received by the Proposal of the Papal Church as such whereas now we perceive that it may be received from the Church though they know it not to be Papal And we thought it must have been received as from a General Council or the Church universal but it seems here it is needful but that it be from their particular Pastors 4. By this it seems that there are other Pastors that must be believed received and obeyed before the Pope and Subjection to them is of absolute necessity to salvation and Churchmembership when subjection to the Pope is of no such necessity How the Pope will take this we know not but 5. It leaveth us to new doubts as hard as any of the rest How to know that such indeed are our lawful Pastors before we know that there is a Christ or a Pope and how to know which are they We perceive now that Implicite Faith is not necessarily the believing Pope or Council but the believing those that Christ hath instituted to be our lawful Pastors Qu. 1. But can we know that Christ instituted them before we know that there is a Christ or that he is true Christ Q 2. Can you be true Pastors without derivation from and dependance on the Pope or be so known by the People O that you would but come into the light and tell us how And then Q. 3. tell us why the same People may not take Protestant Armenian Abassine Bishops or Presbyters for true Pastors by the same Proof Q. 4. And doth not the Proof or Knowledge that Men are our Lawful Pastors without knowing that they have Ordination Jurisdiction Mission or Confirmation as you distinguish them from the Pope or are subject to him also prove that quoad esse Men may be cur true Pastors without any of these relations to the Pope For the esse rei is presupposed to the Proof and Knowledge 〈◊〉 And in relations the Fundamentum entereth the Definition I conclude that being my self unfeignedly and earnestly desirous to know the truth whether the Pope be the appointed Church-Monarch of Government of all Christians that dwell on the Face of the Earth and having diligently read what you and abuâ—… 〈◊〉 more have written for it I profess that I never yet heard or saw any Proposal of it nor yet of abundance of your Doctrines which was sufficient to convince my understanding of it but much to convince me of the contrary And I may suppose this to be the case of most who need as clear evidence as I and therefore that we are none of us by your Concession obliged either necessitate medii or praecepti to believe you or to be your Subjects And I confess I like the preaching of these Men whose labour is only to subject Men to Christ and to their Lawful Magistrates and Domestick Governours and to the Teaching-Conduct of those that speak to them the Word of God better than theirs that make it the Foundation of their Religion to make all Men on Earth their Subjects And yet Teachers we acknowledge necessary to our Faith but it is not first necessary to believe them to be sent by Christ before we believe in Christ. But 1. The first Messengers Apostles did at once affirm that Christ is the Saviour of the World and that he sent them to witness his Resurrection Miracles and Works and to preach his Gospel And the Tongues Miracles c. by which they proved it was a Proof of both at once but principally of the former For if an un-called Preacher had wrought a Miracle it would have proved his Doctrine but not his Calling 2. But ordinary Preachers now give us the Evidences of the truth of the Gospel which were heretofore delivered to the Church The Doctrine's self-evidencing Divinity as it hath the Impress of God's Power Wisdom and Love his Holiness Justice and Mercy with the antecedent Prophesies fulfilled and the concomitant and subsequent Miracles and the continued Seal of the sanctifying Spirit in all Believers And by these we are first drawn by the inward operation of the Holy Ghost to believe in the Father Son and Holy Spirit before we believe that he sent these Men to be our Lawful Pastors Yea without believing them oft-times to be our Pastors or any Pastors at all We detest those Self-Preachers that would make the World believe that we must believe them to be our Lawful Pastors and receive them before we believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and receive him And we detest that false Doctrine that saith That a Lay-man may not convert Souls to the Faith of Christ and that God's Word and Spirit may not by his opening that Word win Souls that know not yet what Ministry Christ hath instituted To my Instance of the Iberians converted by a Maid and the Indians by Frumentius and Edesius he answers 1. That he can prove the Papacy preach'd to them as well as I can Iustification by Faith alone or any other parcicular Point of our Doctrine 2. We must both say that all important truths of Christianity were preached to them and till you have evinced this of the Supremacy to be none of those it is to be supposed it was sufficiently declared to them 3. Explicating the Article of the Catholick Church it 's supposed they were told it consisted of Pastor and People united and that they must obey their Lawful Pastors in which Doctrine the Pope is implicitely included Answ. 1. Our Doctrine as you call it is Christianity and I can prove nothing preached but what made them Christians which you confess may be without believing the Pope's Supremacy 2. A brave Argument All important truths were preached Ergo you must prove that this is not one of them 1. All important truths cannot in reason be supposed to be preached by those two Lay-men and by a Maid All essential truths we may suppose preached or else they could not be Christians We heard before that you would perswade us that every truth of continued institution is not only important but essential to the Church Whence you may infer in your way that the Maid and the two Lay-men had preached every such truth and left not one out or else there was no Christians and Church 2. It 's your part to prove that the Papacy is such an important truth and not mine to prove the Negative which yet I have oft and fully done 3. The Article of the Catholick Church was not at first in the Creed as the old Copies shew And Baptism was Administred without mentioning that Article 4. If holding that People must obey their Lawful Pastors will serve then we are all right 〈◊〉 if this be an implicite belief of the Papacy we are all Papists yea perhaps Mahometans and Heâ—…thens are Papists too by such a belief To 〈◊〉 Instance from Act. 2. he saith 1. Who can tell whether Peter told them not of his Supremâ—… 〈◊〉 2. They address'd their Speech first
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
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
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
read of any such King of Persia and began to suspect that the King of Persia might send some Ioh. Persidis also thither But I found neither Name nor Character nor History nor the Cities of the Oriental Bishops named encouraged me to any such thoughts But at last Binnius himself and his Author helpt me out of my Ignorance saying per Callimorem Persidis Regem Theodosium designant Appellant autem eum ob id hoc nomint quod Persus debellassit religionemque ibidem per tyrannidem extinctam restituisset And having thus done the main business I think it needless to add to what I said before to his citations of contests in the Empire § 20. Only about this one Council of Ephesus which he mentioneth I desire the Reader to note a few particulars 1. That it is expresly said to be called by the Emperour Theodosius II. 2. That the Emperour Governed it both by sending Officers to oversee them there and by determining of the Effects 3. That no Patriarch had so little to do in it as the Bishop of Rome 4. That Cyril presided as Rome's Vicar is an untrue pretence 5. The Synod as such ruled the greatest Patriarchs though Cyil's Interest vehemency and copious Speech did prevail In the beginning in Crab p. 587. you shall find such a Mandate as this to Philip the Presbyter Pope Coelestines Vicar and therefore Cyril was not his Vicar and to Arcadius Iuvenal Flavian and other Bishops their Legates to Constantinâ—…le Ante omnia sciat Sanctitas vestra quod cum Johanne Antiocheno cum Apostarum Consilio communionem nullo modo habere debeatis and after more Instructions Permittimus vestrae Sanctitati his factis polliceri quidem ipsis communionem c. If the Bishop of Rome had but given such Mandates and Permissions to them as they did to his Vicar and others it would have been taken for a proof of his Government over them 5. That it was to the Emperour that they sent Legates and not to Rome and that for the effectual Judgment which Party should prevail The Orientals say in their first Petition Nostrae preces sunt 〈◊〉 Iudicium 〈◊〉 pitate accipiamus And both sides sollicited him long hereto but he kept both at Chalcedon and would not let them so much as come long into the City to avoid their contentions 6. That what was done at last as to decision and depositions was done by the Emperour He commanded the Deposition of the Leaders of both Parties at first thinking that the way to Peace viz. Nestorius Cyril and Memnon In the second Petition of the Orientals it 's said Advenit ruâ—…us magnificentissimus magister Johannes qui tunc comes omnium largitionum significantes quod à vestra majestate trium depositiones decretae sunt tollend aque è medio subâ—…ta offendicula solamque fidem in Niceâ—… expositum à Sanctis beatis patribus ab omnibus confirmandam And accordingly Iohan. Comes did put them all out till the Emperours mind changed upon second thoughts and rejected Nestorius alone 7. That these Oriental Bishops were all his Subjects as they oft profess as in their third Petition in â—…rab pag. 592. Non illorum tantum sed noster Rex â—…s Non enim parva portiâ—… Regni tui est Oriens in qua semper recta sides resulsit cum hâc etiam alia Provinciae Dioceses è quibus Congregati fuimus 8. This Iohan. Comes in his Letters to the Emperour giveth such an Account of the Fury and Contentiousness of some of the Bishops especially of Cyrils Orthodox-party and of their fierceness and fighting one with another as should grieve the heart of a Christian to read it And had not he and Candidianus kept the Peace and Ruled them more than the Pope did the two Councils for two they were might have tryed who should prevail by Blood Cyril's Council Accused Nestorius for keeping Souldiers about him and not Appearing Iohn's Council which was for Nestorius Accuse the Egyptian meaning Cyril for Heresie Turbulency setting the World together by the Ears raising Seditions in the Church and expending that Money which was the Poors in maintaining Souldiers to strengthen them Petit. 3. Crab. p. 592. § 21. And that the Pope Governed not out of the Empire nor any of the Patriarchs or Christian Prince then is intimated in these words of the Orientals first Petition having praised him for propagating Religion in Persia by the Sword You may not send two Religions into Persia O King and while we are at Discord among our selves our matters will not seem great or be much esteemed there being none among them to be the Iudges or to Judge nor will any Communicate in two sorts of words and Sacraments So that the Persians were not Subject to the Imperial Church Judicatories when it 's said There is none among them to Iudge or determine which of the two Faiths is right § 22. And whereas he layeth so much on the Council of Chalcedons applauding Pope Leo's Letter it is notorious that in all these Councils that were militating party against party every side magnified them that were for them and strengthened them as at Ephesus one cryeth up Cyril and the other Iohn c. Yet even those Bishops are sain to Apologize for Receiving his Letter it being Objected that his Epistle was an Innovation saying Let them not Accuse to us the Epistle of the Admirable Prelate of the City of Rome as an Offence of Innovation but if it be not agreeable to the Holy Scriptures let them Reprove or confute it If it be not the same with the Iudgment of the former Fathers if it contain not an Accusation of the Impious if it defend not the Nicene Faith c. So that they rested not on the Authority of the Author but the Truth of the Matter which was to be exposed to Tryal § 23. Note also That whereas the great Proof of the Papal Monarchy is that Rome is called oft Caput Mundi omnium Ecclesiarum sedes Petri That Nazianzene oft calleth Constantinople Caput totius mundi and it 's usual for Councils to call Ierusalem Mater omnium Ecclesiarum as Constant. Consil. 2. Bin. p. 529. Aliarum omnium Mater And Antioch is ordinarily called Sedes Petri and the City Theopolis Theodoret saith That Iohn chosen Bishop of Antioch Ad primatum Apostolicum suffragiis delectus fuit Hist. l. 3. c. 17. § 24. Note That whereas W. I. maketh himself Ignorant that ever any Council was called without the Pope and they pretend that his Vicars presided in them almost all the General Councils for six or seven hundred Years are Witnesses against them And of the first General Council at Const. Binnius Notes say p. 515. Damasâ—…m Pontificem neque per se neque per suos Legatos eidem praefuisse fatemur § 25. But there is yet another part of our work behind W. I. will next prove That the Fathers of
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
yet it is the Catholick that is the whole it self 9. That Traditions are to be received with equal pious Affection and Reverence as the Holy Scripture 10. That the Virgin Mary was conceived without Original sin Decreed at Basil. 11. That the people may not read the Scripture Translated into a known Tongue without a special License 12. That the Books of Maccabees and other such are part of the Canon of Faith against which see Bishop Cousins and Dr. Io. Reignolds See in Dr. Challenor's Credo Eccles. Cath. sixteen of their Novelties See Dallaus De cultu Latinorum their Worship proved new All this W. I. passeth over § 42. My Tenth Argument was If multitudes yea the far greatest part of Christians in all Ages have been Ignorant of Popery but not of Christianity then there hath been a Succession of Visible Professours of Christianity that were no Papists But the Antecedent is true Ergo c. Here I brought full proof of the Antecedent 1. From the Ignorance which they themselves accuse the Aethiopians Armenians Greeks Russians c. of and the Protestants also 2. The known Ignorance of the far most of the Vulgar in their own Church 3. The Papists charge on the Council of Chalcedon and others about their power 4. The difference of the Councils of Constance and Basil and Later and Florence about their Essentials 5. The large proof brought by Dr. Field Append. l. 3. Potter p. 68. Bishop Morton Apol. To this he Answers as to the last by notorious giving up his cause neither granting nor denying That there hath been a Succession of Visible Professours of Christianity that were no Papists which he saith is all that I prove Answ. And what need I more Is not the Succession of the Church as Christian granted by him Therefore if I prove it also Successively Christian without Popery I know not what else the Man would have But he saith Arrians may say so too Answ. Arrians are not Christians If his meaning be that besides our rejecting Popery we have some other Heresie which unchristeneth us 1. That 's nothing against my Argument which is but Christians Visibility ... 2. Why did he never tell us what that Heresie is Would he not if he could And was he not concerned to do it 3. It 's known that it is our rejecting Popery that is the Heresie they charge us with as to any other we defie their Accusation And 4. If any individual person be Accused let it be proved Our Religion Objective is justified by themselves from Heresie and all positive Error For it is nothing but the Sacramental Covenant briefly explained in the Creed Lords Prayer and Decalogue in the Essentials and in that and the Integrals all the Canonical Scriptures So that our proof of our Churches Visibility as Christian and not Papal is all that Reason can require of us And so this Task is done § 43. After these Arguments I added some Testimonies of Historians which shew how Melch-Canus words de facto are to be understood and how the word Catholick Church was then taken and how small a party the Papal Sovereignty had in the very worst times viz. Rog. Hoveden Mat. Paris in H. 2d shew that it was Avitas leges consuetudinis Angliae which the Pope here Damned and Anathematized all that favoured and observed them Here is Tradition Antiquity and the immutability of Rome The German History collected by Reuberus Pistorius Freberus and Goldastus fully shew That the Papal Tyranny only kept under by a Turbulent Faction the greater part by fraud and force which never consented to them The Apology of Hen. 4. the Emperour in M. Freberus To. 1. p. 178. saith Behold Pope Hildebrand's Bishops when doubtless they are Murderers of Souls and Bodies such as deservedly are called the Synagogue of Satan Yet they write that on his and on their party is the Holy Mother-Church When the Catholick that is the Universal Church is not in the Schism of any Side or Party but in the Universality of the Faithful agreeing together by the Spirit of Peace and Charity And p. 179. See how the Minister of the Devil is besides himself and would draw us with him him into the Ditch of perdition Who writeth that God's Holy Priesthood is with only thirteen N. B. or few more Bishops of Hildebrand's and that the Priesthood of all the rest through the World are separated from the Church of God our Mr. W. I. would say that only these thirteen Bishops were Univocal Christians when certainly not only the Testimony of Gregory and Innocent but the Judgment of all the Holy Fathers agree with that of Cyprian that he is an Aliene profane an Enemy that he cannot have God for his Father that holds not the Unity of the Church And p. 181. But some that go out from us say and write that they defend the party of tâ—…r Gregory not the whole which is Christ's which is the Catholick Church of Christ so the Catholick Church and the Popes Sect are distinct And p. 180. But our Adversaries that went from us N. B. not we from them use thus to commend themselves We are the Catholicks We are in the Unity of the Church So the Writer calls them Catholicks and us that hold the Faith of the Holy Fathers that consent with all good Men that love Peace and Brotherhood Us he calls Schismaticks and Hereticks and Excommunicate because we resist not the King He addeth out of Isidore Etymol l. 8. The Church is called Catholick because it is not as the Conventicles of Hereticks confined in certain Countries but diffused through the whole World Therefore they have not the Catholick Faith that are in a part and not in the whole which Christ hath Redeemed and must Reign with Christ They that confess in the Creed that they believe in the Holy Catholick Church and being divided into Parties hold not the Unity of the Church which Unity Believers being of one Heart and Soul properly belongs to the Catholick Church So far this Apol. of the Emperour Here you see what the Catholick Church is and that the Papalines were then a little Sect of thirteen or a few more Bishops And now Reader open thine Eyes and Judge whether the Emperour and all the rest of the Western Churches besides all the rest a greater part of the Christian Word are therefore no Univocal but Equivocal Christians because a Papal Faction and an Equivocating Jesuite may call them so All this the prudent Disputer thought best to Answer by silence § 44. I added because of their noise of Heresies charged on the Abassines Syrians Armenians Greeks Protestants c. 1. That they differ in greater matters yea de fide than many things which they call Heresies are 1. I repeated the differences of their Councils Const. and Basil against Later and Florence c. 2. Pighius words Hierarch Eccl. l. 6. That these Councils went against the undoubted Faith and Judgment of the
Orthodox Church it self 3. That St. Thomas Aquinas and other Doctors differ from the second Council of Nice in holding the Cross and Image of Christ to be Worshipped with Latreia 4. I added a large Testimony of the Theological Faculty of Paris under their Great Seal against one Ioh. de Montesono ordinis praedic recited in the end of Lombard Printed at Paris 1557. p. 426. where they shew that though Tho. Aquinas was a Canonized Saint we may believe that part of his Doctrine was Heretical And the same they say of Cyprian Ierome Augustine Lombard Gratian Anselm Hugo de St. Victore c. To all this he Answereth by silence § 45. At last in vain I importuned him to prove the perpetual Visibility of their Papacy but could not prevail citing their Authors that make the Pope to be the Church and the whole strength of Councils § 46. I added a few Miscellaneous Testimonies against their Foundations 1. The first Council of Ephes. under Cyril in Epist. ad Nestor in Pet. Crab. Tom. 1. fol. 315. Petrus Johannes aequales sunt ad alterutrum dignitatis 2. Bishop Bromhal's citation of Comment in Epist. synodal Basil. p. 31. 40. Impris Colon 1613. saying The Provinces Subject to the four great Patriarchs from the beginning did know no other Supreme but their own Patriarchs And if the Pope be a Patriarch it is by the Church c. 3. Cassander Epist. 37. D. Zimenio p. 1132. saith of Monlucius the Bishop of Valentia highly praised by Thuanus c. that he said Si sibi permittatur in his tribus capitulis uti formâ publicarum precum de ritibus Baptismi de formâ Eucharistae sivae missae Christianam formam ad normam priscae ecclesiae institutam c. confidere se quod ex quinquagint a millibus quos habet in sua Diocesi à praesenti discipliniae ecclesiae adversos quadraginta millia ad Ecclesiasticum unionem sit reducturus Here you see what their Antiquity and Tradition is 4. A closer passage I noted out of Cassander Epist. 42. p. 1138. To all this I find no Reply § 47. In the conclusion I Answered a late paper that I received from him wherein he Humbly intreateth me to declare my Opinion more fully whether any professed Hereticks properly so called are true parts of the Universal Visible Church of Christ so that they compose one Universal Church with the other Visible parts I wrote him so plain and full an Answer to this that I shall only refer the Reader to the perusal of it instead of any defence To this he concludeth with such a Discourse that would make a Man lament that such distracted stuff should be thought sufficient to deceive poor Souls He rants at me for distinguishing He must have had me directly Answer his Question with Yea or Nay and instead of Answering ad rem to have entred an Idle controversie with him which of all the sorts commonly called Hereticks are properly so called And when no Man can resolve us whether properly so called must be expounded by Etymology or by the Canou and by what Canon Or by the Fathers Catalogues and by which Fathers Epiphanius Philastrius Augustine c. or by common custom or by the Pope How should ever this idle controversie of properly so called have ever come to any Resolution unless by making himself the Judge Yet doth the Man absurdly say to me We are not agreed what the Universal Visible Church is What of that Are we not agreed there is such a thing Think you or I what we will of the definition of it 't is sufficient to give an Answer pro or con to my Question whether Hereticks be true Members of the Church And it will be time enough to explicate what you mean by the Universal Church when your Answer is impugned See you not again that whatsoever you or I understand by Heretick properly so called we both agree that there are Hereticks properly so called and that 's enough to Answer my Question c. Answ. It would be irksom to Answer such a Man if I knew whether this came from Ignorance or Dishonesty were it not for the necessity of the simple Is it not a wearisome thing to talk with a Man that must have a Disputation upon terms whose sence we are disagreed of and that abhorreth explication of doubtful words As if when the Question is Whether Canis properly so called do generate or do give suck And I distinguish of Canis Coelestis Terrestris and of Canis Mas foemina and say that only Canis Terrestris Generateth and only Canis foemina giveth suck He should have ranted at me for distinguishing and said We are agreed that Canis there is properly so called and therefore you should Answer without distinguishing Let him that studyeth deceit dwell in darkness and choose Confusion but he shall not so draw me from the Light and cheat me into a foolish Game at Words § 48. But seeing he will not endure a distinction of Heresies nor tell us how we may know which are properly so called I must suppose that he would have me Judge by the Ancient Catalogues or Rolls or else by the Popes or by the Council's nominations Reader I will give thee but a little touch out of the Ancient Catalogue of St. Philastrius and Judge whether all his Hereticks are damned or unchristened I. Of the Hereticks since the Apostles The eleventh were those that kept not Easter at the right time for which Victor would have the Asian Churches Excommunicate but Irenaeus as well as Socrates and Zozomene c. thought much otherwise of the case Our Old Britains and Scots then were all out of the Church II. His twelfth Heresie is that of the Millenaries and so a great part of the Holy Fathers before the Council of Nice were Hereticks III. His twenty seventh Heresie is of those called Artotyritae for Offering Bread and Cheese at the Oblation IV. His 28 Heresie is of the Ascodrogitae that in the Church set New Vessels and put New Wine into them V. The 29th sort of Hereticks are called Passalorinchitae that put their Fingers on their Mouths and imposed silence on themselves it's like with limitation else they could not converse with Men. VI. 30. Some thought that all Prophets ended not with Christ. VII The 33d is the Excalceatorum that were for going without shooes like some Fryars VIII The 34th was that of Novatus who erroneously thought that those that denyed Christ or Sacrificed or Offered to the Heathens Idols after Baptism might be pardoned indeed by God but not received again into the Church Differing but one step from many Church-Canons that deny Communion to many Sinners for many Years yea till they are dying and to some at Death IX The 41. Hereticks thought the Epistle to the Hebrews was not Written by Paul but by Barnabas or Clement and the Epistle to Laodicea by St. Luke X. The