutionis adstringam sancti ante Legem sancti sub Lege sancti sub Gratia omnes hi perficientes Corpus Domini in membris sunt Ecclesiae constituti nemo se unquam Vniversalem vocare voluit Vestra autem sanctitas agnoscat quantum apud se tumeat quae illo nomine vocari
followeth Queries of R. B. on these definitions with Mr. Iohnsons Answer and my Reply Mr. J. The Catholick Church of Christ. THE Catholick Church of Christ is all those visible Assemblies Congregations or Communities of Christians who live in unity of true faith and external communion one with another and in dependance of their lawful Pastors R. B. Of the Church Qu. 1. Whether you exclude not all those converted among Infidels that never had external Communion with nor were members of any particular visible Church of which you mâ—ke the Catholick to be constituted Mr. J. Answ. It is sufficient that such be subject to the supream Pastor and in voto quantum in se est resolved to be of that particular Church actually which shall or may be assigned for them by that Pastor to be included in my definition R. B. Reply Q 1. Repl. ad 1 m 1. You see then that your Definitions signifie nothing no man can know your meaning by them First you make the Catholick Church to consist only of visible Assemblies and after you allow such to be members of the Church that are of no visible Assemblies 2. You now mention subjection to the supream Pastor as sufficient which in your description or definition you did not 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 proves no man a member of the Catholick Church but proves the contrary because it is Terminus diminuens Seeing then by your own confession inexistence in a particular Church is not of necessity to inexistence in the Catholike Church why do you not only mention it in your definition but confine the Church to such will you say you meant in voto who then can understand you when you say they must be of visible Assemblies and mean they need not be of any but only to wish desire or purpose it 4. But yet you say nothing to my case in its latitude Many a one may be converted to Christ by a solitary Preacher or by two or three that neâ—er tell him that there is any supream Pastor in the world How then can he be subject to that supposed Pastor that never heard of him The English and Dutch convert many Indians to the faith of Christ that never hear of a supream Pastor 5. If it be necessary that a particular Church must be assigned for such members by the supream Pastor then they are yet little the better that never have any such assignation from him as few have R. B. Qu. 2. What is that faith in unity whereof all members of the Catholike Church do live is it the belief of all that God hath revealed to be believed or of part and what part Mr. J. Answ. Of all either explicitly or implicitly R. B. Reply Reply Ad 2m. Your second answer further proves that your definitions signifie just nothing They must live in unity of the faith that is either with faith or without it with a belief of what Goâ— hath revealed to be believed or without it For to believe any point implicitly in your ordinary sense is not to believe it but only to believe one of the Premises whence the conclusion must be inferred But why do you not tell me what you mean by an Implicite faith Faith is called Implicite in several senses 1. When several truths are actually understood and believed in confuso or in gross in some one proposition which containeth the substance of them all but not with accurate distinct conceptions nor such as are ripe for any fit expression This indistinct immature imperfect kind of apprehension may be called Implicite and the distinct and more digested conceptions Explicite 2. When a general proposition is believed as the matter of our faith but the particulars are not understood or not believed As to believe that omne animal vivit not knowing whether you are Animal or Cadaver Or to believe that all that is in the Scripture is the Word of God and true but not to know what is in the Scripture 3. When it is only the formal object of faith that is believed without understanding the material object The first sort of these I confess is Actual Belief though indistinct But I suppose you mean not this 1. Because it is not the ordinary sense of your party 2. Because else you damn either all the world or most of your own professed-party at least as no members of the Church for few or none have an Actual understanding and belief of all that ever God revealed to them because all men or most at least have been sinfully negligent in searching after and receiving truth and so are sinfully ignorant No man knoweth all that God hath revealed or that he ought to know 3. Because by this rule it is impossible for you or any man to know who is indeed a member of your Church for you cannot know mens confused knowledge or know that it extendeth to all revealed For if you speak of all revealed in general or in Scripture you still damn all or most in your own sense for none as I said understand it all to a word But if you speak of all which that particular man hath had sufficient means to know it is then impossible for you to make a judgement of any mans faith by this For you can never discern all the means internal or external that ever he had much less can you discern whether his faith be commensurate to the truth so far revealed So that by this course you make your Church invisible I pray tell me how you can avoid it 2. The second sort of Implicite Belief is no Belief of the particulars at all An Animal may live and yet it followeth not that you are alive or an animal If this were your meaning then either you mean that it is enough if all be believed Implicitly besides that general proposition or you mean that some must be believed explicitly that is actually and some Implicitly that is not at all If the former be your sense then Infidels or Heathens may be of your Church For a man may believe in general that the Bible is the Word of God and true and yet not know a word that 's in it and so not know that Christ is the Messias or that ever there was such a person But if somewhat must be explicitely that is Actually believed the Question that you should have answered was What is it For till that be known no man can know a Member of your Church by your description 3. If you take Implicite in the third sense then Implicite faith is either Divine or Humane Divine when the Divine Veracity is the formal Object Humane when mans Veracity is the formal Object Which may be Conjunct where the Testimonies are so conjunct as that we are sure it is God that speaks by man who is therefore credible because God infallibly
many or rather many more For more be saln off the Tenduè Nubia and other parts then the Protestants that came in 4. About the year 600. there were many more incomparably and I think then but at least of 400. years after Christ I never yet saw valid proof of one Papist in all the world that is one that was for the Popes Universal Monarchy or Vice-Christ-ship So that most of the Catholike Church about three parts to one hath been against you to this day and all against you for many hundred years Could I name but a Nation against you I should think I had done nothing much less if I cited a few men in an age 5. And all those of Ethiopia India c. that are without the verge and awe of the Ancient Roman Empire never so much as gave the Pope that Primacy of dignity which those within the Empire gave him when he was chief as the Earl of Arundel is of the Earls of England that governeth none of them and as the Lord Chancellor may be the chief judge that hath no power in alieno foro or as the Eldest Justice is chief in the County and on the bâ—nch that ruleth not the rest Mistake not this Primacy for Monarchy nor the Romane Empire for the world and you can say nothing At present ad hominem I give you sufficient proof of this succession As you use to say that the present Church best knew the Judgement of the former age and so on to the heâ—d and so Tradition beareth you out I turn this unresistibly against you The far greatest part of Christians in the world that now are in possession of the doctrine contrary to your Monarchy tell us that they had it from their Fathers and so on And as in Councils so with the Church Real the Major part three to one is more to be credited then the Minor part especially when it is a visible self-advancement that the Minor part insisteth on 6. And were not this enough I might add that your western Church it self in its Representative Body at Constance and Basil hath determined that not the Pope but a General Council is the chief Governor under Christ and that this haâ—h been still the judgement of the Church and that its Heresie in whoever that hold the Contrary 7. And no man can prove that one half or tenth part of your people caâ—â—ed Papists are of your opinion For they are not called to profess it by words and their obedience is partly forced and partly upon other principles some obeying the Pope as their western Patriarch of chief dignity and some and most doing all for their own peace and safety Their outward acts will prove no more And now Sir I have told you what Church of which we are members hath been visible yea and what part of it hath opposed the Vice-Christ of Rome This I delayed not an hour after I received yours because you desired speed Accordingly I crave your speedy return and intreat you to advise with the most learned men whether Jesuites or others of your party in London that think it worth their thoughts and time not that I have any thoughts of being their Equal in learning but partly because the case seemeth to me so exceeding palpable that I think it will suffice me to supply all my defects against the ablest men on earth or all of them together of your way and principally because I would see your strength and know the most that can be said that I may be rectified if Jerr which I suspect not or confirmed the more if you cannot evince it and so may be true to Gods Truth and my own soul. Rich. Baxter Mr. Iohnsons second PAPER Sir IT was my happiness to have this Argument transmitted into your learned and quiet hands which gratefully returns as fair a measure as it received from you that Animosities on both sides seposed Truth may appear in its full splendour and seat it self in the Center of both our hearts To your first Exception My Thesis was sufficiently made cleer to my friend who was concerned in it and needed no explication in its address to the learned To your second Exception My Propositions were long that my Argument as was required might be very short and not exceed the quantity of half a sheet which enforced me to penetrate many Syllogisms into one and by that means in the first not to be so precise in form as otherwise I should have been To your third Exception Seeing I required nothing but Logicall form in Answering I conceive that regard was more to be had amongst the learned to that then to the errours of the vulgar that whilest ignorance attends to most words learning might attend to most reason To your fourth Exception My Argument contains not precisely the terms of my Thesis because when I was called upon to hasten my Arguâ—ent I had not then at hand my Thesis Had I put more in my Thesis then I prove in my Argument I had been faulty but proving more then my Thesis contained as I cleerly do no body hath reason to find fault with me save my self The reall difference betwixt Assemblies of Christians and Congregation of Christians and betwixt Salvation is only to be had in those Assemblies and Salvation is not to be had out of that Congregation I understand not seeing all particular assemblies of true Christians must make one Congregation To your Answer to my first Syllogism He who distinguishes Logically the terms of any proposition must not apply his distinction to some one part of the term only but to the whole term as it stands in the proposition distinguished Now in my proposition I affirm that the Congregation of Christians I speak of there is such a Congregation that it is the true Church of Christ that is as all know the whole Catholike Church and you distinguish thus That I either mean by Congregation the whole Catholike Church or only some part of it as if one should say Whatsoever Congregation of men is the Common-wealth of England and another in answer to it should distinguish either by Congregation of men you mean the whole Common-wealth or some part of it when all men know that by the Common-wealth of England must be meant the whole Common-wealth for no part of it is the Common-wealth of England Again you distinguish that some things are Essentials or Necessaries and others Accidents which are acknowledged or practised in the Church Now to apply this distinction to my Proposition you must distinguish that which I say is acknowledged to have been ever in the Church by the Institution of Christ either to be meant of an Essential or an Accident when all the world knows that whatsoever is acknowledged to have have been ever in the Church by Christs Institution cannot be meant of any Accidental thing but of a necessary unchangeable and Essential thing in Christs true Church If one should advance this
proposition Whatsoever Congregation is the true Church of Christ acknowledges the Eucharist ever to have been by Christs Institution a proper Sacrament of the new Law and another should distinguish as you do my proposition This may be meant either of an Essential or Accidental thing to Christs true Church Seeing whatsoever is acknowledged to have been alwaies in Christs Church and instituted by Christ cannot be acknowledged but as necessary and essential to his Church If therefore my Major as the terms lie expressed in it be true it should have been granted if false it should have been denyed But no Logick allows that it should be distinguished into such different members whereof one is expresly excluded in the very terms of the proposition These distinctions therefore though learned and substantial in themselves yet were they here unseasonable and too illogical to ground an answer in forme as you ground yours still insisting upon them in your address almost to every proposition Hence appears first that I used no faâ—lacy at all ex Accidente seeing my proposition could not be verified of an Accident Secondly that all your instances of Spain France c. which include Accidents are not apposite because your propositions as they lie have no term which excludes Accidental Adjuncts as mine hath To the Proof of my Major You seem to grant the Major of my second Syllogism not excepting any thing material against it To my Minor You fall again into the former distinctions now disproved and excluded of the meaning of Congregation c. in my proposition and would have me to understand determinately either the whole Catholike Church or some part of it and so make four terms in my Syllogism whereas in my Minor Congregation of Christians is taken generically and abstracts as an universal from all particulars I say no Congregation which is an universal negative and when I say none Saye that Congregation which acknowledges Saint Peter c. the term Congregation supposes for the same whole Catholike Church mentioned in my former Syllogism but expresses it under a general term of Congregation in confuso as I express Homo when I say he is Animal a man when I say he is a living creature but only generically or in confuso Now should I have intended determinately either the whole Catholike Church or any part of it I should have made an inept Syllogism which would have run thus Whatsoever true Church of Christ is now the true Church of Christ hath been always visible c. But no true Church of Christ hath been alwaies visible save the true Church of Christ which acknowledges Saint Peter c. Ergo whatsoever true Churh of Christ is now the true Church acknowledges Saint Peter c. which would have been idem per idem for every one knows that the true Church of Christ is now the true Church of Christ. But speaking as I do in abstractive and generical terms I avoid this absurdity and frame a true Syllogism Now my meaning in this Minor could be no other then this which my words express That the Congregation that is the whole Congregation acknowledges Saint Peter c. and is visible c. and not any part great or small of it For when I say the Parliament of these Nations doth or hath enacted a Statute who would demand of me whether I meant the whole Parliament or some determinate part of it You should therefore have denyed not thus distinguished my Minor quite against the express words of it What you say again of Essentials and Accidents is already refuted and by that also your Syllogism brought by way of instance For your proposition doth not say that the Church of Rome acknowledges those things were alwaies done and that by Christs Institution as my proposition says she acknowledges Saint Peter and his successors To my third Syllogism Granting my Major you distinguish the term Pastors in my Minor into particular and universal fixed and unfixed c. I answer that the term Pastours as before Congregation signifies determinately no one of these but generically and in confuse all and so abstracts from each of them in particular as the word Animal abstracts from homo and brutum Neither can I mean some parts of the Church only had Pastors for I say whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath alwaies had visible Pastors and People united Now the Church is not a part but the whole Church that is both the whole body of the Church and all particular Churches the parts of it And hence is solved your argument of the Indians of people converted by lay-men when particular Pastors are dead c. For those were subjects of the chief Bishop alone till some inferiour Pastors were sent to them For when they were taught the Christian Doctrine in the explication of that Article I believe the Holy Catholike Church they were also taught that they being people of Christs Church must subject themselves to their lawful Pastors this being a part of the Christian doctrine Heb. 13. who though absent in body may yet be present in spirit with them as Saint Paul saith of himself 1 Cor. 5.3 Your Answer to the confirmation of my Major seems strange For I speak of visible Pastors and you say t is true of an Invisible Pastor that is Christ our Saviour who is now in heaven invisible to men on earth The rest is a repetition of what is immediately before answered Ephes. 4. proves not only that some particular Churches or parts of the whole Church must alwaies have Pastors but that the whole Church it self must have Pastors and every particular Church in it for it speaks of that Church which is the Body of Christ which can be no less then the whole Church For no particular Church alone is his mystical Body but only a part of it Ephes. 4. is not directly alledged to prove an universal Monarch as you say but to prove an uninterrupted continuance of visible Pastors that being only affirmed in the proposition which I prove by it 2. This is already Answered I stand to the judgement of any true Logitian nay or expert Lawyer or rational person whether a Negative proposition be to be proved otherwise then by obliging him who denies it to give an instance to infringe it Should you say no man hath right to my Benefice and Function in my parish save my self and another should deny what you said would not you or any rational man in your case answer him that by denying your proposition he affirmed that some other had right to them and to make good that affirmation was obliged to produce who that was which till he did you still remained the sole just possessour of your Benefice as before and every one will judge that he had no reason to deny your assertion when he brought no proof against it This is our case The Contradiction which you would draw from this against
the Eutychians should sit in the Councill but be presented as a guilty person to be judged becuase he had celebrated a Councill in the Eastern Church without the consent of the Bishop of Rome which said the Legats never was done before nor could be done lawfully This order of Pope Leo was presently put in execution by consent of the whole Councill and Dioscorus was judged and condemned his condemnation and deposition being pronounced by the Popes Legats and after subscribred by the Councill Fifthly the Popes Legats pronounced the Church of Rome to be Caput omnium Ecclesiarum the Head of all Churches before the whole Council and none contradicted them Sixthly all the Fathers assembled in that Holy Councill in their Letter to Pope Leo acknowledged themselves to be his children and wrote to him as to their Father Seventhly they humbly begged of him that he would grant that the Patriarch of Constantinople might have the first place among the Patriarchs after that of Rome which notwithstanding that the Councill had consented to as had also the Third General Councill of Ephesus done before yet they esteemed their grants to be of no sufficient force untill they were confirmed by the Pope And Leo thought not fit to yield to their petition against the express ordination of the First Councill of Nice where Alexandria had the preheminence as also Antioch and Hierusalem before that of Constantinople Saint Cyril of Alexandria though he wholly disallowed Nestorius his doctrine yet he would not break off Communion with him till Celestinus the Pope had condemned him whose Censure he required and expected Nestorius also wrote to Celestine acknowledging his Authority and expecting from him the Censure of his doctrine Celestinus condemned Nestorius and gave him the space of ten daies to repent after he had received his condemnation All which had effect in the Eastern Church where Nestorius was Patriarch of Constantinople After this Saint Cyrill having received Pope Leo's Letters wherein he gave power to Saint Cyrill to execute his condemnation against Nestorius and to send his condemnatory letters to him gathered a Council of his next Bishops and sent Letters and Articles to be subscribed with the Letters of Celestine to Nestorius which when Nestorius had received he was so far from repentance that he accused St. Cyril in those Articles to be guilty of the Heresie of Apollinaris so that St. Cyril being also accused of Heresie was barred from pronouncing sentence against Nestorius so long as he stood charged with that Accusation Theodosius the Emperour seeing the Eastern Church embroyled in these difficulties writes to Pope Celestine about the assembling of a general Council at Ephesus by Petronius afterwards Bishop of Bononia as is manifest in his life written by Sigonius Pope Celestine in his Letters to Theodosius not only professeth his consent to the calling of that Council but also prescribeth in what form it was to be celebrated as Firmus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia testified in the Council of Ephesus Hereupon Theodosius sent his Letters to assemble the Bishops both of the East and West to that Council And Celestine sent his Legats thither with order not to examine again in the Council the cause of Nestorius but rather to put Celestines condemnation of him given the year before into execution St. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria being constituted by Celestine his chief Legate ordinary in the East by reason of that preheminency and primacy of his See after that of Rome presided in the Council yet so that Philip who was only a Priest and no Bishop by reason that he was sent Legatus à Latere from Celestine and so supplied his place as he was chief Bishop of the Church subscribed the first even before St. Cyril and all the other Legats and Patriarchs In the sixth Action of this holy Council Iuvenalis Patriarch of Hierusalem having understood the contempt which Iohn Patriarch of Antioch who was cited before the Council shewed of the Bishops and the Popes Legats there assembled expressed himself against him in these words Quod Apostolica ordinatione Antiqua Traditione which were no way opposed by the Fathers there present Antiochena sedes perpetuo à Romana dirigeretur judicareturque That by Apostolical ordination and ancient Tradition the See of Antioch was perpetually directed and judged by the See of Rome which words not only evidence the precedency of place as Dr. Hammond would have it but of power and judicature in the Bishop of Rome over a Patriarch of the Eastern Church and that derived from the time and ordination of the Apostles The Council therefore sent their decrees with their condemnation of Nestorius to Pope Celestine who presently ratified and confirmed them Not long after this in the year 445. Valentinian the Emperour makes this manifesto of the most high Ecclesiastical authority of the See of Rome in these words Seeing that the merit of St. Peter who is the Prince of the Episcopal Crown and the Dignity of the City of Rome and no less the authority of the holy Synod hath established the primacy of the Apostolical See lest presumption should attempt any unlawful thing against the authority of that See for then finally will the peace of the Churches be preserved every where if the whole universality acknowledge their Governour when these things had been hitherto inviolably observed c. Where he makes the succession from St. Peter to be the first foundation of the Roman Churches primacy and his authority to be not only in place but in power and Government over the whole visible Church And adds presently that the definitive sentence of the Bishop of Rome given against any French Bishop was to be of force through France even without the Emperours Letters Pattents For what shall not be lawful for the authority of so great a Bishop to exercise upon the Churches And then adds his Imperial precept in these words But this occasion hath provoked also our command that hereafter it shall not be lawful neither for Hilarius whom to be still entituled a Bishop the sole humanity of the meek Prelate id est the Bishop of Rome permits neither for any other to mingle arms with Ecclesiastical matters or to resist the commands of the Bishop of Rome c. We define by this our perpetual decree that it shall neither be lawful for the French Bishops nor for those of other Provinces against the ancient custom to attempt any thing without the authority of the venerable Pope of the eternal City But let it be for a law to them and to all whatsoever the authority of the Apostolick See hath determined or shall determine So that what Bishop soever being called to the Tribunal of the Roman Bishop shall neglect to come is to be compelled by the Governour of the same Province to present himself before him Which evidently proves that the highest Universal Ecclesiastical Judge and Governour was and ever is to be the
Bishop of Rome which the Council of Chalcedon before mentioned plainly owned when writing to Pope Leo they say Thou Governest us as the head doth the members contributing thy good will by those which hold thy place Behold a Primacy not only of Precedency but of Government and Authority which Lerinensis confirms contr Haeres cap. 9. where speaking of Stephen Pope he saies Dignum ut opinor existimans si reliquos omnes tantum fidei devotione quantum locī authoritate superabat esteeming it as I think a thing worthy of himself if he overcame all others as much in the devotion of faith as he did in the Authority of his place And to confirm what this universal Authority was he affirms that he sent a Law Decree or Command into Africa Sanxit That in matter of rebaptization or Hereticks nothing should be innovated which was a manifest argument of his Spiritual Authority over those of Africa and à paritate rationis over all others I will shut up all with that which was publickly pronounced and no way contradicted and consequently assented to in the Council of Ephesus one of the four first general Councils in this matter Tom. 2. Concil pag. 327. Act. 1. where Philip Priest and Legate of Pope Celestine sayes thus Gratias agimus sanctae venerandaeque synodo quod literis sancti beatique Papae nostri vobis recitatis sanctas chartas sanctis vestris vocibus sancto capiti vestro sanctis vestris exclamationibus exhibueritis Non enim ignorat vestra beatitudo totius fidei vel etiam Apostolorum caput esse beatum Apostolum Petrum And the same Philip Act. 3. p. 330. proceeds in this manner Nulli dubium imo saeculis omnibus notum est quod sanctus beatissimusque Petrus Apostolorum Princeps caput Fideique columna Ecclesiae Catholicae Fundamentum à Domino nostro Jesu Christo Salvatore generis humani ac redemptore nostro claves regni accepit solvendique ac ligandi peccata potestas ipsi data est qui ad hoc usque tempus ac semper in suis successoribus vivit judicium exercet Hujus itaque secundum ordinem successor locum-tenens sanctus beatissimusque Papa noster Celestinus nos ipsius praesentiam supplentes huc misit And Arcadius another of the Popes Legats enveighing against the Heretick Nestorius accuses him though he was Patriarch of Constantinople which this Council requires to be next in dignity after Rome as of a great crime that he contemned the command of the Apostolick See that is of Pope Celestine Now had Pope Celestine had no power to command him and by the like reason to command all other Bishops he had committed no fault in transgressing and contemning his command By these testimonies it will appear that what you are pleased to say That the most part of the Catholike Church hath been against us to this day and all for many hundred of years is far from truth seeing in the time of the holy Oecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon the universal consent of the whole Catholike Church was for us in this point As to what you say of Congregation of Christians in the beginning I answer I took the word Christians in a large sense comprehending in it all those as it is vulgarly taken who are Baptized and profess to believe in Christ and are distinguished from Jews Mahumetans and Heathens under the denomination of Christians What you often say of an universal Monarch c. if you take Monarch for an Imperious sole Commander as temporal Kings are we acknowledge no such Monarch in the Church if only for one who hath received power from Christ in meekness charity and humility to govern all the rest for their own eternal good as brethren or children we grant it What also you often repeat of a Vice-Christ we much dislike that title as proud and insolent and utterly disclaim from it neither was it ever given by any sufficient Authority to our Popes or did they ever accept of it As to the Council of Constance they never questioned the Supremacy of the Pope as ordinary chief Governour of all Bishops and people in the whole Church nay they expresly give it to Martinus Quintus when he was chosen But in extraordinary cases especially when it is doubtful who is true Pope as it was in the beginning of this Council till Martinus Quintus was chosen Whether any extraordinary power be in a general Council above that ordinary power of the Pope which is a question disputed by some amongst our selves but touches not the matter in hand which proceeds only of the ordinary and constant Supream Pastor of all Christians abstracting from extraordinary tribunals and powers which are seldom found in the Church and collected only occasionally and upon extraordinary accidents Thus honoured Sir I have as much as my occasions would permit me hastened a reply to your answer and if more be requisite it shall not be denyed Only please to give me leave to tell you that I cannot conceive my Argument yet answered by all you have said to it William Iohnson Feb. 3. 1658. Sir It was the 21. of January before your Answer came to my hands and though my Reply was made ready by me the third instant yet I have found so great difficulties to get it transcribed that it was not possible to transmit it to you before now But I hope hereafter I shall find Scribes more at leasure I must desire you to excuse what errors you find in the Copy which I send As also that being unwilling to make a farther delay I am enforced to send a Copy which hath in it more interlineations then would otherwise become me to send to a person of your worth Yet I cannot doubt but your Candor will pass by all things of this nature I am Sir Your very humble servant William Iohnson Feb. 15. 1658. Worthy Sir I have now expected neer three moneths for your rejoynder to the Reply which I made to that answer which you were pleased to send and return to my Argument concerning the Church of Christ but as yet nothing hath appeared I must confess I have wondered at it considering the earnestness which appeared in you at the first to proceed with speed in a business of this nature what the impediment hath been I am only left to guess but certainly truth is strong and it will not be found an easie thing to oppose her while we keep close to form I am now necessitated to go out of London so that if your Papers come in my absence I shall hope you will have the patience to expect untill they can be sent from London to me and my Answers returned by the way of London but I do engage not to make a delay longer then the circumstances of the place and times shall enforce Sir I do highly honour and esteem your parts and person and shall be very glad to bring that business to an handsome
issue which hath been so calmly and soberly prosecuted I am an enemy to passion and as I have hitherto found you sweet and gentle in your proceedings towards me so shall you alwaies find me Worthy Sir Your friend to serve you William Johnson May 2. 1659. Sir Be pleased to return your Answer Papers or Letters which you intend for me to the same place to which you directed your former by which means I shall be secure to receive them at my house which is fourscore miles from London To Mr. T. L. who called me to this work Sir THough I am a stranger to you I thought meet to take notice of the Letters which you sent your friend here T. H. It seems you urge hard for a Reply and intimate somewhat of triumph in my delay you speak as an incompetent Judge God is the Master of my time and work and him I must serve and not neglect his greater work for such trivial objections as your friend hath sent me which are answered over and over by many so long ago Had you read Blondel Molineus de novitate Papismi Whitaker Sibrandus Lubbertus Chamier Abbots Crakenthorp Spalatensis or one of many that have confuted them you would sure call for no more Or if in English you had read Dr. Field Dr. White yea or but Sir Humphery Lind to pass by multitudes you might have seen their vanity Yea plainly read impartially my two books against Popery and be a Papist if you can But it seems you take it for a poor answer to be referred to books Do not fear it But yet let me tell you that my hand is not more legible then my printed books and if I had sent you this in print would that have made it a poor answer Or rather is not this a poor exception and shews that it is not truth that is look after for truth may be printed as well as written If you be deceived by the men of the Papal way let me yet intreat you but to read over those two books The safe Religion and the Key for Catholikes If your soul be not worth so much labour take your course I did my duty But I must say that it is doleful case that professors are so ungrounded that such vanities should carry them away from Catholike verity and unity to a faction that usurps the name of Catholikes To be free with you I think it is that pride and levity that brings them first to separation from our Churches into Sects and the guilt which they there incur that prepareth professors to be so far forsaken of God as to be given up to believe a lie and to turn Papists O dreadful case that one Bishop cannot swell in pride but men must make a Religion of his pride yea and make a Catholike Church of it yea and plead for it and make the sin their own yea condemn all Christians that list not themselves under this Prince of pride He is culpably if not wilfully blind that hath read Scripture and Church history and knoweth not that the Pope for three hundred years after Christ was not the creature that now he is nor had for most of that time any more Government over other Bishops then I have over neighbour Pastors and after that time he was no more an universal Head or Governour or Vicar of Christ then the Archbishop of Canterbury was having indeed a far larger Diocess then he but never was more then the swelled Primate of one National Imperial Church When Synods began to be gathered out of a Principality the Emperours desiring that means of unity within their Empire the pride of the Prelates set them presently a striving for superiority who should sit highest and write his name first and have the largest Diocess c And now men make a Religion of the fruits of this abominable pride What are all their disputings for and all this stir that they make in the world but to set up one man over all the earth and that to do a spirituall work which consisteth not with force but is managed on conscience One wretched man must govern the Antipodes on the other side of the earth that is indeed uncapable of truly and justly Governing the City of Rome it self Popes that their own Councils have condemned for ravishing maids and wives at their doors for Murders Simony Drunkenness Heresie denying the Resurrection and the life to come that is being no Christians these forsooth must be the universal Governours or we are all undone and we are damned if we believe it not O how dreadfull are the effects of sin and how great a judgement is a blinded mind This comes of falling into Sects and parties which leads men into the gulf of the most odious Schism even Popery in the world But if you are engaged in this party it s two to one but you are presently made partial and will not so much as read what is against them or will believe them if they do but tell you that we write lies when they are things done in the open sun and which they cannot confute nor dare attempt leâ—t they manifest their shame Take from them their Clergies vast Dominions Principalities Lands and Lordships Riches and worldly Honours with which they so much abound and then try how many will plead for the Pope then they 'l say If Baâ—l be a God let him plead for himself But I confess I have little hopes of turning any of them though I could shew it them written by an Angel from heaven that Popery is a deceit for the Scripture that 's above Angelical authority declareth it and by making it a nose of wax they take it as if it were not sense nor intelligible without the Popes interpretation which in difficult cases he dare not give They cry up the Church and when we would have them stand to the Church they shamefully turn their backs and when two or three parts of the Churches through the world are against the Papal Soveraignty they refuse them as Hereticks or Schismaticks They cry up Tradition and when we offer them in the main point to be tried by it they disclaim the Tradition of two or three parts of the universal Church as being all Hereticks And may not any Sect do so too as honestly as they yea among the ignorant that know not Chaffe from Corn â—hey have some of them the faces to perswade them that their Church is the greater half of the Christian world when they know they speak notoriously falsly or else they are unworthy to speak of such things that they understand not But to what purpose should any words be used with men that have taught so great a part of the world not to believe their eyes and other senses Can any writing make any matter plainer to you then that Bread is Bread and Wine is Wine when you see them and tast and eat and drink them And yet their general Councils approved by the
to have been ever in the Church by Christs instiution cannot be meant of any accidental thing but of a necessary unchangeable and essentiall thing in Christs true Church To which I Reply Either you see the gross fallacy of this defence or you do not If you do not then never more call for an exact Disputant nor look to be delivered from your errors by argumentation though never so convincing If you do then you are not faithfull to the truth In your Major proposition the words being many as you say you penetrated divers arguments together ambiguities were the easier hidden in the heap That which I told you is Accidental to the Church and that but to a corrupted part was the Acknowledging of the Papacy as of Christs Institution and therefore if it were granted that a thing of Christs Institution could not be Accidental yet the Acknowledgment that is the Opinion or asserting of it may If the Church by mistake should think that to be Essential to it which is not though it will not thence follow that its Essence is but an Accident yet it will follow that both the false opinion and the thing it self so falsly conceited to be essential are but accidents or not essential You say It cannot be meant of any Accidental thing But 1. That Meaning it self of theirs may be an Accident 2. And the question is not what they Mean that is Imagine or affirm it to be But what it is in deed and truth That may be an Accident which they think to be none 2. But that which you say all the world knows is a thing that all the world of Christians except your selves that ever I heard of do know or acknowledge to be false What! doth all the world know that Christ hath instituted in his Church nothing but what is essential to it I should hope that few in the Christian world would be so ignorant as ever to have such a thought if they had the means of knowledge that Protestants would have them have There is no natural body but hath natural Accidents as well as Essence Nor is there any other society under heaven Community or Policy that hath not its Accidents as well as Essence And yet hath Christ instituted a Church that hath nothing but Essence without Accidents Do you build upon such foundations What! upon the denyal of common principles and sence But if you did you should not have feigned all the world to do so too Were your asseriton true then every soul were cut off from the Church and so from salvation that wanted any thing of Christs Institution yea for a moment And then what would become of you You give me an instance in the Eucharist But 1. Will it follow that if the Eucharist be not Accidental or integral but Essential that therefore every thing Instituted by Christ is Essentiall surely no 2. The Question being not whether the Being of the Eucharist in the Church be Essential to the Universal Church But whether the Belief or Acknowledgment of it by All and every one of the members be Essential to the Members I would crave your answer but to this Question though it be nothing to my cause Was not a Baptized person in the primitive and ancient Churches a true Church-member presently upon Baptism And then tell me also Did not the ancient Fathers and Churches unanimously hide from their Catechumens even purposely hide the mysterie of the Eucharist as proper to the Church of understand and never opened it to the auditors till they were Baptized This is most undenyable in the concurrent vote of the ancients I think therefore that it follows that in the Judgement of the ancient Churches the Eucharist was but of the Integrity and not the Essence of a member of the Church and the acknowledgement of it by all the members a thing that never was existent Where you say your Major should have been granted or denyed without these distinctions I Reply 1. If you mean fairly and not to abuse the truth by Confusion such distinctions as you your self call Learned and substantial can do you no wrong They do but secure our true understanding of one another And a few lines in the beginning by way of distinction are not vain that may prevent much vain altercation afterwards When I once understand you I have done And I beseech you take it not for an injury to be understood As to your conclusion that you used no fallacy ex Accidente and that my instances are not apposite I Reply that 's the very life of the Controversie between us And our main Question is not so to be begged On the grounds I have shewed you I still averr that the holding of the Papacy is as Accidental to the universal Church as a Cancer in the breast is to a woman And though you say It is Essential and of Christs Institution that maketh it neither Essential nor of Christs Institution nor doth it make all his institutions to be essentialls Now of your second Syllogism 1. I shall never question the successive Visibility of the Church Whereas I told you out of your Fransc. Ã S. Clara that many or most of your own Schoolmen agree not to that which you say All Christians agree to you make no reply to it As to your Minor I have given you the Reasons of the necessity and harmlesness of my distinctions we need say no more to that a Congregation of Christians and a Church are Synonima But the word true was not added to your first term by you or me and therefore your instance here is delusory But to say whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church is all one as to say whatsoever Church of Christians is now the true Church When I know your meaning I have my end Though my syllogism say not that the Church of Rome acknowledgeth those things alwaies done and that by Christs institution it nevertheless explicateth the weakness of yours as to the fallacy accidentis For 1. The holding it alwaies done and that of Christs Institution may be either an Accident or but of the Integrity and ad bene esse yea possibly an errour 2. And I might as easily have given you Instances of that kind To your 3. Syllogism I Reply 1. When you say the Church had Pastors as you must speak of what existed and Universalls exist not of themselves so it is necessary that I tell you How far I grant your Minor and how far I deny it My argument from the Indians and others is not solved by you For 1. You can never prove that the Pope was preached to the Iberians by the Captive maid nor to the Indians by Frumentius 2. Thousands were made Christians and baptized by the Apostles without any preaching or profession of a papacy Act. 2. passim 3. The Indians now Converted in America by the English and Dutch hear nothing of the Pope nor thousands in Ethiopia 4. Your own do
rest of the world Sir If you have impartially read the ancient Church history and yet can believe that all these Churches were then under the Pope despair not of bringing your self to believe any thing imaginable that you would have to be true 3. Your next question is When the Roman Emperours were yet Heathens had not the Bishops of Rome the supremacy over all other Bishops through the whole Church Answ. No they had not nor in the Empire neither Prove it I beseech you better then by questioning If you askt Whether men rule not Angels your Question proves not the Affirmative 4. But you ask again Did those Heathen Emperours give it him Answ. 1. Power over all Churches none ever gave him till titularly his own Parasites of late 2. Primacy of meer degree in the Empire for the dignity and many advantages of the Emperial seat the Bishops of the Empire gave him by consent Blondel de primatu gives you the proof and reason at large yet so as that small regard was had to the Church of Rome before the Nicene Council as saith your Aeneas Sylvius Pope Pius the second 5. Whether the Bishop of Rome had power over the Bishop of Arles by Heathen Emperours is a frivolous question Arles was in the Roman Patriarchate and not out of the Empire The Churches in the Empire might by consent dispose themselves into the Patriarchal orders without the Emperours and yet not meddle out of the Empire Yet indeed Cyprians words intimate no power Rome had over Arles more then Arles had over Rome that is to reject communion with each other upon dissent Nay it more confuteth you that even under Heathen Emperours when Church associations were by voluntary consent of Pastors only and so if they had thought it necessary they might have extended them to other Principalities yet de facto they did not do it as all history of the Church declareth mentioning their Councils and associations without these taken in See now how little your objections are worth and how groundlesly you bid me See now how little my allegations are to the purpose As for the rabble of Hereticks which you reckon up as you esteem them some of them are no Christians univocally so called and those cannot be of the Christian Church Others of them were better Christians then the Romanists and so were of the same Church with us And it is not many reproachfull names put on them by malice that makes them no Christians or of many Churches or Religions If an arrogant usurper will put nick-names on all that will not bow to him as the Vice-Christ and call them Iconoclasts Berengarians Waldensians Albigenses Wicklefifts Hussites Lutherans Calvinists you may as well give them a thousand more names this makes them not of various Religions nor blots out their names from the book of life I have in my most retired thoughts perused the History of those mens lives and of the lives of many of your Popes together with their severall doctrines and with death and judgement in my eyes as before the great God of Heaven I humbly beg of him that I may rather have my everlasting portion with those holy men whom you burned as Waldenses Albigenses Hussites c. then with the Popes that burned them or those that follow them in that cruelty unless reconciling grace have given them repentance unto life The Religion of all these men was one and they were all of one universall Church Where you again call for One Congregation I tell you again that we know no Vnity essentiall from whence the Church can be called one but either Christ or the Vice-Christ the former only is asserted by us and the latter also by you which we deny And therefore we cannot call the universall Church One in any other formal respects but as it is Christian and so One in Christ. Yet have I herewith satisfied your demand but shewed you the unreasonableness of it beyond all reasonable contradiction You next enquire whether we account Rome and us One Congregation of Christians I answer the Roman Church hath two Heads and ours but one and that 's the difference They are Christians and so One Church as united in Christ with us and all other true Christians If any so hold their Papacy and other errours as effectively and practically to destroy their Christianity those are not Christians and so not of the same Church as we But those that do not so but are so Papists as yet to be truly and practically Christians are and shall be of the same Church with us whether they will or not And your modest stile makes me hope that you and I are of one Church though you never so much renounce it As Papall we are not of your Church that 's a new Church form But as Christian we are and will be of it even when you are condemning torturing and burning us if such persecution can stand with your Christianity But you aske Why did you then separate your selves and remain still separate from the Communion of the Roman Church Answ. 1. We never separated from you as you are Christians We still remain of that Church as Christian and we know or will know no other form because that Scripture and primitive Churches knew no other Either you have by Popery separated from the Church as Christian or not If you have it s you that are the damnable Separatists If you have not then we are not separated from you in respect of the form of the Christian Church And for your other form the Papacy 1. Neither I nor my Grand-father or great grand-father did separate from it because they never entertained it 2. Those that did so did but Repent of their sin and that 's no sin We still remain separated from you as Papists even as we are separate from such as we are commanded to avoid for impenitency in some corrupting doctrine or scandalous sin Whether such mens sins or their professed Christianity be most predominant at the heart we know not but till they shew Repentance we must avoid them yet admonishing them as brethren and not taking them as men of another Church but as finding them unfit for our Communion But O sir what manner of dealing have we from you must we be imprisoned rackt hang'd or burn'd if we will not believe that bread wine are not bread and wine contrary to our own and all mens senses and if we will not worship them with Divine worship and will not obey the Pope of Rome in all such matters contrary to our Consciences and then must we be chidden for separating from you if we 〈◊〉 a while escape the strappado and the 〈◊〉 What! will you blame us for not believing that all mens senses are deceived and the greater part of Christians and their Traditions against you are false when we read and study and suspect our selves and pray for light and are willing to hear any of your reasons but
cannot force our own understandings to believe all such things that you believe and meerly because the Pope commands it and when we cannot thus force our own understandings must we be burned or else called Separatists would you have the Communion of our Ashes or else say We forsake your Communion In your Churches we cannot have leave to come without lying against God and our consciences and saying We believe what our senses contradict and without committing that which our consciences tell us are most heynous sins We solemnly protest that we would do as you do and say as you say were it not for the love of truth and holiness and for fear of the wrath of God and the flames of hell but we cannot we dare not rush upon these errours and sell our souls to please the Pope And must we then either be murdered or taken for unchaâ—â—â—â—ble will you say to so many poor souls that are ready to enter into another world Either sin against your consciences and so damn your souls or else let us burn and murder you or else you do not love us you are uncharitable if you deny us leave to kill you and you separate from the Communion of the Church We appeal from the Pope and all unreasonable men to the great God of heaven and earth to judge righteously between you and us concerning this dealing As for possessing our selves of your Bishopricks and Cures if any particular person had personal injury in the change being cast out without cause they must answer for it that did it and not I though I never heard any thing to make me believe it But must the Prince and people let alone delinquent Pastors for fear of being blamed for taking their Bishopricks Ministers of the same Religion with us may be cast out for their crimes Princes have power over Pastors as well as David Solomon and other Kings of Israel had Guil. Barklay and some few of your own knew this The Popes treasonable exemption of the Clergy from their Soveraigns judgement will not warrant those Princes before God that neglect to punish offeâ—â—ing Pastors And I beseech you tell us â—hen our consciences after the use of all means that we can use to be informed cannot renounce all our sences nor our reason nor the judgement of the most of the Church or of antiquity or the Word of God and yet we must do so or be no members of your Church what wrong is it to you if we choose us Pastors of our own in the order that God hath appointed Had not the people in all former ages the choice of their Pastors we and our late forefathers here were never under your oversight but we know not why we may not now choose our Pastors as well as formerly We do it not by tumults we kill not men and tread not in their blood while we choose our Pastors as Pope Damasus was chosen The tythes and other temporal maintenance we take from none but the Magistrate disposeth of it as he seeth meet for the Churches good And the maintenance is for the cure or work and therefore they that are justly cast out of the cure are justly deprived of the maintenance And surely when they are dead none of you can with any shew of reason stand up and say These Bishopricks are yours or these Parsonages yourâ—â— It is the Incumbent personally that only â—an claim title saving the supereminent title of Christ to whom they are devoted But the successive Popes cannot have title to all the tithes and Temples in the world nor any of his Clergy that never were called to the charges If this be disunion it is you that are the Separatists and cause of all If you will needs tell all the Christian world that except they will be ruled by the Pope of Rome and be burned if they believe not as he bids them in despight of all their senses he will call them Separatists Schismaticks and say they disunite and are uncharitable again we appeal to God and all wise men that are impartial whether it be he or we that is the divider You ask me Is not charity subordination and obedience to the same state and Government required as well to make one Congregation of Christians as it is required to make a Congregation of Commonwealths men Answ. Yes it is But as all the world is one Kingdom under God the universal King but yet hath no universal Vice-King but every Commonwealth only hath its own Soveraign even so all the Christian world is one Church under Christ the universal King of the Church but haâ—â— not one Vice-Christ but every Church hath its own Pastors as every School hath its own Schoolmaster But all the anger is because we are loth to be ruled by a cruel usurper therefore we are uncharitable Your next reason against me is because They cannot be parts of the Catholike Church unless Arrians and Pelagians and Donatists be parts and so Hereticks and Schismaticks be parts Reply 1. You know sure that your own Divines are not agreed whether Hereticks and Schismaticks are parts of the Church And if they were yet it is not de fide with you as not determined by the Pope If it be then all yours are Hereticks that are for the affirmative Bellarmine nameth you some of them If it be not then how can you be sure its true and so impose it on me that they are no parts 2. Arrians are no Christians as denying that which is essential to Christ and so to Christianity Pelagianism is a thing that you are not agreed among your selves of the true nature of Many of the Dominicans and Jansenists think the Jesuits Pelagianize or Semipelagianize at least I hope you will not shut them out Donatists were â—chismaticks because they divided in the Catholike Church and not absolutely from it and because they divided from the particular Churches about them that held the most universal external Communion I think they were still members of the universal Church but I 'le not contend with any that will plead for his uncharitable denyal It s nothing to our case That the Aethiopians are Eutychian Hereticks I will see better proved before I will believe it Rosses words I so little regard that I will not so much as open his book to see whether he say so or not I know that Heresie is a personal crime and cannot be charged on Nations unless you have evidence that the Nations consent to it which here you have none Some are called Hereticks for denying points essential to Christianity these are no Christians and so not in the Church but many also are called Hereticks by you and by the Fathers for lesser errors consistent with Christianity and these may be in the Church The Abassines and all the rest have not been yet tryed and convicted before any competent Judge and slanderers we regard not 2. Many of your own writers acquit them of Heresie and say the
unacquainted with the opinions of your own Divines and upon this mistake so confidently feign that it is our Novel writers forced to it by your arguments that have been so charitable to these Churches against antiquity that knew better If the Greeks and Latins tear the Church of Christ by their Condemnations of each other they may both be schismatical as guilty of making divisions in the Church though not as dividing from the Church And if they pretend the denyal of the Christian faith against each other as the cause you shall not draw us into the guilt of the uncharitableness by telling us that they know better then we If wise men fall out and fight I will not justifie either side because they are wise and therefore likelier then I to know the cause But what need we more to open your strange mistake and unjust dealing then the authority of your so much approved Council of Florence that received both Greeks and Armenians and the very words of the Popes Bull of the union which declare that the Greeks and Latins were found to mean Orthodoxly both the words are these Convenientes Latini Graeci in hac sacrosancta Oecumenica synodo magno studio invicem usi sunt ut inter alia articulus etiam ille de Divina Spiritus Sancti processione summa cum diligentia assidua inquisitione discuteretur Prolatis vero testimoniis ex Divinis Scripturis plurimisque authoritatibus sanctorum doctorum orientalium occidentelium aliquibus quidem ex Patre Filio quibusdam vero ex Patre per Filium procedere dicentibus Spiritū Sanctum ad eandem intelligentiam aspicientibus omnibus sub diversis vocabulis Graeci quidem asseruerunt quod id quod dicunt Spiritum Sanctum ex Patre procedere non hac mente proferrent ut excludant Filiū sed quia eis videbatur ut aiunt Latinos asserere spiritum Sanctum ex Patre Filioque procedere tanquam ex duobus principiis duabus Spirationibus ideo abstinuerunt à dicendo quod Spiritus Sanctus ex Patre procedat Filio Latini vero affirmaverunt non se hac mente dicere Spiritum Sanctum ex Filioque procedere ut excludant Patrem quin sit fons ac principium totius Deitatis Filii scilicet Spiritus Sancti aut quod id quod Spiritus Sanctu procedat ex Filio Filius à Patre non habeat sive quod duo ponant esse principia seu duas spirationes sed ut unum tantum asserunt esse principium unicamque spirationem Spiritus Sancti prout hactenus asseruerunt cum ex his omnibus unus idem eliciatur veritatis sensus tandem c. I pray you now tell it to no more that it is same Novel writers of ours prest by force of argument that have been the authors of this extenuation May heart even trembleth to think that there should be a thing called Religion among you that can so far extinguish both Charity and Humanity as to cause you to pass so direful a doom without authority or tryal on so great a part of the Christian world for such a word as this about so exceeding high a mysterie when your Pope and Council have pronounced a union of meanings And what mean you in your Margin to refer me to Nilus as if he asserted That the Greeks left the Communion of the Roman Church upon that difference alone Verily Sir in the high matters of God this dealing is scarce fair pardon this plainness consider of it your self The substance of Nilus book is about the Primacy of the Pope The very contents prefixed to the first book are these Oratio demonstrans non aliam c. An Oration demonstrating that there is no other cause of the dissension between the Latin and Greek Churches then that the Pope refuseth to defer the cognisance and iudgement of that which is controverted to a general Council but he will sit the sole Master and Iudge of the Controversie and will have the rest as Disciples to be hearers of or obey his word which is a thing aliene from the Laws and actions of the Apostles and Fathers And he begins his Book after a few words thus Causa itaque hujus dissidii c. The cause therefore of this difference as I judge 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 less is it the speech of the Scripture it self which as being concise doth pronounce nothing openly of that which is controverted For to accuse the Scripture is as much as to accuse God himself But God is without all fault But who the fault is in any one may easily tell that is well in his wits He next shews that it is not for want of learned men on both sides nor is it because the Greeks do claim the Primacy and then concludeth it as before He maintaineth that your Pope succeedeth Peter only as a Bishop ordained by him as many other Bishops that originally were ordained by him in like manner do succeed him and that his Primacy is no Governing power nor given him by Peter but by Princes and Councils for order sale and this he proves at large and makes this the main difference Bellarmines answering his so many Arguments might have told you this if you had never read Nilus himself If you say that This point was the first cause I deny it but if it were true yet was it not the only or chief cause afterward The Munner of bringing in the filioque by Papal authority without a general Council was it that greatly offended the Greeks from the beginning But you say that when I have made the best of these Greeks Armenians Ethiopians Protestants I cannot deduce them successively in all ages till Christ as a different Congregation of Christians from that which holds the Popes supremacy which was your proposition Reply I have oft told you we own no universal informing Head but Christ. In respect to him I have proved to you that is not my interest or design to prove us or them a different Congregation from you as you are Christians Nor shall you tempt me to be so uncharitable as to damn or unchristen all Papists as far as you do others incomparably safer and better then your selves But as you are Papal and set up a new informing head I have proved that you differ from all the antient Churches but yet that my cause requireth me not to make this proof but to call you to prove your own universal succession You add your Reason because these beforenamed were at first involved in your Congregation and then fell off as dead branches Reply This is but an untruth in a most publick matter of fact All the truth is this 1. Those Indians Ethiopians Persians c. without the Empire never fell
the help of Iulius and therefore no wonder if they desired this safety to their Churches 2. Note that this is a thing newly granted now by this Canon and not any ancient thing 3. Note that therefore it was of Humane Right and not of Divine 4. Note that yet this Canon was not received or practised in the Church but after this the contrary maintained by Councils and practised as I shall anon prove 5. That it is not any antecedent Governing Power that the Canon acknowledgeth in the Pope but in honour of the Memory of S. Peter as they say yet more for their present security they give this much to Rome it being the vulgar opinion that Peter had been there Bishop 6. That it is not a Power of judging alone that they give but of causing the re-examination of Causes by the Council and adding his assistants in the judgement and so to have the putting of another into the place forborn till it be done 7. And I hope still you will remember that at this Council were no Bishops without the Empire and that the Roman world was narrower then the Christian world and therefore if these Bishops in a part of the Empire had now given not a Ruling but a saving Power to the Pope so far as is there expressed this had been far from proving that he had a Ruling Power as the Vice-Christ over all the world and that by Divine right Blame me not to call on you to prove this consequence 8. There is as much for Appeals to Constantinople that never claimed a Vice-Christship as Iure divino 6. Your sixth instance out of Basils 74. Epistle I imagine you would have suppressed if ever you had read that Epistle and had thought that any others would be induced by your words to read it I have given you out of this and other Epistles of Basil a sufficient proof of his enmity to Popery in my Key cap. 26. pag. 170 171 172. and cap. 27. pag. 177. that very Epistle of Basils was written to the Western Bishops and not to the Bishop of Rome only nor so much as naming him The help that he desireth is either a Visit or perswasive Letters never mentioning the least Power that the Pope had more then other Bishops but only the interest of Credit that the Western Bishops had more then Basil and his Companions saith he For what we say is suspected by many as if for certain private contentions we would strike a fear and pusillanimity into their minds But for you the further you dwell from them so much the more credit you have with the common people to which this is added that the grace of God is a help to you to care for the oppressed And if many of you unanimously decree the same things it is manifest that the Multitude of you decreeing the same things will cause an undoubted reception of your opinion with all You see here upon what terms Liberius his Letters might bestead Eustathius He having received him into his own Communion and Eustathius being Orthodox in words no wonder that the Synod of Tiana receive him upon an Orthodox confession and their fellow-Bishops reception and Letters No doubt but the Letters of many another Bishop might have perswaded them to his reception though he had more advantages from Rome Is it not now a fair Argument that you offer Liberius sometime an Arrian Pope of Rome by his Letters prevailed with a Synod at Tyana to restore Eustathius an Arrian that dissembled an Orthodox confession What then Ergo the Pope of Rome is the Vice-Christ or was then the Governour of all the Christian world Soft and fair 1. Basil gives you other reasons of his interest 2. He never mentioneth his universall Government when he had the greatest need to be helped by it if he had known of such a thing 3. The Empire is not all the world If Basil knew the Roman Soveraignty I am certain he was a wilfull Rebel against it 7. Your seventh proof is from Chrysostome who you say expresly desireth Pope Innocent not to punish his adversaries if they do repent Chrys. Epist. 2. ad Innoc. Reply You much wrong your soul in taking your Religion thus on trust some Book hath told you this untruth and you believe it and its like will perswade others of it as you would do me There is no such word in the Epist. of Chrysostome to Innocent nor any thing like it 8. Your eighth proof is this The like is written to the Pope by the Council of Ephesus in the Case of Iohn of Antioch Concil Ephes. p. 2. Act. 5. Reply 1. The first Council at Ephesus which no doubt you mean is in Binnius enough to make a considerable Volume and divided into six Tomes and each of those into Chapters and not into Acts And if you expect that I should exactly read six Tomes in Folio before I can answer your severall sentences or shreds you will put me on a twelve-moneths work to answer a few sheets of Paper If you mean by p. 3. Tom. 2. and by Act. 5. Cap. 5. then I must tell you there is not a word of that you say nor like it Only there is reference to Celestines and Cyrils Epistles and Celestine in his Epistle recited Tom. 1. cap. 17. threatens Nestorius that if he repent not he will excommunicate him and they will have no more communion with him which others did as well as he but not a word of Iohn Bishop of Antioch there Nor can I find any such thing in the 4. Tome where Iohn's cause is handled Indeed the Notes of your Historian divide the Council into Sessions But in his fifth Session there is nothing of Iohn but of Nestorius And in the 4. Sess. Iohn and his Party excommunicate Cyril Memnon and theirs And it was the Council that suspended first and after excommunicated Iohn And it is the Emperour to whom he appeals Indeed your Annotator in Sess. 6. mentions some words of Iuvenals that he should at least have regarded the Roman Legates it being the custome that his Church be directed by that But I see no proof he brings of those words and it is known that Cyril of Alexandria did preside and subscribed before the Roman Legates even to the severall Letters of the Synod as you may see in Tom. 2. cap. 23. passim 2. But if your words were there to be found what are they to your purpose The Pope can punish the Bishop of Antioch But how Why by excommunicating him True if he deserve it that is by pronouncing him unfit for Christian Communion and requiring his flock and exhorting all others to avoid him And thus may another Bishop do and thus did Iohn by Cyril of Alexandria though he was himself of the inferiour Seat and thus hath the Bishop of Constantinople done by the Bishop of Rome and so may others 9. Your ninth proof is from the applications that the Arrians and Athanasius
their Diocess yet they might renounce all communion with him Churches that have no power over one another may have communion with one another and that communion they may hold and renounce as there is cause Now if a neighbour Patriarch with so many Bishops of the West had renounc'd Communion with Chrysostomes enemies and also written their Letters on his behalf and taken him still as in their Communion this he hoped would much further his restauration which yet he doubted as he had cause For in his second Epistle he thanks him for doing his part though it did no good or did not avail And it is to be noted that your Author Nicephorus tells you lib. 13. cap. 31. that Chrysostomes Letters and his fellow-Bishops also and the Clergies of Constantinople were all written both to the Emperour Honorius and to Innocent And therefore you may see by that on what account it was and what help they did expect The Emperour was not to excommunicate but his Letters might do much Well but you alledge Niceph. l. 13. c. 34. to prove 1. Chrysostomes appeal But you have better or worse eyes then I for I can find there no such thing but a seeking for help as aforesaid 2. You say Innocentius nulls his condemnation and declares him innocent Ans. So might another Bishop have declared him But how far it should be regarded was not in his power 3. You say he excommunicates Atticus and Theopilus and 4. Arcadius the Emperor also and Eudoxia Reply 1. If he did so and did well another Bishop might as well have done it Mennas excommunicated Vigilius of Rome Excommunicating is not alwayes an act of Jurisdiction but a renouncing of Communion with a Ministeriall binding which any Pastor on a just occasion may exercise even on those that are not of his Diocess examples in Church-history are common 2. But I would have you answer Dr. Whittakers Reasons by which he proves that Nicephorus is a fabler in this relation and that that Epistle is not Innocents which cap. 34. he reciteth Lib. de pontif Rom. Contr. 4. Qu. 4. pag. 454 455. 1. Neither Socrates Theodoret or Sozomen make any mention of this excommunication who yet write much of the Case of Chrysostome and Arcadius And would these men that lived so near that time have all silenced so great and rare a thing as the excommunication of the Emperour and Empress which would have made so great a noise and stir that yet mention Ambrose his censure of Theodosius 2. This Bull of Innocents as Nicephorus would have us believe it hath such falshoods contrary to more credible history as bewray the forgery For Socrates lib. 6. c. 19. writeth that Eudoxia died the same year that Chrysostome was banished and that Chrysostome died the third year of his banishment And Sozomen saith l. 8. c. 28. that Chrysostome was in banishment three years after the death of Eudoxia But if Nicephorus were to be believed Eudoxia was alive and excommunicated by Innocent after Chrysostomes death Nor can it be said that Innocent knew not of her death for his Legats were sent to Constantinople in Atticus time who succeeded Arsacius who outlived Eudoxia This is the summe of Dr. Whittakers confutation of Nicephorus And withall who knows not how full of fictions Nicephorus is In your Margin you pretend to confute Chamier p. 498. as saying That other Bishops restored those wrongfully deposed as well as the Pope to which you say that never single Bishop restored any who were out of their respective Diocess c. whereas the Bishop of Rome by his sole and single authority restored Bishops wrongfully deposed all the Church over Reply 1. It seems you took Chamiers words on trust peruse that page and see his words 2. Single Bishops have censured and therefore might as well remit their own censures Ambrose censured Theodosius who was no fixed Member of his charge and he remitted the Censure Epiphanius presumed even at Constantinople to excommunicate Dioscorus and his Brethren Socrat. lib. 6. c. 14. And many instances may be brought both of excommunicating and again receiving to communion by particular Bishops even as to those that were not of their charge And if the fact were not proved yet the forbearance proveth not the want of power 3. I deny your unproved assertion that the Bishop of Rome singly restored all the Church over It is a meer fiction How many restored he out of the Empire Or in the Empire out of his Patriarchate but suasorily or Synodically Your next instance of Theodosius his not permitting the Council at Ephesus to be assembled and his reconciling himself to the Church is meerly impertinent We know that he and other Princes usually wrote to Rome Constantinople Alexandria c. or spoke or sent to more then one of the Patriarchs before they called a Council You cannot but know that Councils have been called without the Pope and that neither this nor an Emperours forsaking his errour is a sign of the Popes Universal Government That Emperour gave sufficient testimony and so did the Bishops that adhered to Dioscorus that in those dayes the Pope was taken for fallible and controlable when they excommunicated him But when you cite out of any Author the words that you build on I shall take more particular notice of them Till then this is enough with this addition that the Emperours subjection if he had been subject not to an Ambrose or other Bishop but only to Rome would have been no proof that any without the Empire were his subjects No more then the King of Englands subjection to the Archbishop of Canterbury would have proved that the King of France was subject to him 12. Your twelfth proof from the Council of Chalcedon is from a witness alone sufficient to overthrow your cause as I have proved to you This Synod expresly determineth that your Primacy is a novel humane invention that it was given you by the Fathers because Rome was the Imperial Seat If you believe this Synod the Controversie is at end If you do not why do you cite it and why pretend you to believe Generall Councils But what have you from this Council against this Council Why 1. You say Martian wrote to Leo that by the Popes Authority a generall Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to choose Reply 1. Whereas for this you cite Act. Concil Chalcedon 1. You tell me not in what Author whether Crabbe Binnius Surius Nicolinus or where I must seek it I have perused the Act. 1. in Binnius which is 63 pages in Folio such tasks your citations set me and find no such thing and therefore take it to be your mistake But in the preambul Epist I find that Valentinian and Martian desire Leo's prayers and contrary to your words that they say Hoc ipsum nobis propriis liter is tua sanctitas manifestet quatenus in omnem Orientem in ipsam Thraciam
Illyricum sacrae nostrae literae dirigantur ut ad quendam definitum locum qui nobis placuerit omnes sanctissimi Episcopi debeant convenire It is not qui vobis placuerit but qui nobis But what if you had spoke truth doth it follow that Leo was Christs Vicar-general Governour of the world because that the Soveraign of one Commonwealth did give him leave to choose the place of a Council Serious things should not be thus jested with 2. You say Anatolius and the rest of the Eastern Bishops sent to Pope Leo the professions of their faith by his order Reply 1. And what then therefore Pope Leo was both Governour of them and all the Christian world You should not provoke men to laughter about serious things I tell you Can you prove this Consequence Confessions were ordinarily sent in order to Communion or to satisfie the offended without respect to superiority 2. But I see not the proof of your impertinent words Pulcherius Epistle to Leo expresseth that Leo had sent his Confession first to Anatolius to which Anatolius consented By your Rule then Leo was subject to Anatolius 3. You say the Popes Legates sate first in Council Reply What then therefore the Pope was Governour of the Christian world though not a man out of the Empire were of the Council Are you still in jest But if it must be so then I can prove that others were the Universal Governours because at Nice and other Councils they sate before the Legates of the Pope and in many his Legats had no place Is this argument good think you O unfaithful partiality in the matters of salvation 4. You say they prohibited Dioscorus to sit by his order Reply 1. What then therefore he was Universal Governour of the Church All alike Any accuser in a Parliament or Synod may require that the Accused may not sit as judge till he be tried 2. But did you not know that Leo's Legates were not obeyed but that the Gloriosissimi judices amplissimus senatus required that the cause should be first made known and that it was not done till Eusebius Episcop Dorylaei had read his bill of complaint Binnius Act 1. pag. 5. 5. You say the Popes Legates pronounced the Church of Rome to be Caput omnium Ecclesiarum Reply 1. What then therefore he was Governour of all the Christian world I deny the consequence You do nothing but beg not a word of proof Caput was but membrum principale the Patriarch primae sedes and that but in the Empire 2. The Popes Legates were not the Council nor judges in their own cause and not opposing signifies not alwayes a consent 3. But the Council do as I said expresly define the point both what your Primacy is and of how long standing and of whose institution and that Constantinople on the same grounds had equall priviledges 6. You say all the Fathers acknowledged thtmselves Leo 's Children and wrote to him as their Father Reply Of this you give me not any proof but leave me to read 190 pages in Folio to see whether you say true or no. And what if you do as I believe you do can a man of any reading be ignorant how ordinarily other Bishops were stiled Fathers even by their fellow-Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome 7. You add that they humbly begged of him that the Patriarch of Constantinople might hâ—ve the first place next Rome which notwithstanding the Council had consented to as had also the third general Council at Ephesus before yet they esteemed their grants of no sufficient force till they were confirmed by the Pope Reply So far were the Council from what you falsly say of them that they put it into their Canons that Constantinople should have the second place yea and equal priviledges with Rome and that they had this on the same grounds as Rome had its Primacy even because it was the Imperial Seat Vid. Bin. pag. 133 124. col 2. And not only Ephesus but the second general Council at Constantinople they tell you had decreed the same before You see then contrary to your fiction that three general Councils of the greatest likened by Gregory to the 4 Evangelists not only judged without the Pope but by your own confession against him for you say he consented not yea so much did they slight the Popes consent that when his Legates dissented they were not heard See Bin. pag. 134 136. They persisted in the Council to maintain their Canon 38. notwithstanding the contradiction of Lucretius and Paschasinus and by the Judges it was accordingly pronounced p 137. And unanimously the whole Synod consented never stopping at the Roman dissent Pergamius Bishop of Antioch saith in omnibus sanctissimum Archiepiscopum Regiae civitatis novae Romae in honore cura sicut Patrem praecipuum habere nos convenit No man contradicted this And is not this as much or more then you alledge as spoke to Leo They call Leo you say Father And the Bishop of Constantinople is pronounced the Chief Father in all things in honour and Cure And Eusebius Bishop of Doryl the chief adversary of Dioscorus witnessed that he himself in the presence of the Clergy of Constantinople did read this Canon to the Pope at Rome and he received it Upon which your Historian hath no better an observation then that either Eusebius lyed or else at that hour he deceived Leo. It s true that the Synod writ to him for his consent but not as suspending any of their Decrees on it but telling him over and over that the things were by them defined and confirmed already pag. 140. that which they desired of him was what Synods ordinarily did of Bishops of their Communion that were absent Haec sicut propria amica ad decorem convenientissima dignare complecti sanctissime beatissime pater 13. In your Margin you tell me that Agapet in the time of Iustinian depoâ—ed Anthymius in Constantinople against the will of the Emperour the Empress Reply 1. And doth it follow that because he did it therefore he did it justly yea and as the Governour of that Church when Menna Bishop of Constantinople excommunicated Pope Vigilius was he not even with him and did that prove that Rome was subject to Constantinople Niceph. l. 17. c. 26. When Dioscorus excommunicated Leo and an Eastern Synod excommunicated Iulius Sozom. l. 3. c. 11. that proves not that they did it justly or as his Governours Honorius the Emperour deposed Boniface 1. Othe with a Synod deposed Iohan. 13. Iustinian deposed Sylverius and Vigilius Will you confess it therefore justly done 2. As to the history I refer you to the full answer of Blondel to Perron cap. 25. sect 84 85. 3. Usurpation and deposing one another by rash sentences was then no rare thing Eusebius of Nicomedia threatened the deposing of Alexander of Constantinople who sure was not his subject Socrat. lib. 1. c. 37. vel 25.
Acacius of Caesarea and his party depose not only Eleusius Basilius and many others but with them also Macedonius Bishop of Constantinople Socrat. lib. 2. c. 33. vel 42. Did this prove Acacius the Vice-Christ What should I instance in Theophilus actions against Chrysostome or Cyrils against Iohan. Antiochen and many such like 4. Still you suppose one Empire to be all the Christian world We must grant you that in all your instances 14. For what you alledge from Gregory I shall give you enough of him anon for your satisfaction if you will be indifferent As to your citation what can I say A years time were little enough to search after your citations if you should thus write but many more sheets If a man had so much time and so little wit as to attend you You turn me to Greg. cap. 7. ep 63. but what Book or what Indiction you tell me not But whatever it be false it must needs be there being no one Book of his Epistles according to all the Editions that I have seen where c. 7. and ep 63. do agree or meet together But at last I found the words in lib. 7. c. 63. ep 63. To which I say that either your great Gregory by subject meant that the Bishop of Constantinople was of an inferiour Order as the Patriarch of Alexandria and Antioch were to Constantinople that yet had no Government of them or else he could say and unsay But I doubt not but this was all his sense But if it had been otherwise Constantinople and the Empire was not all the Christian world Your next citation is lib. 7. ep 37. But it s falsly cited There is no such word and you are in so much haste for an answer that I will not read over all Gregories Epistles 15. You say Cyril would not break off Communion with Nestorius till Celestine had condemned him of this you give us no proof But what if it be true Did you think that it proved the Pope to be the Vice-Christ Prudence might well make Cyril cautelous in excommunicating a Patriarch And we still grant you that the Order of the Empire had given the Roman Bishop the Primacy therein and therefore no wonder if his consent were expected But that Nestorius was condemned by a Council needs no proof And what if Celestine began and first condemned him I she therefore the Universal Bishop But it was not Celestine alone but a Synod of the Western Bishops And yet Cyril did not hereupon reject him without further warning And what was it that he threatned but to hold no Communion with him Vid. Concil Ephes. 1. Tom. 1. cap. 14. And though Pride made excommunication an Engine to advance one Bishop above others I can easily prove that if I had then lived it had been my duty to avoid Communion with a notorious Heretick though he had been Pope The long story that you next tell is but to fill up Paper that Cyril received the Popes Letters that Nestorius repented not that he accused Cyril that Theodosius wrote to Celestine about a Council and many such impertinent words But the proof is that Cyril was the Popes chief Legate Ordinary Forsooth because in his absence he was the chief Patriarch therefore he is said Celestini locum tenere which he desired Well let your Pope sit highest seeing he so troubles all the world for it Christ will shortly bid him come down lower when he humbleth them that exalt themselves That Cyril subscribed before Philip you may see Tom. 2. cap. 23. but where I may find that Philip subscribed first you tell me not But what if the Archbishop of Canterbury sate highest and subscribed first in England Doth it follow that he was Governour of all the world no nor of York it self neither 16. And here you tell us of Iuvenal Act. 6. Repl. 1. The Council is not divided into Acts in Binnius but many Tomes and Chapters but your words are in the Notes added by your historian but how to prove them Iuvenals words I know noâ— nor find in him or you 2. But why were not the antecedent words of the Bishop of Antioch and his Clergy as valid to the contrary as Iuvenals for this 3. If these words were spoken they only import a Iudgeing in Council as a chief member of it and not of himself And his apostolica ordinatione is expresly contrary to the â—orecited Canon of the Council of Chalcedon and therefore not to be believed Yet some called things done Ordinatione apostolica which were ordained by the Seats which were held Apostolike 4. But still you resolve to forget that Antioch or the Empire extended not to the Antipodes nor contained all the Catholick Church 17. You next tell me of Valentinians words A. D. 445. Reply It is the most plausible of all your testimonies but worth nothing to your end For 1. Though Theodosius name pro forma were at it yet it was only Valentinians act and done at Rome where Leo prevailed with a raw unexperienced Prince to word the Epistle as he desired so that it is rather Leo's then the Emperours originally And Leo was the first that attempted the excessive advancement of his Seat above the rest of the Patriarchs 2. It is known that the Emperours sometime gave the Primacy to Rome and sometime to Constantinople as they were pleased or displeased by each of them So did Iustinian who A. D. 530. Lampadio Oreste Coss. C. de Episcopis lib. 1. lege 24. saith Constantinopolitana Ecclesia omnium aliarum est Caput The Church of Constantinople is the Head of all other 3. It is your fiction and not the words of Valentinian or Leo that the succession from Peter was the foundation of Romes Primacy It was then believed that Antioch and other Churches had a succession from Peter It is the Merit of Peter and the Dignity of the City of Rome and the Authority of the Synod joyntly that he ascribeth it to The Merit of Peter was nothing but the Motive upon which Leo would have men believe the Synod gave the Primacy to Rome And Hosius in the Council of Sardica indeed useth that as his motive Let us for the honour of Peter c. They had a conceit that where Peter last preached and was martyred and buried and his relicts lay there he should be most honoured 4. Here is not the least intimation that this Primacy was by Gods appointment or the Apostles but the Synods Nor that it had continued so from Peters dayes but that joyntly for Peters Merits and honour and the Cities dignity it was given by the Synod 5. And it was but Leo's fraud to perswade the raw Emperour of the authority of a Synod which he would not name because the Synod of Sardica was in little or no authority in those daies The rest of the reasons were fraudulent also which though they prevailed with this Emperour yet they took not in the East And Leo himself it
seems durst not pretend to a Divine Right and Institution nor to a succession of Primacy from the Apostles 6. But nothing is more false then your assertion that he extendeth the power over the whole visible Church The word Vniversitas is all that you translate in your comment the whole visible Church As if you knew not that there was a Roman Vniversality that Roman Councils were called Vniversall when no Bishops out of that one Common-wealth were present and that the Church in the Empire is oft called the whole Church Yea the Roman world was not an unusuall phrase And I pray you tell me what power Valentinian had out of the Empire who yet interposâ—th his authority there Nequid praeter authoritatem sedis istiusilliâ—itum c. ut pâ—x ubique servetur And in the end it is All the Provinces that is the Vniversity that he extends his precepts to 7. And for that annexed that without the Emperours Letters his authority was to be of force through France for what shall not be lawfull c. I Ans. No wonder â—or France was part of his Patriarchaâ—e and the Laws of the Empire had confirmed his Patriarchal power and those Laws might seem with the reverence of Synods without new Letters to do much But yet it seems that the rising power needed this extraordinary secular help Hilary it seems with his Bishops thought that even to his Patriarch he owed no such obedience as Leo here by force exacteth So that your highest witness Leo by the mouth of Valentinian is for no more then a Primacy with a swelled power in the Roman Universality but they never medled with the rest of the Christian world It seems by all their writings and attempts this never came into their thoughts And it s no credit to your cause that this Hilary was by Baronius confession a man of extraordinary holiness and knowledge and is Sainted among you and hath his Day in your Calendar And yet Valentinian had great provocation to interpose if Leo told him no untruths for his own advantage For it was no less then laying siege to Cities to force Bishops on them without their consent that he is accused of which shews to what odious pride and usurpation prosperity even then had raised the Clergy fitter to be lamented with floods of tears then to be defended by any honest Christian Leo himself may be the principal instance 18. You next return to the Council of Chalcedon Act. 1. seq where 1. You refer me to that Act. 1. where is no such matter but you add seq that I may have an hundred and ninety pages in Folio to peruse and then you call for a speedy answer But the Epistle to Leo is in the end of Act. 16. pag. Bin. 139. 2. And there you do but falsly thrust in the word thou governst us and so you have made your self a witness because you could find none The words are Quibus tu quidem sicut membris caput praeeras in his qui tuum tenebant ordinem benevolentiam praeferens Imperatores vero adornandum decentissime praesidebant Now to go before with you must be to Govern If so then Aurelius at the Council of Carthage and others in Councils that presided did govern them It was but benevolentiam praetulisse that they acknowledged And that the Magistrates not only presided indeed but did the work of Judges and Governours is express in the Acts it s after wrote in that Epistle Haec sunt quae tecum qui spiritu praesens eras complacere tanquam fratribus deliberasti qui pene per tuorum vicariorum sapientiam videbaris à nobis effecimus And haec à tua sanctitate fuerint inchoata and yet Qui enim locum vestrae sanctitatis obtinent iis ita constitutis vehementer resistere tentaverunt From all which it appeareth that he only is acknowledged to lead the way and to please them as his brethren and to help them by the wisdome of his substitutes and yet that the Council would not yield to their vehement resistance of one particular But I have told you oft enough that the Council shall be judge not in a complementall Epistle but in Can. 28. where your Primacy is acknowledged but 1. As a gift of the Fathers 2. And therefore as new 3. For the Cities dignity 4. And it can be of no further extent then the Empire the Givers and this Council being but the Members of that one Commonwealth So that all is but a novel Imperial Primacy 19. And for the words of Vincentius Lirinensis c. 9. what are they to your purpose quantum loci authoritate signifieth no more then we confess viz. that in those times the greatness of Rome and humane Ordination thereupon had given them that precedency by which their loci authoritas had the advantage of any other Seat Or else they had never swelled to their impious Usurpation I have plainly proved to you in the End of my safe Religion that Vincentius was no Papist But you draw an argument from the word sanxit As if you were ignorant that bigger words then that are applied to them that have no governing power Quantum in se sanxit he charged them that they should not innovate And what is it P. Stephen that is the Law-giver of the Law against unjust innovation Did not Cyprian believe that this was a Law of Christ before Stephen medled in that business What Stephens authority was in those dayes we need no other witnesses then Firmilian Cyprian and a Council of Carthage who slighted the Pope as much as I do I pray answer Cyprians testimony and arguments against Popery cited by me in the Disp. 3. of my safe Religion 20. You say you will conclude with the saying of your priest Philip and Arcadius at Ephesus And 1. You take it for granted that all consented to what they contradicted not But your word is all the proof of the consequence Nothing more common then in Senates and Synods to say nothing to many passages in speeches not consented to If no word not consented to in any mans speech must pass without contradiction Senates and Synods would be no wiser Societies then Billingsgate affords nor more harmonious then a Fair or vulgar rout What confusion would contradictions make among them 2. You turn me to Tom. 2. pag. 327. Act. 1. I began to hope of some expedition here But you tell me not at all what Author you use And in Binnius which I use the Tomes are not divided into Acts but Chapters and pâ—g 327. is long bâ—fore this Councâ—l So â—hat I must believe you or search paper enough for a weeks reading to disprove you This once I will believe you to save me that labour and supposing all rightly cited I reply 1. Philip was not the Council You bear witness to your selves therefore your witness is not credible Yet I have given you instances in my Key which I would
transcribe if I thought that you could not as well read Print as M. S. of higher expressions then Caput and fundamentum given to Andrew by Isychius and equal expressions to others as well as Rome and Peter And who is ignorant that knoweâ—h any thing of Church-history that others were called successours of Peter as well as the Bishop of Rome And that the Claves regni were given to him is no proof that they were not given also to all the rest of the Apostles And where you say Arcadius condemneth Nestorius for contemning the command of the Apostolick Sea You tell me not where to find it I answer you still that its long since your Sea begun to swell and rage but if you must have us grant you all these consequences Celestine commanded therefore he justly commanded therefore another might not as well have commanded him as one Pastor may do another though equall in the name of Christ and therefore he had power to command without the Empire even over all the Catholick Church and therefore the Council was of this mind yea therefore the universal Church was of this mind that the Pope was its universal head You still are guilty of sporting about serious things and moving pity instead of offering the least proof Yet fear you not to say that in the time of the holy Oecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon the universal consent of the whole Catholick Church was for you in this point The Lord keep our consciences from being the servants of our opinions or interests 1. Was the Popes Legate the whole Catholick Church 2. Was there one man at either of these Councils but within the Empire yea a piece of the Empire So that they were but such as we now call National Councils that is consisting only of the subjects of one Republick 3. Did the Council speak a word for your power without the Empire 4. Do they not determine it so expresly to be of humane right that Bellarmine hath nothing regardable to say against it Can. 28. Conc. Chalced. but that they spoke falsly And yet your opinion or interest hath tempted you to appeal viz. to the Sun that there is no such thing as light 21. After the conclusion you have a supernumerary in your Margin from Greg. lib. 10. Epist. 30. But there is no such word in that Epistle nor is it of any such subject But is the 31. Epistle its like that your leader meant And there 's no more but that a Bishop not named person or place having fallen into Schism voluntarily swore never more to depart from the Unity of the Catholick Church or the sea of Rome But 1. So may a Bishop of the Roman Province do or Patriarchate without believing Rome to be the Universal Head So might one in any other Province have done And yet it follows not that he ought to do so because he did so You see now what all your proofs are come to and how shamefully naked you have left your cause In summ of all the testimonies produced 1. You have not named one man that was a Papist Pope Leo was the nearest of any man nor one testimony that ever a Pope of Rome had the Government of all the Church without the verge of the Roman Empire but only that he was to the Roman Church as the Archbishop of Canterbury to the English Church And as between Canterbury and York so between Rome and Constantinople there have been contentions for preheminency But if I can prove Canterbury to be before York or Rome before Constantinople that will prove neither of them to be Ruler at the Antipodes or of all the Christian world 2. Much less have you proved that ever any Church was of this opinion that the Pope was by Divine Right the Governour of all the world when you cannot prove one man of that opinion 3. Much less have you proved a succession of such a Church from the Apostles having said as much as nothing concerning the first 300 years 4. And yet much less have you proved that the whole Catholick Church was of this opinion 5. And least of all have you proved that the whole Church took this Primacy of Rome to be of necessity to the very Being of the Church and to our salvation and not only ad melius esse as a point of Order So that you have left your Cause in shameful nakedness as if you had confessed that you can prove nothing In the end you return to terms To what you say about the word Christians I only say that it s but equivocally applied to any that profess not all the Essentialls of Christianity of which Popery is none any more then Pride is About the word Monarch in good sadness do you deny the Pope to be an imperious sole Commander Which of these is it that you deny not that he is a Commander not that he is imperious not that he is sole in his Soveraignty I would either you or we knew what you hold or deny But perhaps the next words shew the difference as Temporal Kings But this saith not a word wherein they differ from Temporal Kings sure your following words shew not the difference 1. Kings may receive power from Christ. 2. Kings must rule in meekness charity and humility But I think the meekness charity and humility of Popes hath been far below even wicked Kings if cruel murdering Christians for Religion and setting the world on fire may be witness as your own Histories assure us 3. The Government of Kings also is for mens eternal good however Papists would make them but their executioners in such things 4. Brethren as such are no subjects and therefore if the Pope Rule men but as Brethren he rules them not by Governing authority at all 5. Children to him we are not You must mean it but Metaphorically And what mean you then Is it that he must do it in Love for their good So also must Kings So that you have yet exprest no difference at all But our Question is not new nor in unusuall terms What Soveraignty you claim you know or should know Are you ignorant that Bellarmine Boverius and ordinarily your Writers labour to prove that the Government of the Church is Monarchicall and that the Pope is the Monarch the supream Head and Ruler which in English is the Soveraign Are you ashamed of the very Cause or Title of it which you will have necessary to our salvation Next you say that you very much dislike the Title of Vice-Christ as proud and insolent and utterly disclaim from it neither was it ever given by any sufficient authority to your Popes or did they ever accept of it Reply Now blessed be God that makes sin a shame to it self that the Patrons of it dare scarce own it without some paint or vizard 1. Is not the very life of the Cause between you and us whether the Pope be the Universal Head of the Church vice Christi
istius non potuisse statuere prout statuit haeretiâ—um censeatur So that by your Law we must believe the power of your Lord God the Pope or be hereticks If you meet with any Impressions that leave out Deum take Rivets note haberi in editione formata jussu Greg. 12. â— corectoribus Pontificiis nec in censuris Glâ—ssae jâ—ssu Pii 5. editis quae in expurgatorio indice habintur nomen Dei erasum fuisse Pope Nicolas 3. de Elâ—ct cap. fundamenta in 6. saith that Peter was â—ssumed into the Society of the individuall Trinity Angelus Polit. in Orat. ad Alex. 6. Pontificem ad Divinitatem ipsam sublâ—tum asserit He saith the Pope was taken up to the Godhead it self At the foresaid Council at Laterane Antonius Puccius in an Oration before Leo the tenth in the Council and after published by his favour said Divinae tuae Majestatis conspectus rutilante cujus fulgore imbecilles oculimei caligant His eyes were darkened with beholding the Popes Divine Majesty None contradicted this In the same Council Simon Bâ—gnius Modrusiensis Episcopus in an Oâ—acion Sâ—ss 6. calls Leo The Lion of the Tribe of Juda the root of Jesse him whom they had looked for as the Saviour In the same Council Sâ—ss 10 Stephanus Patracensis Archiop saith Reges in compedibus magnitudinis magni Regis liga nobiles in manicis ferreis censurarum constringe quoniam tibi data est omnis potestas in coelo in terra and before qui totum dicit nihil excludit So that all Power in heaven and earth is given to the Pope Paulus Aemilius de gestis Francorum lib. 7. saith that the Sicilian Embassadours lay prostrate at the Popes feet and thrice repeated Thou that takest away the sins of the world have mercy on us And prove to me that ever any such man was reprehended for these things by the Popes of late August Triumphus in Praefat. sum ad Ioan. 22. saith That the Popes power is infinite for great is the Lord and great is his power and of his greatness there is no end And qu. 36. ad 6. he saith that the Pope influenceth or giveth the Motion of direction and the sense of cognition into all the Members of the Church for in him we live and move and have our being And a little after he saith The will of God and consequently of the Pope who is his Vicar is the first and highest cause of all corporal and spiritual motions Would you have any more witness of the falshood of your words saith Zabarella I.C. lib. de schism Innocent 7. Bened. pag. 20. For this long time past and even to this day those that would please the Popes perswaded them that they could do all things and so that they might do what they pleased even things unlawfull and so more than God Antonius parte 3. tit 21. cap. 5. § 4. saith The Pope receiveth from the faithfull adorations prostrations and kisses of his feet which Peter permitted not from Cornelius nor the Angel from John the Evangelist Cardinalis Bertrandus Tract de origin jurisd q. 4. num 4. in Glos. extrag com l. 1. fol. 12. saith Because Iesus Christ the son of God while he was in this world and even from eternity was a Naturall Lord and by Naturall right could pronounce the sentence of deposition on Emperours or any others and the sentence of damnation and any other as upon the Persons which he had created and endowed with naturall and free gifts and also did conserve it is his will that on his account his Vicar may do the same things For the Lord should not seem discreet that I may speak with his reverence unless he had left behind him one Vicar that can do all these things Tell me now whether you said true in the Paragraph about the Title Vice-Christ yea whether it be not much more that hath been given and accepted But what name else is it that you agree on as proper to express the power which is controverted I know no name so fitted to the reall controversie And therefore in disclaiming the Name for ought I know you disclaim your Cause and confess the shame of Popery If he that seeks to be King of England should say he disclaimeth the Title of King as insolent and proud doth he not allow me to conclude the like of the thing which he concludeth of the proper name The name Papa Pope you know its like was usually by the ancients given to other Bishops as well as to him of Rome and therefore that cannot distinguish him from other men The same I may say of the Titles Dominus Pater sanctissimus beatissimus Dei amantissimus and many such like And for summus Pontifex Baronius tells you Martyrol Rom. April 9. that it was the ancient custome of the Church to call all Bishops not only Pontifices Popes but the Highest or Chief Popes citing Hierom. Ep. 99. And for the word Head of the Church or of all Bishops it hath been given to Constantinople that yet claimeth not as Nilus tells you neither a precedency to Rome nor an Universall Government much less as the Vice-Christ And that the Bishop of Constantinople was called the Apostolick Vniversal Bishop Baronius testifieth from an old Vaticane monument which on the other side calls Agapetus Episcoporum Princeps The Title Apostolick was usually given to others Hierusalem was called the mother of the Churches A Council gave Constantinople the Title of Vniversal Patriarch which though Gregory pronounced so in pious and intolerable for any to use yet the following Popâ—s made an agreement with Constantinople that their Patriarch should keep his Title of Vniversal Patriarch and the Bishop of Rome be called the Vniversal Pope which can signifie nothing proper to him the name Pope being common more then Vniversal Patriarch doth The Foundations and Pillars of the Church and the Apostles successors yea Peters successors were Titles given to others as well as him and more then these It being therefore the point in controversie between us whether the Bishop of Rome be in the place of Christ or as his Vicar the Head Monarch or Governour of the Church universal and the terms Vice Christi Vicarius Christi being those that Popes and Papists choose to signifie their claim what other should I use As to what you say of the Council of Constance which you must say also of Basil and of the French Church Venetians c. you pretend the doubt to be only between Ordinary and extraordinary Governours But 1. of old the Councils called Generall indeed but of one Principality were more ordinary then now the Pope hath brought them to be and I blame him not if he will hold his greatness to take heed of them 2. The way not to have been extraordinary if the Council of Constâ—nce had been infallible or of sufficient power who decreed that there should be one every ten years 3. The Councils that continue
so many years as that at Trent did are then become an Ordinary Government 4. What is given to the Church Representative is by many of you given to the Church reall or essentiall as you call it which is ordinarily existent only not capable of exerting the power it hath The singulis major at universis minor is no rare doctrine with you 5. But let it be as extraordinary as you please if while these Councils sit the Pope lose his Headship your Church is then two Churches specifically distinct and the form of it changeth when a Council sitteth which is a two-headed mutable Church not like the Spouse of Jesus Christ. 6. As your Popes are said to live in their constitutions and Laws when the person dyeth and your Church is not thought by you to die with them so why may not Councils do The Laws of Councils live when they sit not and the French think that these Laws are above the Pope though I shewed you even now that Iulius 2. in Conc. Later concluded otherwise of Decrees and the Council of the Popes power 7. If a Nation be Governed by Trienniall and so Decenniall Parliaments as the highest power and Councils of State in the intervalls who shall be accountable to Parliaments will you say that these Parliaments are extraordinary and not the ordinary Soveraign No doubt they are And the Council of State is not the Soveraign but the chief Officer or Magistrate for execution in the intervals Having begun this Reply May 2. I was again taken off it about May 5. or 6. And about May 11. I received a Letter from you wherein you tell me of a quarter of a years expectation Be patient good Sir These matters concern Eternity Believe it I have somewhat else to do of greater hast and moment Even some of your own friends find me more work What if ten of you write to me at once is it fair for each one of you to call for an answer as hastily as if I had but one in hand This is not my case but it is more then thus Fear not lest I give you over till you first prove the deserter and turn your back if God enable me Only I must tell you that I take it for a flight already and a forsaking of your Cause that you turn to these rambling impertinent citations and discourses in stead of a Syllogisticall arguing the case and that when you had spoken so much for it I have here that you may have no cause of exception nor pretence of cause in this Paper replyed to your last and in another proved the Visibility of our Church syllogistically and as overplus also disproved yours and proved it to be an upstart the sprout of Pride upon occasion of the greatness of the City of Rome and of the forming the Church to the Civil State in that one Empire If now you will deny to do the like I shall conclude you fly and forsake your Cause Besides your Rejoinder to this Reply I principally expect that you syllogistically in close and faithfull Arguing do prove to us the Affirmative of these Questions following Qu. Whether the Church of which the subjects of the Pope are Members hath been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth In which these three Questions are involved which you have to prove 1. Whether the Papacy that is the Vniversal Monarchy or Soveraign Government or Vice-Christship of the Pope take which term you like hath continued from Christs dayes till now 2 Whether all the Catholick Church did still submit to it and were subjects of the Pope 3. Whether those that did submit to it did take it to be necessary to the Being of the Church and the salvation of all believers or only to the more peaceable and better being If you call for Catalogues or proof of Visible succession and pretend so high to it your selves and yet will give us none when we importune you to it you tell us that you seek not to reveal the truth and Church but to hide them I urge you the harder though it may seem immodest because as the Cause doth lie upon your proof here so I know you cannot do it Pardon my confidence I know you can do no more then Baronius Bellarmine Bullinger c. set together have done and therefore I say I know you cannot do it I know your Vice-Christ I doubt the Antichrist is of humane introduction springing out of a Nationall I mean Imperiall Primacy which also was of humane invention It was but one Civil Government or Commonwealth in which your Bishop had his Primacy and that long without a Governing power And this National Primacy because of the greatness of the Empire was at last called Universal And even this was long after the dayes of Christ some hundreds of years a stranger in the Church unless as the Greatness of the Church of Rome and advantages of the place did give that Church such authority as ariseth from magnitude splendour honour and accidental advantages from the populousness wealth and glory of the City of Rome The carnall Church is led by the Vice-Christ the earthly Prince of Pride contending in the world for command and superiority and prosecuting his Cause with Strappados fire sword and gunpowder when Christ gave no Pastor a Coercive power to touch mens bodies or estates The true spirituall Church is Headed and commanded by Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace and knoweth no other Universal Head because no other hath either Capacity or Authority It obeyeth his Laws and learneth of him to be charitable patient meek and lowly and wonders not at errours and divisions on earth nor therefore accuseth the providence of God but knoweth by faith that the Universal Judge of Controversies is at the door and that it is but a very little while and we shall see that the Church had an Universal Head that was alone sufficient for his work for he that cometh will come and will not tarry Amen Even so come Lord Jesus Sir I desire you presently to send me word whether you will by close Syllogisticall arguing prove the successive visibility of your Church as Papal or not that I may know what to expect And once more I pray you take the help of the ablest of your party both that I may not be so troubled with wrong or impertinent allegations and that I may be sure that your insufficient arguings are not from any imperfection of the person but of the Cause If you meet in these Papers with any passages which you think too confident and earnest I beseech you charge them not with uncharitableness or passion for I hope it proceeded not from either but I confess I am inclined to speak confidently where I am certain and to speak seriously about the things of God which are of everlasting consequence May 18. 1659. For Mr. William Iohnson THE SECOND PART Wherein the successive Visibility of the Church of which the
long to read yea were it but of the Pastors 5. God hath nowhere commanded the Church to keep such Catalogues or Histories nor promised when they are written that Papists shall not purposely corrupt and destroy them not Turks as at Buda take the Christian Libraries and burn them 6. Papists cannot prove the successive extent and habitations of the Catholike Church any more then we and we can do it as well as they for we have the same means If they can tell us where it hath been in every age they need not ask us If they cannot they have as much need to learn as we and much more They think it not necessary to their Laity to the proving of their faith to be able to prove the habitations or names of the Members of the Catholike Church in all ages and why is it more necessary to us then them 7. But yet to men acquainted with history what can be more easie then to tell you where great multitudes of Christians in all ages have inhabited and where many parts of the Church have been though no man can give you a Catalogue of the Church any more then of the world Would you know then where our Church that is the Catholike Church hath been in all ages why it hath been in Asia Africa and Europe Is that too general It hath been in Syria in Mesopotamia Parthia Media Armenia India Persia in Egypt Habassia Georgia Cilicia Circassia Mengrelia Natolia Isauria Thrace and more other Countries then I have any need to name to you to say nothing of Europe and Brittain by name as a thing most known But no man well in his wits will deny a succession of the Christian Church which I have defined from the first plantation of it until now If Christianity had ever ceased in the world how came it to be new planted and revived That this before described is the only Catholike Church that hath been owned by the ancient Doctors appeareth by their constant witnesses To cite a few and yet enough August in Psal. 21. Vbicunque timetur Deus laudatur ibi est Ecclesia Id. Epist. 50. In Sanctis Libris ubi manifestatur Dominus Christus ibi ejus Ecclesia declaratur and therefore there it must be sought Isti autem mirabili caecitate cum ipsum Christum praeter Scripturas nesciant ejus tamen Ecclesiam non divinarum authoritate cognoscunt sed humanarum calumniarum vanitate confingunt Christ is to be known in the Scripture and therefore so is the Church Ibid. In causa Caeciliani se ab Ecclesia Catholica hoc est ab unitate omnium gentium diviserunt It s not the Catholick Church because Roman but because extended to all Nations Sed tamen Ecclesiam quae non litigiosis opinionibus fingitur sed Divinis attestationibus comprobatur propter quemlibet hominem relinquere non debemus Id. In Psal. 56. Corpus ejus est Ecclesia non autem ista aut illa sed toto Orbe diffusa Nec ea quae nunc est in hominibus qui praesentem vitam agunt sed ad eam pertinentibus etiam his qui fuerunt ante nos his qui futuri sunt post nos usque in finem seculi Tota enim Ecclesia constans ex omnibus fidelibus quia fideles omnes membra sunt Christi habet illud Caput positum in coelestibus quod gubernat corpus suum etsi separatum est à visione sed annectitur charitate Id. Enchirid. ad Laurent c. 56. Ecclesia tanquam habitatori domus sua Deo templum suum conditori civitas sua quae tota hic accipienda est non solum ex parte quae peregrinatur in terris à solis ortu usque ad occasum laudans nomen domini Id. contr Petilian cap. 2. Purposely opening the true nature of the Catholick Church for the stating of the Case saith Quaestio certè inter nos versatur ubi sit Ecclesia utrum apud nos an apud illos Quae utique Vna est quam majores nostri Catholicam nominarunt ut ex ipso nomine ostenderent quia per totum est Haec autem Ecclesia Corpus Christi est sicut Apostolus dicit pro corpore ejus quae est Ecclesia Vnde utique manifestum est eum qui non est in membris Christi Christianam salutem habere non posse Membra vero Christi per unitatis charitatem sibi copulantur per eandem capiti suo adhaerent quod est Christus Iesus Quaestio est ubi sit hoc corpus i. e. ubi sit Ecclesia Quid ergo facturi sumus in Verbis nostris eam quaesituri an in Verbis capitis sui Domini nostri Iesu Christi Puto quod in illius potius verbis eam quaerere debemus qui verit as est optime novit corpus suum After he calls the Church over and over Vniversum Orbem Christianum cap. 3. Quia nolo humanis documentis sed divinis oraculis sanctam Ecclesiam demonstrari Si sanctae Scriptura in Africa solâ c. Si autem Christi Ecclesia Canonicarum Scripturarum Divinis certissimis testimoniis in omnibus gentibus designata est quicquid attulerint N. B. undicunque recitaverint qui dicunt Ecce hic Christus ecce illic audiamus potius si â—ves ejus sumus vocem pastoris nostri dicentis Nolite credere Cap. 4. Totus Christus Caput Corpus est Caput unigenitus Dei filius Corpus ejus Ecclesia sponsus sponsa duo in carne una Quicunque de ipso capite ab Scripturis sanctis dissentiunt etiamsi in omnibus locis inveniantur in quibus Ecclesia designata est non sunt in Ecclesia â—ursus quicunque de ipso capite Scripturis Sanctis consentiunt Vnitati Ecclesiae non communicant or as after ab ejus corpore quod est Ecclesia ita dissentiunt ut eorum communio non sit cum toto quacunque diffunditur sed in aliqua parte separata inveniatur manif stum est eos non esse in Catholica Ecclesia A sad conclusion to the Papists It would be tedious to recite half that Austin there hath to this purpose Through all his exquisite disputes with the Donatists he still describeth the Church 1. As being the Body of Christ its Head 2. As dispersed through the world and containing all the Members of Christ. 3. And that which begun at Ierusalem 4. And is to be known by the word of God Never mentioning the Headship of the Pope nor the Mistris-ship of Rome of which more anon So Optatus lib. 2. advers Parmen Vbi ergo erit propriet as Catholici nominis cum inde dicta sit Catholica quod sit rationabilis ubique diffusa c. And before p. 46. Ergo Ecclesia una est cujus sanctitas de sacramentis colligitur non de superbia personarum ponderatur He glorieth indeed in the chair of Peter and the
account then had not Rome those priviledges from the Apostles and consequently the whole Catholike Church was without them But the Antecedent is affirmed by that fourth great approved Council In Act. 16. Bin. p. 134. We everywhere following the definitions of the holy Fathers and the Canon and the things that have been now read of the hundred and fifty Bishops most beloved to God that were congregate under the Emperour Theodosius the great of pious memory in the Royal City of Constantinople new Rome we also knowing them have defined the same things concerning the priviledges of the same most holy Church of Constantinople new Rome For to the seat of old Rome because of the Empire of that City the Fathers consequently gave the priviledges And the hundred and fifty Bishops most beloved of God being moved with the same intention have given equal priviledges to the most holy seat of new Rome reasonably judging that the City adorned with the Empire and Senate shall enjoy equal priviledges with old Regal Rome Here we have the Testimony of one of the greatest general Councils of the humane original of Romes priviledges Bellarmine hath nothing to say but that they spoke falsly and that this clause was not confirmed by the Pope which are fully answered by me elsewhere But this is nothing to our present business It is a matter of fact that I use their Testimony for And if all the Bishops in two of the most approved general Councils called the Representative Catholike Church were not competent witnesses in such a case to tell us what was done and what was not done in those times then we have none The Papists can pretend to no higher testimony on their part The Church it self therefore hath here decided the controversie And yet note that even these priviledges of Rome were none of his pretended universal Government It s in vain to talk of the Testimonies of particular Doctors if the most renowned general Councils cannot be believed Yet I will add an Argument from them as conjunct Arg. 2. Had the Roman universal Soveraignty as essential to the Catholike Church been known in the daies of Tertullian Cyprian Athanasius Nazianzen Nyssen Basil Optatus Augustine and the other Doctors that confounded the Heresies or Schisms of those times e. g. the Novatians Donatists Arrians c. the said Doctors would have plainly and frequently insisted on it for the conviction of those Hereticks and Schismaticks But this they do not therefore it was not known in those times The consequence of the Major is evident hence The Doctors of the Church were men at least of common wit and prudence in the matters which they did debate therefore they would have insisted on this argument if then it had been known The reason of the consequence is because it had been most obvious easie and potent to dispatch their controversies 1. When the Arrians and many other Hereticks denied Christs eternal Godhead had it not been the shortest expeditious course to have cited them to the barr of the Judge of controversies the infallible Soveraign Head of the Church and convinced them that they were to stand to his judgement 2. Had not this Argument been at hand to have confounded all Heresies at once That which agreeth not with the Belief of the Roman Pope and Church is false But such is your opinion therefore 2. So for the Donatists when they disputed for so many years against the Catholikes which was the true Church had it not been Augustins shortest surest way to have argued thus That only is the true Church that is subject to the Pope of Rome and adhereth to him But so do not you therefore Either the Arrians Donatists and such others did believe the Papal Soveraignty and Vicarship or not If they did 1. How is it possible they should actually reject both the Doctrine and Communion of the Pope and Roman Church 2. And why did not the Fathers rebuke them for sinning against conscience and their own profession herein But if they did not believe the Papal Soveraignty then 2. How came it to pass that the Fathers did labour no more to convince them of that now supposed fundamentall Errour when 1. It is supposed as hainous a sin as many of the rest 2. And was the maintainer of the rest Had they but first demonstrated to them that the Pope was their Governour and Judge and that his Headship being essentiall to the Church it must needs be of his faith all Heresies might have been confuted the people satisfied and the controversies dispatched in a few words 3. Either Arrians Donatists Novatians and such like were before their defection acquainted with the Roman Soveraignty or not If they were not then it is a sign it was not commonly then received in the Church and that there were multitudes of Christians that were no Papists If they were then why did not the Fathers 1. Urge them with this as a granted truth till they had renounced it 2. And then why did they not charge this defection from the Pope upon them among their hainous crimes why did they not tell them that they were subjected to him as soon as they were made Christians and therefore they should not perfidiously revolt from him How is it that we find not this point disputed by them on both sides yea and as copiously as the rest when it would have ended all And for the Minor that the Fathers have not thus dealt with Hereticks the whole Books of Tertullian Nazianzen Nyssen Basil Optatus Hierom Augustine and others are open certain witnesses They use no such Argument but fill their Books with others most imprudently and vainly if they had known of this and had believed it Otherwise the Papists would never have been put to gather up a few impertinent scraps to make a shew with We see by experience here among us that this point is Voluminously debated and if we differ in other matters the Papists call us to the Roman bar and bring in this as the principall difference And why would it not have been so then between the Fathers and the Donatists Arrians and such like if the Fathers had believed this It s clear hence that the Papall Vicarship was then unknown to the Church of Christ. Arg. 3. The Tradition witnessed by the greater part of the Universal Church saith that the Papal Vicarship or Soveraignty is an innovation and usurpation and that the Catholick Church was many hundred years without it Therefore there was then no such Papal Church This is not a single testimony nor of ten thousand or ten millions but of the Major Vote of the whole Church and in Councils the Major Vote stands for the whole If this witness therefore be refused we cannot expect that the words of a few Doctors should be credited Nor may they expect that we credit any witness of theirs that is not more credible And that the Antecedent is true is known to the world as
appetit quo vocari nullus praesumpsit qui veraciter sanctus fuit That is And to bind up all in the girdle of speech the Saints before the Law the Saints under the Law the Saints under Grace all these making up the Body of Christ were placed among the Members of the Church yet never man would be called Universal Let your Holiness therefore consider how with your self you swell that desire to be called by that name by which no man hath presumed to be called that was truly Holy Well! if this be not as pâ—â—in as Protestants speak against Popery I will never hope to understand a Pope I only add that Gregory makes this usurpation of the name of an Universal Bishop a forerunner of Antichrist And that Pope Pelagius condemned it before him which Gratian puts into their Decrees or Canon Law And that he took the Churches authority to be greater then his own when he tells Iohn Sed quoad in mea correptione despicior restat ut Ecclesiam debeam adhibere Lib. 7. Ep. 30. Dixi nec mihi vos nec cuiquam alteri tale aliquid scribere debere ecce in praefatione epistolae quam ad meipsum qui prohibui direxistis sâ—perbae appellationis verbum Universalem me Papam dicentes imprimere curastis Quod peto dulcissima sanctitas vestra ultra non faciat quia vobis subtrahitur quod alteri plusquam ratio exigit praebetur See then whether it be not judged by him undue to himself as well as to others And what the weight of the matter seemed to him judge more by these words Ep. 83. l. 4. ad Arrian In isto scelesto vocabulo consentire nihil est aliud quam fidem perdere To consent in that wicked word is nothing else but to lose or destroy the faith That is apostasie And l. 6. c. 194. Mauric Aug. Ego fidenter dico quia quisquis se universalem sacerdotem vocat vel vocare desiderat in elatione sua Antichristum praecurrit quia superbiendo se caeteris praeponit nec dispari superbia ad errorem ducitur Arg. 7. The Papists themselves confess that multitudes of Christians if not most by far have been the opposers of the Pope or none of his subjects therefore by their Testimony there have been visible Churches of such Aeneas Sylvius after Pope Pius 2. saith small regard was had to the Church of Rome before the Council of Nice Bellarmine saith This is partly true by reason of the persecution of those ages and partly false Ans. But if true we prove the matter of fact and leave Bellarmine better to prove his Reason If it be false then their own Historians are not to be believed â—hough worthy to be Popes And then wâ—at historicall testimony will they believe Voluminously do their Historians mention the Opposition of the Greeks on one side and of the Emperours and Kings and Divines that were under the Popes Patriarchal power as Mich. Goldastus in abundance of Treatises hath manifested I gave before the testimony of Reynerius that the Churches planted by the Apostles were not under the Pope I shall once more recite the words of Melch. Canus Loc. Theol. lib. 6. cap. 7. fol. 201. Not only the Greeks but almost all N. B. the rest of the Bishops of the whole world have vehemently fought to destroy the Priviledge of the Church of Rome and indeed they had on their side both the Arms of Emperours and the greater Number of Churches and yet they could never prevail to abrogate the Power of the One Pope of Rome By the Papists confession then most of the Churches and almost all the Bishops of the whole world and the Emperours their Armies have vehemently fought to abrogate the Popes power and destroy the Priviledges of Rome Reynerius his testimony concerning the Antiquity of the Waldenses as from Pope Sylvesters dayes if not the Apostles hath been oft cited Had they been but from Gregories dayes it had been enough when we have his own Testimony that no Bishop of Rome would own to that time that wicked prophane sacrilegious foolish blasphemous dividing name of Vniversal Patriarch or Bishop which who ever holds to destroys the faith Arg. 8. The next Argument should have been from the Historical Testimony of the Ancients that the Papal Soveraignty was then no part of the Churches faith nor owned by them But here to produce the Testimonies of all ages would be to write a Volume in Folio on this one Argument alone For how can the History of all Ages be so particularly delivered out of such a Multitude of Books but in a multitude of words And it is done already so fully that I provoke the Papists to answer the Catalogues and historicall Evidence given in if they can If you ask where I will now only tell you of 1. Blondell against Perron dâ— Primatu in Ecclesia in French that shews you the torrent of Antiquity against the Papal Soveraignty 2. Molinaeus in French de Novitate Papismi against the same Perron 3. Bishop Vsher de statu successione Ecclesiarum and his Answer to the â—esuites challenge 4. Dr. Field of the Church who lib. 5. answereth Bellarmines allegations from all sort of Antiquity which are their strength I pass by many others some of which I have named in the foresaid 3. Dispute of the safe Religion where also I have produced more of this evidence then they can answer At least much more then you have returned me in your last Paper for the contrary to which I desire your answer For it s in vain to write one thing so oft I shall only instance in the currant Testimony of their own Historians of the Beginning of their Universal Headship Saith Regino Chron. l. 1. An. 808. p. 13. Bonifacius obtinuit apud Phocam Principem ut sedes Romana Caput esset omnium Ecclesiarum quia Ecclesia Constantinâ—pâ—litana primum se omnium Ecclesiarum scribebat Hermannus Contractus An. M. 4550. p. 122. Hoc tempore Phocas Romanam Ecclesiam omnium Ecclesiâ—rum Caput esse constituit Nam Constantinop primam se esse scripsit So Marianus Scotus in Phoc. Bonifacius P. 67. impetravit á Phoca Caesare ut sedes Apostolica Romana Caput esset Ecclesiae quum antea Constantinopolis Primam omnium se scriberet The same hath Sigebertus Gemblac An. 607. p. 526. And so Compilat Chron. and many more Beneventus de Rambaldis Lib. Augustali saith p. 8. in Phoca Phocas occiâ—â—r Manritii qui Primus constituit Quod Ecclesia esset Caput omnium Ecclesiarum Cum prius Constantin supremum se nominaret Mark here the Primus Constituit So Beda P. Diaconus Anastasius Pomponius Laetus c. And of the Novelty of their worship saith Platina in Gregor 1. 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
Council of Nice that many Princes were subjected to the Church of Rome by Ecclesiastical custom and no other right the Synod should do the greatest injury to the Bishop of Rome if it should attribute those things to him only from custom which were his due by Divine Right This Citation I take from Bishop Bromhall having not seen the Book my self The Popish Bishop of Calcedâ—n Survey cap. 5. To us it sufficeth that the Bishop of Rome is Saint Peters successour 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 An ingenuous Confession destroying Popery See Aubert Miraeus notitia Episcopat where in the antient Notit and Leunclavius record of Leo Philos. Impera There are none of the Abassine or other extramperial Nations under the old Patriarcks Cassander Epist. 37. D. Ximenio operum p. 1132. saith of that learned pious Bishop of Valentia Monlucius so highly commended by Thuanus and other learned men that he said Si sibi permittatur in his tribus capitibus viz. forma publicarum precum de ritibus Baptismi de formâ Eucharistiae sive Missae Christianam formam ad normam priscae Ecclesiae Institutam legi conâ—idere se quod ex quinquaginta mill quos habet in suâ Dioecesi à praesenti disciplina Ecclesiae diversos quaùraginta millia ad Ecclesiasticam uniâ—nâ—m sit reducturus That is If he had but leave in these three heads the form of publick Prayers of the rites of Baptism and the form of the Eucharist or the Mass to follow the Christian form Instituted according to the rule of the Antient Church he was confident that of fifty thousand that he had in his Diocess that differed from the present discipline of the Church he should reduce forty thousand to Ecclesiastical union By this testimony it is plain that the Church of Rome hath forsaken the antient Discipline and Worship of the Church by Innovation and that the Protestants desire the restitution of it and would be satisfied therewith but cannot obtain it at the Papists hands So Cassâ—nder himself Epist. 42 p. 1138. I would not despair of moderation if they that hold the Church possessions would remove some intolerable abuses and would restore at tolerable form of the Church according to the prescript of the Word of God and of the antient Church especially that which flourished for some ages after Constantine when liberty was restored which if they will not do and that betime there is danger they may in many places be cast out of their possessions Still you see Rome is the Innovator and it is Restitution of the antient Church-form that would have quieted the Protestans which could never be obtained So again more plainly Epist. 45. p. 1141. Whether Hereticks are in the Church When I came to London I enquired after Mr. Iohnson to know whether I might at all expect any Answer to the foregoing Papers or not And at last instead of an Answer I received only these ensuing lines PAg. 5. part 1. You say I reply first had not you despaired of making good your cause you should have gone by argumentation till you had forced me to contradict some common principle Now I have by Argumentation forced you to this if you will maintain what after you seem to assert in divers passages viz. That Hereticks are true parts of Christs Catholick Church for thus you write p. 11. Some are called Hereticks for denying points essential to Christianity those are no Christians and so not in the Church but many also are called Hereticks by you and by the Fathers for lesser Errours consistent with Christianity And these may be in the Church And p. 12. you answer thus to your adversary Whereas you say it is against all antiquity and Christianity to admit condemned Hereticks into the Church I reply first I hate their condemnation rather then reverence it where you saying nothing against their admittance into the Church seem to grant it I therefore humbly entreate you to declare your opinion more fully in this question Whether any professed Hereticks properly so called are true parts of the universal visible Church of Christ so that they compose one universal Church with the other visible parts of it Iunii 6 to William Johnson The Answer ANsw. My words are plain and distinctly answer your question so that I know not what more is needful for the explication of my sense Unless you would call us back from the Thing to the meer Name by your properly so called you are answered already But I would speak as plainly as I can and if it be possible for me to be understood by you I shall do my part 1. It is supposed that you and I are not agreed What the Vniversal visible Church it self is while you take the Pope or any meer humane Head to be an essential part which is an assertion that with much abhorrence I deny You think each member of that Church must necessarily ad esse be a subject of the Pope and I think it enough that he be a subject of Christ and to his orderly and well-being that he hold local Communion with the parts within the reach of his capacity and be subject to the Pastors that are set over him maintaining due association with and charity to the rest of the more distinct members as he is capable of communion with them at that distance So that when I have proved a person to be a member of the Catholick Church it is not your Catholick Church that I mean No â—ound Christian is a member of yours it is Hereticks in the softer sense that are its matter It s necessary therefore that we first agree of the Definition of the Catholick Church before we dispute who is in it 2. Your word Properly so called is ambiguous referring either to the Etymologie or to some definition in an authentick Canon or to custom and common speech Of the first we have no reason now to enter controversie For the second I know no such stablisht Definition that we are agreed on For the third custom is so variable here not agreeing with it self that what is to be denominated Proper or Improper from it is not to be well conjectured However all this is but de nomine and What is the proper and What the improper use of the word Heretick is no Article of Faith nor necessary for our debate Therefore again you must accept of my distinguishing and give me leave to fly confusion 1. The word Heretick is either spoken of one that corrupteth the Doctrine of Faith as such or of one that upon some difference of Opinion or some personal quarrels withdraweth from the Communion of those particular Churches that before he held communion with and gathereth a separated party such are most usually called Schismaticks but of oâ—d the name Hereticks was oft applyed unto such 2. The word Heretick in the
â—irst sense is either spoken of one that professing the rest denyeth some one or more essential Articles of the Faith or parts of Christianity or one that only denyeth not what is necessary to the Being but to the Integrality or sober and better-being of a Christian. 3. Hereticks are either convict and condemned or such as never were tryed and judged 4. Hereticks condemned are either condemned by their proper Pastors or by others 5. If by others either by Usurpers or by meer equal neighbour consociate Pastors 6. They are condemned either jâ—stly clâ—ve non errante or unjustly clave errante 7. They are either judged to be materially as to the quality of their errour Hereticks or also formally as obstinate impenitent and habitually stated Hereticks Upon these necessary distinctions I answer your Question in these Propositions Prop. 1. As the word Hereticks signifieth Schismaticks as such so Hereticks with drawing from some parts of the universal Church only may yet be parts of the whoâ—e even with those parts from which they separate If they say You are no parts and therefore we disown you and will have no Communion with you this maketh neither cease to be parts and while both own the Head and the Body as such they have an union in tertio and so a communion in the principal respects while they peevishly disclaim it in other respects Besides that the local or particular Communion is it that is proper to members of a particular Church and therefore the renouncing it only separates him from that Church But it is the general Communion that belongs to us as members of the Church Universal which may be still continued But should any renounce the Body of Christ as such and separate not from this or that Church but from the whole or from the Church Universal as such this man would be no member of the Church Prop. 2. As the word Heretick is taken for one that denyeth any thing essential to Christianity so an Heretick if latent is out of the Church Deo judice as to the invisible part or soul of the Church as Bellarmine calls it as a latent Infidel is but he may be if latent in the outward communion or as Bellarmine calls him a dead member that properly is none as the straw and chaffe are in the corn-field Prop. 3. Such an Heretick convict and judged by the Pastors of that particular Church of which he is a subject-member is accordingly to be avoided and in foro illius Ecclesiae is so far cast out of that Church as the sentence importeth Prop. 4. Such an Heretick if he be a Pastor of one Church and be convict and condemned by the consociate co-equal Pastors of the neighbour Churches is accordingly cast out from communion of all the Churches of which they are Pastors Prop. 5. So far as any Christians through the world have sufficient proof or cognisance of the said conviction and condemnation they are all bound accordingly to esteem the condemned Heretick and avoid him Prop 6. If Heresie be taken for the obstinate impenitent resisting or rejecting of any point of Faith that is of Divine Revelation which is made so plain to the person that nothing but a wicked will could cause such resistance or rejection such persons being justly convicted and condemned as aforesaid are to be taken as persons condemned for obstinacy and impenitency in any other sin and are out of the Church as far as a man condemned for impenitency in drunkenness or fornication is Prop. 7. Heresie taken in this softer sense for the denyal of a truth of Divine revelation not essential to the Christian Religion or necessary to the Being of a Christian excludeth no man from the Church of it self unless they are legally convict of wicked Impenitency and obstinacy in defending it Prop. 8. A sentence passed in alieno foro by an Usurper that hath no true Authority thereto proveth no man an Heretick Prop. 9. A sentence passed by an Authorized Pastor or by many if it be notoriously unjust clave errante proveth no man an Heretick or out of the Universal Church Prop. 10. A sentence passed by one Church or many consociate binds none to take the condemned person to be an Heretick and out of the Universal Church but those that have sufficient notice of the Authority of the Judges and validity of the Evidence or a ground of violent presumption as it s called that the sentence is just Prop. 11. He that is sentenced an Heretick or Impenitent by the Pastors of some Churches and acquit by the equally-authorized Pastors of other Churches is not eo nomine to be condemned or acquit by a third Church but used as the evidence requireth Prop. 12. There is an actual excommunication pro medelâ and pro tempore due for an actual willful defence of error or for other willful sin which statedly puts not a man out of the Church as there is an excommunication à statu Relatione which is due for stated habitual or obstinate impenitency in that or other great or known sin Having thus distinctly told you my judgement how far Hereticks are or are not in or out of the universal Church I add in order to the application 1. That this whole debate is nothing to the great difference between you and us it being not de fide in your own account but a dogma theologicum which you differ about among your selves Bellarmine tells you Alphonsus a Castro maintaineth that Hereticks are in the Church de Eccles. l. 3. c. 4. And he himself saith that haeretici pertinent ad Ecclesiam ut oves ad ovile unde confugerunt ibid. c. 4. so that they are oves still and if it be but ovile particulare veluti Romanum that they fly from and not the Vniversal that proves them not out of the Vniversal Church And Bellarmine saith of the Catechumen Excommunicatis that they are de anima et si non de corpore Ecclesiae ib. c. 2. and may be saved cap. 6. And the anima Ecclesiae is not incorporated in the world without All that have that soul are of that Church which Christ that animateth his members is the head of Which made Melchior Canus fatente Bellarmino de Eccl. l. 3. c. 3. confess the being of that which indeed is the true Catholike Church saying of the Vnbaptized Believers that sunt de Ecclesia quae comprehendit omnes fideles ab Abel usque ad consummationem mundi 2. Many Popes have been condemned for Hereticks even by General Councils as not only Henorius by two or three but Eugenius by the Council of Basil when yet he kept his place and the rest come in as his successors And your writers frequently confess that a Pope may be an Heretick as Pope Adrian himself affirmeth Now if these are not of the Church then they are not Heads of the Church and then being essential parts of your Church it followeth that your Church is heretical
be of your Church because it is so little Catholike I am of the one universal Church which containeth all the true Christians in the world And you are of a Party which hath separated it self from most of the Christians in the world I am of that one body that is centred in Christ the Head you are of a piece of this body that hath centred in a man and oft a confessed heretical wicked man whom you take while he lives to be the infallible Judge and foundation of all your faith and hope and when he is dead perhaps pronounce him to be in hell as Bellarmine did Pope Sixtus and others commonly I know as every Sect hath a kind of unity among themselves however divided from all the rest of the Church so also hath yours but nothing will satisfie me but a Catholike Unity Church and Faith So much being premised I answer your Questions Quest. 1. Whether the Church of Rome was a true Church in the Apostles dayes Answ. The word Church signifies more things then one 1. Sometime it is used to signifie the whole mystical body of Christ containing all and only those that are justified whom Bellarmine calleth living members And in this sense the Church of Rome in the Apostles dayes was not the Church but the justified members were part of the Church 2. Sometime it is used to signifie all that profess true Christianity in the world And thus the Church of Rome was not the Church but part of it 3. It is oft used by your writers to signifie one Church that by Prerogative is the Head or Mistris of all Christians in the world to which they must all be subject and from which they must receive their name as the Kingdom of Mexico of Tripolis of Fez c. are so called from the chief Cities of the same name and from which they receive their Faith and Laws as the body hath life and motion from the head or heart In this sense the Church of Rome was no Church in the Apostles dayes 4. Sometime it is used to signifie one particular Church associated for personal Communion in Worship And thus the Church of Rome was a true Church in the Apostles dayes 5. Sometime it is used to signifie a Collection or Conjunction of many particular Churches though not all under the Bishop of one Church as their Patriarch or Metropolitan And thus the Church of Rome was no Church in the Apostles dayes but about two hundred years after Christ it was It is only the Church in the third of these senses that is in controversie between the Roman and Reformed Churches Now to your next Question Quest. 2. When was it that the Church of Rome ceased to be a true Church Answ. In the first second and third sences it never ceased to be a true Church for it never was one In the first and second sence it never was one either in title or claim I hope In the third it was never one in Title nor yet in claim for many hundred years after Christ but now it is Therefore the Question between us should not be when it ceased but when it begun to be such a Capital Ruling Church Essential to the whole In the fifth sence it never ceased otherwise then as it is swallowed up in a higher Title It begun to be a Patriarchal Church about two or three hundred years after Christ and it ceased to be meerly Patriarchal when it arrogated the Title of Vniversal or Mistris of all In the fourth sence the Question is not so easie and I shall thus answer it 1. By speaking to the use of the Question 2. By a direct answer to it 1. It is of small concernment to my salvation or yours to know whether the Church of Rome be a true particular Church or not no more then to know whether the Church of Thessalonica or Ephesus or Antioch be now a true Church In charity to them I am bound to regard it as I am bound to regard the life of my neighbour But what doth it concern my own life to know whether the Mayor and Aldermen of Worcester or Glocester be dead or alive So what doth it concern my Salvation to know whether the Church of Rome be now a true particular Church If I lived at the Antipodes or in Aethiopia and had never heard that there is such a place as Rome in the world as many a thousand Christians doubtless never heard of it this would not hinder my salvation as long as I believed in the blessed Trinity and were sanctified by the Spirit of Grace So that as I am none of their Judge so I know not that it much concerneth me to know whether they be a true particular Church save for charity or communion 2. Yet I answer it more directly 1. If they do not by their errors so far overthrow the Christian faith which they profess as that it cannot practically be believed by them then are they a true particular Church or part of the universal Church 2. And I am apt to hope at least of most that they do not so hold their errors but that they retain with them so much of the essentials of Religion as may denominate them a true professing Church More plainly Rome is considered first as Christian secondly as Papal As Christian it is a true Church As Papal it is no true Church For Popery is not the Church according to Christs Institution but a dangerous corruption in the Church As a Leprosie is not the man but the disease of the man Yet he that is a Leper may be a mâ—â— And he that is a Papist may be a Christian But 1. Not as he is a Papist 2. And he is but a leprous or diseased Christian. So much to your Questions By this much you may see that it no way concerneth me to prove when Rome ceased to be a true Church For if you mean such a Church as Corinth Philippi Ephesus c. was that is but a part of the Catholike Church so I stick not much saving in point of Charity whether it be true or false But if you mean as your party doth a Mistris Church to Rule the whole and denominate the Catholike Church Roman so I say its Vsurpation is not ceased that 's the misery and its just title never did begin and its claim was not of many hundred years after Christ so that your Question requireth no further Answer But what if you had put the Question At what time it was that your Church began to claim this universal Dominion I should give you these two answers 1. When I understand that it is of any great moment to the decision of our controversie I shall tell you my opinion of the man that first laid the claim and the year when 2. But it is sufficient for me to prove that from the beginning it was not so Little did the Bishops of Rome before Constantines dayes dream of governing all
difference is now found to be but in words or little more To what you say of their disclaiming us unless we take the Patriarch of Constantinople for the Vice-Christ you many waies mistake 1. If this were true that they rejected us it were no proof that we are not of one universal Church 2. They do not claim to be Vice Christi the universal Governours of the Church the title of universal Patriarch they extended but to the then Roman Empire and that not to an universal Government but Primacy And many of them have been of brotherly charity to our Churches of late Cyril I need not name to you whom your party procured Murdered for being a Protestant Meletius first Patriarch of Alexandria and then of Constantinople was highly offended with the fiction of a submission of the Alexandrian Church to Rome under a counterfeit Patriarch Gabriels name and wrote thus of the Pope in his Letters to Sigismund King of Poland An. 1600. Perspiceret Majestas tua nos cum majoribus nostris non ignorare quem precaris ut agnoscamus Pontificem scilicet Romanum veluti Constantinopolitanum Pontificem Pontificem Constant. Caeterosque Apostolicarum sedium Pontifices Qui non unus omnium sed inter omnes ipse unus Vnum universale Caput quod sit D. N. Iesus Christus alius esse non possit nisi biceps aliquod sit corpus aut potius monstrum corporis Perspiceres Rex serenissime ut interim de Concilio illo Florentino veluti de re silentio digna taceam non Nos è Patria tum Orientalium tum Occidentalium dogmatibus traditionibusque quae per septem universalia concilia nobis consignarunt atque obsignarunt egressos Illos egressos qui novitatibus in dies delectantur in the same Letters he commendeth Cyril And what can a Protestant say more against the Vice-Christship and your novelties And for Ieremias his predecessor whom you mention though they that disputed with him by Letters Stephanus Gerlochius Martinus Crusius did not agree in all things with him yet he still professed his desire of unity and concord with us and in the beginning of his second answer rejoyceth that we agreed with them in so many things And Iohan. Zygomalas in his Letters to Crusius 1576. May 15. saith Perspicuum tibi omnibus futurum est quod in continuis causam fidei praecipue continentibus articulis consentiamus quae autem videntur consensum inter vos nos impedire talia sunt si velit quis ut facile ea corrigere possit Gaudium in caelo super terram erit si coibit in unitatem utraque Ecclesia idem sentiemus simul vivemus in omni concordia pace secundum Deum in sincerae charitatis vinculo But as it is not the Patriarch that is the whole Greek Church so it is not their errors in some lesser or tolerable points that prove us of two Churches or Religions Whereas you say It is against all Antiquity and Christianity to admit condemned Hereticks into the Church I Reply 1. I hate their condemnation rather then reverence it that even being non judices dare condemn whole Nations without hearing one man of them speak for himself or hearing one witness that ever heard them defend Heresie and this meerly because some few Bishops have in the daies of old maintained Heresie and perhaps some may do so still or rather differ from you in words while you misunderstand each other Did I find such errors with them as with you yet I durst charge them on no one man that I had not reason to hold guilty of them I dare not accuse whole Nations of your errors But of all these things and of Sandys words which you cite I have spoken already in two Books and in the latter fully proved that you differ in many points of faith and greater things then you call Heresies in others among your selves even your Popes Saints and Councils and yet neither part is judged by you to be out of the Church See my Key p. 124 125 127 128 129. p. 52. ad 62. When you say so much to prove the Greeks guilty of manifest Heresie and pretend that it is but some novel writers of ours that deny it as forced by your arguments I must say that you prove but your own uncharitableness instead of their Heresie and you shew your self a stranger to your own writers who frequently excuse the Greeks from Heresie and say the difference at the Council of Florence was found to be more about words then faith Thomas a Iesu de Convers. omn. gentium lib. 6. cap. 8. p. 281. saith His tamen non obstantibus alii opinantur Graecos tantum esse schismaticos Ita ex junioribus docet Pater Azorius 1. primae Institut Moral lib. 8. cap. 20. q. 10. Quare merito ab Ecclesia Catholica non haeretici sed schismatici censentur appellantur Ita apert insinuat D. Bernardus no Novel Protestant in Epist. ad Eugenium lib. 3. Ego addo inquit de pertinacia Graecorum qui nobiscum sunt non sunt juncti fide pace divisi quanquam in fide ipsa claudicaverint à rectis semitis Idem aperte tenet D. Thomas Opuscul 2. ubi docet patres Graecos in Catholico sensu esse exponendos Ratio hujus Opinionis est quoniam ut praedictus author docet in praedictis fidei articulis de quibus Graeci accusantur ab aliquibus ut haeretici potius Nomine quam Re ab Ecclesia Romana dissident Inprimis inficiantur illi Spiritum Sanctum à Patre Filioque procedere ut in Bulla Vnionis Eugenii 4. dicitur existimantes Latinos sentire à Patre Filioque procedere tanquam à duobus principiis cum tamen Latina doceat Ecclesia procedere à duabus personis tanquam ab uno principio spiratore quare Graeci ut unum principium significent dicunt Spiritum Sanctum à Patre per Filium procedere ab omni aeternitate Your Paulus Veridicus Paul Harris Dean of your Academy lately in Dublin in his Confutation of Bishop Vshers Sermon saith that the Greeks Doctrine about the Procession of the Holy Ghost à Patre per Filium and not à Patre Filioque was such that When they had explicated it they were found to believe very Orthodoxly and Catholikely in the same matter and for such were admitted and that He findeth not any substantial point that they differ from you in but the Primacy So the Armenians were received in the same Council of Florence Many more I have read of your own writers that all vindicate the Greeks and others that disown you from Heresie I think more then I have read of Protestants that do it And do you think now that it is not a disgrace to your cause that man of your learning and one that I hear hath the confidence to draw others to your opinions should yet be so