Which is the True Church, Part 2 · Chapter 6

Which is the True Church · Part 2 · Chapter 6

p. 125An Answer to W. J's Seventh CHAPTER.

§. 1. TO his Question, Why we separated from them? I Answered, that as they are Christians we separate not from them: As Papists we were never of them, but our Fore-fathers thought Repentance of Sin to be no Sin. If by Popery they separate from Christianity, they are damnable Separatists; if they do not, we are of the same Church, whether they will or not.

… To this he saith, That We separate from them as much as the Pelagians, Donatists, Acacians, Luciferians, Nestorians, and Eutychians did from the Church.

p. 126Answ. 1. The Doctrinal Errors and the Separation are of different consideration. The Pelagians Erred as some Dominicans say the Iesuites do. The Donatists, like the Papists, appropriated the Church to their own Bishops and Party; we do none of this. Lucifer Calaritanus was too Zealous against the Arrians, not communicating with them upon so short Repentance as others did: But they went not so far, as Crab saith the Roman Council in Sylvester's day… did, that Received no Repentance before forty Years: Nor so far as the honest Elebertine Council in the number of Years of Mens exclusion from the Communion. I take Lucifer for Erroneous and Schismatical, but not comparable to the Papists, who err far more, and yet separate from most of the Christian World. These Schismaticks named by you Sinned by unjust separation from the Imperial Churches near them, but they did not separate from all the World save themselves, as the Papists do. And if you believe History, you will find that some of them did not separate themselves, till they were Anathematized and cast out by others. Nestorius retired and Lived four Years in great repute in his Old Monastery near Antioch. The Novatians were too scrupulous of joyning with Wicked Priests and People: And your Writers say, that Pope Nicholas forbad hearing Mass from a Fornicator Priest. I had rather be in this of the Pope and the Novatians mind than of those Catholick Priests.

2. But I think this is a considerable Difference: The Erroneous Schismaticks of those times, much more the proper Hereticks, did sinfully withdraw from the Communion of most of the Universal Church, to profess some Error of their own in singular Conventicles. But we, who take meer Christianity for our Religion, do own Communion with the far greatest part of the Church on Earth; yea, with all as Christian, and sepa…ate not for Error, but only from Error and Sin: We separate from Pelagians as Pelagians, from Novatians as Novatians, and from Papists as Papists, but not as Christians.

You say, No more did they then. I Answer, 1. They separated from Truth, and we from Error, as the Council that condemned him did from Pope Honorius. 2. The Luciferians and Novatians separated Voluntarily; we are cast out by you from Christian Communion, and are counted Separatists unless we will Sin with you, or be burnt as Hereticks, 3. Let the Reader still note the cheating ambiguity of your word [Separation.] The Schismaticks named, separated from Brotherly Communion, but we separate from Tyrannical Usurped Domination; and are called Schismaticks (not because we will not have such Communion with you in all Christian Truth and Duty, but) because we will not be your Vassals or Subjects, and Sin as oft as you command us.

§. 2. Pag. 155. He saith, That Had we deserted the sole Communion of the Papacy▪ it might have born some show of Defence; but seeing when we separated from that we remained separated as much from all particular Visible Churches in the World, as that; you have no Excuse.

Answ. If the Reader have not a very gross Head, he shall see your Calumny. As your Church is Essentiated by the Papal Head, so far we renounce the very Essence of your Church: None of the rest of the Christian World pretend to any such Universal Head but Christ. Therefore we separate not from their Head, or any Essential part of their Church, as such. We separate as far as we are able from the corrupt Accidents and faults of every Church and Christian, and would fain separate more from our own. As we separate from the Abassines in the point of their oft Baptizing, and from the Muscovites, Greeks, Armenians, as to their Ignorance and some Mistakes and Vices: And so we would separate from Drunkenness, Fornication, Covetousness, Simony, false Subscriptions, Lies, &c. in any, where we find them in the World: But this is not Schism or separating from the Church. Dare you say that this is not our Duty? Will you joyn in Sin with every Sinful Church for fear of Schism?

§. 3. But he saith, That any Arrian will say so, That he separateth not from the Church as Christian.

Answ. We have brave Disputing with a Man that cannot, or will not distinguish between Saying and doing. Doth it follow that an Arrian doth not separate from the Church as Christian, because they say they do not? I prove the contrary. He that separateth from the Church for an Ess…ntial part of Christianity, separateth from the Church as Christian; but so do the Arrians; Ergo: I prove the Minor. He that separateth, as denying the God-head of Christ, p. 127separateth for and from an Essential part of Christianity; but so do the Arrians, Eunomians, Photinians, Samosatemans, Socinians, &c. Ergo—

§. 4. Next I opened their dealing with us, that call us Schismaticks, because we will not willingly Sin with them, and be burnt by them, as if it were our Ashes that refused their Communion; or because Princes will punish wicked Priests, or as Solomon cast out Abiathar, and put Zadok in his place, or will not be Subject to a Foreign Usurper, &c.

To this he saith, It is a Rhetorical Exclamation and whole Kingdoms condemned by the Popes Canons to the Flames, must take such an Answer as that for their Lives. And he again calls on me to name any Visible Church which we separated not from, which I am aweary of answering so oft.

§. 5. He ask'd me whether Subordination and Obedience to the same State and Government, is not as well required to our Church as to our Common-wealth? I Answered, Yes: But as all the World is not one Humane Kingdom, so neither is it one Humane Church. To this he repeateth his old [Visible and Invisible] taking it for granted, that the Church must have one meer Humane Visible Head or Governour (Personal or collective) which yet he knoweth is the great thing which I deny, and he had to prove, which if he did; all his work were done.

§. 6. I Noted that their own Divines are not agreed whether Hereticks and Schismaticks are parts of the Church.

To this he saith, That 1. He speaks of Parts of the Church, as I understand parts: Answ. Who would have thought till now but he had spoken as he thought himself.

2. He saith, That I hold that some Hereticks, properly so called, are parts of the Church of Christ, and united to Christ their Head, believing the Essentials of Christianity, and so are Christians, though Erring in some Accidents; and this is contrary to all Christianity, and a Nov…lty never held before by any Christian.

Answ. But such gross Falshoods as yours, and such deceits have been used before by many Papists. 1. Where did I say that such as err only in some Accidents, are properly called Hereticks? I distinguished De re & ratione nominis, but undertook not to tell from the Etymology of the word, which is the only proper sence of Heresie; but according to the vulgar use of the word among us, it is taken for one that denieth some Essential: But with such as you I see it is taken more largely; and I am not sure that at first it was not taken for any Separation or Schism into distinct Sects. All that I say (you may be ashamed to call me▪ so oft to repeat it) is, That 1. Many are called Hereticks by Papists, yea… by Philastrius and Epiphanius, that were true Christians, for ought is said against them (yea, Philastrius numbereth some certain Truths with Heresies, when his contrary Errors are liker such.) 2. That they that erre in some Accidents may be true Christians, or else I think there is none at Age in the World. 3. That there is much lamentable Schism, which is no Separation from the whole Church. 4. That he shall be saved that holdeth all the Essentials of Christianity truly and practically. 5. I have proved that your Definitions absolve more from … and Schism than I do.

But it's here to be noted, That this Man maketh multitudes to be under the Papal Head, that are no Subjects of Christ our Head; and so that the Pope hath a Church of his own that is none of Christs Church.

§. 7. I Noted, That either their Church hath defined, that … and S…hismaticks are no parts of the Church, or not: If not; how can he stand to it and impose it on me? If they have, then their Doctors that say the contrary, (named by Bellarmine) are all … themselves.

He saith, None of ours ever held them parts, as you do; that is, united to Christ by Faith and Charity.

Answ. Is not this Man hard put to it? All this while he hath been Disputing us, and all called by their Usurping censure Hereticks, out of the Church Visible; and calling on me to prove the perpetuity of our Church Visible; and telling me, that without a more Visible Head than Christ it is not Visible. And yet now it is but the Invisible▪ Church as Headed by Christ, and endowed with true Faith and Charity, which these Doctors of theirs exclude Hereticks and Schismaticks from.

§. 8. I said, Arrians are no Christians, denying Christs Essence.

He replyeth, True, and so do all H…reticks.

p. 128I Answer, If indeed they did so, not only in words not understood, but in the und…tood sence, so that this is really their belief, and really Exclusive of the contrary Truth; I place no such Hereticks in the Church.

He proveth his charge thus: Whosoever denyeth Christs most Infallible Veracity and Divine Authority denyeth somewhat Essential to Christ; but so doth every Heretick properly called.

Answ. Away with such Hereticks as do so indeed.

For the Minor, he cometh to the old obscurity, Whosoever denyeth that to be true which is sufficiently propounded to him to be Revealed by Christ, denyeth Christs Verity and Divine Authority; but so doth every Heretick.

Answ. I have oft enough shewed, 1. That the Argument is useless, because no Man can judge of the Sufficiency of Proposals (till they come to very high degrees) as to the capacities of other Men.

2. That the Major is false: For a Man that doubteth not of Christs Verity and Authority, may not understand (and so may deny) many Truths sufficiently propounded, hindering the understanding of them by sloth, senfuality, partiality, prejudice, or other faults. Can any Man doubt of this?

3. That his Minor also is false: He may be a Heretick that denyeth that which is not sufficiently proposed, if his own crime either blinding his mind, or forfeiting better proposals, cause the insufficiency.

§. 9. I noted how they charge one another with Pelagianisme; And he saith, Not in the point of Original Sin.

Answ. And is all the rest come now to be no Heresie? Was it for nothing else that they were judged Hereticks? The rest should have as fair play, if your interest were but as much for it?

§. 10. But saith he [Who ever, before you, said that the Catholick-Church could be divided it self, when it is a most perfect unity; A grand novelty of yours.

Answ. This is because I said, that some make divisions in the Church, that divide not from it, much less from the whole. I proved before that in this sense Paul usually speaketh against Schisme or Divisions, As when he tells the Corinthians of the divisions among them, &c. But this man would make Scripture and common sense and reason to be grand novelties; may there not be divisions in a House, in a Kingdom, in an Army, in a particular Congregation, as that at Corinth; and that after which Clement wrote his Epistle to heal? Have there not been abundance of such at Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople? was there no Division in the Church of Rome, when part cleaved to one Pope, and part to another for above forty years? Did the Councils of Constance and Basil meet to heal their Schismes, upon mistake when there was no such thing? And do all their Historians erroneously number their Schisms? Reader pardon my oft answering such bold abuses; These are their arguers that hope to subvert England.

§. 11. And his reason is such as would shew him a Catharist, viz. The Church is a most perfect Unity; If so, than all grace is perfect which is necessary to perfect unity. Then the Popes and Anti-Popes, the warring Papalines and Imperialists, the Iesuites, Dominicans, and Iansinists are all at perfect Unity; Then there is no disagreement, of Judgement Will or Practice among any Papists in the world; no Volumes written against other; Alas, how far are such words from proving it, or from ending their present Controversies or Wars. Watson and Preston had scarce perfect unity with Father Parsons and the Iesuites. Doth perfect unity draw all the blood between France and the house of Austria, or in France, between King Hen. …d. and the Leaguers. It is enough for me to believe that all true Christians have a true unity in Christ, with each as his members, but that this Unity among themselves is sadly imperfect, and so was when they had all the contentions in many General Councils, and when the people have oft fought it out to blood about Religion, and the choice of Bishops, at Alexandria, Rome, &c. Is this perfection? It is in heaven that we hope for perfect unity, where all is perfect.

§. 12. I told him, Heresie being a personal crime, the Nations cannot be charged with it Without better proofs.

He saith, if he hath. 1. the testimony of one of our Writers. (Answ. Alas poor Kingdoms p. 129of Christians! that can be proved Hereticks if Pet. Heylin or any one of our Writers do but say it.) 2. He tells a story of Prestor Iohn sending to Rome for instruction (Answ. Confuted so oft, and by their own Writers, that it's a shame to repeat it. Nor doth that prove them so much as Papists, much less Hereticks.) 3. That their Canon of the Mass, proveth them Eutychians, in that they name the three former Councils, and not that of Calcedon.) Answ. Small proof will serve the turn with such willing men. What if Dioscorus made them believe that That Council did condemn the doctrine of Cyril (which he verily thought was the same which he defended) and rejected the Nicene Creed (which he appealed to) and that they divided Christ? Might not the consent of the neighbour Egyptian Bishops put them out of conceit with that Council, though they owned no Heresie? Do not your Writers now ordinarily quit them of such Heresie? Do they that disown the Councils of Constance or Basil, own all the Errors or Schismes which They condemned? You justifie the Abassines when you tell men that your calumnies have no better show of truth.

§. 13. Erasmus laments the Age when it became a matter of the highest wit and subtilty to be a Christian. This seemeth about Cyrils dayes, when mens salvation and all the Churches peace and safety was thought to be at stake, upon the controversies, Whether de Christo Locutio formalis an materialis erat maximè propria. An Deus à Sp. Sancto in Virgine concipi & ab ipsâ generari propriè diceretur. Whether Nestorius was a Heretick for saying that he would not say God was two or three months old. And when poor Eutyches and Dioscorus for want of skill thought verily they had spoken but what Cyril taught them, and became Hereticks by it before they were aware; when the grand Question was, whether the word persona had such a signification, as that Christs Humane Nature might be called any part of his Person; or whether the Divine Nature, which is infinite, can be Pars: And whether if the Humane be Pars personae, then that Personality which was from Eternity without the Humane, could be the same with that Personality of which the Humane was a part? Or if the Humane be no part of the Person, but an Accident, whether it be proper to denominate the Person and Essence from an Accident, so as to say, God was begotten of Mary? God was two Moneths old! God was dead and buried, ascended, &c. And when the whole Salvation of Men seemed to lye on the curiosity, How far two Natures, or two wills so nearly united as to have a communication of Names and Epithets, might be said to be made One? No doubt but in all these the Orthodox were in the right: But it's pity that when Logick was so denyed in the Council of Nice, and Apollinaris blamed for too much using it, and the Council at Carthage forbad the use of the Heathens Books, yet so many Men must burn in Hell for being no better Logicians or more metaphysical; and all Men to the end of the World must be numbred with them, that do not anathematize them. And that Millions of Ignorant Men and Women in Abassia, Syria, Armenia, &c. that know nothing of these Matters, nor ever heard of them, to whom they are as an unknown Tongue, must all be unchristened and damned as Hereticks; yea, for not owning a Council that most (it's like) never heard of. Alas, how few in England, Ireland, or any Countrey know what the Council of Chalcedon did, or ever heard it?

But yet all these Hereticks (two or three parts of the World) have an easie way of Recovery: It is but to believe as the Pope of Rome believes, though they know not what, and take him for their Sovereign, and they are safe. But the final Judgment is more Just.

§. 14. Pag. 169. He addeth, The Abassines confess themselves to follow Eutyches and Dioscorus, and therefore there needeth neither Tryal nor Conviction.

Answ. 1. Where is your Proof that they so confess? We will not confess that this is no Slander. 2. Alas, how few of them know who Eutyches and Dioscorus were! 3. And of those that Honour their Names how few know what they held? 4. Your own Writers acquit them of that Heresie. 5. The Truth is, the Tradition of their Countrey teacheth them to Honour Dioscorus for his place sake; but I cannot learn that the Name of Eutyches is known or Honoured much by them. 6. O that the Papists had not more and greater Errors than either Nestorius or Eutyches, and that you condemned not your selves in condemning the Abassines.

§. 15. Let the Reader Note, that this Man would first have us believe that the Abassines and others, whom they call Hereticks, are Subjects of the Pope, and of their Church, p. 130and yet that they are Hereticks, and so that Hereticks are no parts of the Church, and yet that they are parts of their Church.

His shameless calling for proof that any of their Writers acquit them from these Heresies, shall not tempt me to lose my time in citing them.

§. 16. Next we come to his charge, That the Greek Church rejects us as well as they: Therefore the whole Church rejecteth us. Therefore we are to be rejected (Hereticks) or else the whole Church is deceived.

Answ. 1. **The Translater of Nicephorus at the story of Faelix & Acacius's damning each other, addeth these useful citations in the Margin: In Ecclesiasticis censoriis & excommunicationibus, causa imprimis valet, Origen. Cum aliquis exit à veritate, à timore De…, à fide, à Charitate, exit de castris ecclesi…, etiamsi per Episcopi vocem minim… abjiciatur; sicuti è contrario aliquis non recto judicio soràs mittitur: Sed si ante non exivit, id est si non egerit ut mereretur exire, nihil laeditur: Interdum n. qui …orà mittitur, intus est: Et qui foris est, intus videtur retineri. 24 Qu. 3. August. Custodi intus innocentiam tuam, ubi nemo opprimit causam tuam; praevalebit in te falsum testimonium, sed apud homines; non apud Deum, ubi causa dicenda est: Quando Deus erit Iudex alius testis quàm Conscientia tua non erit: Inter justum judicem & Conscientiam tuam, noli timere nisi causam tuam. 11. q. 3. Quid obest homini quod ex illa tabula vult eum delere humana ignorantia, si de libro viventium non deleat iniqua Conscientia. August. ib.He that never read Church-History, may think that there is some signification in this Cant of, The whole Church, and the Universal Church: But so will not he, that knoweth how the Prelates have usually turned to the stronger side, and that if the Majority be the whole, the whole Church was Orthodox in Constantines days, and the whole Church was Arrian in the days of Constantius and Valens; the whole Church was Eutychian in Theodosius Junior's days, and long Monothelites, and Iconoclasts, &c.

2. If it prove Men to be Hereticks or Schismaticks because the Major part reject them, then the Orthodox were Hereticks when the foresaid Arrians rejected them. But you have been so long used to Usurp Christs Chair, that you seem to be grown to believe your selves, that a Man is out of Christs Church, if other Men do but say that he is out. As if you knew not that the Church is to put no Man farther from Christ, but only to declare how far from him they have put themselves. And if any declare more than is true, it doth not separate the wronged Person from Christ. e. g. I heard but yesterday divers Persons Excommunicated, some for Teaching School without License, and some for other such like things: Doth it follow, that these are any further out of the Church than they put themselves?

3. But tell us, if you can, when the Greek Church, or Patriarch of Constantinople did presume to Excommunicate us? You will not tell us. How then doth their rejection signifie that we are not of the same Church? The Truth is, the Greek Church never declared their mind concerning us: If you will call one Man, or twenty Men the Greek Church, you may use your Liberty, but we shall little regard it. In the days of one Patriarch (Cyril) he declareth for us, and our Reformation: The Papists in Charity get him Murdered. Another (Ieremiah) declareth his dissent from us; but it is one thing to dissent from some things, and another thing to take Men for none of the Church. If you will charge the Greeks to be such Separatists, as to unchurch or unchristen all that they in controverted▪ Points dissent from: We will not believe you in so ugly a charge, till you have proved it. The Greeks disown us, and we them, in some lesser things, but neither they nor we presume to unchristen one another. And if they or we did, it would unchristen none of us, unless we first unchristened our selves.

4. But if the Greeks have the supream authority, as the virtual universal Church, then the Papists have it not; if the Papists have it, the Greeks have it not: If neither hath it, who hath it? Neither of you, nor both are the real Universal Church, and neither is Virtually the Universal. Therefore if both did Excommunicate us, we are not therefore Excommunicate by the Church Universal.

5. But may the Church Universal erre in Excommunicating, or not? If so, then you have said nothing: If not, you take a General Council to be indeed the Church representative: …nd then how many of your Popes (Essential parts of your Church) have been Excommunicated, p. 131and deposed as Hereticks by the Universal Church? And your Church now is but the Successour of (e. g. Eugenius the fourth) so rejected: Shew us when ever the Greeks did so by our Church or us.

§. 17. I told him, the Greek Church claimed but the Primacy or Supremacy in the Empire, and not the Government of all the World.

At this, he first wondreth, and then takes upon him to disprove it. 1. Because else Gregory the first had ill reprehended John of Constant. for claiming the Title of Universal Bishop. 2. Because Jeremy saith, 1. He was Vice Christi: 2. And perswadeth Lucius, &c. to be Subject to the Church with them.

Answ. 1. It was the Arrogancy of the Title that Gregory reprehended, as sounding like a real Universal Claim, and the reality of an Universal Claim in the Empire. I proved before, that the Greeks knew that Constant. had no Title, Iure Divine, by the Can. 28 of Chalcedon, and the notoriety of the thing: And therefore they could not pretend it to be over all the World, where the Empire had no Power. And what need there more proof, than that there is no Evidence brought by you or any, that ever they gave Laws to all the Christian World; or that ever they called Councils out of it, or that ever they set up and put down Bishops in it? Indeed they have Excommunicated Roman Popes; but that was within the Empire, (and so did Alexandria.) Or if since, (as they do still) it is not as their Governours, but as any Churches may renounce Communion with Hereticks, or Persons uncapable of their Communion.

2. And as for Ieremy, 1. Will not Cyril as much prove the contrary? 2. Is one Man the Greek Church? 3. Did every Apostle, or doth every Minister of Christ proclaim himself Universal Head of the Church, when he saith, as 2 Cor. 5. 19. We beseech you, Vice Christi in Christs stead to be reconciled to God? It is one thing to be Preachers in Christs stead to our particular Flocks, and another thing to Usurp Christs proper Office, and be in his stead Universal Governour of the World. 4. And may not one of us, or any Christian perswade a Man to be Subject to the Church of Christ? And if Ieremias had a mind to Rule further than the Empire, now the Empire is Mahome…an, and Subjects Voluntary and free, what wonder is it? We undertake not to Justifie him from all Ambition.

§. 18. I told him, out of his Ieremias, and his Protonotary Iohn Zygomolas, that they confessed Agreement with us [In continuis & causam fidei praecipuè continentibus articulis;] and that [Quae videntur consensum impedire talia sunt, si velit quis, ut facilè …a corrig…re possit.]

He tells me, That, 1. Yet they consent with them in all save the Popes Authority. Answ. 1. How far that is from Truth, Thom. a Iesu, and other of your own will tell you. 2. And the Popes Authority is the ratio formalis of Popery.

2. He saith. That Ier. claimeth as Supream Authority over the whole Church, as the Pope doth. Answ. 1. I will not believe it till I see the proof: I find he layeth all his Claim from Councils, and therefore may possibly claim power over those Churches that were in the Empire when the Council of Chalcedon gave that power; but I find no more: And if he did, they and we may yet be Christians.

3. He saith, Any of the Roman Church might write the like to the Lutherans: But Zygomalas supposeth them of two Churches, till united. Answ. He supposeth them not in all things of the same mind, nor of the same particular Churches. But he that saith, that we agree in the Articles of Faith, and differ but in lesser things of easie reconciliation, either supposeth both Parties to be Christians, and of one Church of Christ, or else that no Men are Christians that have any Difference, that is no two explicite Believers, perhaps, in the World.

§. 19. I told him, 1. The Patriarch was not the Greek Church: Nor, 2. Their lesser Errors prove us of two Religions or Churches.

He Replyeth: 1. But he knew the Extent of his own Iurisdiction. Answ. 1. So do not all Ambitious Men: If he do, then the Papists are all deceived; for he pretended, say you, a Jurisdiction over the Pope and his Church.

But the Question between him and the Protestants, w… not about his Jurisdiction.

2. He saith, That If the Errors be tolerable, we are Schismaticks in Separating from them, and should rather have suffered. Answ. To separate from any sin and error, by not consenting p. 132or committing it, no Christian denyeth to be our duty: and his supposition that we separated from the Catholick or the Greek Church, is but his continued fiction. We were not under the Government of the Greeks, and therefore not obeying them is no separation; and not sinning with them is no separation: we own them as Christians, and we renounce the sins of all the world, and hate our own more than any others, so far as we know them.

§. 20. To his saying that It is against Christianity to hold condemned Hereticks to be in the Church. I answered 1. That I detest that condemnation when, even non judices, condemn whole nations without hearing one man, much-lesser all speak for themselves, or any just witness that ever heard them defend a Heresie.

His Answer is, that I mistake the way of their Churches condemnation: They do but say whoever holds such errors let him be accursed, or, we excommunicate such as hold them, &c.

Answ. There is some hope left then for the Nations that are no subjects of the Pope, unlesse non-subjection be the Heresie. But hath the Pope gone no further than this? Hath he not put whole Nations under Interdicts?

But he saith those that profess their heresies, or that communicate with them, are esteemed hereticks: and those that profess to disbelieve their heresie, and yet live in communion with them and subjection to them, are Schismaticks.

Answ. 1. Here's new confounding doctrine indeed. If their Canon only condemn indefinitely those that hold a heresie (e. g. Nestorianism, taking it to be unfit to say God dyed or If a just Law should say, let e. g. an Arrian be anathematized, a man must be lawfully convict, and judged an Arrian, and personally sentenced: when it is said, Let such be excommunicated ipso facto vel ipso: jure, the …ct must be proved, and a declaratory sentence is necessary to the subject's obligation, to avoid such.God was born) must all be taken for hereticks that communicate with any of these, before the person guilty is convict, and judged? Must every private man be the judge of hi… neighbour? Every servant, of his Master? Every woman, of her husband? Every subject, of the King; and be burnt for a heretick, for communicating with one that was never accused or condemned? We live then with one another more dangerously than men converse in the time of pestilence. Nay what if the Priest himself admit such to the Communion, must the poor people be burned if they communicate with them in the parish Church: and yet be punished if he do not come to Church and communicate?

2. Lament, Reader, to think what engines Clergy-tyranny hath made against Christia… Love, Peace, and Concord, to set the world into a war. If the Council, for want of understanding a point of doubtful words, pronounce such words Heresie, all people for fea… of being burnt and damned, must fly from all as hereticks that they think are for those condemned words. All our Plowmen and women must be supposed to know that it is heresie e. g. to say that Christ hath but one will, (though the speaker mean objectively one, or else. One by Union of the divine and humane nature,) or to say that it was not God that was conceived▪ and, suffered and dyed, and was passible, (when he meaneth only formal…ter, not As God, but on… ▪ he that is God;) and then every family must have an inquisition, and people must f… from one another, before any judgment. Doth not this give every lad and woman som… power of the keyes, and every subject a power of judging Kings and Judges.

3. But mark, Reader, how sin condemneth it self, as envy eateth its own flesh, e. g. general Council condemneth Pope Eugenius as an Heretick, (or Iohn XXIII. or others:) T… ▪ whole Church of Rome continued in communion and subjection to this condemned Her… tick (as they did with Honorius:) Therefore by their own sentence the whole Church … Rome must be taken for Hereticks.

And if so, 4. See how they justifie us for separating from them, when they judge us hereticks themselves if we communicate with them.

Alas, if a wrangling proud Clergy have but ignorance and pride enough to call Gods servants Berengarians, Wicklefists, Waldenses, Lutherans, Zuinglians, Calvinists, Iconoclasts, Luciferians, Quartodecimani, &c. hereticks, all families and neighbourhoods are presently bound to fly from one another, as if they had the plague, or were enemies.

And must subjection come in for heresie? If you call our King a heretick, must all his subjects be taken for hereti…ks for having communion and subjection to him. Will the Popes charge… yea, or real heresie disoblige us from Subjection. And yet will you pretend to be loyal subjects.

§. 21. I gave him the proof that he before called for, from Thomas à Iesu, & Paul…, Veriditus (Harris of Dublin against Usher) that their writers vindicate the Greeks from heresie. To which he saith that I could not but know that he meant of the modern Greeks (as hereticks) p. 133and not of the ancient fathers, of which Bernard, Aquinas & Paul Harris speak.

Answ. This Answer hath a very bold face if it do not blush. 1. It was the words of Thomas à sancto Iesu de convers. Gent. a late writer that I recited, to whose testimony as his he giveth not one word of answer: And Thom. in the words cited expressely speaketh of the present Greeks, and it is the very scope of his writing.

2. Thomas cited ex junioribus Azorius. 1. Iustit. Moral. l. 8. c. 20. To which he giveth not a word of answer.

3. Paul Harris saith that when the Greeks had explicated their à Patre per filium, (viz. in the Council at Florence) they were found to believe very orthodoxely, and catholickly, ye… doth this man say that Harris speaks of the ancient Greeks; expressely contrary both to his dris… and words. Is there any dealing with these false hereticaters? It's well that no Council hath anathematized falshood and calumny for heresies, else we must have no communion with such, that have no better meanes to dispute down christian Love and Concord.

Yea what need I more testimony than that Council of Florence it self, which so judged; and was supposed to heal the breach by explications. Nor is it true that Bernard and Aquinas spake not of the Greeks in their times as owning the same cause that these do now.

§. 22. I told him, if Greeks and Latines, will divide the Church, and damn each other, they shall not draw us into their guilt.

He saith again that the Church cannot be divided, it is so perfectly One.

Answ. If I have not shamed the Saying, let me bear the shame, though we say, that it cannot have any part totally divided from Christ; for then it were no part; and therefore none is divided relatively or really from the whole body. But if the parts may not have sinful divisions from each other, secundum quid, Paul told the Corinthians amiss, and the Papists Historians much mistook that talkt of about 40 Schisms at Rome, and of the Popes adherents, when part of the body had one head, and part another, for so long a time, and to such sad effects.

§. 23. Next I cited him the express words of their own Florentine Council, professing that the Greeks and Latines were found upon conference to mean the same thing. To which he saith. 1. That it was but a few of them, and that Marcus Ephesus dissented. 2. Tha… they revolted when they returned home▪

Answ. 1. See still how they fight against their selves. The seeming concord of this Council (which did the Pope who was newly condemned and deposed by a great general Council, more service than ever any did them) is the great pretense of their false boasting that the Greek Church is subject to the Pope: And yet he teaches us truly to say that it was but a few, and that Marcus Eph. dissented, and that they stood not to it when they came home. The known truth is that the Emperor in distress constrained some to dissemble in hope of relief, of which when he failed, the submission was at an end. And the Church never consented to it.

2. But as to the point in hand, it is not the Greeks recovery from an error that the Council mentioneth, but the discovery of their meaning which was found to be Orthodox. And though they yet use not the Romans phrase, they never retracted the sense in which they were found to be orthodox.

§. 24. Next, he citing Nilus that the Greeks broke off from the Latines for the [filioque] alone, I recited Nilus his title and words at large, professing, that There is no other cause of dissention between the Latin and Greek Churches but that the Pope refuseth to deferre the cognisance and judgment of that which is controverted, to a general Council, but he will sit the sole Master and Iudge of controversie, which is a thing aliene to the Lawes and actions of the Apostles and Fathers. The cause of the disseren… (saith he) is not the sublimity of the point exceeding mans capacity; for other matters that have divers times troubled the Church, have been of the same kind. This therefore is not the cause of the dissention; much lesse the Scripture. But who the fault is in; any one may easily tell that is well in his wits. Nor is it because the Greeks … claim the Primacy (N. B.) He mentioneth that the Pope succeedeth Pet… only as a Bishop or dained by him, as many other Bishops originally ordained by him do, and that his primacy is n… governing power, nor given him by Peter, but by Princes and Councils, which he copiou… proveth.

To this he saith. 1. that yet this may stand with the […ioque] being the first cause.

p. 134Answ. 1. But the question was of the sole cause. 2. He denyeth it to be any cause, but only an Occasion, and the Popes usurpat…on to be the only Cause. 3. Is it not known that the Quarrel and Breach began long before, about the Title of universal Bishop, though the Greeks did not then excommunicate you?

2. He saith that By this it's implied that the Greeks agree with them in all things, save the Popes Sovereignty.

Answ. Doth it follow that because he saith that this only is the cause of the division of your Churches, therefore there are no other disagreements? all sober Christians have learnt to forbear excommunications and separations when yet there are many disagreements; and we never denyed but the Greeks agree more with you than they ought, and specially in striving who shall be great.

§. 25. To his repeated words, that all these were not distinct congregations, &c. I told him again, that we are for no congregations distinct from Christians, as such. To which he replyeth again. 1. That no hereticks say they depart from the Church as Christian. Answ. But if they do so, it's no matter though they do not say so. Whoever departeth from the Church for somewhat Essential to Christianity departeth from it as Christian: but you say your self that all hereticks depart from the Church for somewhat Essential to Christianity: Ergo, &c.

Object, Then they are Apostates. Answ. Apostates in the common sense are those that openly renounce Christianity in terms, as such, but those that renounce any essential part are Apostates really, though but secundum quid, and no… the usuall sense.

2. He intreateth me to name him the first Pope that was the Head of the whole Church in the world. Answ. 1. There never was any such; for the whole Church never owned him, Abussia, Persia, India, &c, never was governed by him to this day; and not past a third or fourth part is under him now. 2. But I must name the first that claimed it: had I lived a thousand years at every Popes elbow I would have ventured to conjecture; but it is an unreasonable motion to make to me that am not 70 years old. I must confess my ignorance, I know not who was the first man that was for the Sacrament in one kind only (without the cup;) nor who first brought in praying in an unknown tongue, or Images in Churches; nor who first changed the custome of adoring without genuflexion on the Lords dayes. I leave such Taskes to Polydore Virgil de Invent. rerum. Little know I who was the first proud Pope, or Heretical, or Simoniacal, or Infidel Pope; it satisfies me to know that 1. It was long otherwise, 2, And that it came in by degrees (nemo repentè sit pess…mus.) 3. And that it should not be so.

The rest of his charge against the Greeks, &c. requireth no answer; instead of doing it, he tells me he has proved there must be governours of the whole Church; which if he had done, as to any Universal Head, he might have spared all the rest of his labour.

§. 26. I thought a while that he had answered all my book, but I find that he slips over that which he had no mind to meddle with, and among others these following words, (you may judge why.)

P. 115. Many of the Greeks have been of brotherly charity to our Churches of late: Cyril, I need not name to you, whom your party procured murdered for being a Protestant. (A worthy Patriarch of Constantinople, who sent us by Sir Tho. Roe, our Alexandrian Sept. and whose confession is published. And why is not He as much the Greek Church as Ieremias?) Meletius, first Patriarch of Alexandria, and then of Constantinople, was highly offended with the fiction of a submission of the Alexandrian Church to Rome, (under a counterfeit Patriarch Gabriel's name) and wrote thus of the Pope in his Letters to Sigismund King of Poland An. 1600. Perspiciat Mojestas tua nos cum majoribus, &c. Your Majesty may see that we with our Ancestors are not ignorant of the Roman Pope (whom you pray us to acknowledge) nor of the Patriarch of Constant. and the rest of the Bishops of the Apostolical Stats. There is one universal Head, which is our Lord Iesus Christ. Another there cannot be, unlesse it be a two-headed body, or rather a monster of a body. You may see, most serene King, (that I may say nothing of that Florentine Council, as a thing worthy of silence) that we departed not from the opinions and traditions of the p. 135East and West which by seven General Councils they consigned, and obsigned to us; but that they departed, who are daily delighted with novelties. In the same letter he commendeth Cyril, and what can a Protestant say more against the Vice-Christ and your novelties, and the false pretended submission of the Greeks.

So much to that which he calleth his First part of his Book.