The Successive Visibility of the Church, Title page 2

The Successive Visibility of the Church · Title page 2

THE SECOND PART: Wherein the successive Visibility of the Church, of which the Protestants are chief Members, is clearly proved: And the Papists exceptions against it confuted.

LONDON, Printed in the year 1660.

p. 197Qu. Whether the Church, of which the Protestants are Members, have been Visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth? Aff.

THe terms explained.

1. [The Church] sometime signifieth a particular Congregation actually met, or associated for such personal meeting, for Communion in Gods worship. 2. Sometime it signifieth an Association of Churches, and that either of sewer, or of more, as they have opportunity of Communion or correspondency by their Pastors; and also the Assemblies of the Pastors of the particular Churches so associated. Scripture useth it in the first sense, and Later custome (whether Scripture also I omit) in the later. 3. Both Scripture and Custome have used the word to signifie the Church Universal, of which all particular Churches are Members. This is [the Church] that we speak of in the Question.

Defin. The Universal Church, of which p. 198the Protestants profess themselves Members, is, The Kingdome of Iesus Christ: or, The whole company of Believers (or true Christians) upon earth, subjected to Iesus Christ their Head.] The constitutive parts, or the Relate and Correlate are, (as in every Politick Body) the Pars Imperans, and Pars subdita: which is Christ and Christians. The form consisteth in the mutuall Relation. The End is the common good of the Church, and the glory of the Head, and the accomplishment of the will of God.

2. [The Protestants] Defin. [Protestants are Christians protesting against, or disowning Popery.] The word [Protestant] expresseth not the essence of our Religion. And therefore it must not denominate the Universal Church, of which we are Members: we are not to call it [A Protestant Universal Church.] Nor doth it signifie an inseparable proper accident. For when the Catholick Church had no Popery, there was none to protest against, and therefore there could be no Protestants. And Ethiopia, India, and other Nations that never had Popery, or those Nations that never heard of it, have no occasion to protest against it. Nor doth it signifie any Positive part (directly) of our Religion: but only p. 199the Negation, or Rejection of Popery: Even as when a man is called [Homo purgatus, sanatus, liberatus, à leprâ, peste, tabe, &c.] a man purged, healed, freed from the leprosie, plague, consumption, &c. it is no positive part, nor inseparable proper accident, much less any essential part of the man, that is signified by the word [Healed, Purged, &c.] Nor is it necessary in order to the proving him [a man] or [a healthfull man,] to prove that he was ever [a purged, or healed man.] We undertake not therefore to prove that there have been alwayes Protestants, that is, men Protesting against Popery: Nor have we any need, in order to the proof of our Thesis, to prove that the Catholick Church hath all been free from Popery in all ages, or in any age since the Apostles, no more then that it hath been free from Pride, Ambition, or Contention. (But yet we shall do it ex abundanti.) The Religion then of a Protestant is Christianity, and he knoweth and owneth no other. Which is called [the Protestant Religion] as cleansed from Popery.

[Members] that is, true integral parts.

[Of which—are—] By Profession. We profess our selves to be of no other Church. p. 200And before men, a man is to be taken to be of that Religion and Church of which he professeth himself to be, till he be proved false in that Profession. If a Papist affirm himself a member of the Roman Church, in disputing with him we will take it for granted that he is so; every man being best acquainted with his own mind, and fittest to describe the Religion which he owns. So that two things I here include. 1. It is only such a Catholick Church that hath been still visible, [that Protestants own.] 2. And only such that really they are of, their Profession being valid.

Note also, that it is not directly the inexistency by internal invisible faith, that is in question among us, or that I mean: but the inexistency by external Visible Profession. Bellarmine thinks the bare Professors that are wicked, are best termed [Dead members] and [the true Professors, [Living members] we will not stick needlesly on words: We take the Living members only to be in strict propriety members; but Sincerity and Hypocrisie being known only to God and the possessors, we speak of Professors as Professors abstractively from their Sincerity or Hypocrisie.

[Hath been Visible.] 1. Not visible to p. 201man in its Internal faith; but in its external Profession.

2. Not Visible at once to any one man: for no man can see all the Christian world at once: But Visible in its parts, both in Congregations and individual persons.

3. Not Visible in the soundness of its professed faith unto Infidels and Hereticks: For they cannot see that faith to be sound, which they take to be fabulous and false: But Visible in the soundness of its professed faith to themselves, that know the soundness of faith.

4. Not Visible in the excellent degree of soundness in the better parts, unto the corrupter or infirmer parts: For though de facto they may know what Doctrine the better part do hold (as Infidels know what Doctrine the Church holdeth) yet they know it not to be true and sound in the points wherein they differ.

And note again, that it is not the [Visibility] of every accident of the Church, nor of every Truth or duty that is but of the Integrity of Religion, and necessary only ad melius esse Ecclesiae, to the Better being of the Church, but it is the [Visibility] of the Church that we speak of.

Lastly, it is the Body and not the Head, p. 202whose Visibility is in Question by us. Though the Head also is truly Visible in Heaven; and Visus, or seen to the most excellent Triumphant part of his Body, who are fittest to be his Courtiers, and in his presence: (and as much seen on earth, as the Pope is to most of the Church, which is not at all.)

[Ever since the dayes of Christ on earth.] 1. But not still in one and the same place on earth. It might be in one age much of it in Iudea, at Ephesus, Sardis, Laodicaea, Colosse, Philippi, and other parts of Asia; and in other ages removed thence, either wholly or for the most part: It might be in one age in Tendu…, N…bia, and other great Kingdoms, where it shall af…er cease to be: But in some part or other of the earth it hath been still.

2. Not equally visible in all Times and Places of the earth. In some Times (as in the Arrians prevalency) it was so oppressed and obscured, that the world groaned to find it self turn'd Arrian, and the Arrians in General Councils and number of Bishops (to whom the true Christians were very few) did seem to carry away the Name and glory of the Catholick Church; so that in their eyes, and in the eyes of slanders by that were of neither party, the most Visible Catholick p. 203Church was theirs: who yet had no part in it, because they were not Christians (as denying that which is essentiall to Christ, the object of the Christian faith) and therefore none of the Church, and therefore though most visible and numerous, yet not the visible Church: And the Church, which to others was as wheat hidden in this chaffe, or rather a few ears among so many rares, was yet Visible to it self in its Truth of faith, and visible to its Enemies in its Profession and assemblies, though in number far below them.

So also in some places it may be Latent through persecution & the paucity of believers, when in other places it is more Patent.

And its Degrees of soundness being various, are accordingly variously visible. One part may be really and visibly more strong, and another more weak in the faith: One part much more corrupt then others, and other parts retain their purity: And the same Countries increase or decrease in that purity, as is apparent in the case of the Churches of Galatia, Corinth, the seven Asian Churches, Rev. 2. and 3. &c.

Lastly note, that it is only that part of the Church which is on earth whose visibility we assert; though that in Heaven be p. 204also a true part of the Body of Christ.

Nor is it in the same Individuals that the Church continueth Visible, but in successive Matter. So much for explication of the terms.

Thes. The Church of which the Protestants are Members, hath been Visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth.

Arg. 1. The Body of Christians on earth subjected to Christ their Head, hath been (in its parts) Visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth.

But the Body of Christians on earth subjected to Christ their Head, is the Church of which the Protestants are Members:

Therefore the Church of which the Protestants are Members, hath been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth.

I have not sagacity enough to conjecture what any Papist can say against the Major proposition.

The Minor is proved by our own Professions: As the profession of Popery, proveth a man a Papist, so the profession of Christianity as much proveth us to be Christians.

[α] Those that profess the true Christian Religion in all its essentials, are Members of that Church which is the Body of Christians on earth subjected to Christ the Head.

p. 205But the Protestants profess the true Christian Religion in all its essentialls: therefore the Protestants are Members of that Church which is the Body of Christians on earth subjected to Christ the Head.

The Major is undeniable. The Minor is thus proved. 1. Those that profess so much as God hath promised salvation upon in the Covenant of Grace, do profess the Christian Religion in all its Essentials. (For God promiseth salvation in that Covenant to none but Christians.) But the Protestants profess so much as God hath promised salvation upon, in the Covenant of Grace:

Therefore the Protestants do profess the Christian Religion in all its essentials.

The Minor is thus proved. All that profess faith in God the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, our Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier, and love to him, and absolute obedience to all his Laws of Nature and holy Scripture, with willingness and diligence to know the true meaning of all these Laws as far as they are able, and with Repentance for all known sin, do profess so much as God hath promised salvation upon, Ioh. 3.16, 17. Mark 16.16. Heb. 5.9 Rom. 8.28. 1. Act 26.18. But so do the Protestants: Therefore the Protestants p. 206profess so much as God hath promised salvation on.

2. 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 Baptism did profess, do profess the true Christian Religion in all its essentials.

But so do the Protestants: Therefore, &c.

3. Those that explicitely profess the Belief of all that was contained in the Churches Symbols, or Creeds, for six hundred years after Christ (and much more holy truth) and implicitly to believe all that is contained in the holy Scriptures, and to be willing and diligent for the explicite knowledge of all the rest, with a Resolution to obey all the will of God which they know, do profess the true Christian Religion in all its Essentials. But so do the Protestants. Therefore, &c.

Ad hominem, I confirm the Major (and most that went before) from the Testimonies of some most eminent Papists.

Bellarmine saith, de Verbo Dei, lib. 4. c. 11. In the Christian doctrine both of faith and manners, some things are simply necessary to salvation to all; as the knowledge of the Articles of the Apostles Creed, of the ten p. 207Commandments, and of some Sacraments: The rest are not so necessary that a man cannot be saved without the explicite knowledge, belief, and profession of them— These things that are simply necessary, and are profitable to all, the Apostles preached to all — All things are written by the Apostles which are Necessary to all, and which they openly preacht to all —

Costerus Enchirid. c. 1. p. 49. [We deny not, that those chief heads of Belief, which are necessary to all Christians to be known to salvation, are perspicuously enough comprehended in the writings of the Apostles.]

But all this the Protestants profess to believe.

[…] If sincere Protestants are Members of the true Church, as intrinsecally informed (or as Bellarmine speaks, Living Members) then professed Protestants are Members of the true Church as extrinsecally denominated (or as it is Visible, consisting of Professors.) But the Antecedent is true: Therefore so is the Consequent.

The Reason of the Consequence is, because it is the same thing that is professed by all Professors, and existent in all true Believers: and that as to Profession is necessary to Visibility of Membership; and as p. 208to sincere inexistence, is necessary to salvation.

The Antecedent or Minor I thus prove. All that by saith in Christ are brought to the unfeigned Love of God above all, and speciall Love to his servants, and unfeigned willingness to obey him, are Members of the true Church as intrinsecally informed. But such are all sincere Protestants: Therefore all sincere Protestants are Members of the true Church as intrinsecally informed.

The Major is granted by the Papists, who affirm charity to be the form of Grace, and all that have it to be justified. And the promises of Scripture prove it to our Comfort.

The Minor 1. Is proved to others by our Professions: If this be in our Profession, then the sincere are such indeed. But this is in our Profession: Therefore, &c.

2. Its certainly known to our selves by the inward knowledge and sense of our souls. I know that I Love God and his servants, and am willing to obey him; Therefore all the Papists Sophisms shall never make me not know what I do know, and not feel what I do feel. They reason in vain with me, when they reason against the knowledge and experience of my soul. Your p. 209scope is to prove me in a state of damnation. You confess that if I have charity I am in a state of salvation. I know and feel that I have charity: Therefore I know that your Reasonings are deceit.

Arg. 2. The Church whose faith is contained in the holy Scriptures as its Rule in all points necessary to salvation, hath been Visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth.

But the Church whose faith is contained in the holy Scriptures as its Rule in all points necessary to salvation, is it of which the Protestants are Members.

Therefore the Church of which the Protestants are Members, hath been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth.

That the Catholick Church which hath been Visible till now, hath received the Holy Scriptures which we receive, is confessed by all Papists that ever I heard or read making mention of it. And no wonder, for it cannot be denied.

That this Church hath taken these Scriptures for the Rule of faith in all points necessary to salvation (allowing Church-Governours to make Canons about the circumstantials of Government and worship, which in the Universal Law are not determined, p. 219but left to humane prudence to determine.) 1. I have proved in my third Dispute of the safe Religion already. 2. It is confessed by the Papists: the forecited passages of Bellarmine and Costerus are sufficient. But in the great Council at Basil, Orat. Ragus. Bin. p. 299. it is most plainly and with fuller authority asserted. [The holy Scripture in the Literal sense, soundly and well understood, is the infallible and Most sufficient Rule of faith.] See my vindication of this Testimony in my Catholick Key: and the like from Card. Richlieu.

Gerson saith, de exam. doctr. p. 2. cont. 1. Nihil audendum dicere de divinis, nisi quae nobis à sacra Scriptura tradita sunt.

Durandus in his Preface is wholly for the excellency and sufficiency of the Scriptures. Three wayes, he saith, God revealeth himself and other things to man: The lowest way is by the book of the creatures (so heathens may know him.) The highest is by manifest Vision (as in heaven): and the middle way is in the Book of holy Scripture, without which there is no coming to the highest way.] And going on to extoll the Scripture, he citeth Ieromes words ad Paulinum, [Let us learn on earth the knowledge of those things which will abide with p. 211us in heaven:] But this is only (saith he) in the holy Scripture.] And after ex Hierom. ad Marcell. [If Reason be brought against the authority of the Scriptures, how acute soever it is, it cannot be true:] And after [We must speak of the mysterie of Christ, and universally of those things that meerly concern faith, conformably to what the holy Scripture delivereth: So Christ, Iohn 5. Search the Scriptures, It is they that testifie of me. If any observe not this, he speaks not of the mysterie of Christ, and of other things directly touching faith as he ought, but falls into that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 8. If any man think he knoweth any thing, he yet knoweth nothing as he ought to know. For the measure is not to exceed the measure of faith: of which the Apostle bids us, Rom. 12. Not to be wiser then we ought to be, but to be wise to sobriety, and as God hath divided to every man the measure of faith. Which Measure consisteth in two things; to wit, that we subtract not from faith that which is of faith, nor (N.B.) attribute that to faith which is not of faith: For by either of these wayes, the measure of faith is exceeded, and men deviate from the continence of the sacred Scripture, which expresseth the measure of faith.] p. 212(That is, from the full sufficiency of the Scripture measure:) [And this measure, by Gods assistance, we will hold, that we may write or teach nothing dissonant to the holy Scripture. But if by ignorance or inadvertency, we should write any thing dissonant, let it be taken ipso facto as not written.] This is a confession of the Religion of the Protestants. And though he adjoyn a submission to the Roman Church, because he was bred in it, it is only as to an interpreter of doubtfull Texts of Scripture: So that the sufficiency of our Rule and measure of faith is granted by him, and zealously asserted; and that without Bellarmine and Costerus limitation, to points necessary to the salvation of all; he extendeth it to all the faith.

Aquin. 22. q. 1. a. 10. ad 1. saith, [That in the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, the truth of the faith is sufficiently explicated:] even when he is pleading for the Popes power to make new Creeds to obviate errours.

And in his sum. de Verit. disp. de fide q. 10. ad 11. he saith, [That all the means by which the faith cometh to us are free from suspicion. The Prophets and Apostles we believe, for this reason, because God bore p. 213them witness by working Miracles: as Mar. 16. confirming their speech with following signs: But their successors we believe not, but so far as they declare to us those things which they have left us in the Scripture.] This is the Religion of the Protestants.

Scotus in Prolog. in sent. 1. makes it his second Question, Whether supernaturall knowledge necessary to us in the Way, be sufficiently delivered in the holy Sc…ipture, which he proveth (having first given ten arguments to prove the Truth of Scripture.) And first he shews it containeth the Doctrine of the End, and 2. of the things necessary to that end, and the sufficiency of them; summarily in the Decalogue, explained in the other Scriptures, as to matter of faith, hope, and practice; and so concludes, that the holy Scripture sufficiently containeth the doctrine necessary viatori, to us in the way: And he answereth the objection, of Difficulties in it, (without flying to the Church) that [no science explaineth all things to be known, but those things from which the rest may conveniently be gathered: and so many needfull truths are not expressed in Scripture; though they are virtually there contained, as conclusions in the Principles, about the investigation p. 214whereof the labour of Expositors and Doctors hath been profitable.] This is his doctrine out of Origen.

Gregor. Ariminensis in Prol. q. 1. act. 2. Resp. ad act. fol. 3. & 4. saith [A discourse properly Theologicall, is that which consisteth of words or propositions contained in the holy Scripture; or of those that are deduced from them; or at least from one of these: This is proved 1. by the forealledged authority of Dionys. For he will have it, that there can be no leading of that man to Theologicall science, that assenteth not to the sayings of the holy Scripture.—It follows therefore that no discourse that proceedeth not from the words of holy Scripture, or of that which is deduced from them, is Theologicall.]— [2. The same is proved from the common conception of all men: For all men judge that then only is any thing proved Theologically, when they prove it from the words of the holy Scripture.]

This is more then the former say: For to extend the sufficiency and necessity of Scripture to all thats Theologicall, is more then to extend it to matter of faith. No Protestant goeth higher then this that I know of. And note, that he makes this the p. 215very common conception and judgement of all men. See then where our Religion and Church was before Luther! even among all Christians.

Yet more fully he proceeds (ibid.) [Hence it further appeareth, that Principles of Theology thus taken, that is, which is acquired by Theologicall discourse, are the very Truths themselves of the holy Canon, because the ultimate Resolution of all Theologicall discourse doth stand (or belong) to them; and all Theologicall conclusions are deduced first from them. But distinguishing the Conclusions Theologicall from the Principles, I say that all truths are not in themselves formally contained in the holy Scripture: but of necessity following from those that are contained in them: and this whether they are Articles of faith, or not (N B); and whether they are knowable or known by another science, or not: and whether they are determined by the Church or not. But of other Truths, to wit, not following from the words of the holy Scripture, I say there is no Theologicall conclusion: This is proved, &c.—]

When I read over the Schoolmen and Divines of all sorts, that wrote before the Reformers fell so closely upon the Pope, and p. 216[find how generally even the Papists themselves maintained the sufficiency of the holy Scripture, just as the Protestants now do, I am convinced 1. of the succession of the Protestants Religion in the Universal Visible Church; and 2. that it was the Reformers Arguments from Scripture, that forced the Papists to oppose this holy Rule, as to its sufficiency; and to invent the new doctrine of supplementall Tradition; (for conservative, Ministeriall Tradition of the holy Scriptures we are for as much, at least, as they.)

The words of Guil. Parisie…sis, too large to be recited, in extolling the fulness and perfection of the Scripture, even for all sorts of men, you may read, de Legibus, cap. 16. pag. 46.

Bellarmine de Verbo Dei. lib. 3. cap. 10. ad Arg. 15. saith [We must know that a Proposition of faith is concluded in such a syllogism: Whatsoever God hath revealed in Scripture is true: But this God hath revealed in Scripture: Therefore it is true.] (Though he require another word of God by the Pope, or Council, to prove that this is revealed in Scripture.) But if so, then Scripture containeth all thats true in points of faith.

p. 2172. And that all things that are revealed, and which we ought to believe, are not Essentiall to the Christian faith, and therefore that all are of the Church that hold these Essentialls, and that such a distinction must be maintained, the Papists have still confessed, till lately, that disputing hath encreased their novelties and errours.

Bellarmines and Costerus confession, I recited even now.

Guliel. Parisiensis in Operum pag. 9, 10, 11, 12. de fide, industriously proveth the necessity of distinguishing the fundamentalls or essentialls, from the rest of the points of faith: and it is they that constitute the Catholick faith, which he saith is therefore called Catholick or Universal, because it is the common faith, or the common foundation of Religion: And he proves that hence it is that the Catholick faith is but One, and found in all Catholicks, these fundamentalls being found in all.] By many arguments he proveth this.

And that there are some points, even these common Articles necessary to be known of all, necessitati medii, the Schoolmen commonly grant: as Aquin. 22. q. 2. a. 5. c. Bannes in 22. q. 2. a. 8. &c. Of these saith Espencaeus (in 2. Ti. c. 3. dig. 17.) p. 218which are the objects of faith per se, and not the secondary objects, the adult must have an explicite faith, and the Colliers faith at this time decantate by the Catholicks, will not serve the turn.]

And we have both the Scripture sufficiency to all points of faith, even the lowest, and also the foresaid distinction given us together, by Tho. Aquinas 22. q. art. 5. c. [We must say, that the object of faith per se, is that by which man is made blessed: But by accident and secondarily, all things are the object of faith which are contained in the holy Scripture.]

See the judgement of Occham, Canus, Tolet, and many more cited by Dr. Potter; and yet more for the sufficiency of the Symbole or Creed, as the test of Christianity, pag. 89, 90, 91, 92, 93. Where you have the sense of the Ancients upon the point, and p. 102, 103.

I conclude therefore with the Jesuite Azorius, par. 1. lib. 8. c. 6. [The substance of the Article in which we believe One, holy, Catholick Church, is, that no man can be saved out of the Congregation of men professing the reception of the faith and Religion of Christ, and that salvation may be obtained within this same Congregation of godly and faithfull men.

p. 219And as to the Essence of the Christian faith and Church, we say with Tertullian of the Symbole [Fides in Regula posita est: habes legem, & salutem ex observatione legis: exercitatio autem in curiositate consistit, habens gloriam solam ex peritiae studio: Cedat curiositas fidei: Cedat gloria saluti. Corte aut non obstrepant, aut quiescant adversus regulam: Nihil ultra scire, est omnia scire.] That is, [Faith lieth in the Rule: Here you have the Law, and salvation in the observation of that Law; but it is exercise that consisteth in curiosity, having only (a name or) glory by the study of skill; Let curiosity give place to faith: Let glory give place to salvation. Let them not prate, or let them be quiet, against the Rule. To know nothing further, is to know all things.] De Praescript. cap. 13, 14.

So cap. 8. Nobis curiositate opus non est post Christum Iesum, nec inquisitione post Evangelium. Cum credimus, nihil desideramus ultra credere; hoc enim prius credimus, non esse quod ultra credere debeamus.] That is, [As for us we need not curiosity after Jesus Christ, nor inquisition after the Gospel: When we believe, we need to believe no further: For we first believe this, that there is nothing further that we ought to believe.]

p. 220And here (on the by) for the right understanding of Tertullians Book de Praescript. note, 1. That the Rule of Essentialls extracted from the whole Scripture, is the Churches ancient Creed. 2. That the compleat Rule of all points of faith is the whole Scripture. And that Tertullian had to do with Hereticks that denied the Essentials, and desired the whole Scripture to dispute their case from both, because they had questioned or rejected much of it; and because it was a larger field to exercise their wits in, and whence they might gather more matter of dispute to puzzle the weak: And therefore Tertullian adviseth the ordinary Christians of his time, instead of long puzzling disputes with them out of Scripture, to hold them to the Churches prescription, of the simple doctrine of the Creed. But now come in the Papists; and 3. will neither be content with Creed nor Scripture, but must have a Church or faith partly made up of supplemental Traditions, of more then is in all the Scripture, and so run further from Tertullian and the ancient simplicity, then these Hereticks, and yet are not ashamed to glory in this Book of Tertullian as for them.

Of the Fathers judgement of the Scripture p. 221sufficiency, see the third part of my [safe Religion] where I have produced Testimonies enough to prove the Antiquity of the Protestants Religion, and the Novelty of Popery. But nothing can be so plain and full, which pre-engaged men dare not deny. Let me instance but in one or two passages of Augustine, so plain as might put an end to the whole Controversie.

Aug. de Doctr. Christian. lib. 2. c. 9. [In his omnibus libris timentes Deum & pietate mansueti, quaerunt voluntatem Dei. Cujus operis & laboris prima observatio est, ut diximus, nosse istos libros, & si nondum ad intellectum legendo tamen vel mandare memoriae, (He was not against the Vulgars reading Scripture) vel omnino incognitos non habere. Deinde illa quae in eis aperte pofita sunt, vel praecepta vivendi vel regulae credendi, solertiùs diligentiúsque investiganda sunt: Quae tanto quisque plura invenit, quanto est intelligentia capacior: In iis enim quae apertè in Scriptura posita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi, (N. B.) spem scilicet atque charitatem, de quibus libro superiore tractavimus. Tum vero facta quadam familiaritate cum ipsa lingua divinarum scripturarum, in ea quae obscura sunt aperienda, & discutienda pergendum est, ut p. 222ad obscuriores locutiones illustrandas de manifestationibus sumantur exempla, & quaedam certarum sententiarum testimonia, dubitationem de incertis auferant.] You see here that the Scripture, as sufficient to faith and manners, to be read by all that fear God, and can read; and the harder places to be expounded by the plainer, was the ancient Rule of faith and Religion: And this is the Religion of Protestants.

Aug. lib. 3. c. 6. contra lit. Petiliani, pag. 127. [Proinde, sive de Christo sive de ejus Ecclesia, sive de quacunque alia re quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram, non dicam Nos, nequaquam comparandi …i qui dixit [Licet si nos] sed omnino quod secutus adjecit, si Angelus de coelo vobis annunciaverit praeterquam quod in Scripturis & Evangelicis accepistis, Anathema sit.] I must needs English this short passage, to the utter confusion of Popery. [And therefore whether it be of Christ, or whether it be of the Church, or whether it be of any other matter that pertaineth to our Faith or Life, I will not say [if we] as being not worthy to be compared with him that said [Though we] but (I will say) plainly what he added following: [If an Angel from heaven shall declare to you any thing besides that which you have p. 223received in the Legall and Evangelicall Scriptures, let him be Anathema, or accursed.] Was not the Church then purely Protestant in their Religion?

The Minor needs no proof but our own Profession. My profession is the best evidence of my own Religion to another: And I profess this to be my Religion; which is contained in the holy Scripture, as the Test, or Law, or Rule. And let no man contradict me, that knoweth not my Religion better then I do: The Articles of the Church of England profess this also to be the Religion of the Composers. And the Protestants commonly uno ore do profess it. It is the great difference between us and the Papists. The whole Universal Law of God that we know of, and own, is contained in Nature and Scripture conjunct. But the Papists take somewhat else to be another part. We allow by-Laws about mutable undetermined things (as aforesaid) to Governours: But we know no Universal Law of faith and holiness, but Nature and Scripture: This is our Religion: And this Religion contained in Nature and Scriptures hath been still received.

Obj. We confess Scripture is sufficient to them that have no further light: All that is p. 224necessary to the salvation of all, is in that perspicuously, as Costerus, Bellarmine, and others say: but more is necessary to salvation to some.

Ans. 1. Then at least it containeth all the Essentialls of Christianity, which sufficeth to our present end. 2. And what maketh more Necessary to me, or others here in England, if it be not necessary to all? Is it because that more is Revealed to us? But how and by whom; and with what Evidence? We are willing to see it, and can see no such thing: But if this be it, (if I may speak so plainly without offence) it seems it concerneth us to keep out Friars and Jesuites from the Land, as much (if we knew how) as to keep out the Devil. For they tell us, 1. That we must believe the Popes Soveraignty, against the Tradition and judgement of most of the Catholick Church. 2. And we must believe our selves to be void of Charity (because no Papists) contrary to our internall sense and knowledge. 3. And we must believe that bread is not bread, and wine is not wine, contrary to the common senses of all sound men: and if we will not thus renounce the Churches Vote, Tradition, our Certain knowledge, Reason, and all our Senses, we must be p. 225damned: where as before this doctrine was brought us, we might have been saved, as having in the Scriptures all things necessary to the salvation of all.

But the Papists must needs have us shew them where our Church was, and name the persons. Answ. 1. It were not the Catholike Church, if it were confined to any place that is but a part of the Christian territories. 2. Nor were it the Catholike Church if we could name half or a considerable part of the members: As Augustin oft tells the Donatists, it is the Church which begun at Ierusalem, and thence is spread throughout the world. Part of it may be in one Nation one year, which may forfeit and lose it before the next. God hath not tyed it to any place. 3. To tell you where the Catholike Church hath been in every age, and who were the Members or the Leaders, requireth much knowledge in History and Cosmography, which God hath not made necessary to salvation. 4. There are no known Histories that deliver us the Catalogues of the Christians in every age of the world. Had any been so foolish as to write them, they would have been too chargeable to keep, and too long to read: yea were it but of the Pastors. p. 2265. God hath nowhere commanded the Church to keep such Catalogues or Histories, nor promised when they are written, that Papists shall not purposely corrupt and destroy them, not Turks (as at Buda) take the Christian Libraries, and burn them. 6. Papists cannot prove the successive extent and habitations of the Catholike Church any more then we; and we can do it as well as they: for we have the same means. If they can tell us where it hath been in every age, they need not ask us: If they cannot, they have as much need to learn as we, and much more. They think it not necessary to their Laity, to the proving of their faith, to be able to prove the habitations or names of the Members of the Catholike Church in all ages: and why is it more necessary to us then them? 7. But yet, to men acquainted with history, what can be more easie, then to tell you where great multitudes of Christians in all ages have inhabited, and where many parts of the Church have been, though no man can give you a Catalogue of the Church, any more then of the world?

Would you know then where our Church, that is, the Catholike Church hath been, in all ages? why it hath been in Asia, p. 227Africa and Europe. Is that too general? It hath been in Syria, in Mesopotamia, Parthia, Media, Armenia, India, Persia, in Egypt, Habassia, Georgia, Cilicia, Circassia, Mengrelia, Natolia, Isauria, Thrace, and more other Countries, then I have any need to name to you, (to say nothing of Europe, and Brittain by name, as a thing most known). But no man well in his wits will deny a succession of the Christian Church which I have defined, from the first plantation of it until now. If Christianity had ever ceased in the world, how came it to be new planted, and revived?

That this before described is the only Catholike Church that hath been owned by the ancient Doctors, appeareth by their constant witnesses. To cite a few, and yet enough.

August. in Psal. 21. Vbicunque timetur Deus & laudatur, ibi est Ecclesia.

Id. Epist. 50. In Sanctis Libris ubi manifestatur Dominus Christus, ibi & ejus Ecclesia declaratur (and therefore there it must be sought) Isti autem mirabili caecitate, cum ipsum Christum praeter Scripturas nesciant, ejus tamen▪ Ecclesiam non divinarum authoritate cognoscunt, sed humanarum calumniarum vanitate confingunt. Christ p. 228is to be known in the Scripture, and therefore so is the Church.

Ibid. In causa Caeciliani — se ab Ecclesia Catholica, hoc est, ab unitate omnium gentium diviserunt. Its not the Catholick Church because Roman, but because extended to all Nations. Sed tamen Ecclesiam, quae non litigiosis opinionibus fingitur, sed Divinis attestationibus comprobatur, propter quemlibet hominem relinquere non debemus.

Id. In Psal. 56. Corpus ejus est Ecclesia: non autem ista aut illa, sed toto Orbe diffusa: Nec ea quae nunc est in hominibus qui praesentem vitam agunt, sed ad eam pertinentibus, etiam his qui fuerunt ante nos, & his qui futuri sunt post nos, usque in finem seculi. Tota enim Ecclesia constans ex omnibus fidelibus, quia fideles omnes membra sunt Christi, habet illud Caput positum in coelestibus quod gubernat corpus suum, etsi separatum est à visione, sed annectitur charitate.]

Id. Enchirid. ad Laurent. c. 56. Ecclesia tanquam habitatori domus sua, & Deo templum suum, & conditori civitas sua: quae tota hic accipienda est, non solum ex parte quae peregrinatur in terris, à solis ortu usque ad occasum laudans nomen domini.]

Id. contr. Petilian. cap. 2. Purposely p. 229opening the true nature of the Catholick Church for the stating of the Case, saith, [Quaestio certè inter nos versatur, ubi sit Ecclesia? utrum apud nos, an apud illos? Quae utique Vna est, quam majores nostri Catholicam nominarunt, ut ex ipso nomine ostenderent, quia per totum est.— Haec autem Ecclesia Corpus Christi est: sicut Apostolus dicit, [pro corpore ejus, quae est Ecclesia.] Vnde utique manifestum est, eum qui non est in membris Christi, Christianam salutem habere non posse. Membra vero Christi per unitatis charitatem sibi copulantur, & per eandem capiti suo adhaerent quod est Christus Iesus. — Quaestio est, ubi sit hoc corpus, i. e. ubi sit Ecclesia? Quid ergo facturi sumus? in Verbis nostris eam quaesituri? an in Verbis capitis sui? Domini nostri Iesu Christi? Puto quod in illius potius verbis eam quaerere debemus, qui verit as est, & optime novit corpus suum — After he calls the Church over and over, Vniversum Orbem Christianum—cap. 3. Quia nolo humanis documentis, sed divinis oraculis sanctam Ecclesiam demonstrari. Si sanctae Scriptura in Africa solâ, &c. — Si autem Christi Ecclesia Canonicarum Scripturarum Divinis & certissimis testimoniis in omnibus gentibus designata est, quicquid attulerint (N. B.) & undicunque p. 230recitaverint, qui dicunt, [Ecce hic Christus, ecce illic] audiamus potius, si …ves ejus sumus, vocem pastoris nostri dicentis [Nolite credere.] — Cap. 4. Totus Christus Caput & Corpus est: Caput unigenitus Dei filius, & Corpus ejus Ecclesia, sponsus & sponsa; duo in carne una: Quicunque de ipso capite ab Scripturis sanctis dissentiunt, etiamsi in omnibus locis inveniantur in quibus Ecclesia designata est, non sunt in Ecclesia: & …ursus quicunque de ipso capite Scripturis Sanctis consentiunt, & Vnitati Ecclesiae non communicant, (or as after) ab ejus corpore quod est Ecclesia ita dissentiunt, ut eorum communio non sit cum toto quacunque diffunditur, sed in aliqua parte separata inveniatur, manif stum est eos non esse in Catholica Ecclesia.] (A sad conclusion to the Papists.)

It would be tedious to recite half that Austin there hath to this purpose. Through all his exquisite disputes with the Donatists, he still describeth the Church, 1. As being the Body of Christ, its Head. 2. As dispersed through the world, and containing all the Members of Christ. 3. And that which begun at Ierusalem. 4. And is to be known by the word of God: Never mentioning the Headship of the Pope, nor the Mistris-ship of Rome: of which more anon.

p. 231So Optatus lib. 2. advers. Parmen. Vbi ergo erit propriet as Catholici nominis, cum inde dicta sit Catholica, quod sit rationabilis & ubique diffusa, &c.] And before (p. 46.) Ergo Ecclesia una est, cujus sanctitas de sacramentis colligitur; non de superbia personarum ponderatur: He glorieth indeed in the chair of Peter, and the Roman Church and succession, as being on the Catholicks side; but never maketh them an Essentiall part of the Catholick Church, nor talks of a Unity caused by subjection to them, but Charity to all: And therefore calls the Schismaticks, lib. 3. p. 72. Charitatis desertores, not subjectionis desertores: Adding, gaud…t totus Orbis de Vnitate Catholica; but never de subjectione Romae. Yea he saith more of the seven Asian Churches, lib. 2. p 50. Extra septem Ecclesias quicquid foris est, …lienum est. Never more (i… …o much) can be found to be said to Rome: and now Rome it self is extra septem Ecclesias. So he supposeth God praising the Catholick, p 77. lib. 4. Dissentio & sehisma tibi displicuit; Concordasti cum fratre tuo, & cum una Ecclesia, quae est in toto orbe terrarum: Communicasti septem Ecclesiis & memoriis Apostolorum: amplexus es unitatem. So lib. 6. p. 95. he thus describeth the Catholick p. 232Communion. [An quia voluntatem & jussionem Dei secuti sumus amando pacem, communicando toti orbi terrarum; societati Orientalibus, ubi secundum hominem suum natus est Christus; ubi ejus sancta sunt in pressa vestigia; ubi ambu…averunt adorandi pedes; ubi ab ipso factae sunt tot & tantae virtutes; ubi eum sunt tot Apostoli comitati; ubi est septiformis Ecclesia; à qua vos concisos esse, &c.]

Tertullian dealing with Hereticks indeed, that denyed the Fundamentals, thought it but a tiresome way to dispute with them out of Scripture, who wrested so many things in it to their destruction, but would have them convinced by Prescription: because they lived near the Churches that were planted by the Apostles, and near their daies: And what doth he? appeal to Rome, as the Judge, or Church that the rest are subjected to? No: but 1. It is the common Creed or Symbole of the Church, that he would have made use of in stead of long disputes (and not any other doctrine.) 2. And it is all the Churches planted by the Apostles, that he will have to be the first witnesses. 3. And the present Churches, the immediate witnesses that they received this Creed (not any supernumeraries) p. 233from them, as the Apostles doctrine. So de praescript. c. 13. he reciteth the Symbole it self, and so cap. 20. he mentioneth the sending of the twelve to teach this faith, and plant Churches, which he describeth thus [Statim igitur Apostoli— primo per Iudaeam contestata fide in Iesum Christum, & Ecclesiis institutis, dehinc in orbem profecti, eandem doctrinam ejusdem fidei nationibus promulgaverunt, & proinde Ecclesias apud unamquamque civitatem condiderunt, à quibus traducem fidei & semina doctrinae caeterae exinde Ecclesiae mutuatae sunt, & quotidie mutuantur ut Ecclesiae fiant. Ac per hoc & ipsea Apostolicae deputantur ut soboles Apostolicarum Ecclesiarum. Omne genus ad Originem suam censeatur, necesse est. Itaque tot ac tantae Ecclesiae una est illa ab Apostolis prima, ex qua omnes. (Are not those too gross deceivers that would perswade us that he here meaneth the Church of Rome by the [una illa], when he plainly speaks of the Catholick Church of the Apostolick age from which all the rest did spring? If of a particular Church, it must be that of Ierusalem. Did all the rest arise from Rome? Can they say [ex hac omnes?] Sic omnes primae, & omnes Apostolicae, dum unam omnes probant unitatem. Communicatio pacis, & p. 234appellatio fraternitatis, & contesseratio hospitalitatis, quae jura non alia ratio regit, quam ejusdem sacramenti una traditio.]

Note here 1. That no Original Church is mentioned but those of Iudaea, with the rest of the Apostles planting. And 2. That the Churches planted by the Apostles themselv…s, (without any mentioned difference of superiority) are that one Church which all the rest must try their faith by, as the witnesses 3. That they are equally made traduces fidei, and mother Churches to others propagated by them. 4. That per hoc, by this propagation (without subjection to the Church or Pope of Rome) all the rest are Apostolicall. 5. And the sufficient proof to any Church then that it was prima & Apostolica, was (not subjection to Rome but) that nuam omnes probant unitatem. That is, of the Apostolick faith, received from that one Apostolick Church. 6. Yea when he reciteth the external Characters of the Church, it is not subjection to Rome, that is any one of them, but, Communicatio pacis, appellatio fraternitatis, contesseratio hospitalitatis.] 7. Yea utterly to exclude the Roman subjection, he adds [quae jura non alia ratio regit, quam ejusdem sacramenti una traditio.]

p. 235So he proceeds Si haec ita sunt, constat proinde omnem doctrinam, quae cum illis Ecclesiis Apostolicis matricibus & originalibus fidei conspiret, veritati deputandum id sine dubio tenentem, quod Ecclesiae ab Apostolis, Apostoli à Christo, Christus a Deo suscepit; reliquam verò omnem doctrinam de mendacio praejudicandam, quae sapiat contra veritatem Ecclesi…rum, & Apostolorum, & Christi, & Dei. Superest ergo ut demonstremus, an haec nostra doctrina (the Creed; not the Popes additions) cujus regulam supra edidimus, de Apostolorum traditione censeatur, & ex hoc ipso, an caeterae (that contradict the Creed) de mendacio veniant. Communicamus cum Ecclesiis Apostolicis (Rome is not made the standard) quod nulla doctrina diversa, hoc est testimonium veritatis.

And cap. 28. he doth not send us to the Roman Church as Head or Judge, but calling the Holy Ghost only, Vicarius Christi, Christs Vicar, makes it incredible that he should so far neglect his office, as to let (not Rome, but) all the Churches to lose the Apostles doctrine; proving the certain succession of it, by the Unity, and not by Romes authority [Ecquid verisimile est, ut tot ac tantae in unam fidem irraverint? Nullus inter multo seventus est unus exitus: Variasse p. 236debuerat error doctrinae Ecclesiarum. Caeterum quod apud multos unum invenitur, non est erratum, sed traditum. Audeat ergo aliquis dicere, illos errasse qui tradiderunt?

So c. 32. when he calls them to the Apostolical Church, it is no more to Rome, then another. Aedant ergo origines Ecclesiarum suaerum — ut primus ille Episcopus aliquis ex Apostolis vel Apostolicis viris, qui tamen cum Apost lis perseveraverint, habuerit auctorem, & antecessorem. Hoc enim modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt: sicut Smyrneorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum ab Iohanne Collocatum refert; sicut Romanorum Clementem a Petro ordinatum edit: proinde utique & caeterae exhibent] Here you see he puts Smyrna before Rome, and Iohn before Peter, and refers them to Rome, but only as one of the Churches planted by the 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 Apost…licus auctorem suum proferant, ut multo posteriores, quae denique quotidie institutum; tamen in eadem fidem conspirantes, non minus p. 237Apostolicae 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 p. 238Churches 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, p. 239unless 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.

p. 240Ans. 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: p. 241and 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 p. 242daies 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 nonexistence 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 account; then had not Rome those priviledges from the Apostles (and consequently the whole Catholike Church was without them). But the Antecedent is affirmed by that fourth great approved Council: In Act. 16. Bin. p. 134. [We everywhere following the definitions of the holy Fathers, and the Canon, and the things that have been now read, of the hundred and fifty Bishops most beloved to God, that were congregate under the Emperour Theodosius the great of p. 243pious memory, in the Royal City of Constantinople, new Rome, we also knowing them, have defined the same things concerning the priviledges of the same most holy Church of Constantinople, new Rome: For to the seat of old Rome, because of the Empire of that City, the Fathers consequently gave the priviledges. And the hundred and fifty Bishops, most beloved of God, being moved with the same intention, have given equal priviledges to the most holy seat of new Rome: reasonably judging, that the City adorned with the Empire and Senate, shall enjoy equal priviledges with old Regal Rome.]

Here we have the Testimony of one of the greatest general Councils, of the humane original of Romes priviledges. Bellarmine hath nothing to say, but that they spoke falsly, and that this clause was not confirmed by the Pope (which are fully answered by me elsewhere.) But this is nothing to our present business: It is a matter of fact that I use their Testimony for. And if all the Bishops in two of the most approved general Councils, (called the Representative Catholike Church) were not competent witnesses in such a case, to tell us what was done, and what was not done p. 244in those times, then we have none. The Papists can pretend to no higher testimony on their part. The Church it self therefore hath here decided the controversie.

And yet note, that even these priviledges of Rome were none of his pretended universal Government.

Its in vain to talk of the Testimonies of particular Doctors, if the most renowned general Councils cannot be believed. Yet I will add an Argument from them as conjunct.

Arg. 2. Had the Roman universal Soveraignty, as essential to the Catholike Church, been known in the daies of Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, Nazianzen, Nyssen, Basil, Optatus, Augustine, and the other Doctors that confounded the Heresies or Schisms of those times (e. g. the Novatians, Donatists, Arrians, &c.) the said Doctors would have plainly and frequently insisted on it for the conviction of those Hereticks and Schismaticks: But this they do not: therefore it was not known in those times.

The consequence of the Major is evident hence: The Doctors of the Church were men at least of common wit and prudence in p. 245the matters which they did debate: therefore they would have insisted on this argument, if then it had been known. The reason of the consequence is, because it had been most obvious, easie, and potent to dispatch their controversies. 1. When the Arrians and many other Hereticks denied Christs eternal Godhead, had it not been the shortest expeditious course, to have cited them to the barr of the Judge of controversies, the infallible Soveraign Head of the Church; and convinced them that they were to stand to his judgement? 2. Had not this Argument been at hand, to have confounded all Heresies at once, [That which agreeth not with the Belief of the Roman Pope and Church is false: But such is your opinion: therefore]

2. So for the Donatists; when they disputed for so many years against the Catholikes, which was the true Church, had it not been Augustins shortest, surest way to have argued thus: That only is the true Church that is subject to the Pope of Rome, and adhereth to him: But so do not you: therefore.]

Either the Arrians, Donatists and such others did believe the Papal Soveraignty and Vicarship, or not: If they did, 1. How p. 246is it possible they should actually reject both the Doctrine and Communion of the Pope and Roman Church? 2. And why did not the Fathers rebuke them for sinning against conscience, and their own profession herein?

But if they did not believe the Papal Soveraignty, then 2. How came it to pass that the Fathers did labour no more to convince them of that (now supposed) fundamentall Errour? when 1. It is supposed as hainous a sin as many of the rest. 2. And was the maintainer of the rest. Had they but first demonstrated to them, that the Pope was their Governour and Judge, and that his Headship being essentiall to the Church, it must needs be of his faith, all Heresies might have been confuted, the people satisfied, and the controversies dispatched in a few words.

3. Either Arrians, Donatists, Novatians, and such like, were before their defection acquainted with the Roman Soveraignty, or not. If they were not, then it is a sign it was not commonly then received in the Church, and that there were multitudes of Christians that were no Papists: If they were, then why did not the Fathers, 1. Urge them with this as a granted truth, till they p. 247had renounced it? 2. And then why did they not charge this defection from the Pope upon them, among their hainous crimes? why did they not tell them, that they were subjected to him as soon as they were made Christians; and therefore they should not perfidiously revolt from him? How is it that we find not this point disputed by them on both sides, yea and as copiously as the rest, when it would have ended all?

And for the Minor, that the Fathers have not thus dealt with Hereticks, the whole Books of Tertullian, Nazianzen, Nyssen, Basil, Optatus, Hierom, Augustine, and others are open certain witnesses. They use no such Argument, but fill their Books with others; most imprudently and vainly, if they had known of this, and had believed it. Otherwise the Papists would never have been put to gather up a few impertinent scraps to make a shew with.

We see by experience here among us, that this point is Voluminously debated; and if we differ in other matters, the Papists call us to the Roman bar, and bring in this as the principall difference. And why would it not have been so then between the Fathers, and the Donatists, Arrians, and such like, if the Fathers had believed this? Its clear p. 248hence that the Papall Vicarship was then unknown to the Church of Christ.

Arg. 3. The Tradition witnessed by the greater part of the Universal Church saith, that the Papal Vicarship or Soveraignty is an innovation and usurpation, and that the Catholick Church was many hundred years without it: Therefore there was then no such Papal Church.

This is not a single testimony, nor of ten thousand, or ten millions, but of the Major Vote of the whole Church; and in Councils the Major Vote stands for the whole. If this witness therefore be refused, we cannot expect that the words of a few Doctors should be credited; Nor may they expect that we credit any witness of theirs, that is not more credible.

And that the Antecedent is true, is known to the world; as we know that the Turks believe in Mahomet, by the common consent of history and travellers. Part of the Churches anathematize the Romans, and part more modestly disown them, and the generality that subject not themselves do profess that Popery is an usurpation, and that in the ancient Church it was not so; and this they have by Tradition from generation to generation. And if the Roman p. 249pretended Tradition be with them of value, the Tradition of the far greater part of the Church is with us to be of more. We must despair of satisfying them with witness, if most of the Christian world be rejected, and the Tradition of the greatest part of the Church be taken to be false in a matter of publick notorious fact.

Arg. 4. Many Churches without the verge of the Roman Empire, never subjected themselves to Rome, (and many not of many hundred years after Christ:) therefore there were visible Christian Churches from the beginning, to this day, that were not for the Roman Vicarship.

That abundance of Churches were planted by the Apostles, without the reach of the Roman Empire, is plentifully testified by the ancients, and the Papists commonly confess it. That these were under the Papal Government, all the Papists in the world cannot prove. The contrary is confessed by them, and proved by us. 1. They came not so much as to Generall Councils. 2. They had no Bishops ordained by the Pope, or any impowred by him. 3. They never appealed to him. 4. They never had any causes judged by him. 5. They performed no obedience to him, nor lived under p. 250his Laws; nor scarce had any communion with him, more then the common communion that is held in Charity, and common faith and ordinances with all. Such were the Indians, the Persians, the further Armenia and Parthia, the Habassines and many more. And of long time the English and the Scots, that refused so much as to eat and drink in the same Inn with the Roman Legates: much less would obey him, so much as in the change of Easter day; we challenge them to shew us any appearance of subjection to the Pope in the generality of the Churches without the Empire.

But you say, that the Habassines were under the Patriarch of Alexandria, and he under the Pope.

Ans. 1. If that were true, yet whats that to all the rest? 2. Give us your proof that the Abassines were under the Patriarch of Alexandria, before that Patriarch broke off his communion with Rome. The Canons of Pisanus, of yesterdayes invention, we regard not: Surely the true Canons of Nice (Can. 6.) measure out no more to the Patriarch of Alexandria, but Aegypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis. There's no mention of Ethiopia: And its not like that the greatest part of his Province would p. 251have been left out. 3. If it had been so, yet we utterly deny that ever the Pope had the Government of the Alexandrian Patriarch: Only for a little while he had a precedency in honorary Title, and in Councils; as the City of London is preferred before York, but doth not Govern it at all.

Here therefore (without the Roman Empire) you may see those Churches that have successively been visible, and yet no Papists. This your Raynerius confesseth contr. Waldens. Catalog. in Bibliothec. Patr. Tom. 4. pag. 773. saying [Armeniorum Ecclesiae, & Aethiopum, & Indorum, & caeterae qua… Apostoli converterunt, non subsunt Romanae Ecclesiae.] See Godignus de Rebus Abassinorum, of their Antiquity.

Arg. 5. The Eastern Churches within the Empire were never subjects of the Pope: therefore there have been and are Churches Visible, that neither were nor are his subjects.

The Antecedent I have proved in my Key for Catholicks, from the Council of Carthage's Letters to Pope Coelestine, after their resistance of Zosimus; and divers testimonies from Basil and others. And they can give us themselves no plausible appearance of a proof of that subjection which they p. 252assert: no more then the younger Justices on the Bench are subject to the elder, or the Jury to the foreman, or a Master of Arts in a Colledge to a Batchelor in Divinity, or then the Mayor of Bristoll is to the Mayor of York.

1. The Pope never chose the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, &c. 2. It did not belong to him to ordain them: nor did he authorize any other to do it, nor did they receive or hold their power from him. 3. They receive no Laws of his to Rule by. 4. They were not commanded or Judged by him. 5. The Patriarch of Constantinople had equall Priviledges with him. So that here is nothing like to Soveraignty and subjection, nor any acknowledgement of an universal Vicar of Christ. Communion indeed they held with Rome, as they did with one another, till pride divided them; but Communion is one thing, and Subjection is another. The Greek Church never gave them this.

Arg. 6. My next Argument to prove the Novelty of their Church as Papal, and consequently that the Universal Church was void of Popery, and therefore of the same Religion with Protestants, shall be from the testimony of their own most magnified Bishops.

p. 253Gregory 1. Epist. Regist. l. 4. c. 80. speaking against the Patriarch of Constantinople, for usurping the Title of Oecumenicall Patriarch, or Universal Bishop, saith (fol. 181, 182. Edit. Paris. 1551.) [Sicut enim veneranda vestra sanctitas novit, mihi per sanctam Chalcedonensem Synodum Pontifici sedis Apostolicae, cui Deo disponente deservio, hoc Vniversalitatis nomen oblatum est: sed Nullus unquam decessorum meorum hoc tam prophano vocabulo uti consensit. Quia viz, si Vnus Patriarcha Vniversalis dicitur, Patriarcharum nomen Caeteris derogatur. Sed absit hoc, absit à Christiana mente, id sibi velle quempiam arripere, unde fratrum suorum honorem imminuere ex quantulacunque parte videatur. Cum ergo nos hunc honorem nolumus oblatum suscipere; pensate quam ign…miniosum sit hunc sibi quempiam violenter usurpare voluisse Propterea sunctitas vestra in suis Epist…lis neminem Universalem nominet, ne sibi debitum detrahat, cum alteri honorem offert indebitum.]

1. Here he affirmeth that the Title of Vniversal was never used by any of his predecessors nor received. 2. That it is a prophane Title. 3. That it is an injury to other Patriarchs. 4. That its unbeseeming a Christian mind to assume it. 5. That its p. 254undue. 6. He perswaded the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch to give it to no man whosoever.

Obj. But he saith that the Council of Chalcedon offered it him. Ans. 1. If he renounce it as undue and prophane, and say that de facto none of his predecessors took it, this is as much as we desire. 2. That at the Council of Chalcedon, near 150. years before this, two Deacons (that they say have no Votes) call'd Theodorus and Ischirion, did superscribe their Libels, to Leo Vniversal Archbishop, I find; but no more: And this is it that Gregory here brags of: And whats two Deacons to the Council?

Obj. But it is only the Name and not the Thing that he disclaims, and that is in modesty. Ans. 1. How then could he censure the name as undue, injurious, prophane, and blasphemous, if he owned the Thing? seeing aptanda sunt verba rebus: words are to be fitted to Things. 2. But I shall confute this fully from his following words.

[Ita ut Vniversa sibi tentet ascribere, & omnia quae soli uni capiti cohaerent, videlicet Christo, per elationem pompatici sermonis, ejusdem Christi sibi studeat membra subjugare.]

Here it is plain 1. That it is the Thing as p. 255well as the Name that Gregory wrote against. 2. And that it is also a palpable fiction of the Papists (for want of a better) that Gregory opposeth only such an Universal Episcopacy as taketh away all Episcopacy from others. Ridiculous! They would make us believe, that Iohn of Constantinople would have had no Bishop in the world but himself; and that the Council that gave him the Title, intended all to degrade themselves; and that there were no Bishops under him ever after; when other Councils confirmed his Title. On the contrary, you here see 1. That there is but one Head, even Christ. 2. And that Iohns sin in arrogating the Title [Vniversal] was, that he would subjugate, or subject all Christs Members to himself. And is not this now the very form of Popery, which Gregory makes so great a sin? even to subject all Christs Members to one, as an Universal Patriarch or Bishop? Yea much higher Titles do they arrogate, even to be [the Vicar of Christ, and God, and in stead of Christ and God; and to be the Vice-Christ.]

He proceeds [Nec mirum quod ille tentator, qui initium omnis peccati scit esse superbiam, &c.] Making the Devil the author of this Title.

p. 256He adds a weighty reason [si enim hoc dici licenter permittitur, honor Patriarcharum omnium negatur. Et cum fortasse is in errore periit qui Vniversalis dicitur, nullus jam Episcopus remansisse in statu veritatis invenitur] or as more plainly before c. 76. fol. 180. in the Epist. to the Emperour Maurice [si igitur illud nomen in ea Ecclesia sibi quisquam arripuit, quod apud bonorum omnium judicium fuit: Vniversa ergo Ecclesia, quod absit, à statu suo corruit, quando is qui appellatur Vniversalis cadit] The reason is plain, because the Head of every political society is essential to it: and therefore if the Head of the Universal Church fall away to Heresie or Infidelity, the Church falls: as Bellarmine knew when he told us, that if the Pope should erre in determining, the Church would be bound to take evil for good, and vice for vertue.

He proceeds in the same Epist. ad Maur. Imperat. [Sed absit à Cordibus Christianorum nomen istud blasphemiae, &c.] [Far be this name of blasphemy from the hearts of Christians, &c.]

And after again saith [Sed nullus eorum unquam. hoc singularitatis vocabulum assumpsit, nec uti consensit] That none of p. 257the Roman Bishops did ever assume this name of singularity, nor consent to use it.]

And therefore he concludes to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, c. 80. [Oportet ergo ut constanter ac sine praejudicio servetis sicut accepistis Ecclesias, & nihil sibi in nobis haec tentatio diabolicae usurpationis ascribat. State sortes, state securi; Scripta cum Vniversalis nominis falsitate, nec dare unquam, nec recipere praesumatis] He chargeth them never to give or take writing with the falshood of this name [Vniversal] as being from the Devils tentation.

And in Ep. 38. c. 82. to Iohn Const. himself he calls it [Nefandum elationis vocabulum] and the cause [Nefandum & prophanum tumorem] and after he calls it [the usurping of a proud and foolish word.]

To all this Bellarmine miserably answereth de Pontif. Rom. l. 2. c. 31. that the title [Universal] as it signifieth a sole Bishop to whom all other are but Vicars, is indeed profane, sacrilegious and Anrichristian, and is it that Gregory speaks against, but not as it excludeth not particular Bishops,] To which I answer, 1. To be the Vicarius of a Superiour, is not an exclusion. The Pope saith he is the Vicar of Christ the chief p. 258Pastour and Bishop of souls: and all Pastours are to Preach the Word of reconciliation in his name and stead, 1 Cor. 5.19. and yet they are not thereby excluded from being Pastours. If to be Christs servants, may consist with Episcopacy; much more to be his Vicarii over their particular flocks. Rather this is too high an honour for us to assume. I do not think that all the Clergy under the Pope, do think themselves honoured so much as they should be if they were his Vicars. 2. Hath not that man sold his conscience to his cause, that will perswade the world that the Patriarch of Constantinople was about to unbishop all the Bishops in the world except himself? Let any man shew us by tolerable proof, that Iohn of Constant…nople did claim any higher a power over all others, or would bring other Bishops by his Universality to be lower, then the Pope of Rome doth by his Universality, and then I will confess that Papists only have eyes and reason, and all the world besides are blind, and mad, or beasts. Their cause is at a fair pass, when they must fly to such palpable falshoods, as makes them the wonder of their sober readers. 3. I proved before from the express words of Gregory, that it is Superiority p. 259of Government, and making all other Bishops subject to him, that he condemned in the Patriarch of Constantinople. And no doubt he made not the least of his arrogancy: Nor do I believe that it can be proved that Iohn, or the Council that gave him the Title, did ever intend so much as a Universal Government, which the Pope now usurpeth; but only a Primacy before all, which Popes were then striving for. For the Greeks to this day disclaim it, and they never strove to exercise it.

I will give you more of Gregories words to put the question past doubt, Cap. 82. Ep. 38. to Iohn, saith [Humilitatem ergo frater charissime totis vis…eribus dilige, per quam cunctorum fratrum concordia & sanctae Vniversalis Ecclesiae unitas v…leat custodiri: Certe Paulus Apost…lus cum audiret quosdam dicere, Ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego vero Cophae, hanc dilacerationem corporis Dominici, per quam membra ejus aliis quodammodo se capitibus sociabant, vehementissimè perhorrescens exclamavit, dicens: Nunquid Paulus pro vobis crucifixus est: aut in nomine Pauli baptizati estis? Sic ergo ille membra Dominici corporis certis extra Christum quasi capitibus, & ipsis quidem Apostolis subjici particulariter evitavit: Tu quid p. 260Christo Vniversalis scilicet Ecclesiae capiti, in extremi judicii es dicturus examine, qui cuncta ejus membra tibimet conaris Vniversalis appellatione supponere!]

Here you see 1. That the unity and concord of the Church is not maintained by universal Headship, but by fraternal communion and humility. 2. That it wounded Paul, and should do us, to see the Church make men as it were their heads, though they were Apostles, and though Peter was one of them: and that extra Christum, beside Christ, none, no not Peter should be as a Head to Christs members. 3. Much more abominable is it for any man to pretend to be the universal Bishop or Head to all Christs members: 4. That the sin of this usurpation was against Christ the Churches Head, and that before him in Judgement the usurper of universal Episcopacy will be confounded for this very thing. 5. And that the crime of this title of universal Bishop was, that it endeavoured to put all Christs members under him that used it (tibimet supponere:) not to exclude all other Bishops, but to put under him all Christs members. These are the words of Gregory: and if men can make what their list of words so full and plain, p. 261and oft repeated in many Epistles, what hope have they that their Judge of Controversies should do any more to end their Controversies then Scripture hath done, which they cannot understand without such an unintelligible Judge?

He proceeds (ibid.) [Quis ergo in hoc tam perverso vocabulo, nisi ille ad imitandum proponitur, qui despectis Angelorum legionibus, secum socialiter constitutis, ad culmen conatus est singularitatis erumpere, ut & nulli subesse, & solus omnibus praeesse videretur.] He maketh him the imitator of the Devil, that aspiring above the rest of the Angels, fell by pride.

But Bellarmine hath three Reasons to prove yet that Gregory after all this meant not the universal Headship or Episcopacy indeed. 1. Because the holy Council of Chalcedon offered it him. Ans. 1. A fair offer! because two or three Deacons inscribed their Libels to him with the name of universal Archbishop: And we must believe that the Council approved of this, though we cannot prove it. Or if they called him the Head, as the City of London is the Head City in England, and the Earle of Arundel the Head Earle, or the Lord Chancelour the Head Judge, that yet have p. 262no Government of the rest, what advantage were this to the Roman Vicarship? 2. If Gregory judge the name so blasphemous, when it signifieth an universal Governour of the Church, surely he believed that the Council offered it not to him in that sence, but as he was the Episcopus primae sedis. 3. But again, I say the matter of fact is it that I am enquiring of: And I have the testimony of this Roman Bishop that none of his Predecessors would receive that name.

2. But saith Bellarmine, he saith that the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter, which is all one.] Ans. 1. But so it was committed also to the rest of the Apostles: Paul had on him the care of all the Churches, that claimed no Headship. 2. He expr…sly excludeth Peters Headship, both in the words before recited, and after, saying [Certe Petrus Apostolus primum membrum (or rather as Dr. Iames Corrupt. of the Fathers Part. 2. p. 60 saith he found it in seven written Copies, [Apostolorum primus membrum] Sanctae & Vniversalis Ecclesiae est: Paulus, Andreas, Iohannes, quid …liud quam singularium sunt plebium capita? Et tamen sub uno capite omnes membra sunt Ecclesiae] that is [Peter the first p. 263of the Apostles, is a member of the holy and universal Church: Paul, Andrew, Iohn, what are they but the Heads of the singular flocks of the people? And yet all are members of the Church under one Head] (that is, Christ) so that Christ is the only Head: Peter is but a member, as the other Apostles are; but not a Head.

3. But saith Bellarmine, Gregory could not but know that the title of Episcopus Vniversalis Ecclesiae, which is all one, had been oft assumed by the Popes.] Ans. 1. Whether was Bellarmine or Gregory the wiser man? at least the fitter interpreter of those words: would Gregory have made them so blasphemous, foolish, prophane, and devilish, if he had thought them of the same importance with those which his Predecessors used? Or was he so silly as not to know that this might have been retorted on him? What a silly …or, what a wicked dissembling hypocrite, doth Bellarmine feign Pope Gregory to have been? 2. But verily did the Learned Jesuite believe himself that [Vniversalis Episcopus Ecclesiae] & Episcopus Ecclesiae Vniversalis] are of the same signification? Every Bishop in the world, that adhered to the common Communion of Chr…ians p. 264and was a Catholike, was wont to be called [a Bishop of the Catholike Church,] and is indeed such; but he is not therefore [the universal Bishop of the Church.]

But Bellarmine will not charge Gregory of such horrid dissimulation without reason. His first reason is, [that Gregory did it for caution, to prevent abuse.] Ans. What! charge it with blasphemy, prophaness, devilism, wronging all the Church, and also to excommunicate men for it, and all this to prevent abuse, when he held it lawful! Did hell ever hatch worse hypocrisie then this that he fathers on his holiest Pope?

But 2. His other reason is worse then this; forsooth [because the question was only whether Iohn of Constantinople should have this title, and not whether the Bishop of Rome should have it: and therefore Gregory simply and absolutely pronounceth the name sacrilegious and prophane, that is, as given to Iohn, (but not to himself) yet he refused it himself, though due to him, that he might the better repress the pride of the Bishop of Constantinople.] Ans. The sum is then, that Gregory did meerly lye and dissemble for his own end. He labours to prove that blasphemous, sacrilegious, &c. p. 265which he desired; But we will not judge so odiously of the Pope as Papists do. Doth he charge the other Patriarchs and Bishops to give it no man? doth he blame them after in other Epistles that gave him that Title? and doth he profess that never any of his Predecessors received it, and make so hainous a matter of it, and yet all this while approve it as for himself? Who will believe a Saint to be so diabolical, that calls it an imitation of the Devil? You see now what the Roman Cause is come to, and whether their Church as Papal, that is, their Universal Soveraignty, be not sprung up since Gregories dayes.

Hear him a little further (ibid.) [Atque ut cuncta breviter cingalo locutionis adstringam: sancti ante Legem, sancti sub Lege, sancti sub Gratia, omnes hi perficientes Corpus Domini in membris sunt Ecclesiae constituti, & nemo se unquam Vniversalem vocare voluit: Vestra autem sanctitas agnoscat quantum apud se tumeat, quae illo nomine vocari 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 p. 266Members 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 p…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, s…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.

p. 267And 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, …hough worthy to be Popes. And then w…at historicall testimony will they believe?

p. 268Voluminously 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 p. 269Gregories 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 d… 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 …esuites p. 270challenge. 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 its 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 Constantin…p…litana primum se omnium Ecclesiarum scribebat.]

Hermannus Contractus, An. M. 4550. p. 122. [Hoc tempore Phocas Romanam Ecclesiam omnium Ecclesi…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. p. 271An. 607. p. 526. And so Compilat. Chron. and many more.

Beneventus de Rambaldis Lib. Augustali, saith p. 8. in Phoca [Phocas occi…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 not at this day abhor the reading of the Office —] So that here is all invented new by Gregory (which was hardly received in Spain) and yet that changed since.

Arg. 9. If the Generality of Christians in the first ages, and many (if not most) in the later ages, have been free from the Essentials of the Papists faith, …hen their faith hath had no successive Visible Church professing it in all ages; but the Christians that are against it have been Visible: But the Antecedent is true: as I prove in some instances.

p. 2721. It is an Article of their faith determined in a General Council at Laterane and Florence, that the Pope is above a Council: But that this hath not been successively received, the Council of Basil and Constance witness, making it a new Heresie.

2. It is an Article of their faith, that a Generall Council is above the Pope: for it is so determined at Basil and Constance: But that this hath had no successive duration, the Council of Laterane and Florence witness.

3. It is an Article of their faith, that the Pope may depose Princes for denying Transubstantiation and such like Heresies, and also such as will not exterminate such Hereticks from their dominions, and may give their dominions to others, and discharge their Subjects from their oaths and fidelity: For it is determined so in a Council at Laterane: But this hath not been so from the beginning: Not when the 13. Chapter to the Romans was written: Not till the dayes of Constantine: Not till the dayes of Gregory that spake in contrary language to Princes: And Goldastus his three Volumes of Antiquities shew you, that there hath been many Churches still against it.

4. It is an Article of their faith, that the p. 273Body and Blood, together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, is truly, really, and substantially in the Eucharist, and that there is a Change made of the whole substance of Bread into the body, and of the whole substance of Wine into the blood, which they call Transubstantiation.] So the Council of Trent: But the Catholick Church hath been of a contrary judgement from age to age, as among many others, Edm. Albertinus de Eucharist. hath plainly evinced (though a quarreller hath denyed it and little more): And its proved, in that successively they judged sense (and Reason by it) a competent discerner of Bread and Wine.

5. It is now de fide that the true Sacrament is rightly taken under one kind (without the cup) as the Councils of Constance and Trent shew. But the Catholick Church hath practised, and the Apostles and the Church taught otherwise, as the Council of Constance, and their Writers ordinarily confess.

6. It is an Article of their faith (as appears in the Trent Oath) that we must never take and interpret Scripture, but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers]: But the Catholick p. 274Church before these Fathers could not be of that mind: and the Fathers themselves are of a contrary mind: and so are many learned Papists.

7. It is an Article of their faith, that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are holpen by the suffrages of the faithful. But the latter was strange to all the old Catholick Church (as Bishop Vsher and others have proved) and the very being of Purgatory, was but a new, doubtfull, indifferent opinion of some very few men, about Augustines time.

8. It is now an Article of their faith, that [the holy Catholick Church of Rome is the mother and mistris of all Churches.] But I have shewed here and elsewhere, that the Catholick Church judged otherwise, and so doth for the most part to this day.

9. It is now an Article of their faith, that their Traditions are to be received with equall pious affection and reverence as the holy Scripture. But the Catholick Church did never so believe.

10. The Council of Basil made it de fide, that the Virgin Mary was conceived without Originall sin: But the Catholick Church never judged so.

11. Its determined by a Council now, that p. 275the people may not read the Scripture in a known tongue without the Popes License: But the Catholick Church never so thought, as I have proved, Disp. 3. of the safe Religion.

12. The Books of Maccabees and others are now taken into the Canon of faith, which the Catholick Church received not as such: as Dr. Cosin, and Dr. Reignolds have fully proved.

To this I might add the Novelty of their Worship and Discipline; but it would be too tedious: and I have said enough of these in other writings. See Dr. Challoner, pag. 88, 89.

In 16. points Dr. Challoner proveth your Novelty from your Confessions. Indeed his Book de Eccles. Cath. though small, is a full answer to your main Question.

Arg. 10. If Multitudes (yea the far greatest part) of Christians in all ages have been ignorant of Popery, but not of Christianity; then hath there been a succession of Visible Professors of Christianity that were no Papists: but the antecedent is true: therefore so is the consequent.

In this age it is an apparent thing, that the far greatest part are ignorant of formal Popery. 1. They confess themselves that the common people, and most of the nobility p. 276of Habassia, Armenia, Greece, Russia, and most other Eastern Churches that are not Papists, are ignorant of the Controversie. 2. They use to tell us here among Protestants, that there is not one of many that know what a Papist is. 3. We know that of those that go under the name of Papists, there is not one of a multitude knoweth. We hear it from the mouths of those we speak with: I have not met with one of ten of the poorer sort of them, even here among us, that knoweth what a Papist or Popery is; but they are taught to follow their Priests, and to say that theirs is the true Church and old Religion, and to use their Ceremonious worship, and to forbear coming to our Churches, &c. and this is their Religion. And in Ireland they are yet far more ignorant: And its well known to be so in other parts: Their Priests they know, and the Pope they hear of, as some person of eminent Power in the Church: But whether he be the Universal Vicar of Christ, and be over all others as well as them & whether this be of Gods institution, or by the grant of Emperours or Councils, &c. they know not. And no wonder, when the Papists think that the Council of Chalcedon spoke falsly of the humane Originall of p. 277the Primacy in the Imperiall territories: And when the Councils of Basil and Constance knew not whether Pope or Council was the Head.

And that the people were as ignorant and much more in former ages, they testifie themselves: And before Gregories dayes they must needs be ignorant of that which was not then risen in the world.

Yea Dr. Field hath largely proved, Append. lib. 3. that even the many particular points in which the Papists now differ from us, were but the opinions of a faction among them before Luther: and that the Western Church before Luther was Protestant, even in those particular Controversies; though this is a thing that we need not prove. And as Dr. Potter tells them, pag. 68. [The Roman Doctors do not fully and absolutely agree in any one point among themselves, but only in such points wherein they agree with us: In the other disputed between us, they differ one from another as much almost as they differ from us.] He appeals for this to Bellarmines Tomes. Though I cannot undertake to make this good in every point, yet that proper Popery was held but by a Faction in the Western Church, even at its p. 278height before Luther, is easily made good.

He that readeth but the Writers before Luther, and in History noteth the desires of Emperours, Kings, and Universities, and Bishops, for Reformation of the things that we have reformed, may soon see this to be very true. It was Avitas Leges & consuetudines Angliae (as Rog. Hoved…n and Matth. Paris in H. 2. shew) that the Pope here damned, and anathematized all that favoured and observed them (O tender Father, even to Kings! O enemy of Novelties!) The German History collected by Reuberus, Pistorus, Freherus and Goldastus, shews it as p…ain as day light, that a Papal Faction by fury and turbulency, kept under the far greater part of the Church by force, that indeed dissented from them, even from Hildebrands dayes till Luthers, or near. Saith the Apologia Henrici 4. Imperat. in M. Fr…heri Tom. 1. p. 178. [Behold Pope Hildebrands 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 side (or party) is the holy Mother Church: When the Catholick, that is, the Universal Church, is not in the Schism of any side, (or parties) but in the Universality p. 279of the faithfull agreeing together by the spirit of Peace and Charity.]

And p. 179. [See how this Minister of the Devil is beside himself, and would draw us with him into the ditch of perdition? that writeth that Gods holy Priesthood is with only 13. or few more Bishops of Hildebrands: and that the Priesthood of all the rest through the world are separated from the Church of God: when certainly, not only the testimony of Gregory and Innocent, but the judgement of all the holy Fathers agree with that of Cyprian—that he is an Alien, prophane, an enemy; that he cannot have God for his Father, that holdeth not the Unity of the Church: which he after describeth to have one Priesthood.] Et p. 181. [But some that go out from us say and write, that they defend the party of their Gregory: not the Whole, which is Christs, which is the Catholick Church of Christ.] And p. 180. [But our Adversaries (that went from us, 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 p. 280calls Schismaticks and Hereticks, and Excommunicate, because we resist not the King—] And p. 181. [Isidore saith, Etym. 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 the holy Catholick Church, and being divided into parties hold not the Unity of the Church: which Unity, believers being of one heart and one soul, properly belongs to the Catholick Church.] So this Apol.

One Objection I must here remove, which is all and n…thing: viz. That the Armenians, Greeks, Georgians, Abassines, and many others here named, differ from Protestants in many points of faith; and therefore they cannot be of the same Church.

Ans. 1. They differ in nothing Essentiall to our Church or Religion, nor near the Essence. 2. Protestants differ in some lesser points, and yet you call them all Protestants your selves. 3. I prove undeniably from your own pens, that men differing in matters p. 281of faith, are all taken to be of your Church, and so of one Church, (and therefore you contradict your selves in making all points of faith to be Essentials of the Christian Religion or Church.)

1. The Council of Basil and Constance differed de fide with the Pop… and the Council of Laterane and Florence: They expresly affirm their doctrine to be de fide, that the Council is above the Pope, and may depose him, &c. and the contrary Heresie. And Pighius (Hierarch. Eccles. lib. 6.) saith, that these Councils went [against the undoubted faith and judgement of the Orthodox Church it self.]

2. Their Saint Tho. Aquinas, and most of their Doctors with him, differ from the second Council of Nice, in holding the Cross and Image of Christ to be worshipped with Latria, which that Council determined against.

See more Arguments in my Key for Cath. p. 127▪ 128. and after.

I will now add a Testimony sufficient to silence Papists in this point: and that is, The Determination of the Theological faculty of Paris under their great Seal, against one Iohan. de Montesono ordinis Praedic. as you may find it after the rest of the Errors p. 282rejected by that University, in the end of Lombard, printed at Paris 1557. pag. 426. Their 3. Conclusion is, that [Saint Thom. Aquin. doctrine is not so approved by the Church, as that we must believe that it is in no part of it erroneous de fide (in matter of faith) or hereticall. They prove it, because it hath many contradictions, even in matter of faith; and therefore they ought not to believe it not hereticall. Here fol. 426, 427. they give six examples of his contradictions: and therefore they conclude, that though he were no Heretick (because not pertinacious) yet they ought not to believe that his doctrine was in no part hereticall, or erroneous in the faith. They further argue thus [If we must believe his doctrine not hereticall, &c. this should be chiefly, because it is approved by the Church. But there is some doctrine much more approved by the Church then the doctrine of S. Tho. which yet is in some part of it hereticall or erroneous in the faith: therefore— The Minor they prove by many examples. The first is of Peters doctrine, Gal. 2. (I own not this by citing it:) The second is of Cyprian. The third of Hierom; and they add, that the same may be said of Augustine, and many more approved Doctors. p. 283The fourth example is Lombard himself, who they say hath somewhat erroneous in the faith. The fifth is Gratian, who had he pertinaciously adhered to his doctrine, they say, had been a manifest Heretick: And (say they) some say the like of the Ordinary Glosses of the Bible, which yet seem of greater authority then Aquinas. The sixth example is of some not Canonized Saints, as Anselm. Cantuar. Hugo de Sancto Victore, and others, as authentick as S. Thomas.] [And (say they) his Canonization, hindereth not, which some pretend as of great colour—To say that S. Tho. in some part of his doctrine erred in faith, derogates not from his Canonization, nor from the approbation of his Theologicall doctrine: even as to say this of other Saints and chief Doctors derogateth not from their Canonization or approbation. For as the Church by Canonizing one a Saint, doth not thereby approve all his Deeds, so in approving his doctrine, it doth not hereby approve all his sayings or writings, but only that which is not retracted by himself, or corrected by another, or deservedly to be corrected as contrary to truth.

And now when Fathers, even the chief, and your Saints and highest Doctors have p. 284this Testimony from the famous University of Paris, to have somewhat hereticall or erroneous in the faith (and so who among you is free?) I leave it to modesty to judge, whether the Greeks, Armenians, &c. and we, are not of one Faith, Religion, and Catholick Church, for all our differences in some points! Have you had all these Nations man by man before your bar, and convinced them of pertinaciousness in heresie? If not, call them not Hereticks till you are willing to be called such your selves, and that by your selves.

And thus I have evinced, 1. That the Church of which the Protestants are Members, hath been Visible since the dayes of Christ on earth. 2. And ex abundanti, that the Papal Church as Papal hath not been visible, and that Christian Churches without Papal Soveraignty have been Visible since Gregories dayes, and the whole Catholick Church was such before. And you see both in the Essentialls, and in the freedom from the Romish Vice-Christ, where our Church hath been before Luther, even since Christ.

Sir, I have performed this task on this supposed condition, that you will now do p. 285the like as to your own Church; and send me in solid Arguments your proof of this Thesis.

[The Church of which the Subjects of the Pope are Members, hath been Visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth.]

Where note, that it is not the Visibility of your Church as Christian, United in Christ the Head, that is in Question: We grant, as Christians, all of you are of the true Christian Church that destroy not your Christianity: But it is your new Church form, as Papal, that we question, and renounce. Protestants are of no Church but the Christian united in Christ: The name Protestant signifieth not any essentiall of their Church, but their Rejection of your Church as Headed by the Pope: You are therefore to prove that your Catholick Church as Headed by the Pope hath been visible in all ages.

And here I must in Justice expect, that you give us such a Definition as you will stand to through the dispute, 1. Of [the Church] 2. Of [the Pope] and 3. [Of the Subjects of the Pope] or [Papists.] The term [Roman Catholicks] would but divert and elude: For it is not as [Romane] that we oppose you, that is, as inhabitants p. 286of Rome, or as subject to him as a Bishop of Rome: Nor is it as [Catholicks] that is, as of the Universal Christian Church: but as [Papists] that is, [subjects of the Pope as universal Soveraign, or Bishop.] To dispute of terms not agreed on, is lost labour: Define first, or you do nothing. I find of your Writers, some by the [Church] mean [the Pope] as Gretser Defens. cap. 10. lib. 3. de Verbo Dei, pag. 1450, 1451. [By the Church (saith he) we mean the Pope of Rome] and [per Ecclesiam Papam interpretantur: Non abnuo.] Some by [the Church] mean [a Council] and what they mean by [a Council] I know not well. And some mean [the Roman Clergy] i. e. of that Diocess: And some mean [all the Clergy under the Pope:] And some mean [all the people that are his subjects.] I have given you the Reason of my doubting of your meaning in these terms, in a Book come out of the Press since your last to me, where I have answered most of yours.

2. Let me desire of you such proofs as in your own judgement are cogent. I suppose (as I have there told you, Key pag. 41. cap. 12.) that none of you will take either Sense, Reason, Scripture, the Tradition or judgement of most of the Church for a p. 287sufficient proof: but yet we will accept of them, when you argue but ad hominem: for we renounce them not. I think what ever you say, that is not the Determination of the Pope or a Council by him approved (which is all one) you will give us leave to judge that you are uncertain your selves whether you say true in it, if de fide. Saith Skul. Revius Apol. pro Bell…rm. c. 6. p. 255. The Popes Power is as the hinge, the foundation, and (that I may comprehend all in a word) the summ of the Christian faith.

Greg. Valent. Anal. fid. l. 8. c. 7. [The Authority that resideth in the Pope alone, is called the Authority of the Church and Councils.

[Bell…r. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 3. [It is apparent that the whole firmness (or strength) of Councils is from the Pope; not partly of the Pope, and partly of the Council.] Binnius Vol. 2. p. 515. saith [Every Council hath just so much strength and authority, as the Apostolike seat bestoweth on it.] But I leave you to give us your own judgement.

Your Testimonies from Fathers can seem of no great weight to us, while you so slight them your selves as commonly you do: with what lies, or Errors, or other incompetency, p. 288you charge Iustin Mart. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Victorinus, Cyprian, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Prudentius, Hierom, Lactantius, Augustine, Procopius, Theodoret, Isidore, Euthymius, Sozomen, Oecumenius, Bernard, and all the Fathers, see Dr. Iames Corrupt. of Fath. Part. 4. p. 2, 3. Tell us therefore how far you credit them.

Sir if you refuse thus first to explain your terms, and then prove the Visibility of your Church, as Papal, successively, as I have proved the Visibility of the Church that I am of, I shall be forced to conclude, that you love not the light, but at once give up your cause, and the reputation of your impartial Love of truth.