rest of the world Sir If you have impartially read the ancient Church history and yet can believe that all these Churches were then under the Pope despair not of bringing your self to believe any thing imaginable that you would have to be true 3. Your next question is When the Roman Emperours were yet Heathens had not the Bishops of Rome the supremacy over all other Bishops through the whole Church Answ. No they had not nor in the Empire neither Prove it I beseech you better then by questioning If you askt Whether men rule not Angels your Question proves not the Affirmative 4. But you ask again Did those Heathen Emperours give it him Answ. 1. Power over all Churches none ever gave him till titularly his own Parasites of late 2. Primacy of meer degree in the Empire for the dignity and many advantages of the Emperial seat the Bishops of the Empire gave him by consent Blondel de primatu gives you the proof and reason at large yet so as that small regard was had to the Church of Rome before the Nicene Council as saith your Aeneas Sylvius Pope Pius the second 5. Whether the Bishop of Rome had power over the Bishop of Arles by Heathen Emperours is a frivolous question Arles was in the Roman Patriarchate and not out of the Empire The Churches in the Empire might by consent dispose themselves into the Patriarchal orders without the Emperours and yet not meddle out of the Empire Yet indeed Cyprians words intimate no power Rome had over Arles more then Arles had over Rome that is to reject communion with each other upon dissent Nay it more confuteth you that even under Heathen Emperours when Church associations were by voluntary consent of Pastors only and so if they had thought it necessary they might have extended them to other Principalities yet de facto they did not do it as all history of the Church declareth mentioning their Councils and associations without these taken in See now how little your objections are worth and how groundlesly you bid me See now how little my allegations are to the purpose As for the rabble of Hereticks which you reckon up as you esteem them some of them are no Christians univocally so called and those cannot be of the Christian Church Others of them were better Christians then the Romanists and so were of the same Church with us And it is not many reproachfull names put on them by malice that makes them no Christians or of many Churches or Religions If an arrogant usurper will put nick-names on all that will not bow to him as the Vice-Christ and call them Iconoclasts Berengarians Waldensians Albigenses Wicklefifts Hussites Lutherans Calvinists you may as well give them a thousand more names this makes them not of various Religions nor blots out their names from the book of life I have in my most retired thoughts perused the History of those mens lives and of the lives of many of your Popes together with their severall doctrines and with death and judgement in my eyes as before the great God of Heaven I humbly beg of him that I may rather have my everlasting portion with those holy men whom you burned as Waldenses Albigenses Hussites c. then with the Popes that burned them or those that follow them in that cruelty unless reconciling grace have given them repentance unto life The Religion of all these men was one and they were all of one universall Church Where you again call for One Congregation I tell you again that we know no Vnity essentiall from whence the Church can be called one but either Christ or the Vice-Christ the former only is asserted by us and the latter also by you which we deny And therefore we cannot call the universall Church One in any other formal respects but as it is Christian and so One in Christ. Yet have I herewith satisfied your demand but shewed you the unreasonableness of it beyond all reasonable contradiction You next enquire whether we account Rome and us One Congregation of Christians I answer the Roman Church hath two Heads and ours but one and that 's the difference They are Christians and so One Church as united in Christ with us and all other true Christians If any so hold their Papacy and other errours as effectively and practically to destroy their Christianity those are not Christians and so not of the same Church as we But those that do not so but are so Papists as yet to be truly and practically Christians are and shall be of the same Church with us whether they will or not And your modest stile makes me hope that you and I are of one Church though you never so much renounce it As Papall we are not of your Church that 's a new Church form But as Christian we are and will be of it even when you are condemning torturing and burning us if such persecution can stand with your Christianity But you aske Why did you then separate your selves and remain still separate from the Communion of the Roman Church Answ. 1. We never separated from you as you are Christians We still remain of that Church as Christian and we know or will know no other form because that Scripture and primitive Churches knew no other Either you have by Popery separated from the Church as Christian or not If you have it s you that are the damnable Separatists If you have not then we are not separated from you in respect of the form of the Christian Church And for your other form the Papacy 1. Neither I nor my Grand-father or great grand-father did separate from it because they never entertained it 2. Those that did so did but Repent of their sin and that 's no sin We still remain separated from you as Papists even as we are separate from such as we are commanded to avoid for impenitency in some corrupting doctrine or scandalous sin Whether such mens sins or their professed Christianity be most predominant at the heart we know not but till they shew Repentance we must avoid them yet admonishing them as brethren and not taking them as men of another Church but as finding them unfit for our Communion But O sir what manner of dealing have we from you must we be imprisoned rackt hang'd or burn'd if we will not believe that bread wine are not bread and wine contrary to our own and all mens senses and if we will not worship them with Divine worship and will not obey the Pope of Rome in all such matters contrary to our Consciences and then must we be chidden for separating from you if we 〈◊〉 a while escape the strappado and the 〈◊〉 What! will you blame us for not believing that all mens senses are deceived and the greater part of Christians and their Traditions against you are false when we read and study and suspect our selves and pray for light and are willing to hear any of your reasons but
profess it to be their Tradition that the Pope was never their Governour 3. No history or authority of the least regard is brought by your own writers to prove these Churches under your jurisdiction no not by Baronius himself that is so copious and so skilful in making much of nothing 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 4. Their absence from general Councils and no invitation of them thereunto that was ever proved or is shewed by you is sufficient evidence 5. Their Liturgies even the most ancient bear no footsteps of any subjection to you Though your forgeries have corrupted them as I shall here digressively give one instance of The Ethiopick Liturgy because of a Hoc est corpus meum which we also use is urged to prove that they are for the corporal presence or Transubstantiation But saith Vsher de success Eccles. In Ethiopicarum Ecclesiarum universali Canone descriptum habebatur Hic panis est corpus meum In Latina translatione contra fidem Ethiopic Exemplarium ut in prima operis editione confirmat Pontificius ipse Scholiastes expunctum est nomen Panis 6. Constantines Letters of request to the King of Persia for the Churches there which Euseb. in vit Constant. mentioneth do intimate that then the Roman Bishop ruled not there 7. Even at home the Scots and Brittains obeyed not the Pope nor conformed about the Easter observation even in the daies of Gregory but resisted his changes and refused communion with his Ministers 8. I have already elsewhere given you the testimony of some of your own writers as Reynerius contra Waldens Catal. in Biblioth Patr. Tom. 4. p. 773. saying The Churches of the Armenians and Ethiopians and Indians and the rest which the Apostles converted are not under the Church of Rome 9. I have proved from the Council of Chalcedon that it was the Fathers that is the Councils that gave Rome its preheminence But those Councils gave the Pope no preheminence over the extra-imperial Nations For 1. Those Nations being not called to the Council could not be bound by it 2. The Emperours called and enforced the Councils who had no power out of their Empire 3. The Diocess are described and expresly confined within the verge of the Empire see both the description and full proof in Blondel de Primatu in Ecclesia Gall. And 10. The Emperours themselves did sometime giveing power to the Councils Acts make Rome the chief and sometime as the Councils did also give Constantinople equal priviledge and sometime set Constantinople highest as I have shewed in my Key p. 174 175. But the Emperours had no power to do thus with respect to those without the Empire But what say you now to the contrary Why 1. You ask Were those Primitive Christians of another kind of Church order and Government then were those under the Roman Empire Answ. When the whole body of Church history satisfieth us that they were not subject to the Pope which is the thing in question is it any weakening of such evidence in a matter of such publick fact to put such a question as this Whether they were under another kind of Government 1. We know that they were under Bishops or Pastors of their own and so far their Government was of the same kind 2. If any of them or all did suit their Church associations to the several Commonwealths in which they lived and so held National Councils and for order sake made one among them the Bishop primae sedis then was that Government of the same kind with that of the Imperial Churches and not of another kind The Roman Government was no other but One thus Ordered in one Empire And if there were also One so ordered in England one in Scotland one in Ethiopia c. this was of the same kind with the Roman Every Church suited to the form of the Common-wealth is even as to that humane mode of the same kind if a humane mode must be called a Kind It may be of that same kind and mode without being part of the same Individual But 2. You say that How far from truth this is appeareth from St. Leo in his Sermons de Natali suo where he sayes Sedes Roma Perri quicquid non possidet armis Religione tenet Reply If you take your Religion on trust as you do your authorities that are made your ground of it and bring others to it when you are deceived your selves how will you look Christ in the the face when you must answer for such temerity Leo hath no Sermons de Natali suo but only one Sermon affixed to his Sermons lately found in an oid book of Nicol. Fabers And in that Sermon there is no such words as you here alledge Neither doth he Poetize in his Sermons nor there hath any such words which might occasion your mistake and therefore doubtless you believed some body for this that told you an untruth and yet ventured to make it the ground of charging my words with untruth Yet let me tell you that I will take Pope Leo for no competent judge or witness though you call him a Saint as long as we know what past between him and the Council of Chalcedon and that he was one of the first tumified Bishops of Rome he shall not be judge in his own cause 3. But you add that The Abassines of Ethiopia were under the Patriarch of Alexandria anciently and he under the authority of the Roman Bishop Reply 1. Your bare word without proof shall not perswade us that the Abassines were under the Patriarch of Alexandria for above three hundred if not four hundred years after Christ. Prove it and then your words are regardable 2. At the Council of Nice the contrary is manifest by the sixth Can. Mos antiquus perdurat in Aegypto vel Lybia Pentapoli ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem c. And the common descriptions of the Alexandrian Patriarchate in those times confine it to the Empire and leave out Aethiopia Pisanus new inventions we regard not 3. I deny that the Patriarch of Alexandria was under the Government of the Bishop of Rome any more then the Jury are under the Foremen or the junior Justices on the bench are under the senior or York is under London or the other Earls of England are under the Earl of Arundel 4. But if both these were proved that Ethiopia was under Alexandria and Alexandria under Rome I deny the consequence that Ethiopia was under Rome for Alexandria was under Rome but secundum quid and so far as it was within the Empire and therefore those without the Empire that were under Alexandria were not therefore under Rome 5. And if it could as it never can be proved of Abassia what is that to all the other Churches in India Persia and the
transcribe if I thought that you could not as well read Print as M. S. of higher expressions then Caput and fundamentum given to Andrew by Isychius and equal expressions to others as well as Rome and Peter And who is ignorant that knoweâ—h any thing of Church-history that others were called successours of Peter as well as the Bishop of Rome And that the Claves regni were given to him is no proof that they were not given also to all the rest of the Apostles And where you say Arcadius condemneth Nestorius for contemning the command of the Apostolick Sea You tell me not where to find it I answer you still that its long since your Sea begun to swell and rage but if you must have us grant you all these consequences Celestine commanded therefore he justly commanded therefore another might not as well have commanded him as one Pastor may do another though equall in the name of Christ and therefore he had power to command without the Empire even over all the Catholick Church and therefore the Council was of this mind yea therefore the universal Church was of this mind that the Pope was its universal head You still are guilty of sporting about serious things and moving pity instead of offering the least proof Yet fear you not to say that in the time of the holy Oecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon the universal consent of the whole Catholick Church was for you in this point The Lord keep our consciences from being the servants of our opinions or interests 1. Was the Popes Legate the whole Catholick Church 2. Was there one man at either of these Councils but within the Empire yea a piece of the Empire So that they were but such as we now call National Councils that is consisting only of the subjects of one Republick 3. Did the Council speak a word for your power without the Empire 4. Do they not determine it so expresly to be of humane right that Bellarmine hath nothing regardable to say against it Can. 28. Conc. Chalced. but that they spoke falsly And yet your opinion or interest hath tempted you to appeal viz. to the Sun that there is no such thing as light 21. After the conclusion you have a supernumerary in your Margin from Greg. lib. 10. Epist. 30. But there is no such word in that Epistle nor is it of any such subject But is the 31. Epistle its like that your leader meant And there 's no more but that a Bishop not named person or place having fallen into Schism voluntarily swore never more to depart from the Unity of the Catholick Church or the sea of Rome But 1. So may a Bishop of the Roman Province do or Patriarchate without believing Rome to be the Universal Head So might one in any other Province have done And yet it follows not that he ought to do so because he did so You see now what all your proofs are come to and how shamefully naked you have left your cause In summ of all the testimonies produced 1. You have not named one man that was a Papist Pope Leo was the nearest of any man nor one testimony that ever a Pope of Rome had the Government of all the Church without the verge of the Roman Empire but only that he was to the Roman Church as the Archbishop of Canterbury to the English Church And as between Canterbury and York so between Rome and Constantinople there have been contentions for preheminency But if I can prove Canterbury to be before York or Rome before Constantinople that will prove neither of them to be Ruler at the Antipodes or of all the Christian world 2. Much less have you proved that ever any Church was of this opinion that the Pope was by Divine Right the Governour of all the world when you cannot prove one man of that opinion 3. Much less have you proved a succession of such a Church from the Apostles having said as much as nothing concerning the first 300 years 4. And yet much less have you proved that the whole Catholick Church was of this opinion 5. And least of all have you proved that the whole Church took this Primacy of Rome to be of necessity to the very Being of the Church and to our salvation and not only ad melius esse as a point of Order So that you have left your Cause in shameful nakedness as if you had confessed that you can prove nothing In the end you return to terms To what you say about the word Christians I only say that it s but equivocally applied to any that profess not all the Essentialls of Christianity of which Popery is none any more then Pride is About the word Monarch in good sadness do you deny the Pope to be an imperious sole Commander Which of these is it that you deny not that he is a Commander not that he is imperious not that he is sole in his Soveraignty I would either you or we knew what you hold or deny But perhaps the next words shew the difference as Temporal Kings But this saith not a word wherein they differ from Temporal Kings sure your following words shew not the difference 1. Kings may receive power from Christ. 2. Kings must rule in meekness charity and humility But I think the meekness charity and humility of Popes hath been far below even wicked Kings if cruel murdering Christians for Religion and setting the world on fire may be witness as your own Histories assure us 3. The Government of Kings also is for mens eternal good however Papists would make them but their executioners in such things 4. Brethren as such are no subjects and therefore if the Pope Rule men but as Brethren he rules them not by Governing authority at all 5. Children to him we are not You must mean it but Metaphorically And what mean you then Is it that he must do it in Love for their good So also must Kings So that you have yet exprest no difference at all But our Question is not new nor in unusuall terms What Soveraignty you claim you know or should know Are you ignorant that Bellarmine Boverius and ordinarily your Writers labour to prove that the Government of the Church is Monarchicall and that the Pope is the Monarch the supream Head and Ruler which in English is the Soveraign Are you ashamed of the very Cause or Title of it which you will have necessary to our salvation Next you say that you very much dislike the Title of Vice-Christ as proud and insolent and utterly disclaim from it neither was it ever given by any sufficient authority to your Popes or did they ever accept of it Reply Now blessed be God that makes sin a shame to it self that the Patrons of it dare scarce own it without some paint or vizard 1. Is not the very life of the Cause between you and us whether the Pope be the Universal Head of the Church vice Christi
them successively in all ages till Christ as a different Congregation of Christians from that which holds the Popes Supremacy which was my proposition For in the year 1500. those who became the first Protestants were not a Congregation different from those who held that supremacy nor in the year 500. were the Greeks a visible Congregation different from it nor in the year 300. were the Nestorians nor in the year 200. the Eutychians a different Congregation from those who held the said Supremacy But in those respective years those who first begun those Heresies were involved within that Congregation which held it as a part of it and assenting therein with it who after in their several ages and beginnings fell off from it as dead branches from the tree that still remaining what it ever was and only continuing in a perpetuall visibility of succession Though therefore you profess never to have seen convincing proof of this in the first 400 years labour to infringe it in the next ages yet I will make an essay to give you a taste of those innumerable proofs of this visible Consent in the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy not of Order only but of Power Authority Iurisdiction over all other Bishops in the ensuing instances which happened within the first 400 or 500 or 600 years Iohn Bishop of Antioch makes an Appeal to Pope Simplicius And Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople being deposed in the false Councill of Ephesus immediately appeals to the Pope as to his judge Theodoret was by Pope Leo restored and that by an appeal unto a just judgement Saint Cyprian desirâ—â— Pope Stephen to depose Marcian Bishop of Arles that another might be substituted in his place And to evince the supream Authority of the Bishops of Rome it is determined in the Council of Sardis That no Bishop deposed by other neighbouring Bishops pretending to be heard again was to have any successour appointed until the case were defined by the Pope Eustathius Bishop of Sebast in Armenia was restored by Pope Liberius his Letters read and received in the Council of Tyana and Saint Chrysostome expresly desires Pope Innocent not to punish his Adversaries if they do repent Which evinces that Saint Chrysostome thought that the Pope had power to punish them And the like is written to the Pope by the Council of Ephesus in the case of Iohn Bishop of Antioch The Bishops of the Greek or Eastern Church who sided with Arius before they declared themselves to be Arians sent their Legates to Iulius Bishop of Rome to have their cause heard before him against Saint Athanasius the same did Saint Athanasius to defend himself against them which Arian Bishops having understood from Iulius that their Accusations against Saint Athanasius upon due examination of both parties were found groundless and false required rather fraudulently then seriously to have a fuller Tryal before a General Council at Rome which to take away all shew of excuse from them Pope Iulius assembled Saint Athanasius was summoned by the Pope to appear before him and the Councill in Judgement which he presently did and many other Eastern Bishops unjustly accused by the Arians aforesaid had recourse to Rome with him and expected there a year and a half All which time his Accusers though also summoned appeared not fearing they should be condemned by the Pope and his Councill Yet they pretended not as Protestants have done in these last ages of the Kings of England That Constantius the Arian Emperour of the East was Head or chief Governour over their Church in all Causes Ecclesiasticalâ— and consequently that the Pope had nothing to do with them but only pretended certain frivolous excuses to delay their appearance from one time to another Where it is worth the noting that Iulius reprehending the said Arian Bishops before they published their Heresie and so taking them to be Catholikes for condemning Saint Athanasius in an Eastern Councill gathered by them before they had acquainted the Bishop of Rome with so important a cause useth these words An ignari â—stis hanc consuetudinâ—m esse ut primum nobis scribatur ut â—inc quod justum est à â—finiri possit c. Are you ignorant saith he that this is the custome to write to us first That hence that which is just may be defined c. where most cleerly it appears that it belonged particularly to the Bishop of Rome to pass a definitive sentence even against the Bishops of the Eastern or Greek Church which yet is more confirmed by the proceedings of Pope Innocent the first about 12. hundred years since in the Case of Saint Chrysostome Where first Saint Chrysostome appears to Innocentius from the Councill assembled at Constantinople wherein he was condemned Secondly Innocentius annulls this condemnation and declares him innocent Thridly he Excommunicates Atticus Bishop of Constantinople and Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria for persecuting Saint Chrysostome Fourthly after Saint Chrysostome was dead in Banishment Pope Innocentius Excommunicates Arcadius the Emperour of the East and Eudoxia his wife Fifthly the Emperour and Empress humble themselves crave pardon of him and were obsolved by him The same is evident in those matters which passed about the year 450. where Theodosius the Emperour of the East having too much favoured the Eutychian Hereticks by the instigation of Chrysaphius the Eunuch and Pulcheria his Empress and so intermedled too far in Ecclesiasticall causes yet he ever bore that respect to the See of Rome which doubtless in those circumstances he would not have done had he not believed it an Obligation that he would not permit the Eutychian Council at Ephesus to be assembled without the knowledge and Authority of the Roman Bishop Leo the first and so wrote to him to have his presence in it who sent his Legats unto them And though both Leo's letters were dissembled and his Legats affronted and himself excommunicated by wicked Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria and president of that Coventicle who also was the chief upholder of the Eutychians yet Theodosius repented before his death banished his wife Pulcheria and Chrysaphius the Eunuch the chief favourers of the Eutychians and reconciled himself to the Chruch with great evidences of Sorrow and Pennance Presently after Anno. 451. follows the Fourth General Council of Chalcedon concerning which these particulars occur to our present purpose First Martianus the Eastern Emperour wrote to Pope Leo That by the Popes Authority a General Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to chuse Secondly both Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople and the rest of the Eastern Bishops sent to the legats of Pope Leo by his order the profession of their Faith Thirdly the Popes Legats sate in the first place of the Council before all the Patriarchs Fourthly they prohibited by his order given them That Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria and chief upholder of
the Eutychians should sit in the Councill but be presented as a guilty person to be judged becuase he had celebrated a Councill in the Eastern Church without the consent of the Bishop of Rome which said the Legats never was done before nor could be done lawfully This order of Pope Leo was presently put in execution by consent of the whole Councill and Dioscorus was judged and condemned his condemnation and deposition being pronounced by the Popes Legats and after subscribred by the Councill Fifthly the Popes Legats pronounced the Church of Rome to be Caput omnium Ecclesiarum the Head of all Churches before the whole Council and none contradicted them Sixthly all the Fathers assembled in that Holy Councill in their Letter to Pope Leo acknowledged themselves to be his children and wrote to him as to their Father Seventhly they humbly begged of him that he would grant that the Patriarch of Constantinople might have the first place among the Patriarchs after that of Rome which notwithstanding that the Councill had consented to as had also the Third General Councill of Ephesus done before yet they esteemed their grants to be of no sufficient force untill they were confirmed by the Pope And Leo thought not fit to yield to their petition against the express ordination of the First Councill of Nice where Alexandria had the preheminence as also Antioch and Hierusalem before that of Constantinople Saint Cyril of Alexandria though he wholly disallowed Nestorius his doctrine yet he would not break off Communion with him till Celestinus the Pope had condemned him whose Censure he required and expected Nestorius also wrote to Celestine acknowledging his Authority and expecting from him the Censure of his doctrine Celestinus condemned Nestorius and gave him the space of ten daies to repent after he had received his condemnation All which had effect in the Eastern Church where Nestorius was Patriarch of Constantinople After this Saint Cyrill having received Pope Leo's Letters wherein he gave power to Saint Cyrill to execute his condemnation against Nestorius and to send his condemnatory letters to him gathered a Council of his next Bishops and sent Letters and Articles to be subscribed with the Letters of Celestine to Nestorius which when Nestorius had received he was so far from repentance that he accused St. Cyril in those Articles to be guilty of the Heresie of Apollinaris so that St. Cyril being also accused of Heresie was barred from pronouncing sentence against Nestorius so long as he stood charged with that Accusation Theodosius the Emperour seeing the Eastern Church embroyled in these difficulties writes to Pope Celestine about the assembling of a general Council at Ephesus by Petronius afterwards Bishop of Bononia as is manifest in his life written by Sigonius Pope Celestine in his Letters to Theodosius not only professeth his consent to the calling of that Council but also prescribeth in what form it was to be celebrated as Firmus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia testified in the Council of Ephesus Hereupon Theodosius sent his Letters to assemble the Bishops both of the East and West to that Council And Celestine sent his Legats thither with order not to examine again in the Council the cause of Nestorius but rather to put Celestines condemnation of him given the year before into execution St. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria being constituted by Celestine his chief Legate ordinary in the East by reason of that preheminency and primacy of his See after that of Rome presided in the Council yet so that Philip who was only a Priest and no Bishop by reason that he was sent Legatus à Latere from Celestine and so supplied his place as he was chief Bishop of the Church subscribed the first even before St. Cyril and all the other Legats and Patriarchs In the sixth Action of this holy Council Iuvenalis Patriarch of Hierusalem having understood the contempt which Iohn Patriarch of Antioch who was cited before the Council shewed of the Bishops and the Popes Legats there assembled expressed himself against him in these words Quod Apostolica ordinatione Antiqua Traditione which were no way opposed by the Fathers there present Antiochena sedes perpetuo à Romana dirigeretur judicareturque That by Apostolical ordination and ancient Tradition the See of Antioch was perpetually directed and judged by the See of Rome which words not only evidence the precedency of place as Dr. Hammond would have it but of power and judicature in the Bishop of Rome over a Patriarch of the Eastern Church and that derived from the time and ordination of the Apostles The Council therefore sent their decrees with their condemnation of Nestorius to Pope Celestine who presently ratified and confirmed them Not long after this in the year 445. Valentinian the Emperour makes this manifesto of the most high Ecclesiastical authority of the See of Rome in these words Seeing that the merit of St. Peter who is the Prince of the Episcopal Crown and the Dignity of the City of Rome and no less the authority of the holy Synod hath established the primacy of the Apostolical See lest presumption should attempt any unlawful thing against the authority of that See for then finally will the peace of the Churches be preserved every where if the whole universality acknowledge their Governour when these things had been hitherto inviolably observed c. Where he makes the succession from St. Peter to be the first foundation of the Roman Churches primacy and his authority to be not only in place but in power and Government over the whole visible Church And adds presently that the definitive sentence of the Bishop of Rome given against any French Bishop was to be of force through France even without the Emperours Letters Pattents For what shall not be lawful for the authority of so great a Bishop to exercise upon the Churches And then adds his Imperial precept in these words But this occasion hath provoked also our command that hereafter it shall not be lawful neither for Hilarius whom to be still entituled a Bishop the sole humanity of the meek Prelate id est the Bishop of Rome permits neither for any other to mingle arms with Ecclesiastical matters or to resist the commands of the Bishop of Rome c. We define by this our perpetual decree that it shall neither be lawful for the French Bishops nor for those of other Provinces against the ancient custom to attempt any thing without the authority of the venerable Pope of the eternal City But let it be for a law to them and to all whatsoever the authority of the Apostolick See hath determined or shall determine So that what Bishop soever being called to the Tribunal of the Roman Bishop shall neglect to come is to be compelled by the Governour of the same Province to present himself before him Which evidently proves that the highest Universal Ecclesiastical Judge and Governour was and ever is to be the
cannot force our own understandings to believe all such things that you believe and meerly because the Pope commands it and when we cannot thus force our own understandings must we be burned or else called Separatists would you have the Communion of our Ashes or else say We forsake your Communion In your Churches we cannot have leave to come without lying against God and our consciences and saying We believe what our senses contradict and without committing that which our consciences tell us are most heynous sins We solemnly protest that we would do as you do and say as you say were it not for the love of truth and holiness and for fear of the wrath of God and the flames of hell but we cannot we dare not rush upon these errours and sell our souls to please the Pope And must we then either be murdered or taken for unchaâ—â—â—â—ble will you say to so many poor souls that are ready to enter into another world Either sin against your consciences and so damn your souls or else let us burn and murder you or else you do not love us you are uncharitable if you deny us leave to kill you and you separate from the Communion of the Church We appeal from the Pope and all unreasonable men to the great God of heaven and earth to judge righteously between you and us concerning this dealing As for possessing our selves of your Bishopricks and Cures if any particular person had personal injury in the change being cast out without cause they must answer for it that did it and not I though I never heard any thing to make me believe it But must the Prince and people let alone delinquent Pastors for fear of being blamed for taking their Bishopricks Ministers of the same Religion with us may be cast out for their crimes Princes have power over Pastors as well as David Solomon and other Kings of Israel had Guil. Barklay and some few of your own knew this The Popes treasonable exemption of the Clergy from their Soveraigns judgement will not warrant those Princes before God that neglect to punish offeâ—â—ing Pastors And I beseech you tell us â—hen our consciences after the use of all means that we can use to be informed cannot renounce all our sences nor our reason nor the judgement of the most of the Church or of antiquity or the Word of God and yet we must do so or be no members of your Church what wrong is it to you if we choose us Pastors of our own in the order that God hath appointed Had not the people in all former ages the choice of their Pastors we and our late forefathers here were never under your oversight but we know not why we may not now choose our Pastors as well as formerly We do it not by tumults we kill not men and tread not in their blood while we choose our Pastors as Pope Damasus was chosen The tythes and other temporal maintenance we take from none but the Magistrate disposeth of it as he seeth meet for the Churches good And the maintenance is for the cure or work and therefore they that are justly cast out of the cure are justly deprived of the maintenance And surely when they are dead none of you can with any shew of reason stand up and say These Bishopricks are yours or these Parsonages yourâ—â— It is the Incumbent personally that only â—an claim title saving the supereminent title of Christ to whom they are devoted But the successive Popes cannot have title to all the tithes and Temples in the world nor any of his Clergy that never were called to the charges If this be disunion it is you that are the Separatists and cause of all If you will needs tell all the Christian world that except they will be ruled by the Pope of Rome and be burned if they believe not as he bids them in despight of all their senses he will call them Separatists Schismaticks and say they disunite and are uncharitable again we appeal to God and all wise men that are impartial whether it be he or we that is the divider You ask me Is not charity subordination and obedience to the same state and Government required as well to make one Congregation of Christians as it is required to make a Congregation of Commonwealths men Answ. Yes it is But as all the world is one Kingdom under God the universal King but yet hath no universal Vice-King but every Commonwealth only hath its own Soveraign even so all the Christian world is one Church under Christ the universal King of the Church but haâ—â— not one Vice-Christ but every Church hath its own Pastors as every School hath its own Schoolmaster But all the anger is because we are loth to be ruled by a cruel usurper therefore we are uncharitable Your next reason against me is because They cannot be parts of the Catholike Church unless Arrians and Pelagians and Donatists be parts and so Hereticks and Schismaticks be parts Reply 1. You know sure that your own Divines are not agreed whether Hereticks and Schismaticks are parts of the Church And if they were yet it is not de fide with you as not determined by the Pope If it be then all yours are Hereticks that are for the affirmative Bellarmine nameth you some of them If it be not then how can you be sure its true and so impose it on me that they are no parts 2. Arrians are no Christians as denying that which is essential to Christ and so to Christianity Pelagianism is a thing that you are not agreed among your selves of the true nature of Many of the Dominicans and Jansenists think the Jesuits Pelagianize or Semipelagianize at least I hope you will not shut them out Donatists were â—chismaticks because they divided in the Catholike Church and not absolutely from it and because they divided from the particular Churches about them that held the most universal external Communion I think they were still members of the universal Church but I 'le not contend with any that will plead for his uncharitable denyal It s nothing to our case That the Aethiopians are Eutychian Hereticks I will see better proved before I will believe it Rosses words I so little regard that I will not so much as open his book to see whether he say so or not I know that Heresie is a personal crime and cannot be charged on Nations unless you have evidence that the Nations consent to it which here you have none Some are called Hereticks for denying points essential to Christianity these are no Christians and so not in the Church but many also are called Hereticks by you and by the Fathers for lesser errors consistent with Christianity and these may be in the Church The Abassines and all the rest have not been yet tryed and convicted before any competent Judge and slanderers we regard not 2. Many of your own writers acquit them of Heresie and say the
Illyricum sacrae nostrae literae dirigantur ut ad quendam definitum locum qui nobis placuerit omnes sanctissimi Episcopi debeant convenire It is not qui vobis placuerit but qui nobis But what if you had spoke truth doth it follow that Leo was Christs Vicar-general Governour of the world because that the Soveraign of one Commonwealth did give him leave to choose the place of a Council Serious things should not be thus jested with 2. You say Anatolius and the rest of the Eastern Bishops sent to Pope Leo the professions of their faith by his order Reply 1. And what then therefore Pope Leo was both Governour of them and all the Christian world You should not provoke men to laughter about serious things I tell you Can you prove this Consequence Confessions were ordinarily sent in order to Communion or to satisfie the offended without respect to superiority 2. But I see not the proof of your impertinent words Pulcherius Epistle to Leo expresseth that Leo had sent his Confession first to Anatolius to which Anatolius consented By your Rule then Leo was subject to Anatolius 3. You say the Popes Legates sate first in Council Reply What then therefore the Pope was Governour of the Christian world though not a man out of the Empire were of the Council Are you still in jest But if it must be so then I can prove that others were the Universal Governours because at Nice and other Councils they sate before the Legates of the Pope and in many his Legats had no place Is this argument good think you O unfaithful partiality in the matters of salvation 4. You say they prohibited Dioscorus to sit by his order Reply 1. What then therefore he was Universal Governour of the Church All alike Any accuser in a Parliament or Synod may require that the Accused may not sit as judge till he be tried 2. But did you not know that Leo's Legates were not obeyed but that the Gloriosissimi judices amplissimus senatus required that the cause should be first made known and that it was not done till Eusebius Episcop Dorylaei had read his bill of complaint Binnius Act 1. pag. 5. 5. You say the Popes Legates pronounced the Church of Rome to be Caput omnium Ecclesiarum Reply 1. What then therefore he was Governour of all the Christian world I deny the consequence You do nothing but beg not a word of proof Caput was but membrum principale the Patriarch primae sedes and that but in the Empire 2. The Popes Legates were not the Council nor judges in their own cause and not opposing signifies not alwayes a consent 3. But the Council do as I said expresly define the point both what your Primacy is and of how long standing and of whose institution and that Constantinople on the same grounds had equall priviledges 6. You say all the Fathers acknowledged thtmselves Leo 's Children and wrote to him as their Father Reply Of this you give me not any proof but leave me to read 190 pages in Folio to see whether you say true or no. And what if you do as I believe you do can a man of any reading be ignorant how ordinarily other Bishops were stiled Fathers even by their fellow-Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome 7. You add that they humbly begged of him that the Patriarch of Constantinople might hâ—ve the first place next Rome which notwithstanding the Council had consented to as had also the third general Council at Ephesus before yet they esteemed their grants of no sufficient force till they were confirmed by the Pope Reply So far were the Council from what you falsly say of them that they put it into their Canons that Constantinople should have the second place yea and equal priviledges with Rome and that they had this on the same grounds as Rome had its Primacy even because it was the Imperial Seat Vid. Bin. pag. 133 124. col 2. And not only Ephesus but the second general Council at Constantinople they tell you had decreed the same before You see then contrary to your fiction that three general Councils of the greatest likened by Gregory to the 4 Evangelists not only judged without the Pope but by your own confession against him for you say he consented not yea so much did they slight the Popes consent that when his Legates dissented they were not heard See Bin. pag. 134 136. They persisted in the Council to maintain their Canon 38. notwithstanding the contradiction of Lucretius and Paschasinus and by the Judges it was accordingly pronounced p 137. And unanimously the whole Synod consented never stopping at the Roman dissent Pergamius Bishop of Antioch saith in omnibus sanctissimum Archiepiscopum Regiae civitatis novae Romae in honore cura sicut Patrem praecipuum habere nos convenit No man contradicted this And is not this as much or more then you alledge as spoke to Leo They call Leo you say Father And the Bishop of Constantinople is pronounced the Chief Father in all things in honour and Cure And Eusebius Bishop of Doryl the chief adversary of Dioscorus witnessed that he himself in the presence of the Clergy of Constantinople did read this Canon to the Pope at Rome and he received it Upon which your Historian hath no better an observation then that either Eusebius lyed or else at that hour he deceived Leo. It s true that the Synod writ to him for his consent but not as suspending any of their Decrees on it but telling him over and over that the things were by them defined and confirmed already pag. 140. that which they desired of him was what Synods ordinarily did of Bishops of their Communion that were absent Haec sicut propria amica ad decorem convenientissima dignare complecti sanctissime beatissime pater 13. In your Margin you tell me that Agapet in the time of Iustinian depoâ—ed Anthymius in Constantinople against the will of the Emperour the Empress Reply 1. And doth it follow that because he did it therefore he did it justly yea and as the Governour of that Church when Menna Bishop of Constantinople excommunicated Pope Vigilius was he not even with him and did that prove that Rome was subject to Constantinople Niceph. l. 17. c. 26. When Dioscorus excommunicated Leo and an Eastern Synod excommunicated Iulius Sozom. l. 3. c. 11. that proves not that they did it justly or as his Governours Honorius the Emperour deposed Boniface 1. Othe with a Synod deposed Iohan. 13. Iustinian deposed Sylverius and Vigilius Will you confess it therefore justly done 2. As to the history I refer you to the full answer of Blondel to Perron cap. 25. sect 84 85. 3. Usurpation and deposing one another by rash sentences was then no rare thing Eusebius of Nicomedia threatened the deposing of Alexander of Constantinople who sure was not his subject Socrat. lib. 1. c. 37. vel 25.
Apostles and this is but to know their doctrine delivered in that first age which we appeal to And after he expresly saith Ad hanc it aque formam provocabantur ab illis Ecclesiis quae licet nullum ex Apostolis vel Apostâ—licus auctorem suum proferant ut multo posteriores quae denique quotidie institutum tamen in eadem fidem conspirantes non minus Apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrinae The Apostles doctrine will prove an Apostolical Church when ever planted And c. 38. he draws them from disputing from the Scripture because they owned not the true Scripture but corrupted it and charged the Catholikes with corruption Sicut illis non potuit succedere corruptela doctrinae sine corruptela instrumentorum ejus Ita nobis integritaes doctrina non competisset sine integritate eorum not by real tradition alone per quae doctrina tractatur Etenim quid contrarium nobis in nostris quid de proprio intulimus ut aliquid contrarium ei in Scripturis deprehensum detractione vel adjectione vel transumtatione remediaremus Quod sumus hoc sunt Ab initio suo ex illis sumus antequam nihil aliter fuit quam sumus And cap. 36. He sends them by name to the particular Apostolical Churches and begins with Corinth then to Philippi Thessalonica Ephesus and then to Rome of whose Soveraignty he never speaks a syllable So more plainly l. 4. contr Marcion c. 5. because Marcion denied the true Scriptures he sends them to the Apostolike Churches for the true Scriptures first to the Corinthians then to the Galatians then to the Philippians Thessalonians Ephesians and last of all to Rome But it would be tedious to cite the rest of the Ancients that commonly describe the Church as we and such as we all own as members of it Arg. 3. If the Roman Church as Christian though not as Papal hath been visible ever since the daies of the Apostles then the Church of which the Protestants are members hath been visible ever since the daies of the Apostles But the Antecedent is their own therefore they may not deny the consequent The consequence also is past denyal 1. Because the Roman as Christian is part of the universal Christian Church 2. Because they profess to believe the same holy Scriptures and Creed as we do So that though they add more and so make a new form to their Church yet do they not deny our Church which is the Christian Church as such nor our Test and Rule of faith nor any Article that we account Essential to our Religion So that themselves are our sufficient witnesses Well! but this will not satisfie the Papists unless we shew a succession of our Church as Protestant 1. This we need not any more then a sound man lately cured of the Plague doth need to prove that he hath ever been not only sanus but sanatus a cured man before he was sick How could there be a Church protesting against an universal Vicar of Christ before any claimed that Vicarship 2. And when the Vicarship was usurped those millions abroad and even within the Roman territories that let the pretended Vicar talk and followed their own business and never consented to his usurpation were of the very same Religion with those that openly protested against him And so were those that never heard of his usurpation Object But at least say they you must prove a Church that hath been without the universal Vicar negatively though not against him positively Answ. 1. In all reason he that affirmeth must prove It is not incumbent on us to prove the negative that the Church had not such a Roman head but they must prove that it had Object But they have possession and therefore you that would dispossess them must disprove their title Ans. 1. This is nothing to most of the Catholike Church where they have no possession therefore with them they confess themselves obliged to the proof 2. This is a meer fallacious diversion for we are not now upon the question of their Title but the matter of fact and history we make good the negative that they have no Title from the Laws of Christ himself and so will not dispossess them without disproving their pretended Title But when the question is de facto whether they have ever had that possession from the Apostles daies they that affirm must prove when we have disabled their title from the Law 2. But what must we prove that all the Church hath been guiltless of the Papal usurpation or only some in every age of all its no more necessary to us then to prove that there have been no Heresies since the Apostles If a piece of the Church may turn Hereticks or but Schismaticks as the Novatians and African Donatists why may not another piece turn Papists 3. What will you say to a man that knoweth not a Protestant nor a Papist or believeth only Christianity it self and meddleth not with the Pope any further then to say I believe not in him Jesus I know and the Apostles and Scripture and Christianity I know but the Pope I know not and suppose he never subscribed to the Augustane English or any such confession but only to the Scripture and the Apostles and Nicene and other ancient Creeds By what shew of Justice can you require this man to prove that there hath been no Pope in every age 4. The foundation of all our controversie is doctrinal whether the Papal Soveraignty be Essential to the Church or necessary to our membership we deny it you affirm it If it be not Essential it is enough to us to prove that which is Essential to have been successive we be not bound in order to the proof of our Church it self to prove the succession of every thing that maketh but to its better being Yet professing that we do it not as necessary to our main cause we shall ex abundanti prove the negative that the Catholike Church hath not alwaies owned the Papal Soveraignty and so that there have been men that were not only Christians but as we Christians without Popery and against it and so shall both prove our Thesis and overthrow theirs Arg. 4. If there have been since the daies 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 its being and its freedom from Popery But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the consequent I shall prove the Antecedent and therein the visibility of our Church and the non-existence in those times of the Papacy Arg. 1. My first Argument shall be from the general Council of Chalcedon If the priviledges of the Roman Sea were given to it by the Bishops consequently because of the Empire of that City and therefore equal priviledges after given to Constantinople on the same
appetit quo vocari nullus praesumpsit qui veraciter sanctus fuit That is And to bind up all in the girdle of speech the Saints before the Law the Saints under the Law the Saints under Grace all these making up the Body of Christ were placed among the Members of the Church yet never man would be called Universal Let your Holiness therefore consider how with your self you swell that desire to be called by that name by which no man hath presumed to be called that was truly Holy Well! if this be not as pâ—â—in as Protestants speak against Popery I will never hope to understand a Pope I only add that Gregory makes this usurpation of the name of an Universal Bishop a forerunner of Antichrist And that Pope Pelagius condemned it before him which Gratian puts into their Decrees or Canon Law And that he took the Churches authority to be greater then his own when he tells Iohn Sed quoad in mea correptione despicior restat ut Ecclesiam debeam adhibere Lib. 7. Ep. 30. Dixi nec mihi vos nec cuiquam alteri tale aliquid scribere debere ecce in praefatione epistolae quam ad meipsum qui prohibui direxistis sâ—perbae appellationis verbum Universalem me Papam dicentes imprimere curastis Quod peto dulcissima sanctitas vestra ultra non faciat quia vobis subtrahitur quod alteri plusquam ratio exigit praebetur See then whether it be not judged by him undue to himself as well as to others And what the weight of the matter seemed to him judge more by these words Ep. 83. l. 4. ad Arrian In isto scelesto vocabulo consentire nihil est aliud quam fidem perdere To consent in that wicked word is nothing else but to lose or destroy the faith That is apostasie And l. 6. c. 194. Mauric Aug. Ego fidenter dico quia quisquis se universalem sacerdotem vocat vel vocare desiderat in elatione sua Antichristum praecurrit quia superbiendo se caeteris praeponit nec dispari superbia ad errorem ducitur Arg. 7. The Papists themselves confess that multitudes of Christians if not most by far have been the opposers of the Pope or none of his subjects therefore by their Testimony there have been visible Churches of such Aeneas Sylvius after Pope Pius 2. saith small regard was had to the Church of Rome before the Council of Nice Bellarmine saith This is partly true by reason of the persecution of those ages and partly false Ans. But if true we prove the matter of fact and leave Bellarmine better to prove his Reason If it be false then their own Historians are not to be believed â—hough worthy to be Popes And then wâ—at historicall testimony will they believe Voluminously do their Historians mention the Opposition of the Greeks on one side and of the Emperours and Kings and Divines that were under the Popes Patriarchal power as Mich. Goldastus in abundance of Treatises hath manifested I gave before the testimony of Reynerius that the Churches planted by the Apostles were not under the Pope I shall once more recite the words of Melch. Canus Loc. Theol. lib. 6. cap. 7. fol. 201. Not only the Greeks but almost all N. B. the rest of the Bishops of the whole world have vehemently fought to destroy the Priviledge of the Church of Rome and indeed they had on their side both the Arms of Emperours and the greater Number of Churches and yet they could never prevail to abrogate the Power of the One Pope of Rome By the Papists confession then most of the Churches and almost all the Bishops of the whole world and the Emperours their Armies have vehemently fought to abrogate the Popes power and destroy the Priviledges of Rome Reynerius his testimony concerning the Antiquity of the Waldenses as from Pope Sylvesters dayes if not the Apostles hath been oft cited Had they been but from Gregories dayes it had been enough when we have his own Testimony that no Bishop of Rome would own to that time that wicked prophane sacrilegious foolish blasphemous dividing name of Vniversal Patriarch or Bishop which who ever holds to destroys the faith Arg. 8. The next Argument should have been from the Historical Testimony of the Ancients that the Papal Soveraignty was then no part of the Churches faith nor owned by them But here to produce the Testimonies of all ages would be to write a Volume in Folio on this one Argument alone For how can the History of all Ages be so particularly delivered out of such a Multitude of Books but in a multitude of words And it is done already so fully that I provoke the Papists to answer the Catalogues and historicall Evidence given in if they can If you ask where I will now only tell you of 1. Blondell against Perron dâ— Primatu in Ecclesia in French that shews you the torrent of Antiquity against the Papal Soveraignty 2. Molinaeus in French de Novitate Papismi against the same Perron 3. Bishop Vsher de statu successione Ecclesiarum and his Answer to the â—esuites challenge 4. Dr. Field of the Church who lib. 5. answereth Bellarmines allegations from all sort of Antiquity which are their strength I pass by many others some of which I have named in the foresaid 3. Dispute of the safe Religion where also I have produced more of this evidence then they can answer At least much more then you have returned me in your last Paper for the contrary to which I desire your answer For it s in vain to write one thing so oft I shall only instance in the currant Testimony of their own Historians of the Beginning of their Universal Headship Saith Regino Chron. l. 1. An. 808. p. 13. Bonifacius obtinuit apud Phocam Principem ut sedes Romana Caput esset omnium Ecclesiarum quia Ecclesia Constantinâ—pâ—litana primum se omnium Ecclesiarum scribebat Hermannus Contractus An. M. 4550. p. 122. Hoc tempore Phocas Romanam Ecclesiam omnium Ecclesiâ—rum Caput esse constituit Nam Constantinop primam se esse scripsit So Marianus Scotus in Phoc. Bonifacius P. 67. impetravit á Phoca Caesare ut sedes Apostolica Romana Caput esset Ecclesiae quum antea Constantinopolis Primam omnium se scriberet The same hath Sigebertus Gemblac An. 607. p. 526. And so Compilat Chron. and many more Beneventus de Rambaldis Lib. Augustali saith p. 8. in Phoca Phocas occiâ—â—r Manritii qui Primus constituit Quod Ecclesia esset Caput omnium Ecclesiarum Cum prius Constantin supremum se nominaret Mark here the Primus Constituit So Beda P. Diaconus Anastasius Pomponius Laetus c. And of the Novelty of their worship saith Platina in Gregor 1. What should I say more of this holy man whose whole institution of the Church office specially the old one was invented and approved by him which Order I would we did follow then Learned men would
â—irst sense is either spoken of one that professing the rest denyeth some one or more essential Articles of the Faith or parts of Christianity or one that only denyeth not what is necessary to the Being but to the Integrality or sober and better-being of a Christian. 3. Hereticks are either convict and condemned or such as never were tryed and judged 4. Hereticks condemned are either condemned by their proper Pastors or by others 5. If by others either by Usurpers or by meer equal neighbour consociate Pastors 6. They are condemned either jâ—stly clâ—ve non errante or unjustly clave errante 7. They are either judged to be materially as to the quality of their errour Hereticks or also formally as obstinate impenitent and habitually stated Hereticks Upon these necessary distinctions I answer your Question in these Propositions Prop. 1. As the word Hereticks signifieth Schismaticks as such so Hereticks with drawing from some parts of the universal Church only may yet be parts of the whoâ—e even with those parts from which they separate If they say You are no parts and therefore we disown you and will have no Communion with you this maketh neither cease to be parts and while both own the Head and the Body as such they have an union in tertio and so a communion in the principal respects while they peevishly disclaim it in other respects Besides that the local or particular Communion is it that is proper to members of a particular Church and therefore the renouncing it only separates him from that Church But it is the general Communion that belongs to us as members of the Church Universal which may be still continued But should any renounce the Body of Christ as such and separate not from this or that Church but from the whole or from the Church Universal as such this man would be no member of the Church Prop. 2. As the word Heretick is taken for one that denyeth any thing essential to Christianity so an Heretick if latent is out of the Church Deo judice as to the invisible part or soul of the Church as Bellarmine calls it as a latent Infidel is but he may be if latent in the outward communion or as Bellarmine calls him a dead member that properly is none as the straw and chaffe are in the corn-field Prop. 3. Such an Heretick convict and judged by the Pastors of that particular Church of which he is a subject-member is accordingly to be avoided and in foro illius Ecclesiae is so far cast out of that Church as the sentence importeth Prop. 4. Such an Heretick if he be a Pastor of one Church and be convict and condemned by the consociate co-equal Pastors of the neighbour Churches is accordingly cast out from communion of all the Churches of which they are Pastors Prop. 5. So far as any Christians through the world have sufficient proof or cognisance of the said conviction and condemnation they are all bound accordingly to esteem the condemned Heretick and avoid him Prop 6. If Heresie be taken for the obstinate impenitent resisting or rejecting of any point of Faith that is of Divine Revelation which is made so plain to the person that nothing but a wicked will could cause such resistance or rejection such persons being justly convicted and condemned as aforesaid are to be taken as persons condemned for obstinacy and impenitency in any other sin and are out of the Church as far as a man condemned for impenitency in drunkenness or fornication is Prop. 7. Heresie taken in this softer sense for the denyal of a truth of Divine revelation not essential to the Christian Religion or necessary to the Being of a Christian excludeth no man from the Church of it self unless they are legally convict of wicked Impenitency and obstinacy in defending it Prop. 8. A sentence passed in alieno foro by an Usurper that hath no true Authority thereto proveth no man an Heretick Prop. 9. A sentence passed by an Authorized Pastor or by many if it be notoriously unjust clave errante proveth no man an Heretick or out of the Universal Church Prop. 10. A sentence passed by one Church or many consociate binds none to take the condemned person to be an Heretick and out of the Universal Church but those that have sufficient notice of the Authority of the Judges and validity of the Evidence or a ground of violent presumption as it s called that the sentence is just Prop. 11. He that is sentenced an Heretick or Impenitent by the Pastors of some Churches and acquit by the equally-authorized Pastors of other Churches is not eo nomine to be condemned or acquit by a third Church but used as the evidence requireth Prop. 12. There is an actual excommunication pro medelâ and pro tempore due for an actual willful defence of error or for other willful sin which statedly puts not a man out of the Church as there is an excommunication à statu Relatione which is due for stated habitual or obstinate impenitency in that or other great or known sin Having thus distinctly told you my judgement how far Hereticks are or are not in or out of the universal Church I add in order to the application 1. That this whole debate is nothing to the great difference between you and us it being not de fide in your own account but a dogma theologicum which you differ about among your selves Bellarmine tells you Alphonsus a Castro maintaineth that Hereticks are in the Church de Eccles. l. 3. c. 4. And he himself saith that haeretici pertinent ad Ecclesiam ut oves ad ovile unde confugerunt ibid. c. 4. so that they are oves still and if it be but ovile particulare veluti Romanum that they fly from and not the Vniversal that proves them not out of the Vniversal Church And Bellarmine saith of the Catechumen Excommunicatis that they are de anima et si non de corpore Ecclesiae ib. c. 2. and may be saved cap. 6. And the anima Ecclesiae is not incorporated in the world without All that have that soul are of that Church which Christ that animateth his members is the head of Which made Melchior Canus fatente Bellarmino de Eccl. l. 3. c. 3. confess the being of that which indeed is the true Catholike Church saying of the Vnbaptized Believers that sunt de Ecclesia quae comprehendit omnes fideles ab Abel usque ad consummationem mundi 2. Many Popes have been condemned for Hereticks even by General Councils as not only Henorius by two or three but Eugenius by the Council of Basil when yet he kept his place and the rest come in as his successors And your writers frequently confess that a Pope may be an Heretick as Pope Adrian himself affirmeth Now if these are not of the Church then they are not Heads of the Church and then being essential parts of your Church it followeth that your Church is heretical
necessary to the being of a true particular Church Bellarmine granteth Lib. 3. de Eccles. c. 10. that it is indeed to us uncertain that our Pastors have potestatem ordinis jurisdictionis and that we have but a moral certainty that they are true Bishops though we may know that they hold Christs place and that we owe them obedience and that to know that they are Our Pastors non requiritur nec fides nec Character Ordinis nec legitima electio sed solum ut habeantur pro talibus ab Ecclesia i. e. It is not requisite that they have faith or the Character of Order or lawful election but only that they be taken for such by the Church And if it be enough that their Church repute their Pastors to be elected ordained and believers though they are not so indeed then can no more be necessary to ours We repute ours as confidently to be lawfully elected and ordained as they do theirs 3. It is contrary to the Papists own opinion that any Consecration much less Canonical is necessary to the being of their Vniversal Head I need not cite their Authors for this as long as you have 1. The History of their Practices And 2. The confession of this learned man that I dispute with in the explication of the term Pope in these his last Papers And that which is not necessary to their Pope cannot by them be made necessary to our Bishops 4. Nothing in Church History more certain then that the Church of Rome hath had no continued succession of a truely elected or ordained Pope according to their own Canons 1. If Infidelity or Heresie judged by a Council in the case of Honorius Ioh. 23. Eugenius c. will not prove a nullity and intercision 2. If Simony Murder Adultery c. will not prove it 3. If about fourty years Schisme at once will not prove it none knowing who was the true Pope but by the prevalency of his secular power and their writers confessing that it is known to none but God 4. If intrusion without any just election will not prove it Then there is no danger to those Churches that are lyable to no such accusations But if any or all of these will prove it the Roman intercision is beyond dispute as I shall further manifest on any just call if it be denyed 5. The standing Law and Institution of Christ is it that gives the Power by imposing the duty of Ministration and Ordination only determineth of the person that shall receive it together with election and solemnizeth it by Investiture as Coronation to a King that is a King before I have already proved that an uninterrupted succession of Regular Ordination is no more necessary to the being of a Church then uninterrupted succession of Regular Coronation is to the being of a King or Kingdom which I am ready to make good 6. This whole case of Ordination I have already spoken to so carefully and fully according to my measure in my second Dispute of Church Government that I shall suppose that man hath said nothing to me requiring my reply on this point that doth not answer that And to write the same thing here over again cannot fairly be expected 7. Voetius de desperata causa Papatus hath copiously done the same against Iansenius which they should answer satisfactorily before they call for more 8. The Nullity which they suppose to make the Intercision is either the Ordination we had from the Papist Bishops before our Reformation or the Ordination that we received since If the former be a nullity then all the Papists Ordinations are null and so they nullifie their Church and Ministry That the latter is no nullity we are ready to make good against any of them all Object But if you own your Ordination as from the Church of Rome you own their Church Answ. We consider them 1. As Christian Pastors 2. As Popish Pastors As Christian Pastors in the Catholike Church their Ordination is no more a nullity than their Baptizing which we count valid But as Popish they have no authority for either Object But they gave both Baptism and Ordination as Papists and it must be judged of by the intention of the giver and receiver Answ. It is the Baptism and Ordination of Christs Institution as such which was pretended to be given and received Could we prove that they Administred any other or otherwise they say they would disown it As such therefore we must take it till we can prove that they destroy the very essence of it If it be given and taken secondarily as Popish the scab of their corruption polluteth it but not nullifieth it So they profess themselves first Ministers of Christ and but subordinately as they think of the Pope so much therefore as belongs to them in their first and lawful relation may be valid though so much as respecteth their usurped relation be sinful Had I been baptized or ordained by one of their Priests I would disown all the corruptions of them but not the baptism and ordination it self 9. There is no necessity to the being or well-being of a particular Church that it hath continued from the Apostles daies or that its particular Ministry have had no intercision If Germany were converted but lately to the Christian Faith it may be nevertheless a true part of the Catholike Church If Ierusalem had sometime a Church and sometime none it may have now a true Church nevertheless 10. If our Ordination had failed by an intercision it might as well be repaired from other Churches that have had a continued succession as from Rome And much better because without participation of their peculiar corruptions Or if any Bishops that were of the Papal faction should repent of their Poperie and not of their Ordination they might Ordain us as Bishops and repair our breach And indeed that was the way of our continued Ordination Many that repented that they were Popish Prelates continued the office of Christian Bishops and by such our Ancestors were Ordained As Christianity and Episcopacy were before Popery and so are they still separable from it and may continue when it is renounced Besides what I have more fully said in the foresaid dispute of Ordination I see no need of adding any more against this Objection about successive Ordination and Ministerial Power As to their other Objection which they make such a stir with and take no notice of the Answer which we have so often given viz. When every Sect pretend that they have the true Church and Ministry who shall judge I again Answer There is a Iudicium privatum and publicum A private judgement of discerning belongs to every man The publick judgement is either Civil or Ecclesiastical The Civil judgement is who shall be thus or thus esteemed of in order to Civil encouragement or discouragement as by corporal punishments or rewards This judgement belongeth only to the Civil Magistrate The Ecclesiastical
judgement is in order to Ecclesiastical Communion or Excommunication And so it belongs to those with whom the person is in Communion in their several capacities The members of a particular Church are to be judged Authoritatively by the Pastors of that Church and by the people by a Private judgement of Discerning Pastors should associate for Communion of Churches and so in order to that Communion of Association it belongs to the several Associations to judge of the Members of the Society which yet is not by a publike Governing judgement For in Councils or Associations the Major Vote are not properly the Governors of the lesser part But those that are out of capacity of Communion have nothing to do to judge of the Aptitude of Pastors or Churches in order to Communion or non-Communion And for the Pope he hath nothing to do with us at such a distance whose persons and cases are wholly unknown to him he being neither our Governour nor our Associate But if we and our case were known to him he may judge of us so far as we may judge of him And other judgement what ever men may say to deceive there is none to decide our controversies but the final judgement of the Vniversal Iudge who is at the door A LETTER Written to Thomas Smith A Papist Concerning the Church of Rome LONDON Printed 1660. Reverend Sir THe noted sanctity admirable integrity and extraordinary charity so eminently appearing in your pious actions and as I have some cause to think the indelible characters of your sacred function hath animated me to make choice of your self rather then any of your coat to this present address hoping your candour and tenderness will bear with what may be by others less sensible of the value of immortal souls slighted interpreted according to the candid and true sense of your supplicant by you It hath pleased the great and terrible Iudge of heaven and earth to put me upon some thoughts more seriously then ordinary of my eternal estate and to be somewhat doubtful in the midst of external perturbations of those internal grounds which I have formerly relyed upon And truely Sir with all cordialness my desire is clearly to know the mind of my God which were I truely satisfied in I should soon wave all other interests to entertain and assuring my self according to what I have seen and read the Church of Rome to which I have long cleaved and adhered to be the pillar and ground of truth and that Catholike Church which the ancient Creed testifies we are to believe in My desire is to be as soon satisfied as may be of your thoughts whether it ever were a true Church which I suppose you will not deny when you consider the first verse of the Epistle to the Romans and if so when it made its defection The reason of my urging this is because I think all other questions to be but going about the bush and the true Church being proved all arguments else easily are answered I have heard Protestants aver the ancient maxime viz. Extra Ecclesiam non est salus Therefore I suppose it the only thing pertinent to my purpose and necessary to salvation to enquire after My occasions will suddenly draw me from these parts unless I hear from you speedily and doubt not Sir but I am one who freely will resign my self to hear truth impartially Therefore I beseech you to send something to me by way of satisfaction the next Saturday after which you shall be more particularly sensible who the person is that applies himself to you and in the interim subscribes himself Sir A thirsty troubled soul and yours to his power Tho. Smith Feb. 11. 1656. Direct your Letter to me if you please to Mr. John Smiths house next door to the sign of the Crown in the broad street Worcester Good Sir be private for the present otherwise it may be prejudicial to some temporal affairs agitating at this time Sir THat you can have such charitable thoughts of one that is not of the Roman subjection and of my function being not received from the Pope is so extraordinary yea and contrary to the judgement of your writers that I must needs entertain it with the more gratitude and some admiration And that you are so impartially willing to entertain the truth as you profess though it be no more then the truth deserves of you and your own wellfare doth require yet is the more aimiable in you by how much the more rare in those of your Profession so far as my acquaintance can inform me for most of them that I have met with understand not well their own Religion nor think themselves much concerned to understand it but refer me to others for a Reason of their hope For my part I do the more gladly entertain the occasion of this entercourse with you though unknown that I may learn what I know not and may be true to my own conscience in the use of all means that may conduce to my better information And therefore I shall plainly answer your Questions according to the measure of my understanding most solemnly professing to you that I will say nothing which comes not from my heart in plain simplicity and that I will with exceeding gladness and a thousand thanks come over to your way if I can finde by any thing that you shall make known to me that it is the mind of God that I should so do And therefore I am desirous that if what I write to you shall seem unsound you would not only afford me your own advice for the correction of it but also the advice of the most learned of your mind to whom you shall your self think meet to communicate it But on these conditions 1. That it be a person of a tender conscience that dare speak nothing but what he verily believes 2. That he will argue closly and not fly abroad or dilate Rhetorically And for any divulging of it to your danger or hurt you need not fear it For these two grounds of my following answers I shall here promise 1. That I am so far from persecuting bloody desires against those of your way that their own bloody principles and practices where they have power in Italy Spain c. hath done much to confirm me that the cause is not of God that must be so upheld and carried on 2. And I am so far from cruel uncharitable censures of any that unfeignedly love the Lord Jesus and his truth that it is the greatest motive to me of all other to dislike your Profession because it is so notoriously against Christian charity restraining the Catholike Church to your selves and outing and condemning the far greatest part of Christians in the world and that because they believe not in the Pope though they believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and all that the Primitive Church believed I am so Catholike that according to my present judgement I cannot