Confirmation Vocation Missions Jurisdiction All these explained Sect. 8. He makes the Chapters in Queen Elizabeth days to have had the power of choosing all the Parish Priests Popes no Popes for want of common consent Sect. 9. who must choose a Monark of all the earth Sect. 10. Their succession interrupted Sect. 11. 12. Is it essential to a Bishop to have many Congregations parishes or presbyters By affirming this he nullifieth all the first Bishops who were Bishops before they made presbyters under them and so denyeth all succession by denying the root CHAP. 5. What they mean by TRADITION Sect. 1. He thinks the Tradition of all the world may be known by every Christian as easily as the Tradition of the Canonical Scripture Sect. 2. Tradition against Popery Sect. 4. The Protestants Abassines Armenians Greeks c. are of one Church Sect. 4. The contradictions of W. J. The unity of all other Christians as such greater than the unity of Papists as Papists Sect. 5. CHAP. 6. What they mean by a General COUNCIL His definition of a general Council is no definition Sect. 2. Councils of old not called by the Pope Sect. 3. His confusion and contradictions Sect. 4. General Councils were but of the Empire proved Sect. 5. The impossibility and utter unlawfulness of a true universal Council of the whole Christian world proved Sect. 6. How many make an universal Council Sect. 7. They make presbyters uncapable of voteing in councils and yet the highest ancient part of the Papacy viz. to preside in councils is oft deputed to presbyters Sect. 8. The council of Basil that had presbyters rejected by them for other reasons Sect 9. CHAP. 7. What they mean by SCHISM Papists acquit all from schism who separate not from the Whole visible Church of Christ Sect. 1. We separated not from the Greeks Arminians c. Sect. 3. He absurdly requireth that we should have our Mission and Jurisdiction from them if we have communion with them Sect. 4. We have the same faith with them Sect. 5. How far we separate from Rome Sect. 6. They were not our lawful pastors Sect. 7. Of hearing the pharises Sect. 8. We infer not Rebellion against Authority by our rejecting trayterous Usurpers Sect. 9. Whether the first Reformers knowingly and wilfully separated from the whole Church on earth Sect. 10. He pretendeth that the Churches unity is perfect and therefore that it is impossible there should be any schism in it but only from it when their own sect had a schisme by divers Popes for forty years Whether all that followed the wrong Pope those forty years were out of the Church and damned Sect. 11. His definition of schism agreeth best to the Papists who separate from all the Church save their own sect Sect. 12. An admonition to others Sect. 13. My Reasons unanswered by which I proved 1. That we interrupted not our Church succession when we broke off from Rome 2. That the Roman Church is changed in Essentials PART II. The PREFACE ALL was not well said or done by every Bishop or Council of old Sect. 1 2 3. Of the considerableness of the extra-Imperial Churches of old Sect. 4 5. The plea of Peters supremacy and their succession overthrown There never were twelve Patriarchal seats as the successors of the twelve Apostles No one Patriarch claimed to be an Apostles successor but Rome and Antioch and Antioch never claimed supremacy on that account Sect. 6. The true state of the controversie about the Churches perpetual visibility Sect. 7. Papists make Christians no Christians for not obeying the Pope and no Christians to be Christians if they will be his subjects Sect. 8 9. What I maintain Sect. 10. A discourse republished proving that Christs Church hath no Universal Head but himself Pope nor Council CHAP. 1. The Confutation of W. I's Reply Twelve instances confuâ—…ing the wild fundamental principle of W. J. that whatever hath been ever in the Church by Christs institution is essential to it Sect. 4. By this he unchurcheth Rome Sect. 5. He saith that every such thing is essential to the Church but not to every member of the Church but to such as have sufficient proposal confuted Sect 6. By this their Church cannot be known or the faith of a few may make others Christians Sect. 7. His assertion further confuted Sect. 8. His Logical proof shamed that every accident is separable and therefore all that Christ instituted to continue is no accident Sect. 9. Whether the belief of every institution for continuance be essential to the Church Sect. 10. They unchurch themselves Sect. 11. He acknowledgeth that all Christian Nations are not bound to believe the Popes supremacy expresly but implicitely in subjecting themselves to them that Christ hath instituted to be their lawful pastors Five notable consequents of this The true method of believing Sect. 12. The instance of the conversion of the Iberians and Indians vindicated He supposeth that every revealed truth was taught them by lay-persons Sect. 13. The instance of Peters not preaching his own supremacy Act. 2. vindicated Sect. 14. The Indians converted by the English and Dutch are taught the true faith Sect. 15. And so are the Abassines Sect. 16. His Doctrine against Christs visible reign containeth many gross errors commonly called Heresies And by making the Christian world a Monster if it have not one Papal Head he maketh the humane world a Monster because it hath not one humane King Sect. 17. CHAP. 2. Our Churches visibility confessed Theirs to be by them proved How far any Protestants grant the power of Patriarchs and the Pope as Patriarch Sect. 1. He biddeth me but prove that any Church which now denieth the Popes Soveraignty hath been always visible and he is satisfied whether that Church always denyed it or not Sect. 2. Notes hereon Whether they should exclaim against Christ as an invisible Head who make him as visible in the Eucharist to every receiver as a King is in his cloathes Sect. 3. Whether a Ministry be essential to the universal Church Sect. 4. His Argument against our Christianity re-examined and confuted by divers instances of such fallacies Sect. 5. He requireth an instance of any Church-Unity though without a humane head which endeth the controversie Sect. 6. More differences and greater amongst Papists than among all the other Churches Sect. 7. He hath no evasion but saying that these Churches are not Christians because they depend not on the Pope from which he before said that he abstracted Sect. 8. He denieth us with the Abassines Greeks Armenians c. to have been of the Church and of one Church both fully proved Sect. 9. The charge of Nestorianism and Eutichianism on many Churches examined Sect. 10. His shameful calling for the names of sects and requiring proof of the Negative that they are not such Sect. 11. CHAP. 3. More of our Unity Of the speech of Celestines Legat at Ephesus Sect. 1 2. His saying and unsaying Sect. 3. His
instances of Goths Danes Swedes examined Sect. 4 5. Whether extra Imperial Churches were under the Pope Sect. 5. In what cases some were and which His pretence to the Indians Armenians and Persians examined Sect. 6. The Tradition of these Churches is against Popery Sect 7. His notorious fictions about the subjection of the Indians Armenians and Abassines to Rome Sect. 9. 10. Of Pisanus Arabick Nicene Canons Sect. 11. He intended to write a Tractate to prove that extraneous Bishops were at the Councils But that put-off goeth for an answer Sect. 12. He confesseth that the very Gallicane and Spanish Liturgies mention not the Popes Soveraignty no more than the Ethiopick Sect. 13. When Constantine intreated the King of Persia for the Churches there the Pope did not command there Sect. 14. Whether before Gregory's Mission the British Church was ever subject to the Pope or heretical Sect. 15. Reynerius words vindicated viz. The Churches of the Armenians Ethiopians and Indians and the rest which the Apostles converted are not under the Church of Rome Sect. 16. The 28. Can. of the Council of Calcedon vindicated which declareth the Pope to be but the first Patriarch in the Empire by humane right for the sake of the Imperial City Sect. 17. 18 19 20. His brave attempt to prove that extra-Imperial Bishops were summoned to the Councils At Nice of John Persidis Armenians Gothia At Ephes. 1. Thebamnon Bishop of Coptus Sect. 21. 22. His other citations confuted Sect. 23. Of Eusebius his circular Letter Sect. 24. CHAP. 4. The Emperors and not the Pope called the old Councils Sect. 1. Myraeus his Notitia Episcopat against him Sect. 2. Of the authority over the barbarous given Con. Calced c. 28. Proof that the Papal power was held to be but jure humano Sect. 5. He was over but one Empire Sect. 6. No councils but of one Empire Prospers testimony examined caput mundi expounded Sect. 7. Pope Leo's words examined Sect. 8 9. The Decretal Epistles shew the Popes ruled not the world Sect. 10. More of Ethiopia and Pisanus's Canons Sect. 11. CHAP. 5. The Case reâ—…eated The uselesness of his Testimonies therein CHAP. 6. The Vanity of his proofs that Councils were called General as to all the world and not only to the Empire From the words totius orbis from the end the peace of the World and the rest Sect. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. His Question answered what Hereticks are Christians Sect. 8 9 10 11. He saith that no Heretick believeth for the authority of God revealing and so acquitteth all that do but believe that God is true which is all that believe indeed that there is a God Sect. 12. Of sufficiency of proposal of truths It is not equal He absolveth Hereticks And maketh Hereticks of the Papists Sect. 13 14 15. Whether the Papists and Protestants are one Church Whether the Pope and Christ are two heads Whether a King that saith God hath made me the Vice-god of all the earth set not up a policy destinct from Gods Sect. 16. One called a Papist may be a Christian and another not Sect. 17. 18. CHAP. 7. Whether we separate from the Church as the old Hereticks did Sect. 1. Whether we separate from other Churches as we do from the Papal Sect. 2. Arrians separate from the Church as Christian Sect. 3. Why they-call us Schismaticks Sect. 4. 5. Papists agree not whether Hereticks are in the Church Sect. 6. What we hold herein Sect. 6. His absurd answer Sect. 7. Whether every man deny Christs veracity who receiveth not every truth sufficiently proposed Sect. 8 9. He maketh it a grand novelty of mine to say that there may be divisions in the Church and not from the Church because the Church is a most perfect unity The shame of this charge Sect. 10 11. His charge of Eutychianisme on the Abassines c. Sect. 12. Of self-conceited hereticating wits Sect. 12. Whether the Abassines confess themselves Eutichianes Sect. 14. Of the Greek Churches rejecting us Sect. 16. The Greek Church claimed not Soveraignty over all the world but in the Empire Sect. 17 18 19. Whether every child subject or neighbour must judg Hereticks and avoid them unsentenced Sect. 20. His false answer to the testimony of their own writers that free the Greeks from heresie Sect. 21. The witness of the Council of Florence That the Greeks meant Orthodoxly Sect. 23. Nilus testimony vindicated Sect. 24 Our unity with Greeks and others Sect. 25. A notable passage of Meletius Patriarch of Alexandria and Constantinople for the sole Headship of Christ and the Popes usurpation novelties and forsaking tradition which with Cyril's testimony W. J. passed over Sect. 26. The Answer to W. J's second part of his Reply Sect. 1. SUfficient answers to all his citations pretermitted in terms Sect. 2. Because I cite a Patriarch and Councils excommunicating a Pope by the Emperor Theodosius countenance he saith I plead for Rebellion Sect. 4. His instances of the Popes extraneous power confuted Sect. 5. His particular proofs before promised in a special Tract examined 1. His error of Theophilus Gothiae Sect. 6. 2. Of Domnus Bosphori his gross error Sect. 7. 3. Of Joh. Persidis Sect. 8. 4. Of Bishops of Scythia Sect. 9. 5. Of Etherius Anchialensis for Sebastianus Sect. 10. 6. Of Phaebamnon Copti Sect. 11. 7. Of Theodulus Esulae so falsly called Sect. 12. 8. Of Theodorus Gadarorum Sect. 13. 9. Of Antipater Bostrorum Sect. 14. 10. Of Olympius Schythopoleos Sect. 15. 11. Of Eusebius Gentis Saracenorum Sect. 16. 12. Constantinus Bostrorum Sect. 17. 13. One pro Glaco Gerassae All shew his gross ignorance of the Bishopricks of the Empire Sect. 19. The Nestorians Epistle at the Council Ephes. to Callimores Rex expounded Sect. 20 21. Remarks upon passages in the first Ephisine Council Sect. 22. Remarks of the Council of Calcedon Sect. 23. Of the Titles Caput Mundi Mater omnium Ecclesiarum Primatus Apostolicus c. given to Antioch and Jerusalem Sect. 24. Binnius confession that at Conc. Const. 1. The Pope presided not per se vel per Legatos Sect. 25. His assertion that the Councils pretended to jurisdiction over the Church through all the World examined Sect. 26. The vanity of his first proof Sect. 27 28. Of his second and third More Notes of the Council Calced Sect. 29. His fourth instance confuted Sect. 30. His fifth confuted Sect. 31. His sixth confuted Sect. 32. His last instance vain Sect. 33. He could not disprove the Roman Church from being really two Churches named one as having two supreme Heads Sect. 34. I could not intreat him by any provocation to prove the continued visibility of the Church as Papal PART III. A Defence of my Arguments for our continued visibility Sect. 1. WHether all Believers are Christians Sect. 2. The vanity of his next Cavil against my definition Sect. 3. My definition of Protestants vindicated Sect. 4. One may have communion with faulty Churches Sect. 5.
Christ had made us a King or Bishop of all the world he would have told us who must chuse him to save the men at the Antipodes their journey 2. But why pretend you then the peoples consent when you plead it unnecessary In Poland that their Diets chuse their Kings is from a known reason it is the Constitution of their Kingdom which the people agreed to and chuse many of the chusers But when did the Universal Church constitute your Cardinals to be the Electors Or which of the Cardinals are chosen by the Universal Church or any other than the Pope himself God made Bishopricks like Corporations where all may chuse the Mayor Who made them like great Kingdoms or set one over all the world where the people cannot chuse nor God made any chusers is the question R. B. 4. According to this rule your successions have been frequently interrupted when against the will of General Councils and of the far greatest part of Christians your Popes have kept the seats by force W. J. These are generalities What Popes What Councils in particular Name and prove if you will he answered R. B. What disgraceful ignorance are you forced to pretend What need I go over your Schisms What need I name any more than Eugenius the 4th deposed by a great General Council and two or three parts of the Church disowning your Pope at this day R. B. I told him how his instance even about Civil Power failed seeing the consent of a people pre-engaged to their Prince giveth not right to a Usurper W. J. The people cannot be supposed to consent freely and lawfully to an usurper c. R. B. Lawfully indeed they cannot and that 's the same thing that I affirmed you confute me by granting what I say When the Bishop of Rome hath a lawful election to be Bishop of all the world we will obey him and so we will any Prelate or Priest that hath a known lawful election R. B. Will any Diocess suffice ad esse What if it be but in particulor Assemblies W. J. It must be more than a Parish or than one single Congregation which hath not different inferior Pastors and one who is their Superior c. R. B. 1. How ambiguously and fraudulently do you answer No man can tell by this whether you unbishop all that had but one Parish or Congregation or only all that had not Presbyters under them Which ever you mean it is notoriously false and a nullifying of the ancient Episcopacy Ignatim tells you that in hiâ—… days one Church was known by one Altar and one Bishop with the Presbyters and Deacons And though I think not as Dr. Hamond that all the first Bishops in Scripture-times were setled as the sole Pastors of single Congregations without any Presbyters under them yet when you consider with whom he agreeth in this viz. Dionysius Petavius and what St. Clara saith for it fathering it on Scotus we think you should not so far differ from your own Doctors as to deny all those to be true Bishops of the Scripâ—…re-times who they think were the only Bishops You have a custom of calling the Apostles Bishops even Peter Bishop of Antioch and Rome Did not those first Bishops then make all the Presbyters that were under them Qu. Whether they were no Bishops till they had made those Presbyters If no then those first Presbyters had not Episcopal ordination If yea then habetur quaesitum The truth is all the ancientest Bishops were the Pastors of single Churches not near so big as many of our Parishes I have elsewhere proved this at large I instanced to him only in Gregory Neocâ—…sariensis who was Bishop only of Seventeen souls when he came thither first He answereth W. J. How know you that there were no more in the Countrey adjacent 2. Know you not that he was sent to multiply Christians and make himself a competent Diocess R. B. I know the first by the consent of History that telleth us of the Seventeen in the City over whom he was set and speaketh of no more in such circumstances as would have occasioned it 2. And I believe your second but do not you see that you desert your Cause and contradict your self 1. Speak out Was he the bishop of the Infidels Were they his Church Or was he only to convert and gather them to the Church 2. Was he not a Bishop there before he had converted any one to those seventeen alone You dare deny none of this Therefore he was a Bishop before he had more Congregations than one and before he had any Presbyters to govern And here you may see how the changes that Popes and their Prelates have made in the Church constraineth them to defend them by subverting their own foundation For if those were no Bishops who had but one Congregation yea and those that had no subject-Presbyters then the first ages if not also the second except in Rome and Alexandria had no true Bishops or at least the founders were not such and their Episcopacy as they describe it hath no succession from the Apostles Truth and Error will never make a close coalition CHAP. V. Q. What mean you by TRADITION W. I. I Understand by Tradition the visible delivery from hand to hand in all cases of the revealed will of God either written or unwritten R. B. I suppose by visible from hand to hand you mean principally of the unwritten audible from ear to ear by speech But all the doubt is by whom it must be delivered by the Pastors or people or both by the Pope or Councils or Bishops disjunct by the major part of the Church Bishops or Presbyters or by how many W. J. By such and so many proportionably as suffice in a Kingdom to certifie the people which are the ancient universal received customs in that Kingdom which is to be morally considered R. B. O wary Disputant that taketh heed lest you should answer while you seem to answer Reader a Kingdom is not so big as all the world The Customs of a Kingdom may be known by the constant consent of the people of that Kingdom and if they differ about it Records and Law-booke decide it expositorily and judges by the decision of particular mens cases by such rules But can customs be known as well over all the world Yea and can matter of faith and doctrine be as easily known as practised customs Can we know as easily what are the Traditions of Abassia Armenia Syria Egypt c. as of England Can they of Abassia tell what are the true Traditions of all the Christian world that have Traditions in their own Countrey so different from ours They have many books as sacred among them by tradition which we receive not They have annual Baptism and other ceremonies by Tradition which we account to be unlawful Here I told W. I. 1. How certainly Tradition is against them when most of the Christian world
on the 6th of Ianuary till after the middle of Chrysostom's time and so in the present case had it been as ancient as they pretend it was not Universal 2. But he saith that at least as Patriarch of the West by the Churches grant they were in full quiet possession of that Right or Power which we confess was lawful Ans. No such matter We make no such Confession Those Protestants who think that the superiority of Patriarchs is lawful do hold that it is by humane Laws and that if any such Laws were made by that which you call the Church that is by Councils it was by such Councils as in such matters received their Power from the Emperours without which they might not set up one City above another nor distribute Provinces and Diocesses and as was done and therefore that while the Imperial Laws enforced them they had the Law to bind Subjects to obey them but when any Kingdom was cut off from the Empire it was from under those Laws and under the Laws of their own Prince and the former decrees of Councils were no Laws to them any longer though they might by voluntary contract still associate with Forraign Lands So that such hold 1. That while Britain was under the Roman Empire they owed some respect or obedience to the Pope as Patriarch of the West as English-men do the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury 2. That before and after they owed him no more obedience than to the Bishop of Rhemes or Arles 3. That when the Saxon Kings permitted the first English Bishops voluntarily to subject themselves to the Patriarch of Rome they made themselves Debtors of all lawful obedience which they promised 4. That when the Saxon and Danish Kings Commanded their Subjects such lawful obedience to the Bishop of Rome they owed it him by the obligation of their Soveraigns Laws 5. And when those Laws ceas'd their obligation ceased and when those Laws forbad it it became unlawful And so the Roman Patriarch had no power in England when the King and Law did deny it him or cease to give it him This is the judgment of those Protestants that think such Patriarchs lawful The other that think them a sinful Usurpation think that they were never lawful yet he urgeth us with what Conscience we ceased to obey them Pag. 74. he saith Prove that any Church which now denyeth it hath been always visible and I am satisfied whether that Church always denyed it or no. Ans. This hath some moderation in it 1. There hath no Church but that of Ierusalem been always visible from the beginning of Christianity for no other was at first existent 2. And that was not visible from the beginning of the World 3. This Church of Ierusalem as it consisteth of the most Christians there now denyeth your Papal Power 4. The Churches of Alexandria Antioch and Abassia now deny it and have been always visible 5. The Church of Ephesus and many others of Greeks that now deny it have been always visible since Paul's time and Constantinople since the first planting 6. And I pray you note that the Church of Rome hath not been always visible for it did not exist till some years after that at Ierusalem Yea note that you cannot pretend that the Bishop of Rome was the Universal Bishop from the beginning for you confess Peter was first Bishop of Antioch and all that while Rome was not the Mistress Church And so if you should have the Supremacy it must be by a change from the first State Though indeed Peter himself never claimed nor exercised any such thing much less did he ever leave it to a Successor and least of all as fixed to one City any more than St. Iohn's power was to the Bishop of Ephesus And indeed Bellarmine himself dare not deny but that the Seat of the Universal Bishop may possibly be removed from Rome to some other place And then suppose it were to Avignion or to Constantinople where is St. Peter's Successor How must he be chosen or how shall his power above others be known when all the old pretensions faile Pag. 78. till then there 's nothing but vain words When I noted that They that make Christ corporally present in every Church in the Eucharist should not say that the King of the Church is absent He replyeth We dispute of a proper visible presence such as is not in the Eucharist Ans. You affirm that Christ is there corporally present under the Forms of Bread and Wine and that the Bread which we see is the Body of Christ and no Bread and yet that we see not the Body of Christ Sure we see something or nothing and if it be something and not Bread nor Christs Body what is it But suppose that it be not Christs Body which we see yet while the Bread is turned into his Body that which you do see is nearer to him than a Kings Crown or Clothing is to the King and yet if you see the King only in his Cloths his â—…ace being vailed will you say that he is not a visible King Doth clothing make Kings or the species of the Consecrated Bread make Christ to become invisible 2. Do you not bow towards him on the Altar Do you not carry him in procession about the Streets and do you not constrain all that meet you to kneel down and adore sure you do not think him to be out of sight or hearing or far off to whom you pray and whom you so honour as present As Paul said to the Iews God is not far from every one of us so that Christ who is adorably present in his Body on the Altar and corporally present in every Receivers hand and mouth surely hath not yet forsaken the Earth so far as to be uncapable of constituting a visible Kingdom without a Pope Pag. 79. I told him that When they prove 1. That Christ is so absent from his Church that there is need of a Deputy to essentiate his Kingdom and 2. that the Pope is so deputed they will have done their work He replyeth I have proved that Christ instituted St. Peter and his Successors to govern visibly his wholly Universal Church in all Ages Ans. Wonderful when was it and where Let the Reader find any such thing in your writing for I cannot no not a word Had that been done I had contradicted you no longer but if it be by an Invisible Proof that your Visible Head reigneth I cannot judge of it He next addeth I press you therefore once more to give an instance of something which hath been ever in the visible Church by Christs institution and yet is accidental to the Church Ans. 1. If I have not given you such Instances and Reasons also to prove that all that Christ instituted to continue is not essential let the Reader say that I have failed you 2. But if I had not what is it to your cause will it thence follow that
you have said a word to prove that Christ instituted the Universal Head-ship of the Pope Or rather do you not overthrow it your self by such arguing seeing 1. the Headship of Rome hath not been ever in the Church as you confess 2. It never was in the Universal Church either instituted by Christ or received by the Church one hour but only for a time received by a corrupt oppressed part of the Church 3. The Pope hath cast out divers things instituted by Christ for continuance as is proved I told him that though the King were absent it is only the King and Subjects that are essential to a Kingdom the Deputy is but an Officer and not essential He replyeth 'T is so indeed de facto But suppose as I do that a Vice-King be by full authority made an ingredient into the essence of the Kingdom then sure he must be essential Ans. Yes by very good reason if he be made essential he is essential and now I understand what is your proof you suppose it to be so But if it be so in our case then the Pope is essentially so the Churches constitutive Head that when-ever he dyeth the Church is dead unless you can say as our Law doth of the King Papa non moritur and when the Church hath been two or near three years without it was no Church and when it had two or three Popes it was no Church or two or three Churches But saith W. I. This is evident in our present Subject for though all the Pastors in Christs Church be only his Officers and Deputies yet you cannot deny such Officers are now essential to his visible Church Ans. 1. When I heard the word Evident I lookt for something But I had nothing but you cannot deny it and what true Christian ever yet denyed it But I do not remember that ever I heard it disputed before affirmed or denyed He that would deny it will say that as all the Mayors Bayliffs and other Magistrates of Corporations are indeed essential parts of those Corporations and these Corporations are the noblest integral parts of the Kingdom but no essential parts of it so that if the Kingdom should be resolved into a King and meer common Subjects only it were a Kingdom still so it is in the Church Particular gathered Churches are the noblest integral parts of the Universal Church but not essential And Pastors are essential parts of those particular Churches But if all the particulars and Pastors should cease the Church would be a Church still while there is a Christ and meer Christians But this never will be in this world because Christ will not only have a Church but a well-formed organized Church Those that had rather use the word essential of the Pastors will say that as soul and body are the only essential parts of a man and yet the brain heart and liver may be called essential parts of the body as distinct from the rest because without these it is not corpus orgâ—…nicum and so not humanum so though Christ be the only soul of the Church yet Officers may be essential parts of his body as organical capable of such a soul And though the other will reply that this is but a deceiving Metaphor Christ being not only the soul but the head and no organical Members being more than noble Integrals because if an Intellectual separation be made the Church is a Church still in such a conception Yet all this is but a Controversie of the aptitude of the word Essential in that case we are agreed that Officers shall be in the Church to the end And yet Saint Paul 1 Cor. 12. calls them but eyes and hands and never heads but reserveth that title to Christ alone yea even when he speaketh of Apostles And yet if any Officers were Essential it would be Apostles who are called Foundations and Pillars of the House but none of them the Head 2. But what 's all this to our Controversie What if Pastors were Essential to the Church viz. that there be some Doth it follow that the Bishop of Rome is any more essential to it than the Bishop of Ierusalem or Antioch If so then 1. Before Peter is feigned Bishop of Rome the Church was no Church All the while that he dwelt at Ierusalem and Antioch 2. And then if Rome were burnt or the Bishop of it ceased the Church were no Church Sir our true question is Whether a trayterous Usurper of Universal Soveraignty received by a third part of the Church and refused by all the rest be essential to the Church Not as whether the heart or head but a Scab or Cancer be essential to the body After some vain repetitions pag. 82. he repeateth the sum of his fraudulent Argument which he calls The force of his Discourse viz No Congregation of Christians hath been perpetually visible but that which acknowledgeth the Popes Supremacy Ergo No Congregation of Christians is Christs true Church save that Ans. I will therefore repeat the sum of my Answer viz. The word Congregation is ambiguous 1. Either it meaneth a company met together 2. Or a number of such Congregations owning one Superiour being part of the Universal Church 3. Or the Universal Church it self Accordingly I answer 1. That in the first sense a Congregation is called the same either because the same men live or because the survivors dwell in the same place or because they are of the same profession In the two first respects it is not necessary that any Congregation continue the same for men dye and places may be conquered or ruined In the third sense All true Christian Congregations in the world are of one and the same species as Christian from the beginning to this day II. In the second sense of the word Congregation I answer like as to the former The men dye the places are mutable but as to the common Christian Profession they are the same that they have been but as to the extent of Diocesses neither you nor we can deny but that they have altered Scotus Petavius and Doctor Hammond who hold that Bishops without Presbyters were first setled must hold that a Church then was but one Assembly or no more than one Bishop could speak to But de facto all agree that it was not long before they widened by degrees And in this sense the Churches of Abassia Armenia Ierusalem Alexandria c. are visible and have been from their beginning and some of them before Rome was The Churches of Ephesus Smyrna Thessalonica c. are and have been such And some Churches are visible which do not acknowledge the Popes Soveraignty that sometimes did viz. The Church of Britain in England and Scotland at first owned it not and after did receive it and after that cast it off again but it is visible and hath been from its beginnings The Churches of Denmark Sweden Transilvania and divers Countries of Germany were not
Abassia Armenia Egypt Syria the Georgians the Iacobites those falsly called by you Nestorians and Eutychians the Africans Greeks Muscovites the Britains Seots Swedes Danes Belgians Saxons Helvetians the rest of the Germans Transilvanians Hungarians French c. which now disown the Papacy who were some Countrys never under the Pope some Countries at first under him and after rejected him and some at first from under his Government next under him and after repented and all of them have been Christians from their first conversion to this day Can I speak plainer But Num. 42. he granteth that All that are true Christians are one Kingdom or Church of Christ but denyeth that these are true Christians And pag. 84. He would seem to give some reason for his denyal saying I deny it if they were independent on the Bishop of Rome Answ. 1. Even now he abstracted from this But now they are no Christians unless they be Dependendents on the Pope Such a Denyal is an easie Task and the sum of all their Writings But what need there then so many Ambages and large Volumes to bring out such a short and crude Assertion Could you not have said this without all the rest He is no Christian that dependeth not on the Pope But is it not incumbent on you to prove it Undoubtedly it is 1. In foro Scholastico as an Affirmer 2. In foro civili Ecclesiastico as an Accuser And till you have proved it what need they or I care for yoùr words Must all Men pass for no Christian that a Priest or Jesuit will say are none Or am I and all Men disobliged from loving all those as Christians whom such as you will affirm to be no Christians Love is easily destroyed if this much will do it But it costeth more than so to cause it Pag. 85. He addeth Let them have been as visible as you please that 's nothing to me so were the Arrians Sabellians Montanists c. Prove they were no more than one visible Congregation of Christians among themselves and with Orthodox Christians that 's the present Controversie Answ. I hope we shall find out the Controversie at last though it seems as hard almost as to resolve it How oft must I repeat the same Proof Again my Proof is this Those that are baptised into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and hold all essential to Christianity not apostatizing from the whole or any essential part are true Christians But such are they before mentioned 1. That they are Baptized is not denyed and Baptizing is Christening and supposeth the profession of all that is essential to Christianity or else it could not make them Christians 2. No man that professeth himself a Christian must be taken to be no Christian till he be convict by lawful proof because as sincerity or heart-consent to the Covenant of Grace is our Christianity as invisible before God so Baptism and professed consent to that Covenant is our visible Christianity before men every man being the Expositor of his own belief and resolution but that these Churches have Apostatâ—…zed from the whole or any essential part of Christianity is unproved and therefore not to be supposed As every particular man is to be taken for a Christian who is baptized and professeth it till his profession be disproved so much more whole Countries and Churches that profess Christianity must not be supposed without proof to be no Christians If a Papist will say to all the men in the City prove that you are no Thieves no Adulterers no Murderers no Lyars no Traytors or else I will take you for such I think they may more justly say prove that we are such or else we will take you for a standerer And that they are of one Church I prove All Christians are one Church but those are Christians therefore of one Church The major is certain They that are the Members and Subjects of one Christ are of one Church All Christians are the Members and Subjects of one Christ therefore they are of one Church All that have the seven terms of Union before mentioned out of Eph. 4. are of one Church but such are these before named Here remember 1. That I plead not for the Christianity of any that are proved to deny indeed any one essential point of Christianity but I will not believe this man that every thing instituted by Christ and so every word in the Bible is such an essential nor that our Church or Religion is so strange a thing as to have no perpetual integral parts nor accidents but what will not some men have a Face to defend 2. That this same man hath already maintained that no man is bound to be subject to the Pope to whom he is not sufficiently propounded and that he confesseth that it is not yet agreed among them that any more is necessary to Salvation to be explicitely believed than that there is a God and reward for good works And yet two or three parts of the Christian World must be no Christians nor Members of the Church of Christ because they are not Members of the Pope And let it be still remembred to acquit the Eastern and Southern Churches from the Papists charge of Heresie as being Nestorians and Eutychians 1. That the Accusers are to be taken for Calumniators till they prove it by all the rules of common Justice 2. That if they could prove Dioscorus e. g. an Eutychian that 's no proof that all the Bishops that adhered to him were such for it 's apparent by the Acts of the Councils that Multitudes adhered to him because they thought him no Eutychian and Derodon de suppositâ—… hath undeniably proved that Dioscorus said but what his Predecessor Cyril hath oft said whom you approved and many because they thought the Judgment unjust that judged him so and cast him out and many for the honour of the Seat yea many for fear of death by the people that were affected to him as their Patriarch though they understood not the cause in question He that readeth the Bishops at the Council of Calcedon part crying out prostrate on the Earth miseremini miseremini non dissentimus else kill us here we dare not go home if we desert and raile against our Patriarch before another be chosen the people will kill us and another part of them confessing that fear made them subscribe at the Council at Ephes. 2. and some crying out Away with them they are Hereticks who cryed non dissentimus may well judge that all were not Hereticks that clamor called so 3. If they could prove those few Bishops that were openly accused and noted to be Eutychians that 's no proof that the rest were so 4. If they could prove that many then were so that will not prove that those that now there inhabit are so 5. And of Nestorianism there is less publick shew of proof 6. And indeed the main Body of the Common
or Arrian Princes they took it for their calamity and were glad of any Communion with the Imperial Churches and the Honour and countenance of their Relation and it 's like would come among them if they could 3. Some Bishops that lived in Heathen or persecuted Countries in distress were glad to seek Countenance and help from the Roman power as the Britains did from France and a Basil and the Eastern Bishops did from the West in Valens his persecution while yet they took them not for Governours And some weak Princes that lived near the Roman Empire were glad of their Friendship and afraid of their Enmity and were willing to hold a communion with them in Religion in which their Clergy should have some dependance on Rome which was the case of the Saxons in and after Gregory the first 's days 4. Some Western Countries that were converted from infidelity by some Preachers subject to the Pope became themselves subjects to that Seat as their Converters and in obedience to them that first prevailed with them which was partly the case of the Saxons and of some Countries of Germany and Sweden Denmark Poland c. 5. Lastly when the Eastern Empire and Churches forsook the Church of Rome the Pope received a great diminution in the extent of his Primacy the East that forsook him being about twice as big as those that remained under him but withal a great Intensive increase of his power for shortly after he claimed the Government of all the World as Universal Bishop not only of the Empire but the Earth And after that many that were his Subjects owned him in that relation And since then I deny not but that many Princes without the Empire have been his Subjects yea he purposely broke Germany and Italy into many small Principalities and free Cities that they might not be strong enough to resist his claim If all these Concessions will do them any good let them make their best of them I must intreat the Reader to remember hence-forward what is our difference and not to expect that I repeat this over and over again when his words invite me to it Pag. 91. he saith The Indians were not always extra-imperial for in the year 163. they subjected themselves to Antonius Pius And so the Armenians 572. being greivously persecuted for the Christian Faith by the Persians they rendered themselves Subjects to the Roman Empire And 1145 they and the Indian Christians subjected themselves to the Pope and again 1439 and so remain at the present Ans. 1. This maketh against you rather than for you If your Kingdom extended not so far as the Empire But indeed these are impertinent words As it was but a small part of the Indies that ever was under the Heathen Romans so it is not their Empire that I speak of but the Christians for before Constaâ—…ine's day the Patriarchs made no pretence to govern all within the Empire much less all without Pighius tells you That General Councils were the device of Constantine I would you had told us 1. What Indian or Armenian Bishops were at any General Council before Constantine's days and where that Council was and when 2. And what Indian or Armenian or Persian Bishops were imposed or deposed by the Pope of Rome This undertaking would have tryed your strength but you were wiser 7. And it was but the nearer Armenia that you say yielded to the Roman Emperour and I confess that the part that was under hiâ—… had Bishops at some few Councils and are not the men of whom I speak though even they were soon separated from Rome and were no longer under the Roman Papacy 3. But your Fable of the Armenians and Indians subjecting themselves to the Pope and so remaining to this day may be meet to abuse Women with that know not your Cheats by a tale of a counterfeit Patriarch but neither Merchants nor any acquainted with History that know the World will believe you any more than that the Greeks are your Subjects who at Florâ—…ce compelled by necessity made far more shew of it than ever the other did In sum I heartily wish that all the World were as much the Popes Subjects as the Armenians and Abassines are on condition that none were any more your Subjects And whereas you say pag. 92. No one of thâ—…se hath been in all Ages a visible Congregation besides that of Rome 1. A repeated contempt is answer enough to a repeated false Historical Assertion 2. Again I tell you that is no question but whether those that now are none of your Subjects were in all Ages Christians 3. You have not yet proved that there was one Papist in the World for 400 years You add For each of them at one time or other became the same Congregation to that by subjecting and conforming themselves to the Bishop of Rome Ans. As true as the Turk is subject to you If some little of the Indian were subject to a Heathen Antonius doth that prove that they and all the Christians there were subject to Constantine or to the Pope when they revolted And when was Ethiopia and Persia subject to you And why do you not blush to say that the. Armenians are now subject to you You are like to be good Deliverers of Traditions to us and Infallible Decreers and Deciders of Controversies that stick not at such notorious fictions If you had said that England Scotland Sweden Denmark are your Subjects the falshood had some more pretence because you have some among them all I next noted That these Churches profess it to be their Tradition that the Pope was never their Governour This he denyeth and calleth for proof Ans. I give you proof 1. See the words of your own Writers e. g. Godignuâ—… de rebuâ—… Abaâ—…inorum reciting the conference of the Emperours Mother and the Iesuite wherein she professeth it and the answer of the Iesuite confessing it and Godignus confirming it that they were Christians from the time of the Eunuch Act. 8. or St. Matthew and the Pope had nothing to do with them 2. When the same Countries do at once profess these two things 1. That in Religion they follow the Tradition of their Fathers from the Apostles 2. And that the Pope is none of their Governour set these two together and you must conclude that they suppose their Tradition to be against the Papacy or that they are Sots and that these two are their Principles all the Historical notice that we have of those Countreys by Travellers Merchants and Writers Papists Greeks and Protestants assure us deny it as impudently as you will I will not tire the Reader with needless History I next added that No History or Authority of the least regard is brought by your own Writers to prove these under the Pope He replyeth Yes those that say All were under him Ans. That is none but Pope Leo himself and a few of the Empire who speak of no All
but the Orbis Romanus the whole Empire I added No credible witnesses mention your Acts of Jurisdiction over them or their Acts of Subjection which Church-History must needs have contained if it had been true that they were your Subjects He replyeth Is not Genebrard a Witness that Pope Eugenius wrote to the Emperour of Ethiopia 1437 to send Legates to the Council of Ferrara as the Greek Emperour had decreed to do to whose Letters and Legates David their Emperour sent a respectful answer and accordingly sent some of his Church to that Council as appears by the Acts of the Council and that 1524 the said David and Helena his Empress promised obedience to the Bishop of Rome Pope Clem. 7. Ans. I had rather you had called Father Parsons or Campion or Garnet your credible Witness than Genebrard a late railing Falsifier Such Tales as these be meet for the Ears of none but such as would believe you if you swore that all the Iews and Turks are Christians Do you think that your obtruding such abominable Forgeries commonly known by the Learned to be such and confessed by your own Writers will not increase our alienation from you Did you ever read the subscriptions of that Council when you say that the Acts declare that some of the Ethiopian Church were there Why did you not name them Do we not know how long a Journey it is to Abassia and how much more time the Pope must have had to have sent a message to the Emperour there and received an answer than the sudden calling of the Council at Ferrarâ—… to break another that had deposed the Pope as a 〈◊〉 and wicked man could consist with and that Council sitting a while at Ferrara removed by the plague to Florence was wholly taken up with the Greekâ—… and no mention of any Abassian there We have by Dr. Creightons Edition a better History of that Council than Binniâ—… c. gives us but nothing of this Indeed Binnius reports the now known Fable of an Armenian coming too late after the subscriptions but we have oft enough heard of your scenical Patriarchs and Bishops and feigned Nuncios You can make a Patriarcch or Bishop of any part of the World at Rome when you will and then say that those Churches have submitted to you These Forgeries are part of your foundation as Dr. Willet hath shewed in his Trerastyloâ—…s Papismi Why have you no Bishops no Regiment in Abassia and Armenia Had it been true that David and Helena had promised obedience to the Pope as Iohan. Paleologus the Greek Emperour partly did and forced some of his Bishops to do in his necessity hoping for help to have kept out the Turk till they were come home and then renounced the Act What had that been to the Question One Man and Woman is not the Church but he that will read but your own Godignus will see the utter falshood of your pretences to any thing in Abassia Next he nameth besides Genebrard six others Platina Nauclerus c. that he saith besides the Acts of the Florentine Council that say that the Armenians and Indians acknowledge the Soveraignty of the Roman Bishop through the Whole World Answ. 1. Though he names but his own late Partners yet he citeth not a word page or book of any one of them If any one of them have so gross a Fiction it is no more honour to them than to himself But the Council of Florence in whose Acts I should as soon look to find a Fiction as in any being a packt Anti-Council of a villainous deposed Pope hath no such word in any of my Books but only that which I cited of a forged too late coming of an Armenian And even their own Fiction talks not of his much less the Indians acknowledgment of the Pope's Soveraignty over the whole World He next addeth And as to more ancient times gives not the Arabick Translation of the first Council of Nice a clear Witness that the Ethiopians were to be under the Iurisdiction of the Patriarch of Alexandria and he under that of Rome Answ. I do not wonder that you use to lead the ignorant in your Disputes into a Wilderness or Wood of History under the Name of Antiquity and Tradition when you know your own Refuges Reader the famous Council of Nice hath been predicated and appealed to and gloried in by almost all Parties save the Arrians for many hundred years after it was celebrated and the Affrican Bishops of whom Austin was one had a long Contest with divers Popes for about twenty years about the true Copy of the Canons And now the other day comes one Alph. Pisanus and tells us that he hath found a Copy of them in Arabick and this tells you of the Ethiopians being under Alexandria by Canon and forty things more that were not in the Canons which the Church had for above a thousand years and this is very good Authority with a Papist And so they can yet determine what shall be in any ancient Council or Father as if they had the doing of all themselves It is but saying we have found an old Paper that saith so Why then do you not receive Eutychius Alexandrinus's Reports of that Council published by Selden which tells us other improbable things of it but hath far more appearance of Antiquity than your new-found Canons Next I noted that Their absence from General Councils and no invitation of them thereto that was ever proved is sufficient Evidence To this he saith I intend to make a particular Tract to prove this and to evidence the falsity of your Allegation from undenyable Testimonies of classic Authors and from the ancient Subscriptions of the Councils themselves Answ. A fine put-off I do not believe you dare attempt it for fear of awakening the World to the consideration of this notorious Evidence against you It is now above sixteen years since our writing and yet I hear not of your Book But the Reader need not stay for it let him but peruse the Subscriptions in your own Volumes of the Councils Crab Surius Binius Nicolinus and judge whether all the Christian World without the Empire were ever summoned to General Councils were present at them or judged by them any Bishops put in or out by them and judge as you see proof Next I noted that Their ancient Lyturgies have no Footsteps of any subjection to the Pope though the Papists have corrupted them which in a Digression I shewed out of Usher de succes Eccles. in that instead of Hic panis est Corpus meum in the Ethiopick Canon Universalis they have put Hoc est corpus meum To this he replyeth pag. 96. No more doth the Roman Missal nor that of France o Spain witness their subjection to the Pope Answ. That 's strange that you have suffered so much of the old form unchanged Gregory that denyed the Title of Universal Bishop was the chief Author
by voluntary subjection yet so are not the Churches which the rest of the Apostles planted without the Empire aâ—… those Apostles were not subject to St. Peter 6. And why do you so arrogantly accuse such vast Churches as Armâ—…nia Ethiopia India and all the rest of the Apostles planted besides Peter and Paul and take them all for Rebels and Schismaticks and yet bring no word of proof for your Accusations But the truth is Reynerius though he revolted from the 〈◊〉 of his times was an honester man than the Pope that shall thus be his Expositor and yet W. I is not the Pope and therefore I question his partial exposition Next I mentioned the Canon of the Council of Calcedon which saith that the Fathers in Council gave Rome the preheminence c. He replyeth that 1. The Greek word is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exhibited or deferred to Rome as ever before due to it by the right of the Apostolick See of St. Peter established there Ans. You are hard put to it when you have no better shift than so useless a Criticism 1. You know I suppose that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may have a signification as remote from doâ—…ation as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that your own common Translation is tribuere and I desire no more 2. Is here ever a word in the Canon that saith It was ever before due not a word 3. Is not the same word used of the giving of equal priviledges to Constantinople as â—…is of giving or deferring it to Rome the same word And did they mean that this belonged ever to Constantinople and that of Divine Right You dare not say so 4. Did they not say that by the same reason they judged that Constantinople should have equal priviledges because it was the Royal City And was this famous Council of which you boast as obeying Leo's Epistle so sottish and absurd as to argue thus because old Rome had the first Seat assigned to it on this account because it was the imperial Seat and that was because it was ever before its due as St Peter's Chair therefore we judge that by the same reason Constantinople should have equal priviledges because it is now new Rome the imperial Seat though it was never due to it before as the Seat of any Apostle O what cannot some men believe or seem to believe And how much doth it conern your Church to be the Expositor and Judge of the sense of all Councils as well as of God's Word He addeth that the Canon saith not that this was the sole reason Ans. 1 But the Canon saith This was the reason and assigneth no other 2. And if it made not it the great reason which the Church was to take for the fundamentum juris they would never have laid the Right of Constantinople on the same Foundation as by parity of reason The plain truth is but interest and partiality cannot endure plain truth he that will not be deceived by cited By-words of the Ancients must distinguish between the Titâ—…lus or fundamentum juris and the Ratio or Motives of the Statute or Constitution The first was the Law of Emperours and Councils This only giveth the Right The second was prevailingly and principally that which the Canon here assigneth that Rome was the great City and the imperial Seat but as a honorary Tittle adding to the Motive they say sometimes that it was the Seat of Peter and sometimes of Peter and Paul and sometime they mention Paul alone and cry as at Ephesus Magno Paulâ—… Cyrillo Magne Paulo Celestino But note that they give often the same reason for the Patriarchal honour of Antioch that it was Sedes Petri and therefore never took this to be either the Foundation of the Right or the chief determining Motive of the Constitution He addeth that else it had been a contradiction when the Fathers say that Dioscorus had extended his Felony against him to whom our Saviour had committed the charge and care of his Vineyard that is of the whole Catholick Church Ans. 1. No doubt but they acknowledged that Christ committed the care of his Vineyard to Peter and every one of the Apostles and to all Bishops as their Successors though not in Apostleship and they acknowledged Rome the primate in the Empire and when Dioscor us undertook to excommunicate Leo they supposed that he transgressed the Laws of the imperial Church and therefore Anatolius in the Council when the Indices said that Dioscor us condemned Flavian for saying Christ had two Natures answered That Dioscorus was not condemned propter fidem but for excommunicating Leo and for not appearing when he was sent for 2. Is here any word that saith that the Pope was Soveraign of all the Earth Doth not the Council in that very Letter to Leo say that the Emperour had called the Council not ascribing it to any Authority of the Pope And also that the saying Mat. 28 Go teach all Nations c. was delivered to them which is the care of the vineyard and not only to the Pope Quam nobis olim ipse salvator tradidit ad salutem But saith W. I. The true reason why this Canon mentioneth rather the Imperial Authority of that City than the right from St. Peter was because it suited better with the pretensions of Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople and his Complices for the elevaton of that Sea than any other for they had no other c. Ans. It 's true But did Anatolias and his Complices that is the Council speak sincerely and truly here or falsly If truly that 's all that I cite them for If falsly as worldly unconscionable men that were setting up themselves why hoast we of General Councils even of this and of their words to Leo How can we tell when to trust them and whether they that subscribed against Flavian at Ephes. 2. and after cryed omnes peccavimus at Calcedon when they were under a Martian and not Theodosius would not have acquit Dioscorus and condemned Leo and Elavian again if another Theodosius had come But if they were credible believe them But he tells us that a Law of Theodosius and Valentine put both reasons together c. Ans. I told you in what sense even now even as they put the name of Peters Seat as a reason of the honour of Antioch a honorary motive to their Law And he here confesseth himself That Alexander and Antioch had the second and third places because they were the second and third great Cities of the Empire But he saith that St. Peter thought it convenient that the highest spiritual Authority should be placed in that City which had the highest temporal power Ans. Say you so 1. Where is that Canon of St. Peter's to be found and proved 2. If so then why is not this Canon produced for the regulating of all other Churches Why doth Canterbury take place of London
de Pontifice Romano and others that so speak c. is a vain digression not worthy an answer nor the rest I will here briefly recite some undeniable Reasons which I have given pag. 100 c. of my Naked Popery to prove what we have been all this while upon 1. That the Papal Power was not held to be jure divino but humano 1. It stood by the same right as did the other Patriarchs but it was jure humano 2. The Africans Aurelius Augustine c. of the Carthage Council enquired not of Gods Word but of the Nicene Canons to be resolved of the Papal Power 3. The whole Greek Church heretofore and to this day is of that Judgment for they first equalled and after preferred Constantinople which never pretended to a Divine Right but they were not so blind as to equal or prefer a humane right before a Divine 4. The fore-cited Ca. 28. of the Council of Calcedon expresly resolves it 5. Their own Bishop Smith confesseth that it is not de fide that the Pope is St. Peters Successor jure divino II. The Roman Primacy was over but one Empire besides all the Reasons fore-going I added That the Bishop of Constantinople when he stood for to be Universal Bishop yet claimed no more therefore no more was then in contest but Power in the Empire III. That Councils then were called General in respect only to the Empire I proved by ten Arguments p. 104. 105. adding five exceptions Page 114. he had put a Verse under the name of Pope Leo with a Testimony c. I shewed that there was no such and he confesseth the Errour but he supposeth a confident Friend of his put it into his Papers and now saith the Verse was Prosper's and some words to the like purpose are Leo's de Nat. Pet. Prosper he saith is somewhat ancienter than Leo and less to be excepted against Ans. 1. He was Leo's Servant even his Secretary as Vossius and Rivet have shewed and so his Words and Leo's are as one's 2. It is in a Poem where liberty of phrase is ordinarily taken 3. No wonder if Caput Mundo be found in a Poet either as it is spoken de Mundo Romano or as Caput signifieth the most excellent great and honourable And so Rome it self is oft called by Historians Caput Mundi before and since Christianity entered it And it may well be said that this was Pastoralis Honoris though not ex Pastorali Regimine Universali For one Bishop was a Caput or chief to others Pastorali Honore that was not their Governour as the chief Earl or chief Judge among us is to the inferiours 3. And the Pope did Nihil possidere armis 4. And Tenere and Regere be not all one He may be said thus Tenere in that the Religion which he professed had possession of more than the Roman Empire and he was the Chief Bishop in honour of that profession The sense seemeth to be but this As great a honour as it is to be the Bishop of the Imperial City of a Conquering Empire it is a greater to be the Prime Bishop of that Christian Religion which extendeth further than the Roman Conquests He citeth a sentence as to the same sence out of Prosper de Vocat Gent. l. 2. c. 6. viz. That the Principality of the Apostolick Priesthood hath made Rome greater through the Tribunal of Religion than through that of the Empire Which I take to be the true sence of the Poet but to be greater by Religion than Empire is no more to be Ruler of the World than if I had said so of Melchizedeck that he was greater as he was Priest of the most high God than as he was King of Salem But there is in the cited place of Prosper none of these words nor any about any such matter at all but there is somewhat like it in cap. 16. which indeed is expository Ad cujus rei effectum credimus providentia Dei Romani regni latitudinem praeparatam ut Nationes vocandae ad Unitatem Corporis Christi prius jure unius consociarentur imperii quamvis gratia Christiana non contenta sit eosdem limites habere quos Roma multosque jam populos sceptro Crucis Christi illa subdiderit quos armis suis ista non domuit Quae tamen per Apostolici sacerdotii principatum amplior facta est arce Religionis quam solio potestatis All this we acknowledge that Prosper then said about 466 years after Christ being Pope Leo's Secretary and seeing the Church in its greatest outward Glory The Unity of the Empire prepared for the greatness of the Church and those that were United in one Empire were United after in one Religion and yet the Gospel went further than the Empire and Rome it self became more honourable in being the seat of the most honourable Christian Bishop whose Religion extended further than the Empire than in being the Imperial Seat of Power The words which he citeth of Leo I made the lightest of because he was a Pope himself and pleaded his own cause more highly than any of his Predecessors and lived so late but yet the words do not serve the Papists turn for he at large sheweth that his meaning was that Rome which was domina mundi before it waâ—… Christian and yet not the Ruler of the World was prepared to be the Seat of Peter and Paul that even the outer Nations by their Neighbourhood to the Empire might be capable of the Gospel which is a certain Truth Ut hujus inenarrabilis gratiae per totum mundum diffunderetur effectus Romanum regnum divina providentia praeparavit cujus ad eos limites incrementa perducta sunt quibus cunctarum undique gentium vicina contigua esset universitas Disposito namq divinitatis operi maxime congruebat ut multa regna uno confâ—…derarentur imperio cito pervios haberet populos praedicatio generalis quos unius teneret regimen civitatis Nec mundi dominam times Romam qui in Caiphae domo expaveras sacerdotis ancillam And mentioning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Rome he saith ut cos in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 caput est Christus quasi geminum constituerit lumen oculorum de quorum meritis atque viâ—…tutibus que omnem loquendi superant facultatem nihil diversum nihil debemus sentire discretum quia illos electio pares labor similes finis fecit aequales And in the next Sermon expounding super hanc petram thus saith super hanc inquit 〈◊〉 â—…ternum extruam templum ecclesiae meae caelo inserenda sublimitas in hujus fidei firmitate consurget Hanc confessionem portae Inferi non tenebunt c. And of Tibi dabo claves Transivit quidâ—…m in Apostolos alios vis illius potestatis sed non frustra uni commendatur quod omnibus intimetur Petro enim singulariter hoc creditur quia cunctis ecclesiae rectoribus Petri forma proponitur Manet
ergo Petri privilegium ubicunque ex ipsius fertur aequitate judicium nec nimia est vel severitas vel remissio So Petrus Chrysologus expoundeth super hanc petram Serm. 74. p. 69. 1. and many others But it is the way of these Men to take some Sentence that soundeth as they think for sufficient Proof of their Foundations Leo in his Epistles to Anatolius and to the Emperour Martian against him Ep. 54. p. 131. layeth all the Priviledges of the Churches on the Council of Nice Privilegia ecclesiarum sanctorum Patrum Canonibus instituta Venerabilis Nicenae Synodi fixa decretis nulla novitate mutari c. He saith that no later Council though of greater number can alter any thing done in the Council of Nice and so none of their Rules for the Churche's Regiment And in many other Epistles to Pulcheria c. he over and over accuseth him as breaking the Statutes of the Fathers and Councils but not the Institution of Christ or his Apostles Next he citeth Leo's Epist. 82. to Anastas But it is in the 84th and he that will but read it will easily see that it was but in the Empire that Lâ—…o claimed the final Decision and Appeals And once more I here appeal to any impartial Man that ever read over all the true Epistles and Decretals of the Popes themselves and findeth that none of them for 400 if not 500 years were ever sent to any extraimperial Church as any way exercising Authority over them yea and till after 600 when Gregory sent into England they wrote but to their own Missionaries or but by way of Counsel as any Man may do whether he can believe they then arrogated the Government of all the World In the rest of this Chapter there is nothing worth the answering but that he saith to prove Ethiopia under the Patriarchs of Alexandria That 1. Some Learned Men think Ethiopia is included in Egypt 2. That Dr. Heylin and Rosse did regard Pisanus his Nicene Canons and their Authority is more than mine Answ. 1. You are a Learned Man who take Thracia to have been without the Empire and must I therefore be of the same mind If your Learned Men cannot distinguish between Egypt an imperial Province and the vast and distant Kingdoms of Ethiopia What 's that to me Is it enough to confute any evident truth that there was found some Man that was against it 2. Nor is the Name of Heylin and Rosse of any more Authority to prove the Antiquity of a late-produced Script against all the Testimony of the Fathers and Councils near those times than your own naked Assertion would have been Is not this a pitiful Proof that Pisanus's Canons are authentick and ancient because Dr. Heylin and Rosse regard them If you had any better Proof Why did you not produce it An Answer to W. J's fifth Chapter The thing that I asserted is 1. That the Pope had never any Governing Power over the whole Earth 2. Nor anciently over any out of the Empire 3. Nor a proper Government of the other Patriarchs or exempt Provinces within the Empire But that he was principally for the honour of the Imperial Seat and next as to honour the Memorial of St. Peter voluntarily by Councils and Emperours made the prime Bishop of the Empire Alexandria first and Constantinople after the second Antioch the third c. And that not the Pope but the Emperours and General Councils were the chief Rulers of the Imperial Churches But in these Councils the Bishop of Rome had the first Seat and Alexandria the second And that this Bishop of Rome had but one Voice ordinarily in Councils but sometimes he claimed a Negative Voice and sometimes Councils have condemned excommunicated and deposed him And in his absence the Bishop of Alexandria had the same Power as he when present had Now W. I. here citeth some Testimonies truly and some falsly to prove that which I deny not that sometimes the last Appeals were made to him and other Priviledges allowed him which belonged to the first Bishop of the Empire I think it but an injury to the Reader to examine them any further If he will read the Histories and Fathers themselves he needs not my Testimony If he will not my Testimony is no notifying Evidence to him And upon the perusal of the rest I find nothing in this Chapter needing or worthy of any further Answer And I am sensible that fruitless altercation will be ungrateful to wise and sober Men. An Answer to W. J's Sixth CHAPTER § 1. I Noted that under the Heathen Emperours Church-Associations were but by Voluntary Consent and yet then they called in none without the Empire To this he Replyeth 1. Denying such Consent 2. Saying They could not call them that were Extraimperial to sit with them Answ. 1. I would he had told us how Provinces were distributed while Emperours were Heathens if not by Consent Doth he think that the Pope did it all himself Did he make Alexandria Antioch Patriarchates and divide to all other Bishops their Seats and Provinces If he say this he will but make us the more wary of such a Disputant for he will never prove it 2. And if by Consent they could not call any without the Empire then none were Called which is the Truth § 2. But he cometh to his grand Proof That the four first Councils were Univerâ—… as to all the World 1. Because they are called General and Oecumenical Councils by themselves by the Canons by Histories by the whole Christian World by the Fathers by Protestants by our Statute-Books by our thirty nine Articles and by Orthodox Writers To all which I Answer Even in Scotland the Presbyterians have their General Assembly which yet is somewhat less than all the World And as for their Phrase of Totius Orbis So it is said in the Gospel that all the World was Taxed by Augustus He is very easily perswaded that after all the Evidence which I have given and in particular after the sight of all the subscribed Names at Councils which were within the Empire can yet believe that they were the Bishops of all the World because he readeth the name Oecumenical and Totius Orbis § 3. But he argueth from the Reason of the thing 1. Councils were gathered for the Common Peace of Christians Answ. The Peace of the Christian World is promoted by the Peace of the Empire 1. As it was the most considerable part then of the whole Christian World 2. As the welfare of every part conduceth to the welfare of the World 3. As it is Exemplary and Counselling to all others but not by Authoritative Command and Constraint § 4. Secondly He saith Else any obstinate Hereticks might but have removed to the Extra-imperial Churches and been free Answ. 1. He might no doubt have been free from force unless his own Prince were of the same mind 2. But he could not have
those General Councils in all their Decrees Constitutions and Canons intended to Oblige all Christians through the whole World and thereby demonstrated themselves to have Iurisdiction of the whole Church and never so much as insinuated that their Authority was limited within the Precincts of the Empire Answ. 1. I have proved the contrary at large already 2. They might well commend their Decrees or Judgments to all Christians on two accounts 1. For Concord sake it being desirable that all Christians should as much as may be be of one mind and way 2. Ratione rei decretâ—… And so all Churches are bound to receive the same Truth that one is bound to If the Bishop of the poorest City Excommunicate a Man justly for Heresie all the Bishops in the World that know it are bound to deny Communion to that Man and so Cyprian commended the Bishop of Rome for denying Communion to Felicissimus partly because they are bound to keep Concord with all Christians and Order and partly because they are bound to avoid Hereticks And yet such a Bishop is not Governour of all other Bishops nor Cyprian of the Bishop of Rome But let us hear your Proofs § 26. I. Thus saith W. I. the Council of Ephesus saith Their Decrees were for the good of the whole world Answ. I do not mean to search so large a Volumn to find where seeing you tell me not where When as he is unworthy to be Disputed with that knoweth not how commonly then the Roman Empire was called Totus Orbis and even the Scripture saith That all the World was Taxed by Augustus How oft doth Nazianzene complain that the Bishops and Councils had distracted and divided the whole World And also that all that is for the good of the whole World is not an Act of Government of the whole World e. g. The Works of Augustine Chrysostome c. § 27. II. Saith he Thus the Council of Chalcedon Act. 7. declareth the Church of Antioch to have under its Government Arabia Answ. But do you think that no part of Arabia was in the Empire Look but in the Maps of the Empire if you have no other notice And you will be put hard to it to prove that they meant the rest of Arabia § 28. III. And act 16. c. 28. saith he That the Bishop of Const. should have under him certain Churches in Barbarous Nations which you must prove to have been under the Empire Answ. 1. I thought you must have proved that it was out of the Empire who undertook to prove it as you affirm it 2. But seeing Papists lay Mens Salvation upon such skill in History Cosmography and Chronology which this great Disputer had so little of himself we must study it better for the time come And I did fully prove to you before that the Sauromatâ—… many of the Scythians and Goths were conquered and in the Empire and Barbarians were in the Empire And by the way Note 1. That this â—…uncil of Chalcedon even writing to Leo Bishop of Rome tell him That They were called by the Grace of God and Sanction of the most Pious Emperours not mentioning any call of Leo's 2. That the Emperour Martian in his Decree against Hereticks and for this Council saith All Men must believe as Athanasius Theophylus and Cyril believed not naming the Bishop of Rome and that Cyril Praefuit Concilio Ephesino not saying that the Bishop of Rome did it or Cyril as his Vicar And that the Council-Bishops contemptuously against the Romans cryed out They that gain-say let them walk to Rome and stood to their last Canon against the Popes dissent § 29. IV. Next he saith Nicephorus l. 5. c. 16. saith That Leo the Emperour Wrote to the Bishops of all Provinces together Circularibus per Orbem literis ad Ecclesias missis Leo haec sic ad omnes Episcopos misit which he accounts were above a thousand to have them subscribe to the Council of Chalcedon Answ. Some Men perceive not when they consute themselves 1. I tell you Totus Orbis was a common Title of the Empire 2. Had Leo any power out of the Empire His commands shew that they were his Subjects that he wrote to 3. Were any called or wrote to under the Name of Provinces but the Roman Provinces 4. Do you think that there were not more than a thousand Bishops in the Empire Yea many thousands if poor Ireland had as many hundred as Ninius speaks of 5. But remember hence that if all Bishops were written to then the Bishop of Rome was written to to Subscribe the 28 Canon of the Council of Chalcedon which he refused as Papists say But indeed the Epistle that Niceph. there mentioneth c. 16. was but to enquire of all the Bishops whether they stood to the Council of Chalcedon or no and what Bishop of Alexandria they were for to save the calling of a new Council and it is plain he wrote only to his Subjects § 30. V. Next he saith The Bishops of the second Armenia which seem to have been out of the Empire wrote an Answer and Adelphus Bishop of Arabia Subscribes among the rest to this Epistle Answ. 1. He tells me â—…ot where to find any of this In Nicephorus there I find it not 2. But if he know not that part of both the Armenias were Roman Provinces he may see it in the Titles of the Nicene Council and in the Maps and Histories of the Empire And of Arabia I spake before § 31. VI. He saith The Bishop of the second Messia which you must prove to have been then under the Empire writ that the Council of Nice delivered the Faith toti terrarum Orbi and style the Bishop of Rome the Head of Bishops and that the Council of Chalcedon was gathered by Pope Leo's Command Answ. Here is neither Matter nor Authority worthy an Answer 1. He citeth no Author for what he saith 2. Whether he meaneth Messua or Messia or Messina they were all in the Empire But what he meaneth I know not Since I find in his Errat Messia r. Toti But where or what Toti meaneth my Cosmographers tell me not If it be Tottaium that he meaneth it was a City of Bithynia under the Arch-Bishop of Nice But it seems he durst not say it was in the Empire but instead of proving it in I must prove it out without knowing Place or Author 2. He that yet understandeth not the Romans Terrarum Orbem and he that reading History can believe that Pope Leo called the Council at Chalcedon is not to be convinced by me if he maintain that the Turks called it He tells us out of no cited Author of an Epistle subscribed by Dita Bishop of Odyssâ—… in Scythia which I have nothing to do with till I know the Epistle But he should have known that Odyssus is a City of Mysia near the Euxine Sea within the Empire § 32. VII His last Instance is considerable viz. Of the Bishops of Spain
the Arrians yea and of Marcian Leo Zeno Anastaslus Iustine almost all the Churches of the Empire continued charging each others with Heresie and Councils charging and condemning Councils Bishops deposing and cursing Bishops and Monks as their Souldiers fighting it out to blood when the obeying or cursing the Council of Calcedon divided the Bishops for many Princes reigns and when one part called the other Nestorians and the other called them Eutychians almost every where and when after that the Monothelites cause was in many Emperors Reign uppermost one while and down another and navicula Petri that alone scaped before was thus drowned by Honorius if Councils belie him not and Popes with the rest When the very same Bishops as at Ephesus and Calcedon went one way in one Council and another way in the next and subscribed to one Edict e. g. of Basiliscus and quickly to the contrary of another and cryed 〈◊〉 we did it through fear How should we then know by Fathers Bishops and Councils what was their concordant Commentary of the Scripture 4. I ask you what exposition of the Universal Church is it that we profess to differ from for our novelties name them if you can Either by the Universal Church you mean properly all Christians or most If All alas when and where shall we find their agreement in any more than we hold with them If most do we not know that the most two parts to one are against the Popes Sovereignty which is Essential to your Church Do not the Greeks once a year excommunicate or curse you To tell us now That above two parts of the Christian world are none of the Church because they differ from the Universal Church and that the third part is that Universal which he that believeth not is no Christian are words that deserve indignation and not belief and without the medium of Swords and Flames and tormenting inquisitions on one side and great Bishopricks and Abbies Wealth Ease and Domination on the other had long ago been scorned out of the Christian world § 10. But he also denyeth that we believe with a saving divine faith any of the said mysteries and that our Profession general and particular affirmeth it Answ. It 's like the Devil the Accuser of the brethren will deny it too of our Hearts we will not enter a dispute of our Professions let our books be witnesses Reader canst thou believe that we profess not to believe any Christian verity with a Divine faith yea but the man meaneth that it is not a Divine faith if it be not from the beleif of the Pope and his Party And how then shall we believe the Popes own authority § 11. II. My ad Argument to prove that we hold all the Essentials of Christianity was Those that profess as much and much more of the Christian Faith and Religion as the Catechumens were ordinarily taught in the ancient Churches and the Competentes at Baptisme did profess do profess the true Christian Religion in all it's Essentials but so do the Protestants c. To this he calls for Form again as if here were no Universal and then denyeth the Major but his words shew that indeed it is the Minor Because the Catechumens professed to believe implicitly all that was taught as matter of Faith by the Catholick Church in that Article I believe the Holy Church which the Protestants do not Answ. An unproved fiction on both parts 1. Shew us in Fathers Councils or any true Church-Records that Catechumens were then used to make any other exposition of those words than we do Did they ever profess that a Pope or a General Council cannot erre de fide did they not call many of those Councils General though violent and erroneous which they cursed The great doubt then was which party was the true Church and Christians then judged not of Faith by the Church-men but of the Church by the Faith else they had not so oft rejected and Hereticated many Popes Patriarches and the farre greater part of the Bishops as they did 2. And Protestants deny no article which ab omnibus ubique et semper as Lerinens speaks was accounted necessary to â—…ation yea it is one reason why they cannot be Papists because most of the Catholick Church are against the Papacy and all were against it or without it for many hundred Years after Christ. Let the Reader peruse Cyril Hieros Catech. August and all others that give us an account of the Churches Catechism and see whether he can find in it I believe that the Bishop of Rome is made by Christ the Governour of all the World and is Infallible in himself or with his Council and that we must believe all that they say is the Word of God because they say it or else we cannot be saved But it is an easie way to become the Lords of all the World if they can perswade all Men to believe that none but their Subjects can be saved 3. And what an useless thing to they make Gods Word that they may set up their own Expositions in its stead We know that the Word supposeth that the Ignorant must have Teachers Without Teaching Children cannot so much as learn to Speak And Oportet discentem credere fide humanâ that is he must suppose his Teacher wiser than himself or else how can he judge him fit to Teach him But what is Teaching but Teaching the Learner to know the same things that the Teacher doth by the same Evidence Is it only to know what the Teacher holdeth without knowing why If so must we know it by Word or Writing If by Word only when and where shall every Man and Woman come to be Catechized by the Universal Church That is by all the Christian World Or is every Priest the Universal Church Or is he Infallible And how come Words spoken to be more intelligible than words written Doth writing make them unintelligible Why then are their Councils and Commentaries written But if Writing will serve why not God's writing as well as theirs If God say Thou shalt Love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart Are not these words intelligible till a Pope Expound them When the Pope permitted his Casuists to expound them so as that Loving God once a Moneth or once a Year will serve for Salvation and that Attrition which is Repeating only out of Fear with the Sacrament of Penance will also serve Cannot a Man be saved that Believeth Repenteth and Loveth God upon the bare Commands of God and Scripture without hearing what all the Christian World or Councils say If I make to my self no Graven Image so as to bow down and Worship towards it by virtue of the second Commandment will this damn me because I receive not the Papists obliteration or contradiction of this Commandment as an Exposition If all the Docrees of Councils be as necessary as the Creed and Scripture why were not the Councils read in the
Religion which they hold to be that which by Tradition the Church received for the Apostles and therefore most being against the Papacy think Tradition is against it And the Tradition of two parts of the Christian world especially those next Ierusalem is more regardable as such than the Tradition of the third part only that is contrary unless better Historical proof mak a difference § 29. 4. My 4th proof was Many Churches without the virge of the Roman Empire never subjected themselves to Rome and many not of many hundred years after Christ Ergo there were visible Churches from the beginning to this day that were not for the Roman Vicarship To this he saith If I can prove as I have proved that any one Extra-imperial Church was subject to the Bishop of Rome and you cannot shew some evident reason why that was subject rather than all the rest I convince by that the subjection of all Now it is evident that the Churches of Spain France Britain of France and Germany when divided from the Roman Empire were as subject as the rest c. Answ. 1. Yes and much more Rome it 〈◊〉 was then under Theodorick and other Arrian Gothes and those Rulers gave them their liberty herein and being Hereticks no wonder if the Bishops chose to continue their former correspondency and Church-order to strengthen themselves Here is then a special reason why Rome it self and the rest of the Churches should so voluntarily continue 1. Their old custom when under the Empire had so setled them 2 Their strength and safety invited them 3. It was their voluntary act 2. But what 's this to those many hundred years before when the Empire was not so dismembered Though even till after Gregories daies an 6â—… the Britains obeyed you not yet I told you that when Pagans or Arrians conquered any parts of the Empire the Christians would still be as much under the old Christian power as they could which made the Major Armenia when subduâ—…d by the Persians crave the Romans Civil Government and revolt to the Emperor and kill their Magistrates even when they were not governed by the Pope at all § 30. Here he repeateth what he had frivolously said before of the Council of Nice with an odd supposition as if India were in America and then betaketh himself to prove out of the Fathers the Roman Sovereignty but with such vain citations that I dare not tire the Reader with repeating and particularly answering them 1. They being at large answered by Chamier Whittakers and many other Protestants long ago and many of them or most by my self in my key and my former answer to him 2. Because it is needless to him that will peruse the Authors and Histories themselves and useless to him that will not 3. This general answer is sufficient 1. Part of them are the words of spurious books as St. Denis an interpolate book of Cyprian some new found Chaldaick Nicene Canons c. 2. Part of them say nothing of the Pope but only of St. Peter as being the first of the Apostles but not as the Governour of the rest 3. Part or almost all of them speak only of an Imperial Primacy that mention the Pope 4. Part of them speak only of an honorary precellencie of Rome and the Church there 5. Some speak only de facto that at that time the Church of Rome had kept out the Arrian Nestorian and Eutychian Heresies more than the â—…ast did which was because they had more orthodox Emperours and therefore that those sects that then differed from them were not in the Right nor in the Church 6. Some are only the commendations of Eastern Bishops persecuted by the Arrians in the East that fled to Rome for shelter 7. As high words are often given by Doctors and Councils themselves of Cyril and other Bishops of Alexandria and of Bishops of Ierusalem Antioch and Constantinople as those that are acquainted with Church-writings know There needeth no longer confutation of his Citations § 31. My fifth proof was that The Eastern Churches within the Empire were never subjects of the Pope He denyeth this Antecedent I proved it as formerly from the Africans Letters to Celestinus and the words of Basil c So farther 1. Because the Pope chose not the Patriarchs of Alexandria Antioch Ierusalem or Constantinople nor the Bishops under them 2. He did not ordain them nor appoint any Vicar to do it nor did they hold their power as under him To both these he saith It was not necessary c. But their Patriarchal power was from him Answ. Prove that and you do something but no man verst in Church-writings can believe you I remember not to have met with any learned Papist that affirmeth it that the Pope set up the other four Patriarchs it is notorious in history that as the Churches of Ierusalem and Antioch were before the Church of Rome so Alexandria Antioch and Rome were made Patriarchates together and no one of them made the rest and the other two were added since He proveth it because he restored and deposed those Patriarchs as occasion required Answ. 1. Tell this to those that never read such writings Princes and Councils did set them up and cast them out as they saw cause it were tedious and needless to any but the ignorant to recite the multitude of instances through the reign of all the Christian Emperors till Phocas time how little had the Pope to do in most of their affairs 2. They frequently set up and deposed one another far ofter than the Pope did any Doth that prove that they were Governours of each other accordingly 3. Councils then judged all the Patriarchs Roman and all as is notorious 4. The Pope sometime when he saw his advantage and saw one side striving against another would set in to shew his ambition as the prime Patriarch to strengthen himself by such as needed him and usually was against him that was likest to overtop him as neighbour Princes in War are afraid of the strongest and that was usually the Bishop of Constantinople 3. I said They received no Laws of his to rule by He replyeth The Lawes and Canons of the Church they received and those were consirmed by his authority Answ. But did he make them any Lawes himself by the Church your mean Councils and those made Laws for him therefore he was their subject He had but a voice and was not so much as a speaker in the Parliament some Councils you confess he neither presided in nor any for him as Binnius confesseth of Council Const. He had little to do in any of the Councils for 500 or 600 years less by far than the other Patriarchs 4. I said They were not commanded or judged by him He replyeth I have evidenced they were commanded and judged by him Answ. Reader the solution of such historical controversies is by reading the histories themselves Read throughly the histories of Eusebius
Socrates Sozomene Theodoret Evagrius Procopius Victor Nicephorus c. and judge as you see cause especially if you will also read but the works of Tertullian Cyprian Nazianzene Basil Hilary and the true Acts of the old Councils 5. I added the equalizing the Patriarch of Constantinople which he denyeth against the express words of the Council I might adde the after prefering the Bishop of Constantinople The oft contempts and excommunications of him the altering of Church power ordinarily by the Emperors is Iustinian's making Iustiniana prima and secunda to be absolute and under no Patriarch as was Carthage and saith Pet. a Marca and many others Heraclea Pontus and Asia long The managing of many Councils without him and passing Canons as Calced 28. against him The whole Council of Ephes. 2. going against his Legates and that under a most pious and excellent Prince Theodos. 2. that used Cyril and made him President Ephes. 1. and Dioscorous Ephes. 2d and countenance this Council against the Pope When Zeno carryed on his Henoticon and Anastasius his Reconciliation how little did he or any of the Eastern Churches stick at the Popes dissent No nor Iustinian when he turned to the Heresie of the Apththartodocitae and when he drag'd Vigilius as some Historians say with a rope instances might be multiplyed § 32. My 6th proof of the novelty of the Papal Sovereignty was from the testimony of their own greatest Bishops where I cited Greg. 1st his words so plain and large against a Universal Bishop or Pastor as plainer can scarce be spoke and answered Bellarmine words against it and I shall take the impartial Reader to need no more answer to W I. than even to read the words of Gregory themselves only noting that this Iohn of Constantinople that claimed the title of Universal Bishop was a man of more than ordinary mortification and contempt of worldly things for his poverty and great fasting called Iohannes jejunus and therefore not like to do it out of any extraordinary worldliness and pride And also that Gregory was of so little power himself being then out of the Empire under other powers for the most part that he did not blame Iohn as for claiming that which he hath right to but that which no Bishop at all had right to The case is most plain § 33. My 7th proof was 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 there have been visible Churches of such To this He granteth the antecedent of Christians net Univocally so called but of no others Answ. Here he intimateth that most of the professed Christians of the world were not univocally Christians by profession but equivocally only and who will easily believe such Teachers as unchristen most of the Christian World Any Sect may take that course their sence is this none are Christians indeed but only those that are subjects to the Pope therefore all the Christian World are his Subjects Just so the Donatists and some Foreign Anabaptists take it but for granted that none are Christians but those that are Baptized at Age and then the Inference will be plausible that all the Christian World is against Infant-Baptism § 34. To Aeâ—…eas Sylvius Pope Pius 2d words That small regard was had to the Church of Rome before the Nicene Council He replyeth that he meaneth not so small as not to be the Head of all other Churches else the Council of Nice had introduced a new Government Answ. His words are plain and all History of those times confirm them No one Church before the Council of Nice had any Government over others but what was for meer Concord by free consent at least before Constantine gave it them And in the Council of Nice there is not a word that intimateth that the Pope was Ruler of all the World of Christians but his power is mentioned as limited to his Precincts and the like given to Alexandria Yet Innovation in giving power to Patriarchs is no wonder in Councils How else came Constantinople and Ierusalem to be Patriarchs Was it not by Innovation § 34. Next he saith I cite Goldastus but where the Lord knows Answ. I perceive the Man is a stranger to Goldastus who hath gathered a multitude of Old Writers against the Papacy for Princes Rights and bound them in many great Volumns De Monarchia Constitut. Imperial I cited no particular words but all these great Volumns of many Authors of those times shew the opposition to Papal Claims § 35. His saying That the Schismatical Greeks were not Univocal Christians is no more regardable than the Greeks Anathematizing Papists § 36. My plain Testimony of their Reynerius Armeniorum Ecclesiae Aethiopum Induorum caeterae quas Apostoli converterunt non subsunt Ecclesiae Romanae He first cavils at my saying were not under instead of are not not seeing that I only recited the Assertion as uttered by Reynerius so long ago and must I not say that he saith then they were not under if he so long ago say They are not 2. But he would perswade the Credulous that this speaks of them but as Schismaticks as Alexandria Antioch Constantinople are not now under Rome but have been Answ But those that will be satisfied with forced abuse of words may believe any thing that a Priest will say The context confuteth you You do not pretend that India turned from you and was under you By the Churches Planted by the Apostles he plainly meaneth those without the Empire as being none of the Provinces put under the Bishop of Rome nor of old claimed by the Pope § 37. I cited Melch. Canus words Loc. l. 6. c. 7. fol. 201. Not only the Greeks but almost all or most of the rest of the Bishops of the whole World have vehemently sought to destroy the Priviledges of the Roman Church and indeed they had on their side both the Arms of Emperours and the greatest number of Churches and yet they could never prevail to abrogate the Power of the one Roman Pope To this he saith That 1. Canus speaks of different times not conjunctly 2. And he taketh them not for univocal Christians And here he finds a Root of Rebellion q. d. Most of the Countries Rebelled against the King Ergo he had no Authority over them Answ. Our Question here was only of the matter of Fact Whether de facto most of the Bishops and Churches have not been against the Papacy This Canus asserteth therefore I seek no more And when you have proved them no Christians or Rebels I shall consider your Proofs 2. Had he meant only the most of the Bishops and Churches per vices it had signified nothing to his purpose For that had been no strength but might have been some inconsiderable Town at a time 3. But that all Church-History may help us better to understand his words that tell us oft
WHICH IS THE True Church The whole Christian World as Headed only BY CHRIST Of which the Reformed are the soundest part OR THE POPE of ROME And his SUBJECTS as such IN THREE PARTS I. The Papists Confusion in explaining the terms of the Questions not able to bear the light II. A Defence of a Disputation concerning the continued Visibility of the Church of which the Protestants are members III. A Defence of the several Additional proofs of the said Visibility By RICHARD BAXTER Written especially to instruct the younger unexperienced Scholars how to deal with these Deceivers in these dangerous times LONDON Printed and are to be sold by Richard Ianeway in Butcher-hall Lane 1679. The Preface to the Lovers of Truth ABove eighteen years past I received a Paper by the mediation of one Mr. Langhorne from one that called himself VVilliam Iohnson to prove the Papal Church to be the Catholick because no other had been visible in all Ages I answered it and received a Reply and wrote a Rejoinder But being not rich enough to pay either an Amanuensis or Transcriber I never to my remembrance took a Copy of any Book which I wrote except this Rejoinder to him and one other and I never to my remembrance lost any but those two When I had sent this by the ordinary Carrier he lost it but took on him that he never knew how Whereupon when I lookt for a Reply I receiv'd an insulting Letter for not answering But when I sent my Rejoinder the second time I could never have any Reply thereto Above a year after coming up to London at the Kings Restoration I enquired after the Disputer and called yet for some Reply but could get none and I was there informed that his name was Terret and that he usually lived with the Earl of Shrewsbury within seven miles of me when I was told he lived near an hundred miles off But that he was one of the greatest of their Disputers about London where he spent much of his time and had lately disputed with Mr. Pet. Gunning and Mr. Pierson now both Bishops and had printed the Dispute without their consent And lest he should do so by any part of mine I sent him word That if he would not prosecute the Dispute I would publish what was done Whereupon he offered to do it rather by Conference than by Writing Which I accepted and he came to me and we agreed to begin with the true explication of some terms which were likest to be most used in our Controversie I offered to give him my sense of any terms of which he would desire it and desired the like of him which he granted He desired none at all of me but such terms as I offered to him he wrote me immediately his explication of which because it rather encreased the darkness and uncertainty I excepted against it and desired fuller explication By this time our hour was at an end and I expected him to prosecute the Dispute but could never see him more Whereupon after urgency and expectation I published what had passed between us The next year the Countess of Balcarres now Countess of Argyle a person to whom I had extraordinary obligations sent for me being in great affliction for her eldest Daughter turned Papist Whereupon I offered a Conference with the person that had perswaded her or any other whom she would chuse which the Lady accepted and undertook to bring one speedily to perform it But at last she said the person was afraid of the danger of the Law I urged her still and then she told me that when he knew who it was that he was to speak with he professed that he feared no danger from me and greatly honoured me being one that knew me but refused the Dispute I provoked her to get some other though it was the ablest that then attended on the Queen mother who then encourag'd her But she would have none but him that did refuse it Whereupon her mother being in danger of death by grief I was forced to speak more harshly to her and ask her Whether she dealt wisely to follow such as durst not let her hear what was to be said I told her that if he would spend but one hour in giving the reasons why she should turn Papist and let me spend another hour in giving her my reasons to the contrary I would leave the issue to her Conscience After long denial at last she told me that the person did consent on condition that there might be no speaking but only writing ex tempore and nothing done but by syllogism according to the Laws of Disputation I asked her Whether that way was most suitable to her understanding and patience And whether she would stay till we had done our writings which might possibly be some years And whether she might not as well read what is written already But when nothing else would be consented to I yeilded to such writing so be it she would but hear our several Reasons one hour or two first And when that could not be obtained I consented to meet him and only to write But just when the time came the Lady was stoln away and when they followed and overtook her she told them that she was but going on some business and would presently return her mother professed that before her perversion she scarce ever found her in a Lye or disobedience and after could scarce believe any thing that she said But she went to a Nunnery in France and her Mother saw her no more but ere long received Letters of the Reasons of her Religion which at her Mothers desire I answered but you may suppose that they suffered her not to see the Answer When she was gone I understood that it was this same Mr. W. Iohnson alias Terret who was the man that had seduced her and refused the Dispute But not long after he Printed a Reply to the Book which I had published and called it Novelty represt which when I perused I saw that a Rejoinder would be of little use because it must consist for the far greatest part of the detection of his fallacious words and of the vindication of a great deal of Church-History and the former would rather tire than edisie the Reader and the later would profit none but those that were already well acquainted with Church-History or such as would fully search the Authors cited till they understood by them who it is that citeth them aright He that will not do this cannot judg of our case and he that will do it needeth not my help Wherefore having much better work and no time to spare expecting that my change was near my Conscience forbad me such a frivolous expence of time as a Rejoinder to his Reply would prove But having since written many Books against Popery to none of which I can procure yet a word of answer and hearing that they are obliged not to answer me till I am dead
His shameful reformation of Syllogisms and pretence of Logical form Sect. 6. He denieth Protestants to be of the Church of Christ. I prove it His silly cavils at the form of the Argument Sect. 7. Protestants profess all the Essentials of Christianity Proved His cavils shamed Sect. 8. His oft repeated Reason confuted of not receiving the Churches expositions Sect. 9. The novelty and discord of Popery The confusions in Councils Sect. 10. My second Argument's to prove that we hold all essentials The Popish faith explained Sect. 12. My third Argument Creed and Scriptures are with them too little and yet an insufficient proposal makes Christianity it self unnecessary Sect. 12. He giveth up his Cause confessing the sufficiency of our explicite belief Sect. 13. My fourth Argument His ridiculous denying that to deny the minor is to deny the antecedent Sect. 14. The minor proved All Protestants as such profess to love God Ergo sincere Protestants do love him What miracles believing in the Pope doth Sect. 15. He had no way to deny that Protestants profess true faith but by his impudent denying 1. That we profess to love God 2. And that we feel that we do love him Sect. 20. My second Argument to prove the perpetual visibility of our Church confoundeth him Sect. 21. Scripture sufficiency Sect. 22. My third Argument and his shameful Answer Sect. 25. My fourth Argument proveth the visibility of our Church not only as Christian but as without Popery Ten sub-arguments for that 1 From the twenty-eighth Canon of Conc. Calced 2. From the silence of the old Writers against Hereticks Sect. 28. 3. From Tradition proved 4. From Churches never subject to Rome His citations briefly confuted Sâ—…ct 30. 5. From the non-subjection even of the Imperial Churches Sect. 32. 6. From Gregory the first 's testimony Sect. 33. 7. From their confessions Aen. Silvius Reynerius Canus Binnius vindicated Sect. 38. 8. Phocas giving the Primacy to Boniface Sect. 39 9. Their Liturgy new Sect. 40. Twelve instances of new Articles of the Papists Faith which he durst not Answer Sâ—…ct 42. The tenth Argument he yieldeth the cause in sense Sâ—…ct 43. Notable testimonies unanswered Sâ—…ct 44. Papists differ de fide Sect. 47. What Hereticks are or are not in the Church fully opened His shameful exclaiming against me for distinguishing Sect. 48. Fifty six of Philastrius Heresies named many being small matters and many notorious certain truths Sect. 49. The woful work of Hereticating Councils Sect. 50. Councils hereticated Popes and one another Almost all the Christian world hereticate one another Sect. 55. His reasons answered for unchurching all Hereticks Sect. 60. Their Doctrine of sufficient proposal fullier confuted and their hereticating and unchurching themselves evinced Mr. Iohnson's alias Terret's Explication of seven Terms of our Questions examined and his confusion manifested CHAP. I. Question 1. WHAT mean you by the Catholick Church W. J. The Catholick Church is all those Visible Assemblies Congregations or Communities of Christians who live in unity of true faith and external Communion with one another and in dependance of their lawful Pastors R. B. Qu. 1. Whether you exclude not all those converted among Infidels that never had external communion nor were members of any particular visible Church of which you make the Catholick to to be constituted W. J. It is sufficient that such be subject to the supreme Pastors in voto or quantum in se est resolved to be of that particular Church actually which shall or may be designed for them by that Pastor to be included in my definition R. B. You see then that your definitions signifie nothing No man knoweth your meaning by them W. J. You shall presently see that your Exceptions signifie less than nothing R. B. 1. You make the Catholick Church to consist only of visible Assemblies and after you allow such to be members of the Church that are no visible Assemblies W. J. I make those converted Infidels visible Assemblies as my definition speaks though not actual members of any particular visible Church For though every particular visible Church be an assembly of Christians yet every assembly of Christians is not a particular visible Church I do not therefore allow such to be of the Church who are no visible assemblies as you misconceive R. B. 1. Would any man have understood that by Visible Assemblies the man had not meant only Churches but also Families Schools Cities c 2. Doth he not here expresly deny all those persons to be of the Church who are not members of some other visible assemblies And if a man be a Pilgrim a Hermite or if one or many be cast upon an uninhabited coast and if any are members of no visible assembly as Merchants Embassadors to Infidels c. when will he prove that this unchristeneth or unchurcheth them R. B. 2. You now mention subjection to the supreme Pastor as sufficient which in your description or definition you did not W. J. Am I obliged to mention all things in my definition which I express after in answering your Exceptions Ans. All that belongs to a notifying definition R. B. 3. If to be only in Voto resolved to be of a particular Church will serve then inexistence is not necessary To be only in Voto of the Catholick Church proveth no man a member of it because it is terminus diminuens but the contrary Seeing then by your own confession inexistence in a particular Church is not of necessity to inexistence in the Catholick Church why do you not only mention it in your definition but confine the Church to it W. J. I make them actually inexistent in some visible assembly according to my definition and in Voto only in a particular Church Now every particular family or neighbourhood nay two or three gathered in prayer is an actual assembly R. B. Strange Doctrine so it is of necessity to our Christianity and Salvation that we be members of a Christian City or Village or Fair or Market or some Meeting And so all Christians that live solitarily in Wildernesses or among Turks or Heathens are all unchristened and damned W. J. St. Hierome saith Ecclesia est plebs unita Episcopo In this consists your fallacy that you esteem none to be actually members of the Universal Church unless they be actual members of some particular Church which I deny R. B. I thought verily it had been I that was denying it all this while This is dispuâ—…ing in the dark Will you say that you meant in Voto who can understand you then when you say They must be of visible assemblies and mean that they need not be of any but wish they were or purpose to be so W. J. It is sufficient if they be actually of some assembly or congregation of Christians though it be no particular Church R. B. 1. Here is a new Exposition of Solomon's Vae soli Wo to him that is alone for he is unchristened by it or
to another or the King may pardon all crimes by an Act of Oblivion without knowing what they are But if the question were about an intellectual act whose object doth specifie it intrinsecally in the mind As whether the King actually know the particular crimes which he pardoneth If you say that he knoweth the particulars actually in confuso because the only knoweth in general that some crimes there are this is but to talk against all the usual â—…ense of mankind and to call that An actual knowing of particulars in confuso which other men call No actual knowledg of particulars but only of generals which in some cases may be called a virtual knowledg of Particulars which is no actual knowledg of them and in some not But if he had heard some imperfect confused Narratives of the crimes themselves this might be called An actual confâ—…ed knowledg of them But mark Reader what edification is to be expected from these mens Disputations He knew very well that he and I are agreed that all Christians must take Gods Veracity in his Revelations for the formal object without which faith is no faith and so must believe that God cannot lie and that all is true which he asserteth And that we Protestants hold that this is not enough nor includeth the knowledg or belief of any thing which he hath revealed beside this one general He knoweth that our question is Whether it be not necessary to believe some particulars as revealed by God And whether this faith do not go to essentiate a Christian and a member of the Church And if so then what those particulars are which must be believed to constitute a true Christian and member of the Church Now he durst not come into the light and answer this question but as if he were mocking women or children saith All that God hath revealed must be believed explicitely or implicitely We understand you Sir that we must believe this Proposition All that God revealeth is true But is that enough then Heathens Idolaters Sadducees Infidels Mahometans are Christians and members of your Church But do they think so themselves If you can thus with a juggle make all the world Christians the like art may make them subjects of the Pope No saith he there must some things also be believed explicitely But the question is What they are O there you must excuse him he dare not he cannot tell you what But Sir are these some things essential to Christianity and Church-membership or not If you say Not what nothing essential to Christian faith in particular Is it faith and yet a belief of nothing in particular Is there no material difference at all between a Christian and a Sadducee Infidel Mahometan or Heathen And yet cannot Protestants be saved for want of the right belief O marvellous Religion But if any particular belief be necessary cannot it be known what it is How then can a Christian be known by himself or others from all the unbelieving world or your Church from other men This was my question to you Is not your Church then invisible when no man can know what makes a member of it And yet the man talketh confidently in his darkness as if this would serve instead of light and saith I make my Church visible though by comprehending in it all those who profess an explicite faith in several Articles which they understand distinctly and an implicite belief of the rest whereof they have not distinct understanding by professing that they believe all that God hath revealed to be believed by them whatsoever they be in particular Now so long as they persevere in this belief though they should happen through culpable negligence not to arrive to the knowledg of many things which they ought to know necessitate praecepti yet they remain members though corrupt and wicked of the Church Whereby you see how easily I avoid that difficulty which you thought I could not Ans. Too easily against all reason Reader this Paragraph is worth the nothing 1. Several Articles must be believed explicitely but not a word to tell you which or what they are or whether it be any whatever that will serve the turn if it be but that Cain was the son of Adam 2. The implicite belief of all the rest is not here said to be any implicite belief of the Pope Council or Church of Rome but that they believe all that God hath revealed to be believed by them And are we not yet so far right and reconciled This is too kind to the Protestants For it takes in all mankind with them who confess a God For to give him the Lie is to deny his Perfection that is his Godhead 3. Mark that even culpable ignorance of other things unchurcheth not 4. And yet all this denoteth but a corrupt and wicked member of their holy Church which if such cannot be saved 5. And with this chat the man thinks he hath done his business And doubtless there are some so ignorant as to believe him But all this wants but two things to make it just the true Christian faith One is to name those Particulars essential to Christianity which must be believed The other is to distinguish between a sound and serious practical belief and a dead opinion or profession And to conclude that the sincere practical belief constituteth invisible justified members and the profession maketh only visible ones Next he hath another bout against Omne animal vivit the question was whether to know this be to know that W. I. Bucephalus a Phoenix or an Unicorn liveth I say No because it may stand with the ignorance that ever there was or will be such an Animal as is called W. I. or any of the rest But he makes all good on his side by talking of Impossibilities and such-like words which are of the same use in respect to our arguments that Drums in an Army are to drown the groans of dying men and put courage into the Soldiers He saith When Philosophers say Omne animal vivit they mean it of the essence or notion of Animal to be a living thing and this is true of me and all particulars whether we be in actual existence or not Is not here excellent Philosophy It 's very true that this is a true Proposition Omne animal vivit whether VV. I. exist or not But is this true of VV. I. and all particulars VVhether they exist or not That which existeth not is nothing neither VV. I. nor any particular The sum is then Nothing is a living thing or animal There is a VV. I. and all particulars which are all nothing and yet are animals or live Who would not turn Papist and run into a Nunnery that is but charmed with such Philosophy Next pag 15. he saith That how much must be believed explicitely is a dispute among Divines not necessary to be determined here yet I will say something to that presently Ans. I warrant you
nothing is necessary to you to do which you cannot do without coming into the light It 's a dispute among the Papists Divines what a Christian is or what Christianity is And yet they have an Infallible Judg of all the Scripture and all Controversies And yet they can tell that Protestants are Hereticks And yet they can tell who are members of their Church though it be a dispute among Divines But mark that this is not then with them de fide any point of faith what a Christian is or what must be believed For their Divines dispute not that which they take to be de fide I told him that a man may believe that the Bible is true and Gods word and yet not know a word that is in it or that Christ is the Messias or that there was ever such a person He answereth that This is morally impossible For either such a person believes the Bible rashly and imprudently and then according to all Divines his faith cannot be supernatural and divine or sufficient to constitute him a Christian or he believeth it prudently by prudential motives of credibility Now that can be no other than the authority of the Catholick Church which he cannot be ignorant to profess the faith of Christ there being no other save that though he know not by experience that Christ is mentioned in the Bible he cannot but know that he is professed to be the Son of God and Saviour of the world by those of the Catholick Church who delivered the Bible to him as the word of God and that such a faith is necessary to Salvation Ans. Here are many things worthy our consideration 1. That a man is not a member of the Church that is a Christian unless his faith be supernatural and divine not only in the object but his act And surely no man knoweth what other mans act of faith is supernatural and divine Therefore no man knoweth who is a Christian and so their Church is still invisible 2. No man that believeth the Bible rashly and imprudently is a Christian And no man knoweth whether another believe it not rashly and imprudently yea whether he believe it at all Therefore no man knoweth who is a Christian or member of the Church of Rome 3. No other motive than the authority of the Catholick Church can serve to free a man from this rashness imprudence and nullity of his Christianity 1. But why then had we not this General The Church Catholick is to be believed and the Scripture to be received only by its authority before in the description of implicite or explicite faith 2. Was that man no Christian in the Primitive times who was converted by a single Apostle and took not the faith on the authority of the Catholick Church Did the Eunuch converted by Philip Act. 8. or the Jaylor and Lydia converted by Paul Act. 16. or the 3000 converted by Peter Act. 2. receive faith on the authority of the Catholick Church Or the Indians when converted by Frumentius and Edesus or the Abassian Empire that till lately knew nothing of the Pope and his pretensions Or do we read that the Apostles did use that argument The authority of the Catholick Church to convert their hearers or that they always first told them of the authority of such a Church If by the Church you mean any single Apostle or Teacher hold to that and we shall do well enough with you 3. But Authority is an ambiguous word and may deceive We maintain that a preserving and teaching ministerial authority is usually needful to mens conversion to the faith though not absolutely necessary to be first believed by the hearer But a judging authority viz. Whether there be a God a Christ a Scripture a Heaven c. or not which determineth by a sentence rather than teacheth by opening that evidence which caused belief in the Teacher himself this is not necessary to mans faith 4. And what if a man should hear a Preacher open the other reasons of Christianity without talking of the Catholick Church and its authority and should hereupon believe or should believe by the bare reading of a Bible how prove you that this man is no Christian nor shall be saved when Christ saith He that believeth shall be saved and shall not perish and saith not He that believeth on any other motive than the authority of the Catholick Church and that must be the Romans believeth rashly and impudently and shall perish 4. But it 's well worth the enquiry could we possibly find it out what he meaneth by knowing the Church and its profession and its authority and whether this be an act of necessary faith before any thing else can be believed Or what other points of faith are contained in our belief of this Church and its authority And what is the foundation of this faith It seems that he supposeth that the Church must be known before that the Christian faith be believed And that in knowing the Church we must know the faith of the Church It is one thing to know that they are a company of men called the Christian Church and another thing to know what a Christian Church is and another thing to know that this company of men is that Church Must all these be known before we can believe or but one or two and which 1. If the name were enough a man may know that a company of men are called Christians or Mahumetanes who knoweth not at all what Christianity or Mahumetanism is You say that it must be known that they profess to trust in Christ this they may do and not know who Christ is whether God or man or what he hath done or will do for us If you say that they must know that they profess that Christ is the Saviour so they may do and yet not know what the word Saviour signifieth or what Christ ever did or will do for our Salvation 2. But if he mean here that every one that will believe Gods Word must first know the Church as defined or know it in all its essence then 1. How few will he be able to prove to be Christians And how will he know who they are 2. And still the question recurreth what is it that must be particularly believed to essentiate the Church For if he know not that he cannot know that he knoweth what the Church is 3. And when that is done it seems he must know which is that Church considered in existence as different from all Heresies and other Societies But by this method our difficulties are multiplied 1. How shall I be sure that this Church doth not deceive me in saying that this and not that is Gods Word Is this by an act of knowledg or of divine faith If of knowledg what evidences prove it If of faith then I must believe God before I can believe him that is I must believe that this is his Revelation and true that the Roman-Catholick
Church cannot or doth not err in telling me what is Gods Revelation before I can know or believe any of his Revelation If they mean that this act of faith must go first before I can have any other why may I not know and believe other articles of faith without the divine belief of the Churches authority or infallibility as I may believe this one God hath revealed that the Church is infallible or true in telling me what I must believe If one Article may be believed without that motive and sure it is not believed before it is believed why not others as well as that 3. And which way or by what Revelation did God confer this Infallibility on the Church If by Scripture it is supposed that yet you know not what is in the Scripture or believe it not to be true till you have first believed the Churches Veracity Therefore it cannot be that way If by verbal tradition it is equally supposed that you know not that Tradition to be Gods word and true before you know the Churches Veracity that tells you so So that the Question How I must believe the Churches Veracity herein by what divine revelation before I can believe any other revelation is still unanswered and answerable only by palpable contradiction But were it not for interpreting him contrary to his company I should by his words here judg that it is no Divine faith of the Churches Veracity which he maketh pre-requisite to all other acts of faith but it is Prudential motives of creâ—…bility which must draw him to afford credit to that authority as derived from God which commends to him the Bible as the word of God now that can be no other than the Authority of the Catholick Church Ans. Mark Reader It can be no other than the authority of the Church which must be the prudential motive to credit the authority of the Church as derived from God So the Churches Authority must be first credited that he may credit it or else the Authority not credited must move him to credit it which is all contradiction unless he mean that the Churches Authority credited by a humane faith or by some notifying or conjectural evidences besides divine revelation must move him to believe that it is authorized by God When they have told us whether that first credit given to the Church have any certainty for its object and also what and whence that certainty is we shall know what to say to them Knot against Chillingworth is fain tosay That it is the Churches own Miracles by which it is known to have divine authority before we can believe any word of God And so no man can be sure that Gods word is his word and true till he be first sure that the Church of Rome hath wrought such miracles as prove its veracity as from God which will require in the Catechumene so much acquaintance with Historical Legends which the more he reads them the less he will believe them as will make it a far longer and more uncertain way to become a Christian than better Teachers have of old made use of And 2. it seems when all is done that he taketh this Authority of the Church but for a prudential motive But is it certain or uncertain If uncertain so will all be that 's built upon it If certain again tell us by what ascertaining evidence Reader it is the crooked ways into which byassing-interest hath tempted these men to lead poor souls which are thus perplexing and confounding How plain and sure a way God hath prescribed us I have told you in a small Tractate called The Certainty of Christianity without Popery In short it is possible if a man never hear but one Sermon which mentioneth not the authority of the Church or find a Bible on the high-way and read it that he may see that evidence in it that may perswade him savingly to believe through grace that it truly affirmeth it self to be the word of God But the ordinary method for most rational certainty is To have first Historical ascertaining evidence of the matter of fact viz. that This Book was indeed written and these miracles and other things done as it affirmeth Or first perhaps That this Baptismal Covenant Lords Prayer Creed and Decalogue have been delivered down from the first witnesses of Christ and Miracles wrought to confirm the Gospel which is also written at large in that Book This we have far greater Historical Certainty of than the pretended authority of a judging-judging-Church of Rome even the infallible testimony of all the Churches in the world and as to the essentials Baptism the Creed c. of Hereticks Infidels and Heathens which I have opened at large in a Book called The Reasons of Christian Religion and another called The Unreasonableness of Infidelity and in other writings And the matter of fact with the Book being thus certainly brought down to us as the Statutes of the Land are we then know the Gospel and that Book to be of God by all those evidences which in the foresaid Treatises I have opened at large and more briefly in a Treatise called The Life of Faith the sum of which is the Holy Spirit as Christs Agent Advocate and Witness in his Works of Divine Power Wisdom and Goodness or Love printed first on Christ himself his Life and Doctrine and then on the Apostles their Works and Doctrine and then on all sanctified believers in all ages and especially on our selves besides his antecedent prophesies Pag. 16. He again pretendeth that he need not name the necessary Articles of Faith because I my self say They must be the Essentials and it is supposed I understand my own terms Ans. A candid Disputant The light followeth him while he flyeth from it Doth it follow that if I know my own meaning I therefore know yours and if I know which are the essentials that therefore you know them and are of the same mind Pag. 17. The man would make me believe that I speak not true divinity when I say that Divine and Humane Faith may be conjunct when the testimonies are so conjunct as that we are sure that it is God that speaks by man who is therefore credible because God infallibly guideth and inspireth him He would make you believe that I am singular and erroneous here Ans. And why He saith that would make Christian faith partly humane But 1. when I talk but of two faiths conjunct what if I called the former divine faith only the Christian faith May not a humane yet be conjunct with the Christian 2. But words must be examined If Christian faith be so called from the Object then Christ and not his Apostles are the reason of the name materially we are called Christians for believing in Christ and not for believing in them 2. If Christian faith were taken subjectively it is humane faith for men are the subjects of it 3. If Christian faith be
tergiversation what sort of Disputants should blush would you think after all this what his answer is You shall have it in his own words And know you not that Divines are divided what are the points necessary to be believed explicitely necessitate medii Some and those the more ancient hold that the explicite belief of God of the whole Trinity of Christ his Passion Resurrection c. are necessary necessitate medii Others among the Recentiors that no more than the belief of the Deity and that he is a rewarder of our works is absolutely necessary with that necessity to be explicitely believed Now to answer your Question what it is whereby our Church-members are known I answer that 1. All those who are baptized and believe all the points of our faith explicitely if any such are to be found are undoubted members of our Church 2. All those who believe explicitely all the Artiales whatever belongs to them in particular by reason of their respective offices in the Church 3. Those who so believe all things necessary necessitate medii or necessitate praecepti extended to all adulti 4 All those who believe in that manner all things held necessary necessitate medii according to the first opinion of the more ancient Doctors 5. It is probable though not altogether so certain as the former that such as believe explicitely the Deity and that he is a rewarder of our works and the rest implicitely as contained in confuso in that are parts of the Catholick Church Baptism supposed 〈◊〉 Nowâ—… seeing all those in my four first Numbers which comprehend almost all Christians are certainly parts of the Catholick Church we have a sufficient certainly of a determinate Church consisting at least of these by reason whereof our Church has a visible consistency those of the fifth rank though not so certain not taking away the certainty of the former See you not by this Discourse that we answer sufficiently to your question by telling which are undoubted members Ans. Reader how sad is the case of mankind when such a talker as this shall go for a Champion and prevail with silly souls in the matters of Salvation against common reason and the notices of Christianity Mark here 1. He asketh me Know you not that Divines are divided Yes and I know how lamentably you have divided the Christian world See Reader what is the unity and concord of the Church of Rome Not only the Laity but their Divines are divided about the very essence of a Christian and their Church These are the men that cry up Unity as a mark of their Church and cry out of us as Schismaticks as if we were all crumbled into dust by Sects because we differ about some small circumstances of Worship or Exposition of some imposed words of men or of some difficult point of no flat necessity 2. Note here also the Infallibility of their Church and what a priviledg they have in having a Iudg of Controversies While their Doctors are divided on the question what a Christian is And Pope and Council dare not or cannot or will not determinate what maketh a Christian or member of their Church O happy infallible Judg of Controversies 3. Note also the extent of the Roman faith 〈◊〉 it is so big as that it and its circumstances fill large Volumes called the Councils and yet it is no article of their faith what Christianity is or what must constitute a member of their Church but this is left at liberty to disputes 4. Note also the great partiality of the Papists The Doctors may be divided about the essence of Christianity and may deny faith in Christ to be particularly necessary to a Christian. But if a man believe not that Rome is the Mistris of all Churches and the Pope the Universal Governourr and that there is no bread and wine in the Lords Supper when the Priest hath consecrated he is to be exterminated or burnt as a Heretick and Princes deposed that will not execute it 5. Note here that here is not a word in all this of believing the Pope to be the Governour of all the Churches in the world Either they take this to be essential to a member of their Church or not If they do are they not juglers and ashamed of their faith when they thus hide it If not what is become of their Sectarian Church and all their accusations and condemnations of most of the Christian World who believe no such office of the Pope And what a Society is that where the reception of the Pars Imperans is not necessary to every subject 6. Note here whether the Roman Religion be mutable or not and whether constancy be a note of their verity When he professeth that the ancient Doctors and the Recentiors or Novelists do differ about the very essence of Christianity Have these Recentiors antiquity to boast of 7. Note also from hence the validity of their common argument from Tradition As if all their Church were now and always of one mind when at present they are divided about the essence of Christianity and the Recentiors forsake the Ancients But had these Ancients Tradition for their opinion or not If they had how come the Recentiors to forsake it If not what an insufficient thing is your Tradition that hath not told you what a Christian or Church-member is And yet we must take this Tradition as sufficient to tell us what orders and ceremonies Peter setled at Rome 8. I pray you note that even their ancient Doctors opinion which is all that must keep his cause from utter shame he durst not describe in answer to my question but having named five words God the whole Trinity Christ his Passion and Resurrection he craftily shuts it up with an Eâ—… caetera so that if you suppose him to say that these five things are all that they require he may deny it because he added an c. If you ask what are the â—…est you are where we begun an c. is all the answer 9. Well let us peruse his five particular sort of members distinctly which make up their Church and try 〈◊〉 be the mâ—…ey 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 or whether the Reader will not wonder that such trained disputers have no more to say nor a more plausible sort of fraud to use 1. His first sort of visible members are All those that are baptized and believe explicitely all the points of our faith if any such are to be found Ans. Is not this a modest Parenthesis whether any such are to be found he seemeth uncertain and yet saith These are the undoubted members of our Church The undoubted members when he doubteth himself whether any such are to be found And can we find the Church by them then And no wonder that they are not to be found for note Reader that he never tells you here yet at all what the faith of their Church is but only that if any have it all they
are Christians Is this a satisfactory answering And yet if you will know the truth from their common writings the faith of their Church containeth these great bodies 1. All that is in the holy Scripture and the Apocrypha 2. All the Decrees of their General Councils if not also the Provincials and Popes Decretals that are de fide 3. All their unwritten Traditions de fide which they have yet to bring forth as need requireth And do you not approve his modesty that saith If any such be found that believeth all this 2. The second sort of their Church-members are All who believe explicitely all Articles and whatever belongs to them in particular by reason of their respective offices Ans. But he tells you not a word what Articles these be nor what belongeth to their Offices whether it be all the Articles of all the Creeds or also of their Councils Decrees or when it shall be known what is necessary to be believed about their office And is here any notice how to know a member of their Church any more than in the former He that believeth all that he should believe is a Christian But is there any such and what is that all and how shall we know them 3. His third sort of members are Those who so believe all things necessary necessitate medii vel praecepti extended to all the adult Ans. And what 's this but the same again we know none but the adult that are to believe And so here we are told That all men that believe all things commanded are Christians We were told this before But it was with If any such are to be found And who knows by this what your All is When we find men that do all commanded and sin not we will hope to find men that know all revealed and have no ignorance yet here is no visible Church 4. His fourth sort are All those who believe in that manner all things necessary necessitate medii according to the first opinion of the more ancient Doctors But what those things are we are not yet told but five words set down with an c. And is here yet a word to satisfie any man of reason what their faith is or what Christianity is or what maketh a member of their Church or is the bond of union But Reader hath God left us so much in the dark Is Christianity any thing or nothing If something hath it not an essence which may be defined Is this all our notice of it That men that know all that God hath reveal'd and believe it are Christians or such as believe five Articles caetera Judge now whether their Church be not invisible And if any little part of it were visible what 's that to the rest or to that visibility of particular members He tells us these are almost all Christians and yet questioned whether any of the first be found and the rest are no more to be found than they 5. And his fifth sort he confesseth himself to be uncertain which yet it s doubted are no small part that go for Papists And note I pray you that it is the present Church which they use to approach to for necessary resolution and the Recentiors are more the present Church than the Ancients And according to these 1. Their Church is confessedly doubtful or unknown as to most or multitudes of members 2. And note that their Articles being but two That God is and that he rewardeth works all the common Heathens of the world and all the Mahometans are of the Papists Faith and Church according to this opinion 3. But mark Reader another desperate corruption That Baptism must concur with these two articles O horrid corruption of Christianity it self Is this antiquity and tradition Did the Christian Church use to baptize men that believed neither in Jesus Christ nor the Holy Ghost if they did but believe a God and a Rewarder Do you baptize such in your Church I suppose even Pope Stephen himself would have been for the re-baptining of such Reader if one of us had charged such doctrine on the Papists as this their Champion doth should we not have been thought to slander them viz. That their later Doctors hold that all that believe explicitely but a God and a Rewarder and are baptized are members of the Church of Rome and consequently that all that believe but this much should be baptized that is all the Mahometans and almost all the Heathens in the world And is Baptism and the Creed come to this But I confess if the world were perswaded of this the Pope could make his use of it For when he is once taken for Governour of all the Church on earth if he can but prove all the world to be the Church it followeth that he is Governour of all the world And what need they now their feigned embassies and submissions to prove the Abassines Armenians and Greeks to be of their Church when Heathens and Mahometans are proved of it and yet are Protestants no part He tells us That a living body may be defined by head shoulders arms though there be a doubt among Philosophers whether hair humours c. be animated or parts Ans. But 1. it is known then that there is visibly head and shoulders c. But you tell us not how to know any individual persons to be visible members of your Church To tell us that there are some men that hold all that they are bound to hold maketh none visible while we are not told either what they are bound to believe or by what profession or proof it must be known that they do so When we tell you that sincere justifying faith and love do prove true Christians and that such there are it 's agreed that this proveth but a Church as invisible or unknown to us because we know not who have this sincerity So is it when you tell us that there are men that believe all that 's necessary for till it be known what that is no profession can thereby prove them Christians 2. But what if you had told us how to know those men that are certain or eminent members of your Church Is it nothing to you to leave all the world besides almost uncertain whether they be in the Church or not How know you whom to admit to your Sacramental Communion or to use as a Christian When a Congregation of many thousand persons called Papists meet you cannot tell how many of these are of your Church and yet you give them the Eucharist And it seemeth by you that they must be Baptized though you know not after whether they be members of the Church Remember Reader that our question is not what mercy God sheweth to the rest of the world nor whether any out of the Christian Church be saved But it is what is the faith which is essential to a member of the Christian Church and whether Papists make it not uncertain and whether he
that believeth only that there is a God that rewardeth and believeth not in Christ or the Holy Ghost be a member of the Christian Church or should be baptized My third Question about his definition of the Church was Is it any lawful Pastors or all that must necessarily be depended on by every member who are those Pastors To this he said Of all respectively to each subject that is that the authority of none of them mediate or immediate be rejected or contemned I shewed him how he contradicteth himself for dependance is more than non-rejection and Millions of Heathens neither depend on the Pope or reject him that never heard of him To this he rejoineth that he spake of subjects only and not of others Ans. 1. But we are never the nearer knowing their Church by this while we are not told who the subjects are and what maketh a visible subject 2. Do not they take all Infidels and Heathens and the Christian Abassines Armenians Greeks Protestants c. to be subjects of the Pope as to obligation and right though not consent yet the Abassines neither obeyed the Pope nor rejected him till Oviedo was sent to them 3. For about forty or fifty years one part of Europe took one man for Pope and the rest took another man for Pope and men were uncertain which was the right or whether either of them and so of the Clergy authorized by them Which was the Church then and who were the members when Millions received one and Millions rejected him and many neither received nor rejected but remained in suspense 4. And if all the Priests should desert a Country as Ireland Meâ—…co or our Wales or Highlands are all the people thereby unchristened or unchurched while they have no Priest either to receive or reject and perhaps hear not of a Pope But I specially answered him That this maketh every Priest so essential to that Church that a man is unchurched that rejecteth or contemneth any one of them though he should â—…onour the Pope Councils and thousands others If a man take a Priest in such a crime as Watson Montaltus and others tell us of is contemning him an unchristening of us Yea if it be done causelessly upon a quarrel This is a notable advancement of the Clergy If contempt of one Priest be damnation or unchristening us he that can make Priests for all the world may well be Lord of all the world even of Princes as well as other men To this he rejoineth that by the word respectively he did not mean all Priests but all that are Pastors to that man for there are some Priests that have no care or cure of souls committed to them but a private Christian rejecting the authority of his Parish-Priest Bishop Archbishop Metropolitan Primate Patriarch or supreme Bishop becomes a Schismatick and casts himself out of the Church Ans. 1. He is a strange Priest that hath no Cure of Souls what then is his office If he be not affixed to a particular charge sure he hath an indefinite cure of Souls in the Church Universal 2. Then one of the next Parish may take our Parish-Priest and all the Parish-Priests in the Country save his own for Hereticks Fornicators Traytors and such as must be rejected and yet be no Schismatick but a Church-member But if I reverence all other Priests and take our own Parish-Priest for an ignorant sot or a knave or a wicked man and contemâ—… him I am cut off from the Church This tells us more reason than I knew of before for our Canon against going from our own Parish-Churches when we have no Preacher there And this ells me how great the power of Patrons is who can make an ignorant wicked man so absolute a Lord of all his Parishioners though they be the greatest Lords that to contemn him shall cost them their damnation And this tells me more than I knew before that the Roman Clergy do not plead for the Pope for his sake only but for their own if all men be in as much danger of damnation or unchurching for rejecting any Parish-Priest as for rejecting the Pope And this tells me more than I knew before of the great Pre-eminence of the Secular Clergy as they call them above the Regulars and how low comparatively the Jesuits and Friers are when it will cut a man off from the Church to contemn one sottish drunken Curate or Parish-Priest that can but read Mass and to contemn ten thousand Friers and Jesuits will not do so And this tells us of how great concernment Parish-bounds are and what a priviledg it is to remove ones dwelling For if I will but remove my dwelling one yard out of the Parish I may then contemn the Parish-Priest without being unchurched which on the other side the way I could not do And this 〈◊〉 us why the Clergy are exempt so much from Princes and Magistrates judgment It may cut off a Prince from the Church to contemn his Priest whether to hang him if he prove a Traytor be contempt I know not Many such lessons may be hence learnt 3. But how came Cyprian then so much mistaken that said Plebs maximam â—…abet potestatem sacerdotes indignos recusandi And how came all the ancient Churches to use that freedom in consenting or diâ—…enting electing or rejecting their Bishops and Priests which Blondeâ—… hath copiously proved pro sentent Hiâ—…ron de jure plebis in regim Eccles. 4. And what a priviledg hath the Pope or a Patriarch above an inferiour Christian when he may reject a â—…housand Priests or Interdict whole Kingdoms or reject most Christian Churches and Pastors in the world as being none of Christs and yet not be himself cut off for so doing whereas one that falls out with his Pâ—…rish-priest and rejecteth him alone is presenâ—…ly â—…o member of the Universal Church It seems that God punisheth not men according to the greatness of their sin for sure it is a greater sin unjustly to reject ten thousand Priests than one Or to contemn all other Priests in the Country mistaking them all for Hereticks Usurpers or inâ—…ollerable than so to do by one Parish-priest only 5. How many Millions then that seem to be of the Church of Rome are not so because they contemn the authority of their Parish-priest 6. But what is the proof of this assertion None at all In other Societies no Union is essential to a member but that which is with the Pars Imperans or supreme power and with the body A man that rejecteth a Justice or the Mayor of a City or the Master of a Colledg or School c. may be yet a subject and a member of the Kingdom while he rejecteth not the King though he be faulty and be cut off from the City Colledg or School And I think that to reject a Parish-priest that ought to be so rejected is well done and if he ought not it 's ill done And that he that
separateth from that Parish-Church may yet be 〈◊〉 member of the Church Universal while he separateth not from it But I see that Guiliel de Sancto Amore and such others had greater reason to condemn the Friers and Watson and such others the Jesuits than we knew of I noted also the difficulty How we shall know the Authority of every Parish-Priest Bishop Archbishop Patriarch and Pope And 1. in a Country where Orders have ordinarily been forged To this he answered As much as you can be assured of any being Pastor of such a Church or Bishop or Iustice c. Aâ—…s 1. If you prove it a duty to believe and obey every such deceiver that hath no authority we will not believe till you prove it that to do otherwise doth unchurch us 2. And if two or three claim authority over us at once as they did in the Papacy about forty years together are we cut off from Christ if we receive not both or how shall we know which If either will serve then they that took Iohn of Constantinople for Universal Bishop were as much in the Church as they that received Pope Boniface as such And they that followed Dioscorus at Alexandria being Orthodox as they that adhered to Proterius c. Is it no matter who it be so we think him to be the right Why then do you deny our English Clergy when we judg them to have the true authority 2. I asked What if we be ignorant whether the ordainer had intentionem ordinandi how shall we be sure of the authority of the Ordained He answered As sure as you can be that you were the lawful child of your parents who could not be truly married without intention Ans. This is new Doctrine they that speak the words and do the actions which properly signifie a true intention and do profess it do thereby mutually oblige themselves in the relation of husband and wife to each other and they that truly so oblige themselves are truly though sinfully married For what is Marriage but such a mutual obliging contract they are truly my parents and I owe them obedience whatever their intention was But you hold a man to be no Priest that was not ordained ex â—…entione ordinandi and our Salvation to lie on our obeying him as a Priest who is none My fourth Question was How the people that dwell in other Countrys can know whether the Priest Prelate or Pope had necessary Election and Ordination To which he saith Wâ—…en it is publickly allowed in the Church witnessed to be performed according to Canonical prescription by those that were present and derived to the people without contradiction by publick fame Ans. 1. This alloweth the Ministry in Ethiopia Armenia Moscovie Grâ—…ece as much as the Roman For it is publickly allowed and attested and brought to the people by uncontradicted fame And so is the Ministry of the Reformed Churches to all that hear not your contradiction 2 But with Rome the case is otherwise one part of the Church hath publickly allowed one Pope and all his Clergy and another part rejected him and allowed another and his Clergy and publick fame hath contradicted one party 3. And what can fame say to us in England of the Election or Ordination made at Rome of a Pope Prelate or Parish-priest when we hear not any witness of it 4. And how can we expect contradiction of an action done a thousand miles off which none near knew of 5. And yet how few Priests or Prelates are they whose authority fame publisheth without contradiction Do not Protestants contradict the authority of your Priests and most of the Christian World the authority of your Pope My fifth Question was If you tell me your own opinion of the sufficient means to know the Popes or Priests authority how shall I know that you are not deceived unless a Council bad desined it sufficient To this he saith That the orders prescribed in the Canon Law and universally received are sufficient for this without Decrees of General Councils for they are no points of faith but of order and discipline whereof a moral certainty and Ecclesiastical authority are sufficient Ans. 1. Is this moral certainty true certaints or uncertainty If true certainty it hath its moral ascertaining evidences And what are those 2. Who is the maker of this Canon Law If not General Councils how shall we know their authority If the Pope and Cardinals how shall we know whether those of e. g. Stephen Sergius or Formosus be the authentick ones and so of many other contradictory ones If a General Council damn and depose e. g. Eugenius the fourth as a Heretick c. and he make Canons after how shall we know that they are authoritative 3. But are your matters of order and discipline no matters of faith Then God hath not bound us to believe that the Pope is the Universal Bishop or Pastor or that Rome hath any authority over the world or other Christian Churches or that your Priests are the true Ministers of Christ and have any authority over us or that the Mass is to be celebrated c. But either these are matters of Divine or Humane Law If man only command them how cometh our Christianity and Salvation to be laid on them What man commands man may abrogate unless extrinsick accidents hinder If God command them doth God command any thing which he binds us not to believe to be our duty Many things may be de fide revealed which are not de moribus nor to be done but nothing is by God commanded to be done which is not first to be known or believed to be duty 4. If it be no matter of faith how to know that your Elections and Ordinations are true then it is no matter of faith that you are true Pastors or have any authority because without true Election and Ordination it is not so and if so then it 's no heresie to believe that you are all deceivers 5. Your Authority or Decrees below that of Pope and General Councils pretend to no Infallible certainty upon this it seems your Church is built and into uncertainty its authority resolved and yet from this we must fetch our certainty of the Gospel in your way And is not the Gospel then made uncertain by you which must be believed on the authority of an uncertain Ministry yea and are not Councils uncertain which consist of such a Ministry 6. It 's a vanity to pretend that your Canon Law is universally received most of the Christian World receive but part of it and much no part at all unless you call the Scripture the Canon Law 7. If your Canon Law be so universally received and sufficient then when that Law is received into England England must be burnt as a land of Hereticks for that 's part of your Law and so your Ministry and our burning as Hereticks have the same authority My next Question was If I culpably were
all men that believe a God believe him to be true and no lyar and so W. I. maketh none but Atheists to be Hereticks To this he answereth W. J. There is a twofold denying of God one formal and direct the other virtual and indirect Atheists are guilty of the first Hereticks of the second This I oblige my self to prove Whosoever obstinately contradicts any truth revealed from God as all Hereticks do some or other of them they sinfully and wilfully affirm that what God hath revealed is not true and consequently that God is a lyar and by that destroy as much as in them lieth the very essence of God R. B. Here is little but novelty and deceit 1. It is deceit to call that a denying of God in a controversie of such moment whatever you might do rhetorically in an Oration which you confess your self is not a denying him For you say that it is not a formal but a virtual denying him and that is truly no actual denying him for forma dat nomen esse Boys will deride you if you deny this If you object Paul's words Tit. 1. They confess him in words but in their works they deny him I answer that they denied him formally by their works For those works signified that their minds did not formally believe God to be God indeed according to his Essentialities 2. It is novelty and deceit to affirm and stoutly undertake to prove that the denying of one of the Propositions from which the Conclusion must arise is virtually a denying of both e. g. Whatever is Gods word is true but the story of Bell and the Dragon and of the Angel in Tobit saying he was the Son of Ananias of the Tribe of Naphthali and that the intrals of a Fish would drive away all Devils that they should never return c. are the word of God May not a man firmly believe the Major that taketh the Minor for a lie And suppose that the Roman Church say that I am obstinate my reasons are 1. Angels be not born of man 2. Christ saith This kind goeth not out but by fasting and prayer c. so that I must take Christ for a lyar if I take not Tobit to be false may not I be obstinate in this and yet not deny that all the Word of God is true If the Manichees tell me that the Gospel of Nicodemus and of Saint Thomas is the word of God and the Papists that the Apostolical Canons and Constitutions and the Itinerary of Peter were written by Clemens is obstinate unbelief of this a denying that God is true Your sufficient proposal is that of your Church A General Council is your highest proposer with the Pope I find that the Council at Constance and Basil and Pisa say one thing and that at Lateran and Florence say the contrary and I obstinately refuse to believe them both may I not yet firmly believe that God is true you are not God And verily I have more reason to suspect you than God The Country-man that never read Councils nor travelled to Rome knoweth nothing of your matters but by his Parish-priest If he know this Priest to be a common whoremonger and lyar may he not suspect him without denying God But if you can prove what you undertake it is the sadder with you that can triumph in sentencing your selves as Hereticks to Hell e. g. Whatever is Gods word is true but it is Gods word that the Lords Supper should be administred in both kinds bread and wine This do in remembrance of me and that it is bread after the consecration 1 Cor. 11. and that it is better to pray in a known tongue than in an unknown 1 Cor. 14. and that they know not what manner of spirit they are of who would have the resisters of Christs Apostles and of Christ himself consumed with fire and that the Clergy must not Lord it over Gods heritage but as servants to all rule them willingly and not by constraint c. Ergo this is all true And whoever denieth this truth of God indirectly denieth Gods essence and maketh him a lyar But the Church of Rome denieth all these Doth it follow that the Church of Rome are Hereticks blasphemers and lyars And all this is sufficiently revealed for it is plainly written in the Word of God 3. Note Reader that such a contradiction of any truth revealed by God doth make a man an Heretick O then what abundance of Hereticks be in the world What one man can say that he doth not contradict some truth revealed by God by nature or Scripture or both Every mans mind and will is depraved and being so hath some degree of obstinacy in resisting some truth of God and so all men in the world as well as the obstinately erroneous Papists are Hereticks Not only Papists that will believe neither the Scripture Tradition Reason nor all mens senses that there is bread after Consecrations but any one that doth not believe who was the Father of Arphaxad e. g. or any point of Genealogy or of Chronology or differing Numbers in Kings and Chronicles Ezra and Nehemiah Mat. 1. and Luk. 3 c. Or that doth not believe that every word in Iudith Tobit c. are Gods word are all Hereticks and deniers of Gods Essence Nor doth he except any age of persons so that if a School-boy should but obstinately deny to believe his Master about a tradition or a Scripture-name or number he were a Heretick The Council of Basil revealeth the sinless conception of the Virgin Mary and yet the Papists that deny it are not accounted Hereticks And what shew is there of this consequence the Council of Ephesus 2. of Arminum of Lateran of Nice 2 of Florence of Constance Basil Trent may lie Ergo God is a lyar Hereticks should be softer in defining Heresie I next instanced What if a man deny that there is a Heaven Hell Resurrection and also the revelation of these and yet deny not the veracity of God no nor of the Church is this no Heretick He answereth No if not sufficiently propounded to him as revealed from God But that Proposition must be made by the Church and as long as he believeth the infallible veracity of the Church propounding he cannot disbelieve what it propoundeth sufficiently c. R. B. 1. But a man that doth not believe the Infallibility of the Church may believe Gods Veracity and yet be an Heretick 2. A Papist that holdeth your Church infallible may disbelieve what General Councils deliver as de fide for so you do So that this word Sufficient is as unintelligible among your selves as meer non-sense For even General Councils proposals are not accounted sufficient when you are against them and yet every Priest is when your turn requireth it 3. And many a man may take the Churches proposal to be certain and yet think that the Roman Church is but an erroneous faction and scarce a corrupt third
what is the notorious Tradition of all the Christian world I that search after it in all the books that I can get can scarce give a good account of the Tradition of much of the greater part of Christians Nay no Universal Tradition at all is notorious to most Christians much less to all the Heathens and Infidels on earth It is not notorious to most in England what is the Tradition of the Abassians Syrians Armenians Greeks no nor of the Italians French Spaniards Germans c. That is notorious to Scholars which is not so to the unlearned and to Antiquaries which is not so to other Scholars Here W. I. answereth two things 1. That to know some Laws of the Commonwealth is of importance to salvation 2. That God should have made a visible Government imprudently whose Governors could not be known but by revelation R. B. 1. And how comes importing to be put instead of necessity to salvation This is but fraud 2. It were worth our diligent enquiry could we prevail with these men to open to us this mystery How it is that the Pope and his Council may be known to be the supreme Governors of the world without revelation I will abate my Antagonists the answering of all the rest if they will but be intreated to answer me this one question It seems that it is by no promise of Christ no word of God no nor by any revelation of the Spirit or Miracles that we must know them to be our Governors I confess I can know without revelation that they claim such authority as any Traytor or Usurper may do but that they have such authority it is past my reach to conjecture which way it is to be proved without revelation But I intreat the Reader to remember this in all our further disputes with them That they confess that it is not by revelation by Scripture Spirit Miracles or Tradition made known that the Pope and his Council are the supreme Governors of the Universal Church And yet we must know this before we can believe in Christ or believe the Scripture to be true And we must know it of necessity to salvation And another difficulty here seemeth insuperable viz. Seeing this is not a matter of Revelation it can be no matter of Divine faith and if so how is all other faith resolved into it and how is the belief of this which is no belief called our implicite belief of all the word of God can no man be saved that cannot unriddle all these contradictions Next I further noted R. B. That if he lay the sufficiency on the respect to all mens various capacities of receiving the notice then they can never know who are Hereticks but if they lay it on a general publication then all or almost all men are Hereticks being unavoidably ignorant of many things so published To this he saith That he Judgeth of no mans conscience Ans. But do not they judg of them that burn them and depose Princes for not exterminating them He saith It is sufficient 1. that such as acknowledg themselves they know such points of faith to be propounded by the Roman Church which I infallibly believe to be the true Church and that notwithstanding reject them as errors give me ground to presume them to be Hereticks Ans. 1. I perceive that it is not the Pope only that is infallible but you also are infallible in believing his Church But alas how many are deceived and deceivers that call themselves infallible 2. But if your belief in the Pope were infallible must all others be hereticks and be burnt that have not attained to your degree of knowledg or self-conceitedness 3. Just now you said the Governours of the Church need no revelation to make them known and now it is an article of your belief That the Roman Church is the true Church so slippery is your foundation 4. But what meaneth that hard word The true Church Is it not enough if it were proved a true Church Either you mean the universal Church or a particular Church if the former why speak you so sneakingly and did not speak out that the Roman Church is all the whole Church that Christ hath on earth Which assertion we abhor and despair of any thing like a proof of it If the latter what is it to us whether Rome be a true Church any more than whether Ephesus Thessalonica or such other be so 5. But to leave your parenthesis what 's all this to the most of the Christian world that do not acknowledg themselves that they know such points of faith to be propounded by the Church of Rome There is not one of five hundred among us that ever read your Councils nor knoweth one of many things propounded by you to be such And are all these now absolved from heresie How long will that be their security if the burning and exterminating Religion should prevail And is it my hard fate to become a Heretick more than all the rest of my neighbours because I have read your Councils when they have not Then I would counsel all that love not to be burned to take heed of medling with such Councils I have oft read how dangerous a thing you judg it for unlicensed men to read Gods word and of many that have been burned for it and its consequents and how you account it the way to Heresie But I have not oft before read how dangerous it is to read your Decrees or to know all that the Church of Rome propoundeth for he that knoweth them all must have a very ready commandable faith such as can believe in despight of Sense Reason Scripture and Tradition to escape the guilt of Heresie But I pray you were you not inexorable executioners when it cometh next to the burning of Dissenters that you will spare all that confess not that they know what is propounded by your Church yea though they take not their parish-priest that tells it them to be infallible especially if they know him to be a common lyar or one that holds that lying for mens good is a venial sin or none W. I. 2. Such as oppose what all visible Churches have most notoriously practised and believed as Divine truths while they were so universally taught and practised I may safely presume to be Hereticks R. B. 1. No Oâ—…dipus can tell whether while here refer to believed or to oppose If to the latter then neither Abassines Armenians Greeks or Protestants are Hereticks for they oppose not such points while they were so universally taught and practised whatever their forefathers did for they have themselves so many partners as derogates from the pretended Universality of the Adversaries But if by all the visible Church you mean all except themselves or if the word while relate to believe then the Church of Rome are characterized by you for certain Hereticks for I defie impudence it self in challenging it to deny that the Universal
is that made that Law to all the world And it 's known that the Apostles Elders and Brethren were â—…senters at Ierusalem Act 15. 2. Inferiors may come as Deputies of the Bishops for he knew that the Bishop of Rome had oft sent such to Councils so far off as his gravity would not suffer him to go to But are these Priests capable persons or not If not how can a Bishops deputation make them capable what if a Priest depute a Lay-man to consecrate the Eucharist or a Bishop depute a Priest or Deacon only to ordain will the deputation make them capable but if they are capable why may they not be there by their own right If the business of Councils be as much as our modern Papists tell us to transmit the Traditions which the several Countries have received from their Ancestors why may not ten learned grave Priests as truly and credibly tell what are the Traditions of their Country as one unlearned or learned Bishop 3. Note here how the highest acts of a Pope or Prelate with them may be done per alios by Deputies that are no Bishops To preside in General Councils was of old in the Empire the top of the Popes prerogative and yet he may do that by a Presbyter and a Bishop may vote and do all his part in a General Council by a Presbyter And is that an office properly Ecclesiastical and Sacred which may be exercised by others not of that office why then may not a Lay-man be deputed to preach baptize pray consecrate and administer the Eucharist excommunicate absolve c. if deputed And if so what is proper to the office I told him of the Council of Basil where were a multitude of Priests And he answereth W. J. Basil in many things is not allowed of by us name those others received as General Councils by us that had simple Priests with power of giving Votes as such R. B. See Reader when they have talkt of Councils and Traditions of all the Church c. all signifieth but what please the Pope and his dislike can make Councils and their judgments null at a word Basil was one of the greatest Councils that ever was but they condemned and deposed the Pope and no wonder then if the Pope dislike them and now that 's an answer to all such authority Basil is not allowed by us Nor is any thing allowed by you that is against you But if any of them would see where Priests have had Votes in Councils let them read Blondel in the end of his Def. Sent. Hieron and he shall have proof enough For I will not tire the Reader with vain citations done by many long ago Only I note 1. If Abbots that are no Bishops have Votes in Councils why not Priests saving the Popes will what makes the difference 2d If Presbyters may have Votes in National and Provincial Councils why not in General ones the will of the Pope makes and unmakes all Thus we have no satisfaction what a General Council is CHAP. VII What mean you by SCHISME W. J. I understand by Schism a wilful separation or division of ones self from the whole visible Church of Christ. R. B. If this only be Schism it 's comfortable news to many a thousand and million that some call Schismaticks I hope then there are no Schismaticks in England of those that are called Presbyterians Erastians Independents Separatists or Anabaptists For I know not one of these that separateth from the whole visible Church of Christ. But I doubt with these Judges the Church of Rome goes for the whole visible Church of Christ. I asked here Q. 1. Is it no Schism to separate from a particular Church unless from the whole W. J. No it is no Schism as Schism is taken in the Holy Fathers for that great and Capital Crime so severely censured by them in which sense only I take it here R. B. 1. He first defineth without distinguishing and then tells us that he means only one sort of Schism 2. Let the Reader but peruse all the Texts of Scriptures which mention Schism and see whether he will not find that every Text or almost every one do use the Word only of Divisions made in the Church rather than of dividing or separating from the Church and whether such separating from the whole Church be not there called Heresie rather than Schism But seeing it is only this Capital Schism that he calleth by that name I have no mind to draw him now to more censoriousness and therefore I noted how by this he absolveth the Protestants from the guilt of Schism W. J. Did not your first Protestants in Germany separate as much from the Armenians Ethiopians Greeks as they did from the Romans If they did not shew the Communion they had with them R. B. Very willingly Sir They had the same God the same Saviour the same Spirit the same Faith Baptism and Hope and so were of the same Body of Christ which is all the Union predicated by St. Paul Eph. 4. 3 4 5 6. They had also the same Scriptures the same Rule of Prayer and Practice the Lord's Prayer and the Decalogue and Precepts of Christ as well as the same Creed the same Love the same Sacrament of the Eucharist Prayses of God the Lords day for Holy Communion Pastors of the same Order and had no other Diversities in such things than St. Paul tells us are in the Body of Christ 1 Cor. 12. Is this no Communion W. J. Did your Ministers first take either Mission or Iurisdiction to preach from any of their Bishops or Patriarchs Did they take the prescription of their Liturgies Discipline or Hierarchy from them Did they upon occasion joyn in Prayer Sacraments or Sacrifice with them R. B. 1. Do we hold Communion with none that we take not Mission and Iurisdiction from What Absurdities do you thrust upon us Did the Churches of Ephesus Corinth Galatia Philippi Colosse c. hold no Communion in Scripture-times unless they had Mission and Iurisdiction from each other Must the Greeks and Armenians have Mission c from us If not why must we have it from them Your Church receiveth no Mission or Jurisdiction from others Have you therefore no Communion with them Your Language favoureth of so much Tyranny and Pride as would tempt Men indeed to take you for Anti-christian As if Subjection to you and Communion with you were all one or you would have Communion with no Christians in the World bâ—…n the relation of Servants or Subjects to you 2. When we have Qualification Election and where it may be had due Ordination we know of no other Mission necessary besides Gods own Word which chargeth Christ's Ministers to preach the Gospel in season and out of season c. God's charging all Ministers to preach is their Mission when they are Ministers Princes leave and Peoples consent do give them their opportunity and for
Jurisdiction we need and desire none but a Ministerial Power of guiding Souls towards Heaven by God's Word preached and applyed And he that ordaineth a Minister thereby giveth him all the Jurisdiction which is necessary to his Office If a Man be licensed a Physitian must he have also Mission and Iurisdiction given him after before he may practice 3. How could we take Ordination Mission and Jurisdiction from Men on the other side of the World What need we go so far for it when the Gospel is near us which telleth us how God would have Ministers more easily called than so 4. And as for the prescript of our Liturgy Discipline and Hierarchy that is one of the differences between us and you Must you needs have a Liturgy Discipline and Hierarchy of Man's forming so you have But we can live in Christian Communion with so much as Christ and his Apostles by his Spirit have prescribed us Is there no Communion to be had with any Church but that which hath arrived at that heighth of Pride as to make Liturgies Discipline and Hierarchy for all the Chrstian World and to suffer none to speak publickly to God in any words but those which they write down for them to read to God We make no such Laws to any other Church in the World nor do we receive any such Laws from any and yet we have Communion with them fraternal and not subjective Communion There is one Law-giver who is able to save and to destroy who are you that make Laws for another's Servants and judge them Had the Churches no Communion for the first 400 years when no Liturgies were imposed or when the first Law made hereabout was but that no one should use a Form of Prayer till he had shewed it to the Synod No nor when Gregory's and Ambrose's Liturgies were striving for pre-eminence Had the Church at Neocesaria no Communion with that at Caesarea because they had so different Liturgies as their quarrel against Basil intimateth And when every Bishop used what Liturgy he pleased in his own Congregation Was there then no Communion between the Churches We refuse not any meet Liturgy that is found needful to our Concord But truly for Hierarchy and Species or Forms of Churches and the substantials of Discipline we earnestly wish that no Church had any but what God hath himself prescribed to them 5. But how should we joyn with Men many hundred or thousand miles off us in Word and Sacraments otherwise than by useing those of the same species We do not locally hold such Communion with the next Parishes to us nor with many in the World for we cannot be in many places at once much less can we be every Lords day in every Assembly in Ethiopia and Armenia As for Sacrifice we know of none acceptable but the Commemmoration of Christ's Sacrifice once offered for Sin and the offering of our selves and our Thanksgivings praise and other duties to God And why you distinguish the first from Sacraments I know not W. J. Aâ—…d did they profess the same Faith in all points of Faith and those the very same wherein they dissented from the Church of Rome R. B. 1. Ad hominem it might suffice to say to you that explicitely or implicitely they did 2. But I better answer you We profess the same Faith in all points essential to Christianity and in abundance more I have told you before that we agree in all the Old Creeds and in the truth of the Canonical Scriptures 3. But do you Papists agree in all points of Faith no not by a thousand For all is of Faith which God hath intelligibly revealed in the Holy Scriptures to be believed But there is above a thousand intelligible Texts of Scripture about the sence of which your Commentators differ If all Christians agree in all that is de fide then all Christians fully understand every intelligible Word in the Scripture And then every Woman and Rustick is as wise in Divinity as the greatest Doctors yea far are the Doctors from such Wisdom W. J. If so they may as well be said not to have separated fom the external Communion of the Roman Church R. B. Some will tell you that we did not separate from you but you from us but I must say that the Roman Church is considered either materially as Christians and a part of the Church of Christ and so we neither did nor do separate from you or else formally as Pâ—…pal and so we renounce you and all Communion with you as being no Church of Christ but a Sect that treasonably usurpeth his Prerogative The pars imperans specifieth or informeth the society Christ only is the Universal Head of all Christians as such and of all the Churches with which we profess Concord and Communion In this Head Greeks Armenians Ethiopians and Protestants unite But the Pope falsly pretending to be Christ's Vicar-General is taken for the Universal Head by the Papists and in renouncing this Head we renounce no other Church but yours R. B. Not from you as Christians but scandalous Offenders whom we are commanded to avoid we separate not from any but as they separate from Christ. W. J. 1. No sure for if you did you must be Iews Turks or Infidels 2. Was there no more in it Did not the Primitive Persons who begun your breach and party owe subjection to their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors Diocesans and Pastors R. B. No none at all as they were Papal that is the subordinate Ministers of the usurping Universal Bishop W. J. And is it lawful for a Subject to subtract himself from the obedience of a lawful Pastor because he is a scandalous Offender R. B. Yes if his Offence be a ceasing to be a lawful Pastor and taking on him a false Office by usurpation Or if he remained lawful quoad hoc as Christian and adde a treasonable addition we must have no Communion with him at least in that unlawful part W. J. If you say he remaineth not in his former Power you contradict our Saviour commanding obedience to the scandalous Pharisees c. R. B. 1. The Pharisees set not up a new usurped Office of Head-ship constitutive pretendedly to the Universal Visible Church but only abused a lawful Office that God had made 2. Yet Christ requireth obedience to them no farther than as they sate in Moses's Chair and delivered the Law but warned men to renounce them as Corrupters and to take heed of their Doctrine 3. And this much was but till they shewed themselves uncurable and he set up new Officers over his Church and then all men were to forsake the Pharisees Government W. J. You destroy all Ecclesiastical Government and open a way to tread under foot all temporal Authority If you hold these Offences deprive him of all Ecclesiastical Power why not so of Kings and Magistrates and Parents and then you have spun a fair Thread c. R. B. Confusion
may help to deceive the ignorant 1. Your Popes as Universal Bishops had never true Power over us 2. Nor any Bishops as their Ministers as such 3. For this treasonable Usurpation we were bound to avoid them as scandalous Invaders of Christ's Prerogative which some call Antichristian 4. Our English Bishops and other Pastors when they came to see that such an Usurper had no right to govern them forsook him but forsook no Governour 5. Those Bishops that adhered to him the People justly forsook as Usurpers under him 6. Those that forsook him they obeyed as their true Pastors And now will it follow if I be obliged to renounce a Usurping Vice-King and Traytor as having no power over me as such and that I partake not of his Treason that I must therefore forsake the King for his personal faults If the Deputy of Ireland should say I am Vice-King of all the Kings Dominions and I challenge Obedience from all the Subjects and the King forbid us to obey him as such I may obey him in Ireland till the King depose him and I must renounce him in England and yet I must not tell the King Sir why must we not then for your faults also renounce you The scandal of Treasonable Usurpation differeth from a meer immorality or miscarriage R. B. Qu. 2. Is it no Schism unless wilful W. J. No. R. B. Again you further justifie us from Schism If it be wilful it must be against knowledge But we are so far from separating wilfully from the whole Church that we abhor the thought of it as impious and damnable W. J. Abhor is as much as you please for your own particular I know not what may be pleaded for you I am certain that your first beginners did it and that knowingly and wilfully and you still maintaining what they began must by all considering Christians be judged guilty of the same Crime for still you remain separate from all these Christians from which they departed that is from all the visible Churches existent immediately before they sprung up and in their time and still continue through the whole World R. B. A naked bold and shameless assertion without one word of proof Our Reformers knew no Head of the Church but Christ and they neither renounced him nor any one Member of his Church as such but only a Trayterous Usurper and his Sect indeed while he claimed but as Patriarch some Government of them jure humano by the Will of Princes they gave him answerable obedience and in their ignorance most gave him too much and many perceived not his Usurpation But when the Empire was down that set him up or had no power here and their own Princes no longer obliged them hereto he had not so much as such a humane Authority And when they that renounced him as a Traytor to Christ protested to hold Communion with all Christs Church on Earth according to their distant Capacities and to abhor all separation from them would not a man have expected that this Dispute should have given us some proof that to forsake this false Head was to separate from all the visible Churches on Earth I proved our Union with them before Yea he presumes to say That he is certain that they did it knowingly and wilfully As if he knew all the hearts of thousands whose Faces he never saw when they that should know them better thought that they were certain that they separated from no Christians but an Usurper and his Adherents as such And this we have great reason to continue as much as Subjects have to separate from Rebels R. B. Qu. 3. It is no Schism if men make a division in the Church and not from the Church W. J. Not as we are here to understand it and as the Fathers treat it For the Church of Christ being perfectly one cannot admit of any proper Schism within it self for that would divide it into two which cannot be R. B. 1. If there be other Schisms besides separating from the whole Church why should you not here understand it unless understanding things as they are will hurt your Cause 2. What a stranger doth this Disputer make himself to the Fathers if he know not that they frequently use the word Schism in another sense than his I will not be so vain as to trouble my self or the Reader with Citations The Indexes of the Fathers and Councils will satisfie those that will but search them Was it a separation from the whole Church which Clemens Romanus the eldest of them all doth write his Epistle to the Corinthians against or rather a particular Schism between the people and some few eminent men Read it and see what credit these men deserve when they talk of the Eathers Judgments 3. But his reason is most unreasonable That the Church of Christ is so perfectly one that it cannot admit of any proper Schism within it self Can the Unity be perfect while all our uniting Graces are imperfect When every Member is imperfect in Knowledge Faith Love Holiness Obedience Iustice Patience c. how can the Union be perfect 4. Reader do but read their Councils Church-Histories Baronius Genebrard Platiâ—… Wernerus to whom I may add above one hundred and if thou dost not find them and also their polemical and practical Divines commonly mentioning Schisms in the Church of Rome it self then believe these deceivers and call me the deceiver Do they not lament their Schisms Were not the Councils of Constance Basil Pisa c. called to heal them Do they not number the Schisms that fell out in 40 or 50 years time and continued Dare any man deny it Were these then Proper Schisms or not No it 's like this man would say that none of these Writers speak properly when they call it Schism I would he would tell in the next what proper word to use But either these Schisms were within the Church or without it Reader see whither falshood will run at last If they were within the Church then W. I. doth but abuse you by his falshoods If without the Church then one half the Roman Church was Unchurched for 40 or 50 years when they followed one Pope while the other half followed another And who knoweth which of these parts was the Church It seems whoever adhered to the wrong Pope was none of the Church But saith Wernerus and other Historians sometimes the wisest were at their Wits end and knew not which was the true Pope nor is it known to this day Nay the matter is yet worse A great General Council deposed Euginius the Fourth as no Pope but an uncapable wicked Heretick and yet he kept in and became the only Head of their Church whom the rest succeed And so all that Church by this rule was unchurched Sure necessity must make you recant and say that yet both Parties in your long and odious Schisms were within the Church or else what a Wound will ye inflict
on it But an ill Cause will admit of no defence If you come to this mark what will follow Even that millions are in the Church that are no Subjects of the Pope but do reject him If there were two real Popes there were two real Churches and therefore neither of them was Universal and consequently neither of the two were Popes because not Universal Bishops so ill do such Forgeries cohere But if only one of them was a true Pope then all that followed the other rejected the Pope Either these were saved or damned If saved then men that reject the Pope may be saved And then why ask you us where was a Church that rejected the Pope before Luther when you tell us where at home If damned what a happiness befell one Kingdom and what a misery the other by the Title or No-Title of the Popes Was it all France and that Party or Germany and that Party that were damned all those times Hell had a great Harvest by it which soever it was and it 's pity that one Man should be able to damn so many Nations by pretending that he was the true Pope And methinks such a division as this should be called a proper Schism unless he will be so jocular as to say that it was a proper division and rent but no proper Schism I add this note Reader if there be any Sect in the world that are true Schismaticks according to W. I.'s own definition judge whether it be not the Papal Sect For it is they that condemn all the World save themselves and say that none else are Churches of Christ and consequently separate from the whole Church of Christ except themselves who are but a third or fourth part of the whole I never knew any of all our Sectaries do so no not the Quakers themselves who come nearest it unless perhaps the Seekers that say the Church is lost but the Papists do so Indeed they separate not always from themselves though they do from all others no more do any other Sect. R. B. Though I am sure St. Paul calls it Schism when men make divisions in the Church though not from it not making two Churches but dislocating some Members and abating Charity and causing Contentions where there should be Peace yet I accept your continued justification of us who if we should be tempted to be dividers in the Church should yet hate to be dividers from it as believing that he that is separated from the whole Body is also separate from the Head W. J. I am glad you accept of something at the last up-shot If it be for your advantage God give you good on 't I speak not of Schism taken in a large sense but of that only which is treated by the Fathers and reckoned up among the most horrid Sins which a Christian can commit and that separateth from the whole Church See Dr. Ham. of Schism c. 1. 2 3. R. B. This is already answered I again intreat you then to consider what a horrid sin it is in the Papal Sect to separate from all the Churches in the World and then to divert their Consciences by crying out of Schism against all that will not joyn with them in so dangerous a Schism 2. And I humbly admonish those Protestants that cry out Schism Schism against all that will not do as they do even in a thing which they call indifferent and others account a heynous sin to remember that even these Papists are so moderate as not to condemn other men as Schismaticks unless they separate from the whole Church of Christ. And I hope to refuse the Tridentiu◅ Symbolical Oath or any other false or sinful Covenant or Profession is not to separate from the whole Church of Christ for false Oaths Covenants or other Sins are not essential to Christ's Church R. B. Sir urgent and unavoidable business constrained me to delay my return to your solutions or Explications of your definitions till this June 29. 1660. When you desire me to answer any such questions or explain any doubtful passages of mine I shall willingly do it In the mean time you may see while your Terms are unexplained and your explications or definitions so insignificant how fit we are to proceed any further till we better understand each other as to our Terms and Subject which when you have done your part to I shall gladly if God enable me go on with you till we come if it may be to our desired issue But still crave the performance of the double task you are engaged in Richard Baxter W. I. Sir I have thus far endeavoured to satisfie your Expectation and to acquit my self of all obligations wherein I have sought as I strongly hope first Gods eternal Glory and in the next place your Eternal good with his for whom I under take this labour and of all these who attentively and impartially peruse this Treatise William Johnson R. B. Your intentions I leave to your self of your performance and my answer I desire such judges as you describe even attentive and impartial re◅ders But O how rare is impartiality even in them that think they ha◅ it In the end I added an Appendix in answer to this objection of theirs that We can have no true Chūrch without Pastors no Pastors without Ordinations and no Ordination but from the Church of Rome Therefore when we broke off from the Church of Rome we interrupted our succession which cannot be repaired but by a return to them To this I gave a full answer of which W. I. taketh no notice Lastly I concluded with an address to himself in which I gave him the reasons why I published our Writings and also proved that the Church of Rome hath not successively been the same from the Apostles much less received no corruptions which I proved first because it hath since received a new essential part even a pretended Vice-Christ or head of the Universal Church 2. Because it hath had frequent and long intercisions in that essential head 3. Because it hath had new essential Articles of Faith and Religion To all this he giveth no answer PART II. Richard Baxter's Vindication of the CONTINUED VISIBILITY of the CHURCH of which the Protestants are Members In answer to William Johnson alias Terret's Reply called by him Novelty represt THE PREFACE I Have great reason to suppose that if I should make this Book as long as it must be if I repeated and answered all the words of W. I. it would frustrate my writing it by discouraging most Readers whose Leisure and Patience are as short as mine Therefore I purpose to cull out all which I take to seem his real strength and of any importance to the understanding Reader and to omit the Vagaries And particularly where he and I differ about the words or sense of any Fathers or Councils what need I more than to leave that Matter to the perusal of the Reader who cannot
rationally rest in my Yea or W. I's Nay For how will either of those tell him what any Book in question doth contain It is the perusal of the Book it self that must satisfie him But about the Weight or Consequence of any such Citations we may help his satisfaction The Churches alas have not been so innocent since Lording was its way of Government as that all that we can find written or done by any great Patriarchs Prelates yea or Council should pass with us for proof that it was well said or done nor can we take one Prelate for all Christs Church no nor a synod oâ—… the Clergie in the Roman Empire Nor can we be so void of understanding as to read over the ancient Writers and the Councils and not to know how much the Major Vote of the Clergie still followed the Emperours Wills and the Byas of Interest We cannot lye or believe evident Lyes on pretence of honouring them He that readeth the Stories and doth not find how much the Will of Constantine prevailed in one Council and the contrary Will of Constantius in many What the Will of Valens did with most in the Eâ—…st and the Will of Iovian Valentinian and other good Princes did against it How far the Will of Theodosius went while he Reigued against the Arrians to heal what Valens had done And how much the Will of Theodosius junior did for the Eutythians and yet against the Nestorians And how far the Will of Martian prevailed against the said Eutychians when he was dead How much even the Usurper Basiliscus in a year or two could do to strengthen the Arrians and Eutyohians And how quickly Zeno's Prevalency turned the Scales I say he that doth read on such Histories to the end and yet will think that the Clergie have been still one unanimous Body of the same Mind and Opinion in all things and not turned up and down by Princes Power and their own Interest and fears I leave such a Reader as desperate and as one that will be deceived in despight of the clearest Evidence of Truth He that doth read these Stories and doth not perceive the great Corruption of the Clergie when once their places had a Bait of Wealth and Honour and Dominion suitable to a proud worldly carnal mind and what a continual War there was among the Clergie between a holy spiritual and a worldly proud domineering unconscionable Party and how ordinarily or oft the carnal worldly Clergie had the major Vote how the same e g. Bishops at the Council of Ephes. 2. could yield to Theodosius and Dioscorus and condemn the just and at Calcedon go the contrary way and cry out omnes peccavimus and we did it for fear How the same Council at Constantine that confirmed Greg. Naz. when some more were added and got the major Vote resolved to depose him and caused him to depart How the same Peter of Alexandria Athanasius's Successour that first made him Bishop of Constantinople for a sum of Money put in Maximus in his place without once hearing him or giving any Reason or re-calling his first Letters and how the bribed Egyptian Bishops did concur How Theophilus carryed it with the Egyptian Monks and against Origen and Chrysostome and between Theodosius and Eugenius the Usurper and how the Synod carried it against Chrysostome and how Cyril first made himself a Magistrate to use the Sword at Alexandria and what past between Theodoret Iohan. Antioch and him and how the Bishops and their Synods in Ithacius time carryed it against St. Martin and against the Priscillianists and how all this while Rome and Constantinople set and kept the Empire in a Flame by striving which should be the greatest and how the Pope on such putid accounts did molest the African Churches in the days of Augustine himself and their Writers charge them with Schism to this day I say he that can read abundance of such stuff as this and yet think that any one Citation of the words of a Prelate Pope or Council â—…is as valid as if it were the word of God let him go his own way for he is not for my Company Nay if they could prove as much of the Popes Universal Episcopacy within the Empire under the Christian Emperours as Salmâ—…sius I think too liberally granteth them de Eccles. suburbicar circa finem it is no more with me than to prove the Power of the Bishop of Alexandria or of Anâ—…och in their assigned Patriarchates which altered at the Pleasure of the Emperours and Synods as the division made after between the Bishops of Antioch Ierusalem and Cesarea sheweth and that which was given to Constantinople from Heraclea Pontus and Asia Christianity was not unknown till Councils or altered as often as they made new decrees And it is a great mistake of them that think that there was little of Christianity save in the Roman Empire The Apostles preached else-where and they preached not in vain There were Churches in Ethiopia the Indies Persia Parthia the outer Armenia Scythia Britain and other parts that were without the Empire but we have no large or particular Histories of them partly because that they were not so much literate and given to writing as the Romans and the Greeks were and partly because they were in Warrs with the Empire or did not communicate by Correspondence with them and partly because their Books were not in any Language which the Greeks or Romans understood How long was it ere the Empire had much acquaintance with the Syriack or Samaritane Persian Arabick or Ethiopick Versions or Books after they were extant and how few of the many Books that by Travellers are said to be in Abassia Armenia or Syria are known to us to this day How little know we of the old Christians of St. Thomas and those parts And how full and satisfactory a Testimony doth Alvarez profess that he saw himself even a large Stone with memorial Inscriptions of it digged up that the Christian Religion had been in China when otherwise he could not hear of one word by Tradition or History that could notifie such a thing How little know we now of the case of Nubia and Tendâ—… while they were great Christian Kingdoms How little know we at this day of the state of the Armenians Georgians Mengrâ—…tians Circassians c. How little was known of the great Empire of Abassia till the Portugals opened the way for Oviedo and his Companions the other day Iacobus de Vitriaco tells us of more Christians in those parts of the World than all the Greeks or Latines when he was at Ierusalem where he had notice of them Brocardus that lived there also tells us as of their great numbers so of their great piety being better men than the very Religious of the Church of Rome and yet how little notice was there then of their Writings or them He saith they were free from the Heresies of Nestorianism and Eutychianism
which we charge them with in Europe and yet the Papists so charge them still that they may seem to have reason for condemning them fearing that their non-subjection to the Pope will not seem enough with impartial men And as to the great Confidence that they seem to place in their succession to St. Peter and Christs words to him on this Rock I will build my Church and to thee I give the Keys c. and feed my sheep I have oft answered it more fully than is fit again to recite but these few hints I would commend to the Reader 1. That we affirm that Peter was among them as a fore-man of a Jury and no more and so Christ spake to the rest in speaking to him and the same power is given to the rest The Church is said to be built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ being the head Corner-stone Is not this as much as is said of St. Peter Christ gave them all the power of Holy Ghost and the remitting and retaining sins binding and loosing which is the Keys which he gave to Peter And they are all sent forth to feed Christs Sheep Now the Fathers give as high Titles oft to others as to the Pope yea and to Peter see what I have cited in my Key for Catholicks pag. 175. 176. and what Gataker hath cited out of Dionysius Tertullian Basil Ierome Augustine Theodoret Gildas Nicephorus c. Cin. 395. 396. 2. Peter never exercised any authority over any of the rest of the Apostles He called them not governed them not There is mention of Paul's reproving him Gal. 2. but none of his reproving them Schismes being among them and greatly lamented they are never directed to unite in Peter as the way to Concord nor to have recourse to him to end them Nay when the over-valuers of Peter made one party in the Schism among the Corinthians Paul seeks to take them off that way and set Peter in the same rank with himself and Apollos as Ministers only by whom they believed calling them Carnal for saying I am of Cephas never calling them to unite in him as the Head of all And had this been necessary what had this been but to betray the Churches 3. The Apostles were never properly Bishops but of a higher rank Bishops were the fixed Over-seers of particular Churches and no one had many But Apostles only planted them and governed them for their Confirmation and so passed on from one to another and had care of many such at once If any one Church might pretend superiority by vertue of succession it would be Ierusalem and next that Ephesus where it is said that Iohn the Beloved Disciple was as Bishop and which hath continued to this day 4. The Apostles as such had no Successors nor as Bishops in any distinct Seats The same Christ that called Peter called the rest and called especially the Beloved Disciple to whom on the Cross he commended his Mother when Peter had denyed him and he promised to be with them to the end of the World But no Bishops on Earth ever pretended to superiority over any other Churches as the Successors of the other eleven Apostles Where are those Seats or where ever were they If the Apostles Successors must rule the Churches as such tell us which be the other eleven and which be their Diocesses and of what extent Nay it is considerable that even in the times of domination there were but five Patriarchates ever set up and not twelve and not one of those claimed Power by vertue of succession from any Apostle Constantinople never pretended to it Alexandria claimed the honour of succession only from St. Mark who was no Apostle And Ierusalem from Iames whom Dr. Hammond laboureth to prove to have been none of the Apostles but a Kinsman of Jesus Only Antioch and Rome claimed succession from Peter and Antioch as his first Seat but they did on that single account claim Power then over other Churches And seeing the Church is built on the Foundation of Apostles and Prophets and that all the Apostles 1 Cor. 12. are mentioned equally as the noblest Foundation Members or Pillars and the People chidden sharply by Paul for making Cephas a Head What reason have we to believe that Peter only hath perpetual Successors fixed to a certain City and that no other of all the Apostles have any such What word of God will prove that Peter hath left his Power at Rome and no other Apostles no not one hath left theirs to any Place or Person on Earth yea and that he left it more to Rome than to Antioch when Antioch claimeth the first succession from him and Rome but the second and when Nilus and others have said so much to make it probable that Peter never was at Rome and when it is certain that Paul was there and those old Fathers that from some word of one of Eusebius his doubtful Authors do say that Peter was at Rome and Bishop there do also say that it was the Episcopal Seat of Paul and when it is certain that no Apostle was any-where a Bishop formaliter but only eminenter as being not fixed nor fixing their Power to any Seat And Dr. Hammond giveth very considerable conjectures That if Peter and Paul were both at Rome they had divers Churches there Paul being the Bishop of the Uncircumcision and Peter of the Circumcision only from whence we may see that the Spirit of God in his Apostles judged that there might be more Churches and Bishops in one City than one much more over a thousand Parishes though as the contrary Spirit prevaileth the contrary Interest and Opinion prevailed with it These things premised the Reader must know that the state of the Controversie between Mr. Terret alias Mr. Iohnson and me is this Finding the Church of Rome in possession of abundance of Errours and Vanities he would not only perswade us that they are of God and have ever been the same because it is so with them now but also concludeth that these Carbuncles are essential to Christianity and the Church and that we cannot prove that we are a Church and Christians unless we prove that we have had from the Apostles a continued succession of their Errours As if a man could not prove himself to be a man unless all his Ancestors from Adam had the French-pox or the Leprosie On the contrary I maintain that the Church of Christ which is his Body is essentiated by true consent to the Baptismal Covenant which is our Christening and integrated by all the additional degrees that this Covenant is expounded in the Creed Lord's Prayer and Christian Decalogue The Lord's Supper is but the same Covenant celebrated by other signs not for Essence but Confirmation That all that consent to the celebrated Baptismal Covenant heartily are Members of the invisible Church and all that profess consent in Sincerity or Hypocrisie are visible Members
Church 6. Christ himself washed his Apostles Feet and taught them to do the like which was used in those hot Countries where it was a needful Act of Ministry but yet it is not essential to the Church 7. Baptism from the beginning as Instituted by Christ was Administred by dipping over Head in Water but you take not that to be essential to the Church 8. The Lord's Day 's holy Observation as Instituted by Christ and his Apostles hath ever been in the Church and yet many of your Doctors do equal it with other Holy Days and make it not essential to the Church 9. Christ and his Apostles distinguish Essentials from Integrals and Accidents in their time therefore they are still to be distinguished And it is a strange Society that hath not ever had Integrals and Accidents Christ Instituting Baptism saith He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved Thus the Essentials Yet he saith Teach them to observe all things whatever I have Commanded you But all those are not Essentials for Christ himself distinguished Tything Mint Annise and Cummin from the great things of the Law And yet saith These ought ye to have done And St. Paul saith The Kingdom of God is not Meat and Drink but Righteousness and Peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost c. And yet more than these were then a Duty All things were to be done decently and in order And yet who ever said but you that all this is essential to the Church Christ by his Apostles instituted that Collections for the Poor should be made on the first Day of the Week yet is not that essential to the Church 10. Afflictions are Accidents of the Church and of Christ's appointment and have been ever there and yet are not essential to it 11. All the numbers of Christians and the higher Degrees of Gifts and Grace have been of Christ and ever in the Church and yet it is not essential to it that Christians be just as many as they have been or of such measures of Gifts and Grace for even Perfection is a Duty 12. Few of your own do think that extreme Unction is essential to the Church and that if it ceased it would be no Church The like may be said of many other things But see how these Men Unchurch themselves For if this be true then the Church of Rome can be no true Church For it hath cast off that which they call Essential Were it but the Cup in the Lords Supper and Publick Prayers in a Known Tongue the change hath Unchurched them These Consequents fall on them that will Unchurch most of the Church of Christ. But Page 55 56. he saith That he doth not say that every such thing must be necessarily believed by every Member No not the belief of the Pope's Supremacy but to such only to whom they are sufficiently propounded Answ. 1. And yet these Men tell our People to affright them That they cannot be saved out of their Church or in our Religion And now it is not essential to believe the Pope's Supremacy 2. But who can ever know what will pass for a sufficient propounding while twenty degrees of Mens Capacities make twenty degrees of Proposal respectively sufficient what Man of Reason can believe that such self-confuting Disputes as yours are a sufficient Proposal of the Pope's Supremacy And sure the Christian Empire of Abassia then had no sufficient Proposal when but lately your Emissaries told them that they never heard from the Pope till now because he could not have access or send to them Q. Whether that Empire be true Christians through so many Ages seeing they received not the Scriptures on the Authoritative Proposal of the Pope or Papal Church and yet confessedly were never bound to believe the Pope's Supremacy 3. By this account all Christians essentially differ from each other in their Religion and Christianity is a word of such monstrous ambiguity that it signifieth as many several Religions as there be persons in the World whose divers Capacities maketh diversity of proposal become necessary or sufficient to them But he saith that these are all essential to the Church though not to the several Members More difficulties still 1. How shall we ever know the Church this way If the belief of the Popes Supremacy be essential to some and only to some how many must they be that so believe Will one serve or one thousand to make all the rest Church-Members that believe it not Or how many will this Leven extend to Why then may not the belief of Italy prove all the World to be the Church 2. How cometh another mans belief to be of such saving use to others If you say that it is not his belief but their own who believe not then all the World is of your Church that want sufficient proposal And Unbelievers are Christians or of the Christian Church so be it they never heard of Christ and so all the unknown World and Americans and most of the Heathens are of your Christian Church And why may not the Pope be saved then without believing his own Supremacy I verily think that there is not one Pope of twenty that believeth his own Infallibility Doubtless some illiterate or ill-bred Popes have had but very defective Proposals of their own Supremacy it being rather affirmed by Flatteries than ever proved to them Pag. 57. Having first called for sense in my words because the Printer had put as for is he turneth his former assertion whatever hath been ever in the Church by Christs institution is essential to it into another Because Christ hath instituted that it should be for ever in the Church it is essential And this yet more plainly shameth the asserter than the former For no man can deny but that Christ hath instituted 1. That every word of the Canonical Scripture should be ever after its existence in the Church 2. And that no Ministers should preach any thing but truth in the Church 3. And that no man should commit any sin at all 4. And that the Eucharist be delivered in both kinds in remembrance of Christ till he come c. And yet sure all this is not essential to the Church Pag 58. He would perswade me that I miscite Fr. Sta. Clara and that he saith not that Infidels may be saved but only those that have not an explicite Faith in Christ through invincible ignorance and that he saith not that it is most of the Doctors Opinions nor that any may be saved who are out of the Church and that my Friends will be sorry to see me so defective in my Citations and he hopes I will mend it in the next Ans. That I will if plain words transcribed be any amending but I cannot amend your deceitful dealing 1. I did not say that Sta. Clara saith They may be saved out of the Church but that such are in your Church and so may be saved who indeed are no
Churches from the beginning of the Christian Church nor was Rome it self so but ever since their beginnings they have been visible sometimes obeying the Pope and sometimes rejecting him the Abassines and several other Extra-imperial Churches never obeyed him The most of the Churches of the Empire the Eastern and African sometimes obeyed him as the chief in the Empire by the Laws of the Empire amd sometimes they cast him off when the Eastern Empire cast him off but they never obeyed him as the Soveraign Bishop of the whole World III. In the third sense of the word Congregation as it signifieth the Universal Church I confess that I can shew you no Universal Church now visible rejecting the Pope for the Universal leaveth out no part though a corrupt part and while Papists own him I cannot say that the Universal Church disowneth him but I can prove 1. That the Primitive Universal Church never owned any Universal Head or Governour but Christ and his twelve Apostles whose indefinite charge may be called Universal 2. That the Universal Church never owned the Roman Universal Soveraignty 3. That the far greatest part of the Church doth not own it at this day and therefore if the whole may be denominated from the major part we may say that now the Universal Church disowneth him And now Reader answer these like Sophisms and you have answered this man of Art 1. No Congregation of Christians hath been perpetually visible but that which acknowledgeth the Patriarchs in the Empire at least heretofore Ergo no other is the true Church of Christ. Answ. 1. But another is part and the best part of the Church of Christ. 2. And none that doth or ever did acknowledge those Patriarchs was the whole Church 3. And none of the Church acknowledged them at first before they were erected So 2. Inst. No Congregation of Christians hath been perpetually visible but that which condemneth the Monothelites the Nestorians the Eutychians the Audians the Luciferians the Quartodecimani c. Ergo no other is the true Church Answ. 1. Part of the Church condemn them and part never heard of them And before they rose none of the Church condemned them So another Instance is No Congregation of Christians hath been perpetually visible but that which Administreth the Eucharist only in one kind without the Cup and which useth publick Prayers in an unknown Tongue and which forbiddeth the reading the Scripture translated without special License c. Ergo no other is the true Church Answ. 1. Only a corrupt part now doth these The most discover it and none were guilty of it in many Generations Doth there need any other Answer to such palpable Sophismes His Argument plainly should run thus No Congregation of Christians hath been perpetually visible but that which now owneth the Trayterous Usurpation of the Pope and the Council of Trent and of Lateran and part of whose Religion is for exterminating or burning all that will not renounce all belief of Humane Senses in believing Transubstantiation and for casting out Princes that execute not this and absolving Subjects from their Oathes of Allegiance to them and which hath corrupted the Doctrine Worship and Government of Christ Ergo no other is the true Church Answ. A diseased part of the Church only is guilty of this now and the whole Church was far from it heretofore But pag. 83. he telleth me that he meaneth neither one present Assembly nor yet one as united in one visible Humane Head but abstracting from that also be it but truly and properly one whencesoever the Unity is drawn 't is all alike to the solution of the Argument Answ. Then sure our business is in a hopeful way if not as good as ended Remember this and fly not from it Our Unity is in Christ our Head One King maketh us one Kingdom All Christians are one Body of Christ. Yea moreover we are one in all the seven Points of Unity required by the Holy Ghost Eph. 4. viz. We have 1. One Body of Christ not of the Pope 2. One Spirit 3. One hope of our Calling viz. Eternal Glory 4 One Lord without a Vice-Christ 5. One Faith summarily in the Creed and integrally in the Holy Scriptures 6. One Baptisme or solemnised Baptismal Covenant 7. One God and Father of all who is above all and through all and in us all Yea as to the Integrals though our Grace hath various degrees we all receive the inspired Prophets Apostles and Evangelists Authority and Doctrine and the ordinary Pastors and Teachers that are sent by the Holy Ghost and called by the way which God hath appointed though we receive not an Usurper that maketh himself the Governour of the whole World in Title while he Governeth not the tenth part of it nor any according to God's Law and who is oft obtruded by Whores and Murders and is a wicked Slave of Satan so judged by his own General Councils We acknowledge that there are among us different Opinions but neither for Kind or Number comparable to the differences of the Papal Sectaries among themselves Not for Kind such as about Murder Adultery Perjury Lying False-witness yea about the Love of God it self are by the Iansenists charged on the Iesuits and proved out of their express words Nor such as Mr. Clarkson hath collected from the express words of their most famous Doctors of all Parties Nor such about King-killing dissolving Subjects Oathes c. as H. Fowlis hath gathered from the express words of your greatest Doctors And for Number all the Sects in the World of Christians set together have not half the Controversies and contentious Writings against each other as your Schoolmen and other Writers of your Church have For our parts we look not that our Union should be perfect till our wisdom and holiness and patience and we our selves be perfect They that know but in part will err in part and differ in part We believe that there are diversities of Gifts but the same Spirit and differences of Administrations but the same Lord and diversity of Operations but the same God who worketh all in all For as the Bedy is one and hath many Members and all the Members of that one Body being many are one Body so also is Christ For by one Spirit we are Baptised into one Body and have been all made to drink into one Spirit Thus are we the Body of Christ not of the Pope and Members in particular And God hath set some in this Body the Church first Apostles not first a Vice-Christ secondly Prophets thirdly Teachers but no Universal Vicar-Head All these are Members and should so live in love that there be no Schisme in the Body But pag. 84. the Man is not satisfied though I name them what I mean by These Churches united in one Christ. Answ. How should I make a Man know that is unwilling or how but by naming them by their Country and Profession I mean All the Christians of
Andrew cited by me elsewhere and many a Protestant that taketh Peter to have been among the Apostles as the Fore-man of a Jury to the rest would say the same words But he intimateth that the Pope is Peter's Successor True he so supposed him as a Bishop but not as an Apostle and therefore not in equality of Power And common reasâ—…n will interpret him in the common sense of all the Councils and those times viz. as having the first place in the Imperial Councils and being the chief of the Patriarchs in the Empire but not as being the Bishop of all the World There is no probability that this one Man extended his Power further than the Empire and so that he was a Papist and yet you have not proved one in 400 years and more But he saith had not the Council of Ephesus consented they would have contradicted one imposing a Superiour and a Iudge Answ. 1. They never took him for a Judge any further than as the first Patriarch had the first Seat and Vote 2. Cyril was there the first the Legates coming after the Decrees past 3. Cyril was glad of the consent of the West it being become too much of the cause of the day Whether Nestorius or he was the wiser Speaker and should prevail 4. What 's this to the Government of all the World Shew us when that Council subjected any without the Empire to the Pope or to themselves 5. Yea in the Empire he is blind that seeth not that Councils were above Popes and when the major Vote carried it they condemned Popes as well as others as they did Honorius and many since Pag. 90. You have another Instance of his saying and unsaying When I named the Churches of Ethiopia India the outer Armenia c. that were not under the Popes jurisdiction he faith I must mean that they were never under it for if they were under him in any Age and for any time since Christ you can never make them an instance of those who were perpetually in all Ages a visible Congregation of Christians not acknowledging the Popes Supremacy Ans. And yet this same man said before that he did not put me to prove that in all Ages they did not own the Pope but that they that own him not now had been a Church any other way truly united who can answer him that saith and unsaith and changeth his Cause as the occasion tempteth him I have oft told him 1. I prove that the extra-imperial Churches never were subject to the Pope unless when any of them by conquest fell under the Empire or on such an odd accident in some singular instance which I have enumerated in my Naked Popery 2. And that no Church in the whole World owned him as the Bishop of all the World for above 400 if not above 600 years 3. And that those that owned him not as Britain at the first and owned him after and disowned him again were still Christian Churches united in Christ. But the man is loth to understand and pag. 91. saith You mean all other extra-imperial Nations or some If all I find the quite contrary for the Gothes successively Inhabitants of Spain never acknowledged themselves Subjects of the Empire who yet are now subject to the Roman Bishop and consequently were and are sometime under him Ans. I have oft and plain enough told you my meaning This is very cautelously written 1. If the Gothes in Spain were not subject to the Empire the old Inhabitants were before the Gothes conquered them and the Gothes themselves when by Theodosius's leave they dwelt in Thrace and near it And though the Gothes became their Masters they did not exterminate all the Inhabitants who had been used to some subjection to the Pope 2. Yet how little Spain then depended on the Pope is known even by the current of all the Gothick Councils the Toletane Hispalense c. where their Kings called them and were oft present and made certain parts of their Canons and were over and over magnified and Canons made for their honour and security and the due election of Successors when there was not a word of subjection to the Pope 3. And you do well in affirming no more but that Spain is now and therefore sometime under the Pope that they are now so indeed their Inquisition witnesseth nor was it ever in my thoughts to deny it But what of that 〈◊〉 He addeth And the Swedes and Danes though now they reject all obedience to him yet in the year 1500 they acknowledged him c. Ans. Very true and what of all this no doubt but long before 1500 the Pope got possession of the Western Churches we doubt not of it But he tells me that to maintain my Cause I must shew that all the extra-imperial Churches were from under the Pope Ans. My Causâ—… is not of your stating but my own I maintain 1. That the Pope was never made the Bishop of all the World 2. And that the Primacy so much mentioned in the ancient Canons was only over or in the Imperial Churches and was a humane institution and that the Councils and Emperours never pretended to give or acknowledge any more Nor did the Councils themselves and all the Patriarchs pretend to any more nor dream of Governing all the World 3. That the Churches that were from the beginning without the Empire were none of them subject to the Pope for above 400 if not 500 or 600 years 4. That the Empire of Abassia and all the Eastern and Southern extra-imperial Churches Persia India c. were never under the Pope to this day save that the Portugâ—…ls and Spaniards have lately got some Footing in part of the Indies 5. That the whole Greek Church the Armenians Georgians Syrians Egyptians c. never were under the Pope as Pope that is as the Universal Bishop of all the World but only as the primate of the Empire 6. That even in that relation he was not properly the Governour of any of the Diocesses of the other Patriarchs nor the other distinct as Diocesses Carthage Iustinianâ—… c. but the prime Patriarch that had the first Seat in Councils which put in and out Bishops at their pleasure with the Emperours will even Patriarchs and all 7. That those that were under him for some time as Britain were divers of them from under him before and after And yet that the Reader may not mis-understand the matter and this mans importunity I must repeat the exceptions laid down in my Naked Popery pag. 106. 107. and tell him what I grant him 1. Some Cities that were near to Scythia and Persiâ—… had Bishops to whom some Neighbour Scythians and Persians might be voluntary Subjects 2. Some Cities and Countries were sometime under the Roman Power and sometimes under the Enemies Persians Parthians Armenians Gothes Vandales as Africa c. when they were of the Empire their Bishops came to Councils and when they were under Heathen
and the claim of the Monarchy of all the Earth was then but in the Egg even after 600 years and came not into the open World till about the time that Mahomet came else undoubtedly your Lyturgick Commemorations and Prayers would have had some mention of the Universal Bishop as well as our Prayers mention the King and Bishops especially when it was then the Custom to record and commemorate all the Patriarchs and greatest Prelates and the Imposition would have come forth as by his Authority as the Trent symbolical Oath doth and as our Lyturgie doth by Authority of the King and Parliament and Convocation Surely this is much against you Because he knew not the Scholiastes mentioned by Usher he questioneth his Citations about the change of the Ethiopick Lyturgie I next added that Constantin's Letters of Request to the King of Persia for the Churches there mentioned by Eusebius in Vit. Const. do intimate that then the Roman Bishop Ruled not there To this he saith Why so The Pope might command and the Emperour intreat Answ. 1. This sheweth that the Emperours who used to call Councils called none out of Persia for they had no Power there 2. And withal Why is there not a Syllable in any Church-History or credible Author that we have heard of that mentioneth that ever the Pope sent one Command into Persia or that ever he corrected suspended or deposed any Bishop there or excommunicated any there though indeed that had been no sign of Governing Power seeing an equal may renounce Communion with an equal Heretical Society or Person Why is there no mention that ever any General Council did any of this No nor ever took any such exterior Churches into their care any otherwise than as Neighbours to help them nor never made any one Governing Canon for them And I pray you How would the Persian King that must be intreated by Constantine have taken it to have the Religion of his Kingdom under the Command of one of Constantine's Subjects But you have the affirmative let us see your proof that ever the Pope Governed the Persian Churches Next I noted that Even at home here the Scots and Britains obeyed not the Pope even in the days of Gregory above 600 but resisted his changes and refused Communion with his Ministers To this he replyeth That 1. This was their errour as our disobedience now is and Beda so chargeth it on them that it followeth not that they had never been under the Pope 2. That they also held that which was condemned as a Heresie at Nice yet it followeth not that they were not under that Council's Authority 3. They also refused Communion with the English Converts Answ. These words signifie what you would have us believe but let us try what more 1. Seeing you can bring no word of proof that ever they had been subject to the Pope before And 2. Seeing they were found utterly Aliens to his subjection And 3. Seeing they were found in possession of Opinions and Customs quite contrary to the Pope's 4. And seeing they pleaded Tradition for this 5. And seeing they renounced Communion with those that came to subjugate them And 6. Seeing the Pope's Ministers never pretended to any ancient possession in pleading with them as you may see in Beda 7. And seeing we read in Beda Gildas and others that they had heretofore made use of the assistance of the French Church by Germanus and Lupus as more Neighbours without any mention of subjection to Rome Let the Reader that careth what he believeth now judge whether ever the Scots and Britains were before subject â—…o the Pope 2. It is false that the Council of Nice condemned their Easter-practice as a Heresie though they united on a contrary resolution And as it is certain that that Council had no authority out of the Empire and so not over Britain when it was out of the Empire so this British Custome plainly intimateth that Britain had not received the decrees of that Council 3. That they refused the Communion of the English as half Papists it is no great wonder And yet I remember no proof of that at all in Beda but only that taking the English for Pagan-Tyrants that conquered and opprest them they refused to join with Augustine the Monki in preaching to them It 's like taking it for a hopeless attempt in them that were odious to them and open Enemies and not to be trusted Next I recite the words of their Reinerius Cont. Waidens Catal. Bibl. Pat. To. 4. p. 773. The Churches of the Aâ—…enians Ethiopians and Indians and the rest which the Apostles converted are not under the Church of Rome One would think plain words He replyeth No more are you what then our question is not of what is done de facto for the â—…present but what de jure ought to be done or hath been done The Author saith not These Nations were never under the Church of Rome but are not now Aus It 's no wonder that you desire to be the expositors of the Scriptures and all other Books for that is the only device to make them speak what you would have them If Gregory the Seventh be the Expositor of St. Paul no doubt but St. Paul shall be for the power of Popes to depose Kings and Emperours If Innocent the Third be his Expositor no doubt but by Bread 1 Cor. 11. he meaneth no Bread and by this Cup no Wine And I confess there is greater reason that you should be the infallible Expositors of Reynerius than of Christ or Paul for he was more your own and under your Government But this Reynerius was an unhappy speaker and if he were here I would ask him 1. Why do you speak in such a manner as any ordinary Reader would think that you speak de jure de facto and yet mean de facto only 2. Why speak you so as an ordinary Reader would think that you spake dâ—… statu statuto when you mean but de praeente statu inordinato 3. Why speak you of so great a sin as Rebellion against the Vice-Christ and Schism from the Universal Church without any note of reprehension 4. Why name you the old extra imperial Churches only and not those that since renounced Rome as all the Greek Church if you meant but what you charge the Greek Church with Had you not more easily fastened a charge of Rebellion on all those Eustern Churches that sometimes acknowledged some primacy of Rome than on those that the World knoweth were never under him 5. And why do you say also in general and the rest which the Apostles converted are not under the Church of Rome if there were not some special reason for it We took your meaning to be Though those in the Empire and many without it that were turned from Infidelity by the Popes Subjects be under the Church of Rome the first by the Laws of the Empire and Councils and the latter
Virgin Mary and yet you take it for a controversie c. are these as sufficiently proposed as that there is a God or Christ 3. When Petavius citeth the words of most of the Doctors or Fathers that wrote before the Council of Nice and of Eusebius himself that was of the Council and subscribed it as being for Arrianisme or dangerously favouring it did all these Fathers think that the proposal of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was as sufficient as of a God or Christ. § 15. He taketh upon him to clear his Argument by two deluding instances which suppose an equality in the revelation But he that knoweth not 1 that it was long before all the Canonical books were equally known to be Gods word 2. And that yet it is not equally certain what Councils are true and what Traditions 3. And that there is great difference between one Text of Scripture and another in intelligible places else why do their Expositions so disagree yea of Councils too 4. And that the Hereticks have still pleaded Scripture and Tradition and Councils as well as the Orthodox as the Eutychians c. did the Council of Nice all equally professing to believe Scripture Tradition and true Councils but not equally understanding them I say he that knoweth not all this knoweth not the matters of Fact which should be known in this Dispute But how he will excuse the Papists from Heresie by his Reasoning I know not e. g. Christ Instituting his Supper saith equally 1. This is my Body and This is the New Testament 2. And equally saith Take Eat and Drink this The Papists 1. Do not believe that literally this Cup is the New Testament though equally said 2. Nor do they believe that they must Drink of it though equally Commanded Ergo by W. I's Arguing The Papists believe not that the Bread is literally Christs Body or that it must be Eaten because of Christs Truth or Authority that spake it else they would have believed both § 16. He addeth a Supposition like the rest that a Calvinist is assured that the Pope is not the Antichrist by the same Authority which he acknowledgeth to be the sufficient proposer of the Articles of his Faith And yet here may lie one of his usual Equivocations The Authority of the Author and prime Revealer of the Gospel is one and the Authority of the prime Instrumental Revealers is another The first is Gods the second is the Prophets and Apostles Tell us where either of these say that the Pope it not Antichrist But the Authority of a distant Messenger and Teacher is of a third rank A Drunken or Fornicating Priest may be such a Messenger or Teacher and may give an Infidel those Reasons of the Faith which by Gods Blessing may bring him to Believe And it is possible such a Priest and a Synod of such may say that the Pope is not Antichrist and another Synod may say he is § 17. I came next to Answer a question of his own Whether I take the Church of Rome and the Protestants to be one Church I Answered that They have two Heads and We but one As they are meer Christians united in Christ they are one Church with us as Papists united in the Pope they are not And if any so hold the Papacy as not really to hold Christianity those are not of the Christian Church with us otherwise they are though a Corrupt Diseased Erroneous part To this he saith who ever called a King and his Viceroy a Captain and Lieutenant two Heads The Pope is a dependent Officer Answ. 1. But if you distinguish between a Visible Head and an Invisible and say that the Pope only is the Visible Head of the Church as Visible and that Christ is only the Invisible Head by Influx and that it were a Monstrous Body if it had not such a Visible Head as you do 2. And if this Visible Head be an Usurpation never owned by Christ then I have reason to distinguish the Policy which is of Gods making from that which is an Usurpation and of Mens relations accordingly If any King should say I am a Vice-God or Gods Viceroy to Govern all the Earth â—…nd that by Gods Appointment and none can be saved that Obey me not I would distinguish between the World or particular Persons as Gods Subjects and as this Vice-Gods Subjects § 18. But he saith Is it possible for two Persons to be Papists and one to destroy his Christianity and the other not Answ. Yes very possible and common That is one holdeth those Errors which by consequence subvert some Article of the Christian Faith but as to the Words not understood or not understanding the consequences or only speculatively and at the same time holdeth the subverted Articles not discerning the contradiction fastly and practically another doth the contrary Even as a Monothelite or a Nestorian or Eutychian may either be one that only as to the Words or superficially erreth and in sence or practically holds the Truth or one that is contrary This should seem no strange thing to you for even a Man that professeth only Christianity may do it but Nomine tenus not understanding it or superficially and not practically and be no true Christian indeed § 19. When I exprest my hope that even he and I as Christians are of one Church he will not believe it 1. Because I am of a Church by my self neither of theirs nor any other part 2. Because I have no Faith Answ. It seems then that meer Christianity is no Faith and that there are none of the meer Christian Church but I. But who will believe the latter and when will he prove either An Answer to W. J's Seventh CHAPTER § 1. TO his Question Why we separated from them I Answered that as they are Christians we separate not from them As Papists we were never of them but our Fore-fathers thought Repentance of Sin to be no Sin If by Popery they separate from Christianity they are damnable Separatists if they do not we are of the same Church whether they will or not 〈◊〉 To this he saith That We separate from them as much as the Pelagians Donatists Acacians Luciferians Nestorians and Eutychians did from the Church Answ. 1. The Doctrinal Errors and the Separation are of different consideration The Pelagians Erred as some Dominicans say the Iesuites do The Donatists like the Papists appropriated the Church to their own Bishops and Party we do none of this Lucifer Calaritanus was too Zealous against the Arrians not communicating with them upon so short Repentance as others did But they went not so far as Crab saith the Roman Council in Sylvester's dayâ—… did that Received no Repentance before forty Years Nor so far as the honest Elebertine Council in the number of Years of Mens exclusion from the Communion I take Lucifer for Erroneous and Schismatical but not comparable to the Papists who err far more and yet separate from most of the
shall be saved that holdeth all the Essentials of Christianity truly and practically 5. I have proved that your Definitions absolve more from 〈◊〉 and Schism than I do But it 's here to be noted That this Man maketh multitudes to be under the Papal Head that are no Subjects of Christ our Head and so that the Pope hath a Church of his own that is none of Christs Church § 7. I Noted That either their Church hath defined that 〈◊〉 and Sâ—…hismaticks are no parts of the Church or not If not how can he stand to it and impose it on me If they have then their Doctors that say the contrary named by Bellarmine are all 〈◊〉 themselves He saith None of ours ever held them parts as you do that is united to Christ by Faith and Charity Answ. Is not this Man hard put to it All this while he hath been Disputing us and all called by their Usurping censure Hereticks out of the Church Visible and calling on me to prove the perpetuity of our Church Visible and telling me that without a more Visible Head than Christ it is not Visible And yet now it is but the Invisible Church as Headed by Christ and endowed with true Faith and Charity which these Doctors of theirs exclude Hereticks and Schismaticks from § 8. I said Arrians are no Christians denying Christs Essence He replyeth True and so do all Hâ—…reticks I Answer If indeed they did so not only in words not understood but in the undâ—…tood sence so that this is really their belief and really Exclusive of the contrary Truth I place no such Hereticks in the Church He proveth his charge thus Whosoever denyeth Christs most Infallible Veracity and Divine Authority denyeth somewhat Essential to Christ but so doth every Heretick properly called Answ. Away with such Hereticks as do so indeed For the Minor he cometh to the old obscurity Whosoever denyeth that to be true which is sufficiently propounded to him to be Revealed by Christ denyeth Christs Verity and Divine Authority but so doth every Heretick Answ. I have oft enough shewed 1. That the Argument is useless because no Man can judge of the Sufficiency of Proposals till they come to very high degrees as to the capacities of other Men. 2. That the Major is false For a Man that doubteth not of Christs Verity and Authority may not understand and so may deny many Truths sufficiently propounded hindering the understanding of them by sloth senfuality partiality prejudice or other faults Can any Man doubt of this 3. That his Minor also is false He may be a Heretick that denyeth that which is not sufficiently proposed if his own crime either blinding his mind or forfeiting better proposals cause the insufficiency § 9. I noted how they charge one another with Pelagianisme And he saith Not in the point of Original Sin Answ. And is all the rest come now to be no Heresie Was it for nothing else that they were judged Hereticks The rest should have as fair play if your interest were but as much for it § 10. But saith he Who ever before you said that the Catholick-Church could be divided it self when it is a most perfect unity A grand novelty of yours Answ. This is because I said that some make divisions in the Church that divide not from it much less from the whole I proved before that in this sense Paul usually speaketh against Schisme or Divisions As when he tells the Corinthians of the divisions among them c. But this man would make Scripture and common sense and reason to be grand novelties may there not be divisions in a House in a Kingdom in an Army in a particular Congregation as that at Corinth and that after which Clement wrote his Epistle to heal Have there not been abundance of such at Alexandria Antioch Constantinople was there no Division in the Church of Rome when part cleaved to one Pope and part to another for above forty years Did the Councils of Constance and Basil meet to heal their Schismes upon mistake when there was no such thing And do all their Historians erroneously number their Schisms Reader pardon my oft answering such bold abuses These are their arguers that hope to subvert England § 11. And his reason is such as would shew him a Catharist viz. The Church is a most perfect Unity If so than all grace is perfect which is necessary to perfect unity Then the Popes and Anti-Popes the warring Papalines and Imperialists the Iesuites Dominicans and Iansinists are all at perfect Unity Then there is no disagreement of Judgement Will or Practice among any Papists in the world no Volumes written against other Alas how far are such words from proving it or from ending their present Controversies or Wars Watson and Preston had scarce perfect unity with Father Parsons and the Iesuites Doth perfect unity draw all the blood between France and the house of Austria or in France between King Hen. â—…d and the Leaguers It is enough for me to believe that all true Christians have a true unity in Christ with each as his members but that this Unity among themselves is sadly imperfect and so was when they had all the contentions in many General Councils and when the people have oft fought it out to blood about Religion and the choice of Bishops at Alexandria Rome c. Is this perfection It is in heaven that we hope for perfect unity where all is perfect § 12. I told him Heresie being a personal crime the Nations cannot be charged with it Without better proofs He saith if he hath 1. the testimony of one of our Writers Answ. Alas poor Kingdoms of Christians that can be proved Hereticks if Pet. Heylin or any one of our Writers do but say it 2. He tells a story of Prestor Iohn sending to Rome for instruction Answ. Confuted so oft and by their own Writers that it 's a shame to repeat it Nor doth that prove them so much as Papists much less Hereticks 3. That their Canon of the Mass proveth them Eutychians in that they name the three former Councils and not that of Calcedon Answ. Small proof will serve the turn with such willing men What if Dioscorus made them believe that That Council did condemn the doctrine of Cyril which he verily thought was the same which he defended and rejected the Nicene Creed which he appealed to and that they divided Christ Might not the consent of the neighbour Egyptian Bishops put them out of conceit with that Council though they owned no Heresie Do not your Writers now ordinarily quit them of such Heresie Do they that disown the Councils of Constance or Basil own all the Errors or Schismes which They condemned You justifie the Abassines when you tell men that your calumnies have no better show of truth § 13. Erasmus laments the Age when it became a matter of the highest wit and subtilty to be a Christian. This seemeth about Cyrils dayes when
and yet be punished if he do not come to Church and communicate 2. Lament Reader to think what engines Clergy-tyranny hath made against Christiaâ—… Love Peace and Concord to set the world into a war If the Council for want of understanding a point of doubtful words pronounce such words Heresie all people for feaâ—… of being burnt and damned must fly from all as hereticks that they think are for those condemned words All our Plowmen and women must be supposed to know that it is heresie e. g. to say that Christ hath but one will though the speaker mean objectively one or else One by Union of the divine and humane nature or to say that it was not God that was conceived and suffered and dyed and was passible when he meaneth only formalâ—…ter not As God but onâ—… he that is God and then every family must have an inquisition and people must fâ—… from one another before any judgment Doth not this give every lad and woman somâ—… power of the keyes and every subject a power of judging Kings and Judges 3. But mark Reader how sin condemneth it self as envy eateth its own flesh e. g. general Council condemneth Pope Eugenius as an Heretick or Iohn XXIII or others Tâ—… whole Church of Rome continued in communion and subjection to this condemned Herâ—…tick as they did with Honorius Therefore by their own sentence the whole Church 〈◊〉 Rome must be taken for Hereticks And if so 4. See how they justifie us for separating from them when they judge us hereticks themselves if we communicate with them Alas if a wrangling proud Clergy have but ignorance and pride enough to call Gods servants Berengarians Wicklefists Waldenses Lutherans Zuinglians Calvinists Iconoclasts Luciferians Quartodecimani c. hereticks all families and neighbourhoods are presently bound to fly from one another as if they had the plague or were enemies And must subjection come in for heresie If you call our King a heretick must all his subjects be taken for heretiâ—…ks for having communion and subjection to him Will the Popes chargeâ—… yea or real heresie disoblige us from Subjection And yet will you pretend to be loyal subjects § 21. I gave him the proof that he before called for from Thomas à Iesu Paulâ—… Veriditus Harris of Dublin against Usher that their writers vindicate the Greeks from heresie To which he saith that I could not but know that he meant of the modern Greeks as hereticks and not of the ancient fathers of which Bernard Aquinas Paul Harris speak Answ. This Answer hath a very bold face if it do not blush 1. It was the words of Thomas à sancto Iesu de convers Gent. a late writer that I recited to whose testimony as his he giveth not one word of answer And Thom. in the words cited expressely speaketh of the present Greeks and it is the very scope of his writing 2. Thomas cited ex junioribus Azorius 1. Iustit Moral l. 8. c. 20. To which he giveth not a word of answer 3. Paul Harris saith that when the Greeks had explicated their à Patre per filium viz. in the Council at Florence they were found to believe very orthodoxely and catholickly yeâ—… doth this man say that Harris speaks of the ancient Greeks expressely contrary both to his drisâ—… and words Is there any dealing with these false hereticaters It 's well that no Council hath anathematized falshood and calumny for heresies else we must have no communion with such that have no better meanes to dispute down christian Love and Concord Yea what need I more testimony than that Council of Florence it self which so judged and was supposed to heal the breach by explications Nor is it true that Bernard and Aquinas spake not of the Greeks in their times as owning the same cause that these do now § 22. I told him if Greeks and Latines will divide the Church and damn each other they shall not draw us into their guilt He saith again that the Church cannot be divided it is so perfectly One Answ. If I have not shamed the Saying let me bear the shame though we say that it cannot have any part totally divided from Christ for then it were no part and therefore none is divided relatively or really from the whole body But if the parts may not have sinful divisions from each other secundum quid Paul told the Corinthians amiss and the Papists Historians much mistook that talkt of about 40 Schisms at Rome and of the Popes adherents when part of the body had one head and part another for so long a time and to such sad effects § 23. Next I cited him the express words of their own Florentine Council professing that the Greeks and Latines were found upon conference to mean the same thing To which he saith 1. That it was but a few of them and that Marcus Ephesus dissented 2. Thaâ—… they revolted when they returned home Answ. 1. See still how they fight against their selves The seeming concord of this Council which did the Pope who was newly condemned and deposed by a great general Council more service than ever any did them is the great pretense of their false boasting that the Greek Church is subject to the Pope And yet he teaches us truly to say that it was but a few and that Marcus Eph. dissented and that they stood not to it when they came home The known truth is that the Emperor in distress constrained some to dissemble in hope of relief of which when he failed the submission was at an end And the Church never consented to it 2. But as to the point in hand it is not the Greeks recovery from an error that the Council mentioneth but the discovery of their meaning which was found to be Orthodox And though they yet use not the Romans phrase they never retracted the sense in which they were found to be orthodox § 24. Next he citing Nilus that the Greeks broke off from the Latines for the filioque alone I recited Nilus his title and words at large professing that There is no other cause of dissention between the Latin and Greek Churches but that the Pope refuseth to deferre the cognisance and judgment of that which is controverted to a general Council but he will sit the sole Master and Iudge of controversie which is a thing aliene to the Lawes and actions of the Apostles and Fathers The cause of the disserenâ—… saith he is not the sublimity of the point exceeding mans capacity for other matters that have divers times troubled the Church have been of the same kind This therefore is not the cause of the dissention much lesse the Scripture But who the fault is in any one may easily tell that is well in his wits Nor is it because the Greeks 〈◊〉 claim the Primacy N. B. He mentioneth that the Pope succeedeth Petâ—… only as a Bishop or dained by him as many other Bishops originally ordained by him do
and that his primacy is nâ—… governing power nor given him by Peter but by Princes and Councils which he copiouâ—… proveth To this he saith 1. that yet this may stand with the â—…ioque being the first cause Answ. 1. But the question was of the sole cause 2. He denyeth it to be any cause but only an Occasion and the Popes usurpatâ—…on to be the only Cause 3. Is it not known that the Quarrel and Breach began long before about the Title of universal Bishop though the Greeks did not then excommunicate you 2. He saith that By this it 's implied that the Greeks agree with them in all things save the Popes Sovereignty Answ. Doth it follow that because he saith that this only is the cause of the division of your Churches therefore there are no other disagreements all sober Christians have learnt to forbear excommunications and separations when yet there are many disagreements and we never denyed but the Greeks agree more with you than they ought and specially in striving who shall be great § 25. To his repeated words that all these were not distinct congregations c. I told him again that we are for no congregations distinct from Christians as such To which he replyeth again 1. That no hereticks say they depart from the Church as Christian. Answ. But if they do so it 's no matter though they do not say so Whoever departeth from the Church for somewhat Essential to Christianity departeth from it as Christian but you say your self that all hereticks depart from the Church for somewhat Essential to Christianity Ergo c. Object Then they are Apostates Answ. Apostates in the common sense are those that openly renounce Christianity in terms as such but those that renounce any essential part are Apostates really though but secundum quid and noâ—… the usuall sense 2. He intreateth me to name him the first Pope that was the Head of the whole Church in the world Answ. 1. There never was any such for the whole Church never owned him Abussia Persia India c never was governed by him to this day and not past a third or fourth part is under him now 2. But I must name the first that claimed it had I lived a thousand years at every Popes elbow I would have ventured to conjecture but it is an unreasonable motion to make to me that am not 70 years old I must confess my ignorance I know not who was the first man that was for the Sacrament in one kind only without the cup nor who first brought in praying in an unknown tongue or Images in Churches nor who first changed the custome of adoring without genuflexion on the Lords dayes I leave such Taskes to Polydore Virgil de Invent. rerum Little know I who was the first proud Pope or Heretical or Simoniacal or Infidel Pope it satisfies me to know that 1. It was long otherwise 2 And that it came in by degrees nemo repentè sit pessâ—…mus 3. And that it should not be so The rest of his charge against the Greeks c. requireth no answer instead of doing it he tells me he has proved there must be governours of the whole Church which if he had done as to any Universal Head he might have spared all the rest of his labour § 26. I thought a while that he had answered all my book but I find that he slips over that which he had no mind to meddle with and among others these following words you may judge why P. 115. Many of the Greeks 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 A worthy Patriarch of Constantinople who sent us by Sir Tho. Roe our Alexandrian Sept. and whose confession is published And why is not He as much the Greek Church as Ieremias 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 Gabriel's name and wrote thus of the Pope in his Letters to Sigismund King of Poland An. 1600. Perspiciat Mojestas tua nos cum majoribus c. Your Majesty may see that we with our Ancestors are not ignorant of the Roman Pope whom you pray us to acknowledge nor of the Patriarch of Constant. and the rest of the Bishops of the Apostolical Stats There is one universal Head which is our Lord Iesus Christ. Another there cannot be unlesse it be a two-headed body or rather a monster of a body You may see most serene King that I may say nothing of that Florentine Council as a thing worthy of silence that we departed not from the opinions and traditions of the East and West which by seven General Councils they consigned and obsigned to us but that they departed who are daily delighted with novelties In the same letter he commendeth Cyril and what can a Protestant say more against the Vice-Christ and your novelties and the false pretended submission of the Greeks So much to that which he calleth his First part of his Book An Answer to W. J's second Part of his Reply § 1. IN this which he calls his Second Part there is so much of meer words or altercation and of his false interpretation of some particular histories and citations that should I answer it fully it would be a great snare to the Reader 1. To weary him 2. To lose the matter in controversie in a wood of words 3. And to suppose us both to strive about circumstances and so to cast it by that I shall not lose so much of my time to so ill a purpose All that I desire of the Reader that would have a particular answer is 1. That he remember the answer that is already given to much of it 2. That he observe that almost all his citations signifie no more than 1. That both the Romans and other Patriarchs were long striving who should be the greatest and therefore intermeddling with as many businesses as they could 2. That the supream Church-power being then placed by consent and by the Emperors in Councils the five Patriarchs ought to be at these Councils when they were Universal as to the Empire 3. That Rome had the first place in order of these Patriarchs or Seats 4. That the eastern Bishop when opprest by Arrlans and persecutions did fly for council and countenance to the Roman Emperors who held orthodox and to the Roman Bishops as the first Patriarchs and as having interest in the Emperors he that was one of the greatest might help the oppressed to some relief having an orthodox Emperor by which means Constantius was constrained and Athanasius restored by the threatning of a war by the western Emperor and not by the authority of the Pope And the like aid was oft sought from Alexandria and Antioch 5 That this man and the rest of them straineth all such words as
sound any respect to the Bishop of Rome any reverence of his place and judgment any counsel that he giveth to any any help that any sought of him as signifying his Government of all the Empire 6. That he feigneth all such interest or power in the Empire to be a Monarchical Government of all the world 7. That he to these ends leadeth men into verbal quarrels about the sense of many passages in history and fathers where he knoweth that the vulgar cannot judge nor any that are not well versed in all those books which most preachers themselves have not sufficient leisure for 8. That contrary to the notorious evidence of histories he maintaineth that no Councils were called without the authority of the Roman Bishop when the Emperors ordinarily called them by sending to each Patriarch to summon those of his circuit to such a place and the Bishops of Alexandria and Constant. had more hand in calling them till 700 or 800 if not much longer than the Pope had 9. If the Reader can trie all our passages here about by the books themselves not taking scraps but the main drift of Church-history and the particular authors I will desire no more of him than to read them himself if not neither to believe the report of W. I. or me as certain to him For how can he know which of us reports an author truly but to keep to such evidences of Reason and Scripture as he is capable of judging of § 2. When I said that the Emperor Theódòsius 2d gave sufficient testimony and those that adhere to Dioscorus how little in those days they believed the Popes infallibility or sovereignty when they excommunicated him and the Emperor and â—…ivil Officers bare Dioscorus He doth over and over tell me how I defend Rebels against a Sovereign and I have laid a Principle emboldening all Rebels to deposâ—… Sovereigns or prove that they have no authority over them Answ. Alas poor Kings and Emperors who are judged such subjects to the Priests that he that pleadeth for your power pleadeth for Rebels against your Sovereign Pope And that are by these even judged so sheepish as that by the name of Rebellion charged on your defenders they look to draw your selves to take them for Rebels who would make you know that you are Princes and not the subjects of forreigners or your subjects but yet the instance which I give sheweth the sense of Theodosius and others be it right or wrong § 3. Had it not been that the Printer by three or four Errata's as Sixtus fifth c. made him some work he had had little to say but what confutes it self § 4. But cap. 4. p. 289 he would be thought to speak to the purpose viz. That out of the Empire the Pope restored Bishops and did he depose any He was wiser than to name any but saith Such were all those Bishops who about the year 400 in Spain and France and an 475 in England and 595 in Germany 499 and other Western and Northern Kingdoms who were taken from under the command of the Roman Emperor or were never under it and were restored by the Bishop of Romes authority c. Answ. Meer deceit he can name none deposed or restored by the Pope but 1. Such as were in the Empire 2. Or such as were in the same national Church with Rome when the Barbarians claimed power both over Rome and the neighbour Countreys as Odoacer and others claimed power to have the choice of a Pope themselves or that none should be Pope but by their consent 3. Or when the King of any revolted or conquered nation subjected himself or his subjects voluntarily to the Pope as they have done since the declining of the Empire Or 4. when they that had been used in the Empire to the canonical way in Councils and under Patriarchs desired when they were conquered to do as they had done and were permitted As the Patriarch of Constant. that layeth no claim as jure divino yet under the Turk claimeth still superiority over all those Churches that were formerly by Councils put under him what Princes soever they be under supposing that those Councils authority is still valid though the Empire be dissolved 5. Or when the Pope was but a meer Intercessor or Arbitrator and no Rector § 5. But p. 410 c. he cometh on again with repetitions and additions to prove that Forreigners were at the four first General Councils Answ. If he prove that all the Churches in the world made up those Councils he put hard to prove that indeed they were universal But I have not yet found that he hath proved it of any one unless in the fore-excepted cases I. His Theophilus Gothiae metropolis I spake of before He now saith Bishop of Gothia in the farthest parts of the North beyond Germany Answ. But where 's his Proof The Country that he talks of was not long after converted to Christianity He knew not that it was the Getae that were then called Gothes saith Ferrarius Polouci teste Math. Michovicus Steph. Paul Diac populus Sarmatiae Europeae boreale latus maris Euxini incolentes prius Getae teste D. Isidor li. 9. De quibus Auson Horum metropolis et urbs GOTHIA archiepis antequam à Turcis occuparetur Auson ep 3. Hinc possem victos inde referre Gothos Regio Gothea nunc Osia inter Tyram et Borysthenem This was then in the Empire § 6. II. His second is Dominus Domnus Bosphori a City of Thracia Cimmeria or India as Cosmographus declares the Bishop of Botra a City of this name is found in Arabia and Sala a Town also of great Phrygia the higher Pannonia and Armenia is so called Answ. This pitiful stuffe may amase the ignorant Domnus Bospori is the last subscriber Bosphorus is said in the subscriptions to be Provinciae Bostrensis in a Roman Province There be divers straites of the sea called Bosphori one between Constant and Calcedon another the sretum Cimmerium vel os Moeotidis called of the Italians stretto de Cassa and the straits between Taurica Chersonesus in Europe and Sarmatia in Asia There is the City Bosphorus an Archiepiscopal seat vulgo Vospero Abest inquit Ferrarius à Thracio 500 mil. pass ab ostio Tanais 375 in austrum This was in the Empire and he himself nameth it first a City of Thracia and yet the Learned Cosmographer proveth that it was out of the Empire are not these meet men to prove all the Earth to be in the Popes jurisdiction § 7. III. His 3d. is Ioh. Persi lis of whom enough already he is said to be of the Province of Persia which therefore was some skirt of Persia then in the Empire and a Town in Syria was called Persa what proof then is here of any one man out of the Empire So much for Nice § 8. IV. He next tells us of three Bishops of Scythia at the first Council at Constant.
France and Germany To which I say 1. That none but Rome much medled in the Empire after their Conquest Nor Rome much in comparison of Alexandria Constantinople and Antioch 2. I easily confess that those Churches within the Empire had been settled in their several powers by the Councils at Nice and Const. did plead the same Canonical Settlement to keep their possession when they were conquered And that e. g. Rome under Theodorick and other Arrians was willing to keep their Relation to the Orthodox Churches of the Empire for their strength And Neighbours that were under Heathens or Arrians were glad of a little countenance from Councils of great Bishops in the Empire as Basil and the Easternes under Valens were from the West without Subjection to the Pope § 33. Pag. 116. After some trifling Quibbles he Answereth my Charge That their Church is not one but two having at times two Heads The Pope to some and a Council to others To this he saith 1. That this belongs to them that take Councils to be above the Pope and not to him who is of a contrary Opinion Answ. It is to your Party in general I did not say that W. I. was two Churches but that those called Papists are so 2. He saith That they also can answer me with a wet finger for the Pope is in the Council and not excluded Answ. Such wet-fingerd Answers serve to deceive the Ignorant The Question is not of the Popes Natural Person but of his Political Two summa potestates make two Polities The Pope in a General Council is not the summae potestas if a Council be above him and may Judge and Depose him To be a Member of a Council that hath the Sovereignty is not to have the Sovereignty Did you not know this § 34. I urged him as his proper work to answer these Questions Whether the Church of which the Subjects of the Pope are Members hath been Visible ever since Christ's days on Earth And therein 1. Whether the Papacy that is their Universal Papal Government over all the Earth hath so long continued 2. Whether all the Catholick Church did still submit to it 3. Whether those that did submit to it took it to be necessary to the Being of the Church and Mens Salvation or only to the more Orderly and Better being But he would not be driven to touch at any of these or prove the perpetual Visibility of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over my last 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over many of his Imâ—… 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 that I refer him but to the pâ—…sing of the Histories which 〈◊〉 coâ—…th with the General Answers which I have before given And he will find 1. That the Pope was but a National Primate 2. And that by Humane Institution 3. And under a General Council 4. Striving upon every Advantage to be greater 5. Under the power of Princes 6. And when he lost his power over all the other four Patriarchs the West falling from the Empire he sought to bring the Western Princes under him and claimed a Government over all the World The Third Part A Defence of my Arguments to prove That the Church of which the Protestants are members hath been visible ever since the daies of Christ on Earth § 1. I Began with an Explication of the termes but this Disputer saith that this is of no concern to his Argument nor much to my answer Answ. It pleaseth not those that are all darkness such Explications as you gave me are indeed of little Use. 1. He saith I make Believers and true Christians Synonyma's whereas one may be a Believer as an unbaptized Catechumene but is not a Christian till baptized Answ. As a Pope once told one how little wit in a place of power would serve to govern the world so I see by this man How little Reason will serve to set up a Iesuite for an â—…nanswerable disputant among the ignorant The word Christian as well as Believer signifieth 1. A heart-consenter to the Baptismal Covenant 2. Or a Professor of that consent And 1. Regularly by Baptism 2. Or without it when it cannot be â—…ad 1. As soon as a man Believeth and Consenteth he is a Christian before God 2. As soon as he solemnly professeth it he is an incompleat Christian before men 3. As soon as he professeth it in Baptism he is orderly and regularly a Christian before the Church Even as two secretly maâ—…rying are marryed before God and when they publish their mutual Consent and Covenant as suppose it were where a priest is not to be had they are irregularly married before men but solemn Matrimony maketh it a Legal Marriage in fore And this distinction holds of the word Beleiver as well as of Christian A Beleiver a Disciple and a Christian were Synonyma's before Popery was born § 2. Next he saith that my words Subject to Christ their Head are equivocal Because Subject may signifie but inferior and Head but a principal member Answ. What is not equivocal to a Jesuite 1. Did I not put this first The Church is the Kingdom of Iesus Christ 2. When I said It is the whole company of Believers subject to Christ their head are not the words significative enough of a governing Head And did I not adde the constitutive parts are Christ and Christians as the pars imperans subdita are there more notifying words in use If there are tell'them me if you can or was not this a cavil that had more of Will and Interest than of Conscience § 3. I said Protestants are Christians protesting against and disallowing Popery To this he cavils 1. That the name had another original 2. That the Greeks Arrians Antitrinitarians Socinians Hussites Anabaptists Familists Millenaries Quakers are not Protestants Answ. 1. Did I undertake to tell you the first Rise of the name or only to tell whom I mean in my dispute If I had the German protestation immediately against a particular Edict was principally and finally against Popery and in that sence is the name continued But it is not the Name but the Church and Religion that I dispute of You know that the Name Reformed Catholick Christians pleaseth us better than the Name of Protestants Were not Christians after they were first called so at Antioch of the same Religion as before when they were called but Disciples and Believers yea and Nazarens by their adversaries 2. Who would have thought that you had taken Arrians Antitrinitarians Socinians or any that deny an Essential part of Christianity for true Christians Did you not here oft profess the contrary and those that are no Christians are not in my definition those that are Christians as Greeks Millenaries and Hussites and most Anabaptists with us are Protestants but not meer Protestants they have somewhâ—…t more and worse which giveth them another name but if Christians protesting against Popery they are of the same Church universal as we are § 4. When I call Popery
bound or how can I be said to believe Implicitely their unknown Doctrine or Articles of Faith What is my Implicite belief of Scripture-Particles but my General belief that all the Scripture is Gods Word and true And what is Implicite belief of Popish Traditions in particular but the explicite belief that all Popish Traditions in general are true If therefore these Disputers confess the sufficiency of our explicite neccessary belief and yet damn us for the insufficiency of our implicite belief they shamefully contradict themselves and give up their cause § 14. Next I thus Argued If sincere Protestants are Members of the True Church as intrinsecally informed or as Bellarmine speaketh Living Members then professed Protestants are Members of the true Church as extrinsecally denominated or as it is Visible consisting of Professours But the Antecedent is true Ergo so is the Consequent To this when I had given the Reason of the Consequence undenyable and said I prove the Antecedent or Minor he saith You prove say you your Antecedent or Minor which is a Syntax in Logick and deserves a Ferula for no Minor can be an Antecedent Answ. For this Mans sake I will know a Man better than by his Hectoring before I will go to School to a boaster Reader 1. What is that Error in Logick that is called a Syntax I thought Order or Concord had been no Error I confess my self not wise enough to understand this great Logician And his Ferula is too ready which must be used for Syntaxes when it is more used for violation of Syntax 2. Risum teneatis Can no Antecedent be a Minor so did Dr. Peter Heylin tell me before him in his Certamen Epistolare I suppose I shall never hear a third say so What 's the matter that the Boys Laugh at this and say that to deny the Antecedent of an hypothetical Proposition and to deny the minor is all one Is it that Boys have made all our usual Logicks and now these two Logick Doctors have Reformed them Or hath this Man pretended to be a Champion in that Art in which he is below the Novices He had hit it if he had held to his offer to Dispute before a Lady a Girle only in Syllogism by the Pen for this with her might have past for currant and invincible Logick § 15. I proved the Minor thus All that by Faith in Christ are brought to the unfeigned Love of God above all and special Love of his Servants and unfeigned willingness to Obey him are Members of the True Church as intrinsecally informed But such are all sincere Protestants c. This Minor the Man denyeth and saith That Protestants have not these things Answ. 1. Mark how hard this Man is put to it to renounce his Charity He cannot do it without denying what he granteth A sincere Professor of any Religion is one that really is what he professeth to be He denyeth not that Protestants profess to Love God c. And yet he denyeth the Minor that sincere Protestants do love God As if he that sincerely professeth to Love God doth not Love him These are Papist's Syllogisms 2. Note That this Man seemeth to know all Protestants Hearts better than they do themselves and can prove them all Hypocrites that Love not God 3. But by this you see how he reproacheth all those Protestants that turn Papists as having all been but before but graceless ungodly Hypocrites And what wonder then if they turn 4. But it may be his word formally is a cheat A Protestant is a Christian renouncing Popery It is his Christianity which containeth his Love to God His renouncing Popery is but his freedom from their sin And perhaps the Man hath a mind to call this the Form of Protestants But I hope his Talk shall not deprive us of the Love of God or of our Neighbour In the mean time any Man that can truly say that he is not an ungodly Hypocrite without the Love of God and Man hath Argument enough to Answer any Papist in himself 5. Again Reader mark how much these Men magnifie themselves and how much they vilifie the Word and Works of God Let a Man see all Gods wonderful Goodness in his Works and in his Mercies to himself and all Mankind let him read and believe all the wonderful Love of the Father and Grace of the Son that is described in all the Scriptures Let him believe the Promises there Recorded of Everlasting Glory and All this is insufficient to cause him savingly to Love God or Man But let him but add the belief that the Pope is the Governour of all the Earth and that he and his Council must be believed in all their Traditions and Expositions and then the work will be done and he may Love God unseignedly and be Loved by him The Holy Ghost will not work by the Scripture unless we take the Pope for the Expositor Yea more if a Man never heard of Scripture or if he believe not in Christ for want of the Popes sufficient proposal he may Love God and be saved so he do but believe that the Pope with his Council is a sufficient proposer And is there any account in Reason to be given of this strange Phaenomenon why a Man can Love God if he believe in the Pope of Rome and yet cannot Love him by all his Works and Mercies with the belief of all the Scriptures Or is it as very a Miracle as Transubstantiation and Sanctification by Holy-Water or the Opus operatum and one of those Miracles that prove the Church of Rome to be all the Church on Earth § 16. But he repeateth again the thred-bare Reason Had they this they would never have disobeyed and disbelieved all the Churches in the World Answ. That is the Pope and his Priests who are against the far greatest part of the Christian World and Yearly Anathematized by the Greeks who when they had lost the Primacy of the Eastern part of one Empire have tryed to make up the loss by laying Claim to all the Earth O! of what consequence is Obedience to an Ambitious Pope or Priest in comparison of Obedience to all the written Laws of God § 17. I proved the Minor two ways 1. If this the Love of God c. be in our profession then the sincere are such indeed But this is in our profession Ergo Of this he denyeth the Minor It is not in our profession What not that we Love God and are willing to understand and obey his Word Is he not driven up to the Wall even to another denyal of all Mens Eyes and Ears Do not I profess it while I write these words And have not I professed it in sixty Volumns and more And do not Protestant Libraries contain such professions and their Pulpits ring of them every Lords Day What is a Profession but Words and Writings And are not these Audible and Visible to the World And yet the denying not of the
10. ad 11. 5. Scatus in Prolegom in sect 1. 6. Greg. Armin. in Prol. e. g. q. 1. art 2. Resp. fol. 3. 4. 7. Guil. Parisiens de Legib. c. 16. p. 46. 8. Bellarmine again de verbo Dei li. 10. c. 10. ad arg 5. c. And then I most fully proved it out of the ancient Church-Doctors But to all these he giveth such frivolous Answers that it irketh me to weary the Reader by repeating and answering them And he that will faithfully peruse the Authors words I think will either need no other confutation of him or is uncapable of understanding one when he seeth it The fore-confuted contradiction of sufficient explicite and yet not sufficient implicite is the chief and next a vain supposition that to say that Scripture is sufficient to all Theological points and conclusions is less than to say it is sufficient to necessary Articles of Faith and if any of them speak of the Churches exposition he denyeth the Scripture-sufficiency as a rule and yet their Councils need exposition too § 22. III. My 3d. Argument for our Churches perpetual visibility was If the Roman Church as Christian though not as Papal hath been visible ever since the dayes of the Apostles then the Church of which the Protestants are members hath been visible ever since the dayes of the Apostles but the Antecedent is their own Therefore they may not deny the Consequent Here he wants Form again because as Christian is in the Antecedent and not in the sequel Answ. He might have seen that it is but an Expository term in a parenthesis and so the same exposition in the consequent is supposed Next he saith that it is a fallacy a secundum quid ad simpliciter Answ. so then the Church as Christian is not the Christian Church but secundum quid but we that know no other profess to be of no other nor to prove the visibility of any other than the Church as Christian. Let them prove more that pretend to any other Next he saith that the Protestants have been visible as Christians is all that can be pretended and yet that also he denyeth for they believe not one Article with an infallible supernatural divine Faith Answ. 1. The question is whether they profess not so to do nay rather whether their objective Faith that is all the Creed and Holy Scriptures be not infallible of supernatural Revelation and Divine he that denyeth this seemeth an Infidel But if all the members of the Church must have an actual subjective Faith that is of supernatural divine infusion Then 1. No hypocrite is a Church-member 2. And no man can know who is a Church-member besides himself 3. And so the Church of Rome is invisible this is clear 2. I must not too oft write the same things if the Reader will peruse a small Tract of mine called The certainty of Christianity without Popery he shall soon see whether the Papists Faith or Ours be the more certain and divine Of which also I have said more in my Treatise called The safe Religion and Mr. Pool in his nullity of the Roman Faith § 23. I here shewed that having proved our visibility as Christian I need not prove a visibility as Papal any more than he that would prove his humane Genealogie having some leprous Ancestors need to prove that all were leprous Here he denyeth Popery to be Leprosie and again falsly tells us that if it were so all the visible Church in the world was leprous which needs no more confutation than is oft given it § 24. He tells me how an 1500 the Pope was in possession and we dispossest him without order c. Answ. An old Cant but 1. I have fully proved that he never was in possession of the Government of the Christian world 2. Nor in the Empire or any other Princes dominion but by humane donation and consent as the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury is in England 3. And that they that gave him that power may on just reason take it away And that the Bishop of another Princes Countrey cannot stand here by his authority when he hath lost the Government of England himself § 25. IV. My 4th Argument added more than my Thesis required viz. If there have been since the dayes of Christ a Christian Church that was not subject to the Roman Pope as the Vicar of Christ and universal Head and Governour of the Church then the Church of which the Protestants are members hath been visible both in it's Being and in it's freedom from Popery But the Antecedent is true Ergo so is the Consequent To this 1. he wants the word ever in the Antecedent And yet before abated it but he knoweth that since was put for ever since 2. He saith I suppose that the sole denyal of the Popes supremacy constitutes the Church whereof the Protestants are members Answ. In despight of my frequent professions to the contrary who still tell him that our Christianity and Relation to Christ and one another makes us Church-members and our freedom from the Papacy is our renunciation of an Usurper § 26. I proved my Antecedent 1. from the express words of the Council of Calcedon can 28 which he answers as before where he is consuted § 27. 2. My 2d proof was from the silence of the ancient writers Tertullian Cyprian Athan. Nazianzene Nissene Basil Optatus Augustine c. that used not this argument of Popes power over all the world as of Divine Right to confute the Hereticks that they had to do with when two words had expeditiously done all if this had then been Believed Here he saith Their authors have proved that the Fathers did so Answ. Soon said and as soon denyed The books are in our hands as well as yours I will now instance but in Cyprian and the African Churches in his dayes and in Augustine and the same Churches in his dayes 1. Did Cyprian and his Council believe Stephens Universal Monarchy when he opposed his judgment with so much vehemency and set the Scripture against his plea from tradition Let him that will read his Epistles of this too long to be recited believe it if he can And when he twitted his arrogance in Council with nemo nostrum se dicit Episcopum Episcoporum 2. The plea of Aurelius Augustine and the rest of the African Bishops I have formerly recited of which Harding saith that the Africans seduced by Aurelius continued twenty years in Schism from Rome and did Augustine and all the rest then believe the Popes Sovereignty even in the Empire I did plainly show that if the Donatisâ—…s Novatians and all such Sects had believed the Roman Sovereignty and Infallibility they had not so differed from them if they did not believe it the Fathers would have taken the neerest way and wrote their Volumnes to convince them that this Papal Rule was it that must end all their controversies instead of writing voluminously from Scripture and the nature of the
it was at once specially when Binnius said that at Eph. 2. Concil Only Peter's Ship escaped drowning As to his Cavil at my Translation Whether Ab aliis plerisque totius orbis Episcopis be not to be Translated if not almost all the rest at least most of the rest of the Bishops of the whole World rather than very many others I leave to the ordinary Readers Judgment And as for either Canus or his own saying that all these the Greeks and most of the Bishops of the whole World the greater number of Churches and the Armed Emperours were all Schismaticks Hereticks and no Christians but Equivocally it is no weak proof of the falseness of their Cause and Tyranny that cannot stand without unchristening most of the Bishops and Churches in the World with such Emperours Canus his confession of the Historical Truth may be pleaded by me while I hate their Robbing Christ of the greatest part of his Church because they are not the Popes § 38. My Eighth Proof of the Novelty of the Papal Sovereignty was from Historical Testimony that the Papal sovereignty was no part of the Churches Faith nor owned by the Ancients This is done at large by Bloudel de Primatu and Pet. Moulin de Novitate Papismi usher Field of the Church lib. 5. Chaucer Whittaker Io. White and many other I instanced only in many Historians Regino Herman Contract Marian Scotus Beneventus de Rambaldis and others that say Phocas first constituted saith one or Boniface obtained of Phocas say others that the Church of Rome should be the Head of all Churches To this 1. He thinks I have forgot my first Thesis because he forgot that when I had proved by three Arguments my Thesis in the fourth to satisfie their importunity I proved it with the Addition that there hath been a Christian Church still visible that Obeyed not the Pope and so added ten more Arguments to prove this Negative or Exclusive part After he cometh to this again and would have ut Caput esset to be no more than an acknowledgment of a controverted Title But at least the Primus constituit confuteth that and it is not ut diceretur haberetur or denuò esset He citeth Platina as if it were a wonder for the Popes Houshold Servant to say that it was his Right 2. But I specially note that both what is said of Phocas and by him of Iustinian Gratian c. who constitute and command this Primacy and Subjection to it shew that it was but Imperial as to bounds and Authority I before mentioned Suarez himself in his Excellent Book De Legibus saying That God hath made no Laws of Church-policy And if so not of the Papacy § 39. I noted their Novelty out of Platina in Gregor saying What should I say more of this Holy Man whose whole Institution of the Church-Office specially the Old one was Invented and Approved by him which Order I would we did follow then Learned Men would not at this day abhor the reading of the Office Hence I Note 1. That all their Church-Office was new being Gregory's Invention though no doubt much of the Matter had been in use before that form 2. Therefore the maintainers of Tradition cannot prove that because they thus Worship God now therefore they always did so 3. Gregory's Invented Office hardly received in Spain was so altered in Platina's time that Learned Men abhorred the Reading of it 4. Why might they not corrupt Church-Government where Ambition had a thousand times greater baits as well as Church-Offices This is their Antiquity and constancy This W. I. thought meet in silence to pass by § 40. My Ninth Proof of the Novelty of the Papal Sovereignty was If the Generality of Christians in the first Ages and many if not most in the latter Ages have been free from the Essentials of the Papists Faith then their Faith hath had no Successive Visible Church professing it in all Ages but the Christians that are against it have been Visible But the Antecedent is true The Antecedent I proved in twelve Instances To this he saith It followeth not that though our Church as Papal had no Successive Visibility the Church whereof the Protestants are Members had ever since Christs time on Earth a Successive Visibility When you have proved this Consequence I Oblige my self to answer your Instances and so he durst not meddle with that matter but puts it off Answ. Reader see here what an Issue our Dispute is brought to Can you wish a plainer I proved that our Religion being nothing else but Christianity our Church hath been still Visible because it is confessed that the Christian Church hath been still Visible But the Papists must have us prove also that our Church-hath been still Visible as without Popery I now prove Popery a Novelty and doth not that then fully prove my Consequence that the Christian Church was Visible without it And I prove that this Novelty of Popery is yet received but by the third part of Christians of whom I am perswaded ten to one are either compelled to profess what they believe not or understand it not Therefore the Christian Church was once wholly and is yet mostly without Popery I know not when a Cause is given up if here he give not up his Cause § 41. Twelve new Articles of the Papal Faith I named 1. That the Pope is above aâ—… General Council Decreed at Later and Florence 2. Contrarily That the Council is above the Pope and may Iudge him c. Decreed at Basil and Constance True before as a point of Humane Order but not made ever an Article of Faith 3. That the Pope may Depose Princes and give their Dominions to others if they exterminate not all their Subjects that deny Transubstantiation Decreed at Later sub Innoc. 3. 4. That the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Iesus Christ is truly and really and substantially in the Eucharist and that there is a change of the whole substance of Bread into the Body and of the whole substance of Wine into the Blood which they call Transubstantiation Decreed at Trent and proved new by Ed. Albertinus Bishop Cousin's History of Trans and by my self 5. That the Eucharist is rightly given and taken under one kind without the Cup Decreed at Constance and Trent 6. That we must never take and Interpret Scripture but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers See the Trent-Oath whereas 1. We have no certainty whom to take for Fathers a great part being called both Fathers and Hereticks by the Papists 2. And they greatly disagree among themselves 3. And have not unanimously given us any sence at all of a quarter of the Bible if of the hundredth part 7. That there is a Purgatory and that the Souls there detained are holpen by the Suffrages of the Faithful 8. That the Holy Catholick Church of Rome is the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and
contrary to St. Peter's Judgment 3. And if so then you are gone many hundred years ago Why do you contrary to St. Peter's mind pretend to the highest Ecclesiastical Authority since Rome ceased to have the highest Civil Power Should not Constantinople and Vienna and Paris be preferred before Rome You cannot make both your ends meet I added That these Councils gave not the Pope any Authority over the extra-imperial Nations He replyeth If they had it before and by Christs institution they neâ—…ded not I answer So if Constantinople had it before by Christs institution they need not have given it equal priviledges but did they that proceeded by Parity of reason believe that either of them had any such Title I added some further proof 1. Those extra-imperial Nations being not called to the Councils were not bound to stand to such decrees had they been made He replyeth somewhat that is instead of the Book which he promised before and calleth to me to remember to answer him and nothing that he hath said is more worthy of an answer viz. How came the Bishops of Persia of both the Armenia's and Gothia which were all out of the Empire to subscribe to the first Council of Nice How came Phaebamnon Bishop of the Copti to subscribe to the first Council of Ephesus How came the Circular Letter written by Eusebius Caesar Palest in the name of the Council to be directed to all Bishops and in particular to the Churches throughout all Persia and the great India Lastly if those Bishops were not called to Councils why do Theodoret Marianus Victor Eusebius Socrates all of them affirm that to the Council of Nice were called Bishops from all the Churches of Europe Africa and Asia and he citeth the places in the Margin Ans. 1. Here is but two Councils named in which such invited Bishops are pretended to have been the subscriptions to the rest for many hundred years afforded him no such pretence no not as to one Country in the World 2. To the Council of Nice there subscribed unless you will believe Eutychius Alexandrinus the Presbyterians Friend that tells you of strange numbers but 318 as full Testimony confirmeth And 3. I desire the Reader to note that these subscriptions have no certainty at all The Copies of Crab Binnius Pisanus c. disagree one from another And Crab giveth the Reader this note upon them p. 259. that the Collector must be pardoned if he erre in the assignation or conscription of Bishops or Bishopricks especially beyond Europe for â—…hough they were four old Copies that he used yet they were every one so depraved that the Collector was wearied with the foolish and manifold variations for never a one of them agreed with the rest This is our notice of the subscriptions and as I said Eutychus Aâ—…x quite differeth from all And 1. whereas he tells us here of the Bishops of Persia there is no mention of any man but one Iohannes Persidis and he is said to be Provinciae Persidis and the Romans named not extra-imperial Countries by the name of Provinces therefore there is little doubt but this was some one that verged on the Kingdom of Persia in some City which was under the Romans then and sometimes had been part of Persia. I have oft mentioned Theodoret's plain Testimony saying that James Bishop of Nisibis sometimes under the Persian was at the Nicene Council for Nisibis was then under the Roman Emperour 2. As to the Bishâ—…ps of both the Armenians the Copies disagree even of the number of those of Armenia minor they name two Bishops of Arm. major one hath four another five another six and part of the Armenia's being in the Roman Power it is most probable that these Bishops were Subjects to the Empire or if any at the Borders desired for the honour of Christianity to be at the first famous General Council it signifieth not that any had power to summon them or did so The Emperour had not and that the Pope did it none pretend that hath any modesty and they are called in the subscriptions The Provinces of Armenia 3. And as for Gothia the Books name one Man Theophyâ—…s Gothiae Metropolis which no Man well knoweth what to make of for the Nation of Gothes were not then Christians Socrates saith that it was in the days of Valens that some of them turned Christians and that was the reason that they were Arrians and that Wulphilus then translated for them the Scripture But if they had a Bishop at the Nicene Council it is evident that he was in the Empire for the Gothes then dwelt in Walachia Moldovia and Poland and were no other than the Sauromatae that Eusebius tells us Constantine had Conquered and tells us how even by helping the Masters whom the Servants by an advantage of the War had dispossest so that your Instance of Theophilus Gothiae as without the Empire is your errour Myraeus calls part of France Gothia Saith Marcellinus Comes eodem anno of Thodos 1. after the Council Const. 1. Universa gens Gothorum Athanaricho Rege defuncto Romano sese imperio dedit This was a great addition But here Pisanus helps us out and saith Hunc Eusebius Pamphylus Scytam dixit in vita Constantini Metaphrastes addeth Wulphiluâ—…'s success Eusebius indeed tells us that there were 250 Bishops that differs for the common account and he was one of them and that the Bishop of Persia was present Vit. Const. l. 3. c. 7. And that there were learned Men from other Countries Scythia being one and the Bishop of Tomys was called the Scythian Bishop And that Constantine was the Caller of the Council not the Pope And that he wrote Letters to the Bishops to summon them to appear at the Council And who will believe that he wrote his Summons to the Subjects of other Kings Or if he had What 's that to the Pope If Ioh. Persidis were not a Roman Subject that word he was present seemeth to distinguish his voluntary presence from the Summons of others But saith Euseb. 16. cap. 6. Writs of Summons were sent into every Province And the Persian and Armenian Provinces are here named with the Bishops Those that have leisure to search into the Roman History may find what Skirt of Persia and what Part of Armenia were in the Empire in those times and it 's notable that when these Bordering Parts were lost these Bishops were never more at any General Council neither at Ephesus Constantinople Nice 2. c. And Eusebius there tells us as the reason why some came came from the remotest Countries viz. some did it out of a desire to see the famous first Christian Emperour and some out of a conceit that a Universal Peace should be established And so Ioh. Persidis might come with the rest And though I find not Pisanus's words of Theophilus in Eusebius I find ibid. l. 4. c. 5. That it was no wonder that even a Scythian Bishop should be