Which is the True Church, Part 3

Which is the True Church · Part 3

p. 143The Third Part:

A Defence of my Arguments to prove, That the Church of which the Protestants are members, hath been visible ever since the daies of Christ on Earth.

§. 1. I Began with an Explication of the termes, but this Disputer saith, that this is of no concern to his Argument, nor much to my answer. Answ. It pleaseth not those that are all darkness; such Explications as you gave me are indeed of little Use.

1. He saith, I make Believers and true Christians Synonyma's, whereas one may be a Believer as (an unbaptized Catechumene, but is not a Christian till baptized.

Answ. As a Pope once told one, how little wit in a place of power would serve to govern the world; so I see by this man, How little Reason will serve to set up a Iesuite for an …nanswerable disputant among the ignorant. The word [Christian] as well as [Believer] signifieth, 1. A heart-consenter to the Baptismal Covenant. 2. Or a Professor of that consent. And 1. Regularly by Baptism. 2. Or without it when it cannot be …ad. 1. As soon as a man Believeth and Consenteth, he is a Christian before God. 2. As soon as he solemnly professeth it, he is an incompleat Christian before men. 3. As soon as he professeth it in Baptism he is orderly and regularly a Christian before the Church.

Even as two secretly ma…rying, are marryed before God; and when they publish their mutual Consent and Covenant (as suppose it were where a priest is not to be had) they are irregularly married before men, but solemn Matrimony maketh it a Legal Marriage in fore.

And this distinction holds of the word [Beleiver] as well as of [Christian]. A Beleiver, a Disciple, and a Christian were Synonyma's before Popery was born.

§. 2. Next he saith that my words [Subject to Christ their Head] are equivocal. Because Subject may signifie but [inferior] and Head but a principal member.

Answ. What is not equivocal to a Jesuite? 1. Did I not put this first The Church is the Kingdom of Iesus Christ: 2. When I said It is the whole company of Believers subject to Christ their head, are not the words significative enough of a governing Head? And did I not adde, the constitutive parts are Christ and Christians, as the pars imperans & subdita: are there more notifying words in use? If there are, tell'them me if you can: or, was not this a cavil that had more of Will and Interest, than of Conscience?

§. 3. I said Protestants are Christians protesting against and disallowing Popery. To this he cavils 1. That the name had another original. 2. That the Greeks, Arrians, Antitrinitarians, Socinians, Hussites, Anabaptists, Familists, Millenaries, Quakers, are not Protestants.

Answ. 1. Did I undertake to tell you the first Rise of the name, or only to tell whom I mean in my dispute. If I had, the German protestation immediately against a particular. p. 144Edict, was principally and finally against Popery, and in that sence is the name continued. But it is not the Name but the Church and Religion that I dispute of. You know that the Name Reformed Catholick Christians pleaseth us better than the Name of Protestants. Were not Christians after they were first called so at Antioch, of the same Religion as before, when they were called but Disciples and Believers, yea and Nazarens by their adversaries?

2. Who would have thought that you had taken Arrians, Antitrinitarians, Socinians, or any that deny an Essential part of Christianity, for true Christians? Did you not here oft profess the contrary, and those that are no Christians are not in my definition; those that are Christians, as Greeks, Millenaries, and Hussites and most Anabaptists with us, are Protestants, but not meer Protestants: they have somewh…t more and worse, which giveth them another name? but if Christians protesting against Popery, they are of the same Church universal, as we are.

§. 4. When I call Popery the Leprosie of some Christians, he must know whether all the Church was not Leprous then. 2. And whether men could with a safe Conscience have Communion with any.

Answ. 1. He that saith he hath no sin is alyar, saith St. Iohn. All Christians, and therefore all Churches are defiled with sin. 2. All are not equally defiled, I have told you that the Papists are not the third part of the Christian world, and for many hundred years there were none. 3. We must not separate from all Churches that have sin, but we must not willfully sin for their Communion, and we must joyn locally with the best we can, and in spirit joyn with all, as far as they joyn with Christ; is not this plain and sufficient to your cavills?

§. 5. He saith p. 423. that our external profession in the particulars of our Belief, or rather Disbelief against the Roman Church, sheweth our general profession of Christianity to be false, as the Arrian was.

Answ. What is easier than to say so. But where's your proof?

§. 6. After a repetition of his talk against Christ as no visible Head, he cavills at the form of my first Argument; which was this:

The body of Christians on Earth subjected to Christ their Head, hath been (in it's 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 th… daies of Christ on Earth.

And first he saith that it's out of form, because it hath never an universal proposition. Answ. This is the man that would not dispute but in meer Syllogism, what need I an universal proposition? If you be to prove that Cephas was Peter, or Peter was an Apostle of the first place, must you have an universal proposition? What Universal must there be above The Body of Christians, &c. 2. He saith that the word [Those] Form requireth, should have been [All those] when as there is never a [Those] at all in the argument. Is not this an accurate reformer of Syllogisms; that amendeth termes that were not written, and talketh like a dreamer of he knoweth not what? but what is the [All] that the man would have had? is it [all those bodies of Christians] when we are all agreed that Christ hath but one political body? if I had been to prove that the world that Protestants are parts of, hath been visible since Adam; or that the God the Protestants worship is Almighty, must I have said, [All those worlds and all those Gods?] Nay had I said but [whatsoever worlds] or [whatsoever God] it had sounded ill among men that are agreed that there is but one; sure an expository medium that was but notius was enough.

Next he saith that I put more in the medium of the major, than in the medium of the minor, and so it hath four terms.

Answ. Wonderful! This is the man that disputed with our two great Logicians and publick professors of Cambridge, Bishop Gunning, and Bishop Peirson, and as a triumpher printed the dispute, and challenged men in London to Syllogistical combats. And now see how he talketh? 1. He calls that my medium that is no medium at all, but the Praedicate. 2. He saith it is not in my Minor, where that Praedicate was not, nor ought to be but another. 3. He takes an expository parenthesis, which is no part of the proposition, for an addition that p. 145maketh …our termes: When I prove the Church visible, to prevent his cavils I put in a parenthesis, as a margin, (in it's parts) because the whole world or Church is not seen by any mortal man, no not by the Pope that pretends to rule it all, and this no man controverteth. If he had said that there is less in the conclusion than in the premises, he had spoken sence, though impertinet; while there is as much as was in the question.

2, He saith, I make the praedicate of the minor the subject of the conclusion, and then saith [This is a hopeful beginning.]

Answ. O rare triumphant disputer, why should I not make the praedicate of the Minor the subject of the conclusion? What Law or Reason is against it, when i… is the subject of the question? My Argument is a re definitâ ad rem denominatam, as questioned: the definition or res quà definita is my medium. How ridiculo…s hath this Aristarchus made himself in his Logick? would not this disputing have been very edifying to such as the Lady that he and I were once to deal with, when he would have bargained that never a word should be spoken by me, nor written, but in a Syllogism? as bad as Popery is, I hope it hath some men of more ingenuity and honesty, then wilfully to delude the ignorant, at these low and sordid rates.

§. 7. But from his play he turneth in earnest to deny my Major, and saith [that Protestants are no parts of that Church on Earth of which Christ is Head. And yet many of their Doctors say, that they that have no explicite belief that Iesus is the Christ, but believe only a God, the rewarder of works are members of the Church; but no Christians are, save Papists. Just the Donatists, and worse than the Quakers and Anabaptists.

My Argument [Those that profess the true Christian Religion in all it's Essentials, are members of that Church which is the Body of Christians on Earth, subjected to Christ the Head.] But Protestants profess, &c.

Here 1. he wanteth form also; [All] is wanting: as if a definition, were not Universal or equipollent?

But if [All] be in, he denyeth it, because they may destroy the faith by an Error.

Answ. He that so erreth as to deny any one Essential part, doth not truly profess to hold that Essential part, and so not the Essence; as he that denyeth Christ to be God or Man, and yet will say in general that he is the Messiah, his meaning is that one that is not God, or not Man is the Messiah▪ which is not a profession of all Essential to Christianity; but if he truly profess all that is Essential, and ignorantly think some error Consistent with those Essentials, which by consequence crosseth some of them, and would abhorr that error if he knew it inconsistent, this man is still a Christian, or else it's doubt whether there be one in the world; if those Doctors say true, that say, that Theology is so harmonious a frame, that the least moral Error doth by consequence cross and subvert fundamental truthes: Certainly abundance of such do so, as are collected by Montaltus and Mr. Clarkson out of your Jesuites and school Doctors, and as you find in one another.

But he bids me prove my Major, mark, Reader, what I am put to prove; 1. Either that Profession denominateth [a professor] (it being only Christians as visible by profession in question) 2. Or that all the Essential parts do constitute the Essence. And shall I obey a trifler so farre as to trouble you with more Syllogismes for this.

§. 8. But he denyeth the Minor, and saith, that Protestants profess not the true Christian Religion in all it's Essentials.

I proved it thus, Those that profess so much as God hath promised Salvation upon in the Covenant of Grace, do profess so much as God hath, &c. Here the trifler wants [all] again, and then denyeth the) Minor.

I proved the Minor by several arguments. 1. All that prosesse faith in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, our Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifyer; and Love to Him, and Absolute obedience to all his Laws, of Nature and Holy Scriptures, with willingness and diligence to know the true meaning of all these Lawes as farre as they are able, and with Repentance for all known sins; do profess so much as God hath promised Salvation upon, (which I proved by many texts of Scripture) But so do the Protestants, &c.

Here the trifler wants form again, The Covenant of Grace was left out, when I cited the Covenant of Grace it self, viz, Io…. 3. 16. 17. Mark 16, 16. Heb. 5. 9. Rom. 8. 28. 1. Act. 26. 18. And after all this what is it that he denyeth? Why this; that the Protestants have willingness, and diligence to know the true meaning of all the Law of Nature and Scripture.

p. 146Answ. This is, the man of form, that slily puts in [Having willingness] instead of professing it. When he saw and knew that it was not what saith men have (which God only knoweth) but what they [pro…ess] that we dispute of. And whether we profess such willingness to understand, if our words, our oaths, and all our books and confessions published to the world will not prove it, let this mans word go for a disproof; we come now to the Transubstantiation reasoning, where all men Eyes, and Eares, are to be denyed.

§. 9. But he addeth a reason, because else they would take the expositions of the universal Church, and not follow novel int…pretations and private judgements.

Answ. This Cant must delude the ignorant that never read the history of the Church, nor know the present State of the World. 1. Do not we profess to preferre that which is most ancient, before that which is novel? But these men must have us. e. g. believe that the cup may be left out of the Sacrament of Eucharist, which a Sect lately and sacrilegiously introduced, or else we have a novel and private interpretation of the Sacrament; when the most brazen faced of them cannot deny, that their own way herein is novel, and, the contrary as old as Christs institution; and that they are singular, as differing from the farre greatest part of Christians upon Earth. The same I might say of most other of our differences.

2. When did the Universal Church write a Commentary on the Bible? where shall we find their exposition of it? How little of the Bible have General Councils expounded? if you mean not them what mean you? sure all your Laity have not expounded it, nor all your Clergy; yea their Commentaries, yea and Translations fight with one another! where is your Universal Commentary: if you had such a work; will your talk make us ignorant that Papists are not a third part of the Christian world? but if it be Councils you mean, which of them is it that we must believe, and why? That at Constance, and Basil, and Pisa, or that at Florence, or the Later…ne that de fide contradict them? The first and second at Ephesus, or that of Calcedon which contradicteth the first indeed, and the second professedly? The 28th. Canon of Calcedon, or the Popes that abhor it: The General Councils at Ariminum, Syrmium, &c. when the world was said to groan to find it self turned Arrian: should we at the 2d. Council of Ephesus have followed the greater number, when there was not one refuser of Eutychianism save the Popes Legates, and Binnius saith that sola navicula Petri, only Peters Ship escaped drowning: did Rome follow the most, when Melch. Canus tells us, that most of the Churches and the Armes of Emperors have fought against the Roman privileges? Is it a convincing way to have such a Pope as Eugenius▪ 4th. at the same time to differ from the greater part of the Christian world, and also be damned by his own Church or General Council; and to say, you do not receive all that's necessary to Salvation, nor are willing to know the truth because you take not the expositions of the Universal Church. When you have blinded us so far as to take a domineering sect that liveth not by the Word, but by the Sword and Blood, to be the Universal Church, and all your Decretals to be the Churches▪ expositions of Scripture, and all the Scripture and Fathers that are against you to be novelties, and your many novelties to be all the ancient truth (such as Pet. Moulin de novitate Papismi hath laid open) by that time we may think that the Church▪ wanteth an Essential Art… ole of Christianity, which taketh not all the Popes expositions of Scripture.

But seeing this is the great damning Charge against the Protestants faith, I pray you tell us next, 1. Did all the Christian Church want an Essential part of their Christianity, in all those Ages before the Universal Church gave them any expositions of the Scripture? what exposition had they besides each Churches Pastor's for the first 300 years. And what exposition did the Council of Nice make, save about the deity of Christ (and Easter day or such things that indeed were deliver'd not as expositions of Scripture but Traditions OF rules of order)? And what exposition made any of the old General Councils, save about the Natures, and Person, and Wills of Christ, and Church policie, which Suarez, de legi…. saith, God made no Law for) where are their Commentaries?

3. Where shall we find any Commentary that the Fathers agreed in, though the Trent-Oath is that you will not exp…nd the Scripture but according to the Fathers consent. Your writers tell us that most whose works be come to us, for the first 300 years▪ were Millenaries, Dionys. Petavius hath gathered the words of Arrian doctrine from most of them (lib. de Trinit.) till after the Council of Nice; yea that the chief of the Anti-Arrians, even Athanassus himself. ††Of which see also Derod…n de supposit….was for three Gods, telling us that as Peter, Paul, and Iohn were three names, but p. 147one in Essence, that is in Specie, so is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost: when your Doctors tell us, that Iustin, Clem. Alexander, Dionysius Alexand. Talianus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Eysebius, and I know not how many more taught Heresie: and Chrysostom, Basil, and many others that we hoped had been Christians, are noted as fautors of Origen: and even many of the Martyrs were Hereticks, when through the reign of Theodosius, Senior; Arcadius and Honorius, Theodosius, Junior; Valentinian, (to say nothing of Constantius and Valens, &c. of the Arrians) yea and of Marcian, Leo, Zeno, Anastaslus, Iustine, almost all the Churches of the Empire continued charging each others with Heresie: and Councils charging and condemning Councils; Bishops deposing, and cursing Bishops; and Monks as their Souldiers fighting it out to blood; when the obeying or cursing the Council of Calcedon divided the Bishops for many Princes reigns: and when one part called the other Nestorians, and the other called them Eutychians, almost every where, and when after that the Monothelites cause was in many Emperors Reign uppermost one while, and down another; and navicula Petri that alone scaped before, was thus drowned by Honorius (if Councils belie him not and Popes) with the rest. When the very same Bishops (as at Ephesus and Calcedon) went one way in one Council and another way in the next, and subscribed to one Edict e. g. of Basiliscus, and quickly to the contrary of another, and cryed …, we did it through fear. How should we then know by Fathers, Bishops and Councils, what was their concordant Commentary of the Scripture?

4. I ask you, what exposition of the Universal Church is it that we profess to differ from for our novelties; name them if you can. Either by the Universal Church, you mean properly [all Christians] or [most]. If All, alas, when and where shall we find their agreement in any more than we hold with them? If most, do we not know that the most (two parts to one) are against the Popes Sovereignty; which is Essential to your Church? Do not the Greeks once a year excommunicate or curse you? To tell us now That above two parts of the Christian world are none of the Church, because they differ from the Universal Church, and that the third part is that Universal, which he that believeth not is no Christian, are words that deserve indignation and not belief, and without the medium of Swords and Flames, and tormenting inquisitions on one side, and great Bishopricks and Abbies, Wealth, Ease and Domination on the other, had long ago been scorned out of the Christian world.

§. 10. But he also denyeth that we believe with a saving divine faith any of the said mysteries, and that our Profession general and particular affirmeth it.

Answ. It's like the Devil the Accuser of the brethren will deny it too: of our Hearts we will not enter a dispute: of our Professions, let our books be witnesses: Reader, canst thou believe that we profess not to believe any Christian verity with a Divine faith? yea; but the man meaneth that it is not a Divine faith if it be not from the beleif of the Pope and his Party. And how then shall we believe the Popes own authority?

§. 11. II. My ad. Argument to prove that we hold all the Essentials of Christianity, was [Those that profess as much (and much more) of the Christian Faith and Religion as the Catechumens were ordinarily taught in the ancient Churches, and the Competentes at Baptisme did profess, do profess the true Christian Religion in all it's Essentials: but so do the Protestants, &c. To this he calls for Form again, as if here were no Universal, and then denyeth the Major, but his words shew that indeed it is the Minor: Because the Catechumens professed to believe implicitly all that was taught as matter of Faith by the Catholick Church, in that Article, I believe the Holy Church; which the Protestants do not.

Answ. An unproved fiction on both parts. 1. Shew us in Fathers, Councils, or any true Church-Records; that Catechumens were then used to make any other exposition of those words than we do. Did they ever profess that a Pope or a General Council cannot erre de fide? did they not call many of those Councils General, though violent and erroneous which they cursed? The great doubt then was, which party was the true Church; and Christians then judged not of Faith by the Church-men, but of the Church by the Faith▪ else they had not so oft rejected and Hereticated many Popes, Patriarches, and the farre greater part of the Bishops, as they did.

2. And Protestants deny no article which ab omnibus, ubique et semper, as Lerinens. speaks, was accounted necessary to …ation: yea it is one reason why they cannot be Papists, because p. 148most of the Catholick Church are against the Papacy, and all were against it or without it for many hundred Years after Christ.

Let the Reader peruse Cyril, Hieros. Catech. August. and all others, that give us an account of the Churches Catechism, and see whether he can find in it, I believe that the Bishop of Rome is made by Christ the Governour of all the World, and is Infallible in himself, or with his Council; and that we must believe all that they say is the Word of God, because they say it, or else we cannot be saved.

But it is an easie way to become the Lords of all the World, if they can perswade all Men to believe that none but their Subjects can be saved.

3. And what an useless thing to they make Gods Word, that they may set up their own Expositions in its stead? We know that the Word supposeth, that the Ignorant must have Teachers: Without Teaching Children cannot so much as learn to Speak. And Oportet discentem credere fide humanâ, that is, he must suppose his Teacher wiser than himself, or else how can he judge him fit to Teach him? But what is Teaching, but Teaching the Learner to know the same things that the Teacher doth, by the same Evidence? Is it only to know what the Teacher holdeth? without knowing why? If so, must we know it by Word, or Writing? If by Word only, when and where shall every Man and Woman come to be Catechized by the Universal Church? That is, by all the Christian World. Or is every Priest the Universal Church? Or is he Infallible? And how come Words spoken, to be more intelligible than words written? Doth writing make them unintelligible? Why then are their Councils and Commentaries written? But if Writing will serve, why not God's writing as well as theirs? If God say, Thou shalt Love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart: Are not these words intelligible till a Pope Expound them? When the Pope permitted his Casuists to expound them so, as that Loving God once a MonethMonth, or once a Year, will serve for Salvation; and that Attrition, which is Repeating only out of Fear, with the Sacrament of Penance, will also serve. Cannot a Man be saved, that Believeth, Repenteth, and Loveth God upon the bare Commands of God and Scripture, without hearing what all the Christian World or Councils say? If I make to my self no Graven Image, so as to bow down and Worship towards it, by virtue of the second Commandment, will this damn me, because I receive not the Papists obliteration or contradiction of this Commandment as an Exposition? If all the Docrees of Councils be as necessary as the Creed and Scripture, why were not the Councils read in the Church still (three hundred Years before there was any General Council.) as well as the Scriptures? And why do not Hierome, Chrysostome, Augustine, &c. Exhort Me… and Women to read the Councils as much as the Scriptures? At least, methinks, you should allow the Scripture an Equality with Councils. But if God have spoken that which is nonsence or unintelligible till Councils or lopes Expound it, Scripture is far from having such Equality. Then Paul and Peter spake not intelligibly, but P. Paul 4 and 5. and the Council of Trent did: Then Councils may save them that know not Scripture, but Scripture cannot save them that know not the Councils: And do all the Papists, Men and Women, know the Councils?

In short, If a Tyrannical Sect of Priests can get this Monopoly, or Peculiar of expounding all Gods Laws and Word; so that the Scripture will not save any but by their Expositions, it will become more the word of the Pope or Council, than of God: And when all is done, every Priest must be the pope and Council to us that never saw them, and must be the immediate Object of our Infallible belief. And if the Pope can so communicate to so great a swarm, the sweetness of participating in his Universal Dominion and Infallibility, no wonder if Self-love bid them serve his Usurpation.

But by that time every Woman must be sure, 1. That the Pope is Christs Vicar General indeed. 2. That with a Council he is Infallible. 3. And that Gods Revelation must be received only on this Deliverers Authority. 4. And the sence of all on his Exposition. 5. And know how Men believed the first three hundred Years before such Popes or Councils ever were. 6. And can tell certainly which Councils be true, and which false; and which of them must be believed, and which not. 7. And is sure that every Priest doth Infallibly Report all this to her. 8. And doth give a true. Exposition of each Council, before another Council do Expound them. 9. And be sure that she hath all that those Councils have made necessary, and have not had a sufficient proposal of more. I say, by that p. 149time all this certainty be attained, the Popish Faith will appear to be harder work than they think, that hear Deceivers say, Believe as the Church believeth, and you shall be saved.

Judge how far the Pope Exalteth himself above God, when it is thus confidently told us, That we, (nor no Men) believe with a Divine and Saving Faith any one word of God; if we believe it meerly because God hath given it us in the Sealed Scriptures, and add not the Expositions of the Papal Church.

§. 12. My next Argument was, Those that explicitely profess the belief of all that was contained in the Churches Creeds, for six hundred Years after Christ, (and much more Holy truth) and implicitely 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, &c.

Here again the Formalist wants Form: An Enumeration of particulars in a Description, is not equal to an Universal with him, unless he read [All.] And then he denyeth the Major: 1. Because our General Profession is contradicted in particulars.

Answ. 1. Bare Accusation without Proof, is more easie than honest. 2. There is a contradiction direct, and understood, which proveth that the Truth is not believed; and a contradiction by consequence not understood, which stands with a belief of the Truth. The latter all Men in the World have, that have any Moral Error. 3. O what self-condemning Men are these! How certainly hath a Papist no true Faith, if abundance of contrary Errors nullifie Faith.

His second Reason is, You distinguish not between implicitely contained in general Principles, and explicitely contained in the Creed and Scriptures.

Answ. A very Logical Answer. To what purpose should I do it?

His third is the strength, Creeds and Scriptures are not enough; Traditions and General Councils, in matters of Faith, must be believed.

Answ. 1. I would matters of Practice were more at Liberty that Princes were not bound to Murder or exterminate all their Subjects as Hereticks, that will not be Hereticks and inhumane; and to Rebel perfidiously against those Princes that are Sentenced by his Holiness for not doing it. 2. Alas, who can be saved on these Mens terms? If the belief of all the Creeds, and all the Scriptures, be not a Faith big enough to save him? And yet, perhaps, you may hear again, that Men may be saved without any of all this, save believing that there is a Rewarding God, and that the Pope and his Subjects are the Infallible Church Universal. And it is but proving [an insufficient proposal] and we are delivered from Traditions, Councils, Scriptures, Creeds and all. And never was the proposal of Councils more insufficient, than when Councils were most frequent; when in the Reign of Constantius, Valens, Valentinian, Theodosius, Arcadius and Honorius, good Theodosius junior, Marcian, Leo, Zeno, Anastasius, Iustin, Iustinian, and long after; Anathematizing one General Council, and crying up another; and setting Council against Council, was too much of the Religion of those times.

4. Again, he denyeth, that Protestants, not excused by Invincible Ignorance, believe any Article with a Saving Faith.

Answ. Easie Disputing: Cannot a Quaker say so too, by us and you? But how unhappy a thing is Knowledge then; and how blessed a thing is Invincible Ignorance, which may prevent so many Mens Damnation?

§. 13. I proved the Major by the express Testimony of many Papists, ad hominem: To which he saith, It is to no purpose: For our Question is not, of what is to be believed expresly only, but of what is to be believed both expresly and implicitely of all Christians respectively.

Answ. Reader, Judge with what Ingenuity these Men Dispute! And how they make nothing of giving up all their cause, and yet Cant on with any of the most senseless words! He had largely enough told us before, that the belief of General Truths explicitely, is the Implicite belief of the contained particulars, though unknown to the Believer. I am now proving, that Protestants explicite Faith leaveth out no Article necessary to be explicitely believed: To this end I cite Bellarmine and Costerus (and after many others) consessing what I say in plainest words, even the sufficiency of our enumeration. He denyeth none of my proof, as to explicite belief: And do we need any more? Is not all that which he calleth explicite p. 150belief, the meer denomination of the Explicite, from the particulars implyed in it? Can any Man want an Implicite belief, that wanteth no Explicite belief? If I am not bound explicitely to believe that the Pope and his Council is the Universal Church, or the Infallible deliverer of Traditions, or Expounder of Scripture, or my rightful Governours; how am I bound, or how can I be said to believe Implicitely their unknown Doctrine or Articles of Faith?

What is my Implicite belief of Scripture-Particles, but my General belief that all the Scripture is Gods Word, and true? And what is Implicite belief of Popish Traditions in particular, but the explicite belief that all Popish Traditions in general are true? If therefore these Disputers confess the sufficiency of our explicite neccessary belief, and yet damn us for the insufficiency of our implicite belief, they shamefully contradict themselves, and give up their cause.

§. 14. Next I thus Argued, If sincere Protestants are Members of the True Church, as intrinsecally informed (or as Bellarmine speaketh, Living Members) then professed Protestants are Members of the true Church, as extrinsecally denominated (or as it is Visible) consisting of Professours: But the Antecedent is true; Ergo, so is the Consequent.

To this (when I had given the Reason of the Consequence undenyable) and said, I prove the Antecedent or Minor, he saith, You prove, say you, your Antecedent or Minor, which is a Syntax in Logick, and deserves a Ferula, for no Minor can be an Antecedent.

Answ. For this Mans sake, I will know a Man better than by his Hectoring, before I will go to School to a boaster. Reader, 1. What is that Error in Logick that is called a Syntax? I thought Order or Concord had been no Error: I confess my self not wise enough to understand this great Logician. And his Ferula is too ready, which must be used for Syntaxes, when it is more used for violation of Syntax. 2. Risum teneatis: Can no Antecedent be a Minor (so did Dr. Peter Heylin tell me before him, in his Certamen Epistolare:) I suppose I shall never hear a third say so. What's the matter, that the Boys Laugh at this, and say, that to deny the Antecedent of an hypothetical Proposition, and to deny the minor is all one? Is it that Boys have made all our usual Logicks, and now these two Logick Doctors have Reformed them? Or hath this Man pretended to be a Champion in that Art, in which he is below the Novices? He had hit it if he had held to his offer to Dispute before a Lady (a Girle) only in Syllogism by the Pen; for this with her might have past for currant and invincible Logick.

§. 15. I proved the Minor thus: All that by Faith in Christ are brought to the unfeigned Love of God above all, and special Love of his Servants, and unfeigned willingness to Obey him, are Members of the True Church, as intrinsecally informed. But such are all sincere Protestants, &c.

This Minor the Man denyeth, and saith, That Protestants have not these things.

Answ. 1. Mark how hard this Man is put to it to renounce his Charity: He cannot do it without denying what he granteth. A sincere Professor of any Religion, is one that really is what he professeth to be: He denyeth not that Protestants profess to Love God, &c. And yet he denyeth the Minor, that sincere Protestants do love God: As if he that sincerely professeth to Love God, doth not Love him. These are Papist's Syllogisms.

2. Note, That this Man seemeth to know all Protestants Hearts better than they do themselves, and can prove them all Hypocrites that Love not God.

3. But by this you see how he reproacheth all those Protestants that turn Papists, as having all been but before but graceless ungodly Hypocrites: And what wonder then if they turn?

4. But it may be his word [formally] is a cheat. A Protestant is a Christian renouncing Popery: It is his Christianity which containeth his Love to God: His renouncing Popery, is but his freedom from their sin. And, perhaps, the Man hath a mind to call this the Form of Protestants: But I hope his Talk shall not deprive us of the Love of God, or of our Neighbour. In the mean time, any Man that can truly say, that he is not an ungodly Hypocrite without the Love of God and Man, hath Argument enough to Answer any Papist in himself.

5. Again, Reader, mark how much these Men magnifie themselves, and how much they vilifie the Word and Works of God. Let a Man see all Gods wonderful Goodness in his Works, and in his Mercies to himself and all Mankind; let him read and believe all the wonderful Love of the Father, and Grace of the Son that is described in all the Scriptures: Let him believe the Promises there Recorded of Everlasting Glory, and All this is insufficient p. 151to cause him savingly to Love God or Man: But let him but add the belief, that the Pope is the Governour of all the Earth, and that he and his Council must be believed in all their Traditions and Expositions, and then the work will be done, and he may Love God unseignedly, and be Loved by him. The Holy Ghost will not work by the Scripture, unless we take the Pope for the Expositor: Yea, more; if a Man never heard of Scripture, or if he believe not in Christ, for want of the Popes sufficient proposal, he may Love God, and be saved, so he do but believe that the Pope, with his Council, is a sufficient proposer. And is there any account in Reason to be given of this strange Phaenomenon, why a Man can Love God, if he believe in the Pope of Rome, and yet cannot Love him by all his Works and Mercies, with the belief of all the Scriptures? Or is it as very a Miracle as Transubstantiation, and Sanctification by Holy-Water, or the Opus operatum, and one of those Miracles that prove the Church of Rome to be all the Church on Earth.

§. 16. But he repeateth again the thred-bare Reason, Had they this, they would never have disobeyed and disbelieved all the Churches in the World.

Answ. That is, the Pope and his Priests, who are against the far greatest part of the Christian World, and Yearly Anathematized by the Greeks; who, when they had lost the Primacy of the Eastern part of one Empire, have tryed to make up the loss, by laying Claim to all the Earth. O! of what consequence is Obedience to an Ambitious Pope or Priest, in comparison of Obedience to all the written Laws of God?

§. 17. I proved the Minor two ways: 1. If this (the Love of God, &c.) be in our profession, then the sincere are such indeed: But this is in our profession: Ergo:—

Of this he denyeth the Minor, It is not in our profession. What, not that we Love God, and are willing to understand and obey his Word? Is he not driven up to the Wall, even to another denyal of all Mens Eyes and Ears? Do not I profess it while I write these words? And have not I professed it in sixty Volumns and more? And do not Protestant Libraries contain such professions, and their Pulpits ring of them every Lords Day? What is a Profession; but Words and Writings? And are not these Audible and Visible to the World? And yet the denying (not of the sincerity) but the very Being of them, is the Papists confutation of us.

§. 18. Secondly, I proved it from our knowledge and sense of our own Acts. When I know and feelmy Love, shall I believe a Pope that never saw me, that tells me, I do not know or feel it?

To this, his easie Answer serveth: He saith, I do not feel that I truly Love God or his Servants, if I be a Formal Protestant, my Heart deceives me.

Answ. No wonder if all these Priests are Infallible, that know all our Hearts so much better than we. But who shall be Judge? The true searcher of Hearts? If the Fruits must be the Evidence, I should rather fear that such Murderers of hundred thousands as killed the Waldenses, Albigenses, French, English, Dutch, &c. were like to be without Love, than all those meek and Godly Protestants that I have known; for no Murderer hath Eternal Life.

But forma is sometime taken for figura, and for outward appearance only: And such formal Protestants, as have but the cloathing of Christianity, have not indeed the Love of God.

§. 19. He addeth, What would you say to an Arrian, a Turk, or Jew, that would urge the like knowledge or feeling?

Answ. The same that I would do to a bloody Papist: And'I would tell him, that if a Bediam think that he is a Prince, or a Fool that he is Wise, or a Beggar that he is a Lord, or an illiterate Man that he is Learned, it doth not follow, that no Man can know that he is a Prince, or a Lord, or Wise, or Learned. I would tell him, that there can be no effect without the adequate cause; nor is there a cause where there is no effect: And lie that perceiveth not God's amiableness in the necessary demonstrations of it, cannot Love that Goodness he perceiveth not; nor can any desire or seek the Heaven, which he believeth not. And I would tell him, that he that believeth not in a Redeemer or a Sanctifier, cannot Love him, nor can he Love Believers and Godly Men, as such, who knoweth not that they, as such, are Lovely: And that if really he Love God and Holyness, and the hopes of Heaven before this World, it will work in his seeking them above the World. If you had Argued rationally against our Love of God, and Holyness, from any proved defect in the necessary cause (which is in you) we had been Obliged thankfully to hear and try your words. But let p. 152Reason judge e. g. whether that man be like to love this world best, and be loth to leave it, who looketh to go at death into the flames of Purgatory, or he that looketh to go to the glorious presence of his Redeemer. And whether he be like to Love God best, that look eth to be tormented by him in those flames, or he that looketh to passe into heavenly perfect Love: Christ telleth us that forgiving much causeth Love; If a man were to torment you so long, would it make you love him? or at least is it a good proof that Protestants Love not God, because they believe not that he will torment them in flames, but presently comfort them.

§. 20. II. My ad. Argument to prove the perpetual visibility of our Church, was this, [The Church whose Faith is contained in the Holy Scripture, 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 it's 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, &c.

Here he wanteth Form again, because the praedicate of the Minor is the Subject of the conclussion, and then he distinguisheth of the Maior; of containing Involutely in General principles, he granteth it, but if expresly he denyeth it.

Answ. 1. The marvellous Logician it seems is but for one mood or figure, but by what authority or Reason?

2. He denyeth that the Churches Faith in all points necessary to Salvation is expresly contained in the Scripture. I proved the contrary ad hominem, before, out of Bellarmine and Costerus plain words; and shall by and by further prove it. Mark again the Papists value of the Holy Scriptures, he that explicitly believeth all that it expresly delivereth, and no more, say these men, cannot be saved: and yet if they believe none of it, but a rewarding Deity say most, or some more of the Creed say others, men may be saved if they do but believe that all is Gods word and truth which the Pope and his Priests or Council say is such.

Next he distinguisheth of [all things necessary to Salvation to be by all distinctly known and expresly believed,] and so he granteth the Scripture-sufficiency: Very good! Now all that is so necessary to a distinct knowledge and express belief is there. But of [all things to be Believed implicitly and distinctly known.] he denyeth it, These distinctions supposed (saith he) I deny your Consequence.

Answ. Here is all new still. 1. He calleth my Conclusion my Consequence; (and reciteth it) 2. What he meaneth by [things to be distinctly known by all, and yet Believed but implicitely] is past my understanding, having to do with that man that hath all this while described implicite Belief, by the express Belief of some meer General truth. And must men know all that distinctly, which they Believe not distinctly but in their general? the man sure was confounded, or confoundeth me! The General to be Believed is the Pope and Councils authority in propounding and expounding Gods word, (This is their saving Faith:) the Belief of all that they propose is implicitely contained in this; but must all this be distinctly known by all, and yet not distinctly Believed? The first would damn all that know not every one of their Councils decrees de fide: the ad. will shew that they Believe nothing at all; for he that knoweth distinctly what the Pope saith, and yet Believeth it not distinctly, cannot Believe the general of his veracity.

But perhaps he spake distributively of two sorts of Faith, viz. both the Implicite and the Explicite, Salvian. de Gubern. l. 3. p. 62. si scire vis quid tenendum sit, habes literas sacras. Perfecta ratio est hoc tenere quod legeris.and so meant to deny the Scripture-sufficiency only to the first; if so, I shewed the flat contradiction of it before. Where there is all that is necessary to be Believed expresly, eo nomine, there is all that is necessary to be Believed implicitely, because to be Believed implicitly, with this man is but to be the unknown consequent or inclose of that which is Believed expresly.

§. 21. For the proof of my Major (the Scripture-sufficiency as to all things commonly necessary to Salvation) after Bellarmine and Costerus, I have cited the plain words at large of 1. Ragus. in Council, Basil. Bin. p. 299. 2. Gerson de exam. doct. p. 2. cont. 2. 3. Durandus in Praefat. & Hierom. in hym. 4. Aquinas 22. 9. 1. à 10. ad 1. & de Verit. disp. de fide q. 10. ad 11. 5. Scatus in Prolegom in sect. 1. 6. Greg. Armin. in Prol. e. g. q. 1. art. 2. Resp. fol. 3. & 4. 7. Guil. Parisiens. de Legib. c. 16. p. 46. 8. Bellarmine again de verbo Dei li. 10. c. 10. ad arg. 5. &c. And then I most fully proved it out of the ancient Church-Doctors.

But to all these he giveth such frivolous Answers, that it irketh me to weary the Reader by p. 153repeating and answering them. And he that will faithfully peruse the Authors words, I think will either need no other confutation of him, or is uncapable of understanding one when he seeth it.

The fore-confuted contradiction of sufficient explicite, and yet not sufficient implicite is the chief: and next a vain supposition, that, to say that Scripture is sufficient to all Theological points and conclusions, is less than to say, it is sufficient to necessary Articles of Faith; and if any of them speak of the Churches exposition, he denyeth the Scripture-sufficiency as a rule: and yet their Councils need exposition too.

§. 22. III. My 3d. Argument for our Churches perpetual visibility was: If the Roman Church (as Christian, though not as Papal) hath been visible ever since the dayes of the Apostles, then the Church of which the Protestants are members hath been visible ever since the dayes of the Apostles: but the Antecedent is their own. Therefore they may not deny the Consequent.

Here he wants Form again, because [as Christian] is in the Antecedent and not in the sequel.

Answ. He might have seen that it is but an Expository term in a parenthesis, and so the same exposition in the consequent is supposed.

Next he saith, that it is a fallacy, a secundum quid ad simpliciter.

Answ. so then the Church as Christian is not the Christian Church, but secundum quid; but we that know no other, profess to be of no other, nor to prove the visibility of any other, than the Church as Christian. Let them prove more that pretend to any other.

Next he saith, that [the Protestants have been visible as Christians] is all that can be pretended: and yet that also he denyeth, for they believe not one Article with an infallible, supernatural, divine Faith.

Answ. 1. The question is, whether they profess not so to do: nay rather, whether their objective Faith, (that is, all the Creed and Holy Scriptures) be not infallible, of supernatural Revelation and Divine; he that denyeth this seemeth an Infidel. But if all the members of the Church must have an actual subjective Faith that is of supernatural, divine infusion: Then 1. No hypocrite is a Church-member; 2. And no man can know who is a Church-member besides himself. 3. And so the Church of Rome is invisible; this is clear.

2. I must not too oft write the same things; if the Reader will peruse a small Tract of mine called [The certainty of Christianity without Popery] he shall soon see whether the Papists Faith or Ours be the more certain and divine: Of which also I have said, more in my Treatise called The safe Religion, and Mr. Pool in his nullity of the Roman Faith.

§. 23. I here shewed that having proved our visibility as Christian, I need not prove a visibility as Papal, any more than he that would prove his humane Genealogie, having some leprous Ancestors, need to prove that all were leprous.

Here he denyeth Popery to be Leprosie, and again falsly tells us, that if it were so, all the visible Church in the world was leprous; which needs no more confutation than is oft given it.

§. 24. He tells me how an. 1500 the Pope was in possession, and we dispossest him without order, &c.

Answ. An old Cant, but 1. I have fully proved that he never was in possession of the Government of the Christian world. 2. Nor in the Empire or any other Princes dominion, but by humane donation and consent; as the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury is in England. 3. And that they that gave him that power, may on just reason take it away. And that the Bishop of another Princes Countrey, cannot stand here by his authority, when he hath lost the Government of England himself.

§. 25. IV. My 4th. Argument added more than my Thesis required, viz. If there have been since the dayes of Christ, a Christian Church that was not subject to the Roman Pope as the Vicar of Christ and universal Head and Governour of the Church, then the Church of which the Protestants are members hath been visible, both in it's Being and in it's freedom from Popery. But the Antecedent is true: Ergo so is the Consequent.

To this 1. he wants the word [ever] in the Antecedent. And yet before abated it, but he knoweth that [since] was put for [ever since.] 2. He saith, I suppose that the sole denyal of the Popes supremacy constitutes the Church whereof the Protestants are members. Answ. In despight of my, frequent professions to the contrary; who still tell him, that our Christianity and p. 154Relation to Christ and one another makes us Church-members: and our freedom from the Papacy is our renunciation of an Usurper.

§. 26. I proved my Antecedent 1. from the express words of the Council of Calcedon can. 28 which he answers as before, where he is consuted.

§. 27. 2. My 2d. proof was from the silence of the ancient writers Tertullian, Cyprian, Athan. Nazianzene, Nissene, Basil, Optatus, Augustine, &c. that used not this argument of Popes power over all the world as of Divine Right, to confute the Hereticks that they had to do with; when two words had expeditiously done all, if this had then been Believed.

Here he saith, Their authors have proved that the Fathers did so.

Answ. Soon said, and as soon denyed. The books are in our hands, as well as yours. I will now instance but in Cyprian and the African Churches in his dayes, and in Augustine, and the same Churches in his dayes.

1. Did Cyprian and his Council believe Stephens Universal Monarchy, when he opposed his judgment with so much vehemency, and set the Scripture against his plea from tradition? Let him that will read his Epistles of this (too long to be recited) believe it if he can. And when he twitted his arrogance in Council, with nemo nostrum se dicit Episcopum Episcoporum.

2. The plea of Aurelius, Augustine and the rest of the African Bishops I have formerly recited, of which Harding saith, that the Africans seduced by Aurelius, continued twenty years in Schism from Rome: and did Augustine and all the rest then believe the Popes Sovereignty even in the Empire?

I did plainly show that if the Donatis…s, Novatians, and all such Sects had believed the Roman Sovereignty and Infallibility, they had not so differed from them; if they did not believe it, the Fathers would have taken the neerest way, and wrote their Volumnes to convince them that this Papal Rule was it that must end all their controversies, (instead of writing voluminously from Scripture and the nature of the cause:) which they did not.

§. 28. My 3d. proof was this [The Tradition witnessed by the greater part of the Universal Church saith, that the Papal Vicarship or Sovereignty is an innovation and usurpation, and that the Catholick Church was many hundred years without it. Therefore there was then no such Papat Church.

Here the man is angry, and saith, It is an abominable untruth set down by a fore-head of brass.—A man in his right wits would not have the confidence to utter so loud a falshood,—and all the world will see that I am one of the most unsufferablest out-facers of Truth and asserters of open Falshood that ever set pen to paper: yea, it brings in the talk of Rebellion against his Majesty, &c.

Answ. The apprehensions of men are very different, when reading (it's like) the same books leaveth me past doubt on one side, and him so vehemently confident on the other. My proof is this, 1. The greatest part of the Universal Church doth now deny the Papal Universal Sovereignty. 2. The greatest part of the Universal Church do suppose and say that they hold herein to the ancient truth which was delivered down from the Apostles. 3. Therefore the greatest part of the Universal Church do hold that the ancient truth delivered from the Apostles doth teach them to deny the Popes Universal Sovereignty; and consequently that it is an innovation and usurpation.

I. As to the first, it is a matter of present fact, such as whether most of England speak English. 1. That the great Empire of Abassia renounce the Pope, (and plead tradition for it) Godignus the Jesuite (besides others) fully testifieth, and justifieth Pet. Maffeius, Ribade, Nica and other Jesuites against … new author that falsly saith they were subject to the Pope. He tells us that they take the Romans for Nestorian Hereticks, p. 318. 328. &c. and that they resolved never to be subject to the Pope, that he that told them otherwise misinformed them, yea saith one of the Jesuites, pag. 330. I think the Emperour had rather be under the hardest yoak of the Saracens, than under the mild and gentle Empire ††It is Empire that they claim over Emperors.of the Roman Pope. It's true that many errors they have, and many more are charged on them, which they deny, and believing that Dioscorus was the true follower of Cyril and the Council of Ephes. and that Leo and the Council of Calcedon were Nestorians (of which more anon) they are for Dioscorus against Leo and the Council. But few if any of them understand the bottom of that controversie. And the Emperor told the Jesuite that he falsly charged errors on them, and his mother saith [seeing your Faith and ours do nothing differ, but are the same, why do you write to trouble quiet minds without cause? The Jesuite answereth, I certainly affirm p. 155to your Majesty, that if you had no other Errors, this one, that you are separated from the Pope of Rome, the Vicar of Christ on Earth, is enough and too much to your everlasting destruction.

II. To this she replyed, that she and her Countrey were subject to the Apostles Peter and Paul, and first to Christ himself. The Jesuite answered, I deny that they are subject to Christ, that are not subject to his Vicar.—Saith she, neither I nor mine deny obedience to St. Peter, we are now in the same Faith that we were in from the beginning, If that were not right, why for so many Ages and Generations was there no man found that would warn us of our error?—He answered, The Pope of Rome that is the Pastor of the whole▪ Church of Christ, could not in the years past send Tea…hers into Abassia, &c—She answered, To change the old Customs and Rites, and receive new ones, is a matter full of danger and offence. He answered, that their Faith was old and had nothing new, &c. p. 323, 324, 325. The Emperor also spake to the like purpose. p. 319. 320, 321.

So that it is confessed by the Jesuites and best information from Abassia. 1. That they abhorre or refuse the Papal Government. 2. And that for this they plead Tradition and Antiquity.

And the same is notorious of the Greek, Armenian, and other Oriental Churches. How large they were in the East when Iacobus de Vitriaco was there I have formerly shewed out of his words, who saith that those Eastern Christians were more than either the Greek or Latin Church: and as the Greeks anathematize the Pope every year, so the rest are known to reject him. To say that these are Hereticks and not the Church, is but to beg the question, and fitter for contempt than an answer. That all such rejecters of the Papacy are the farre greatest part of professed Christians is past doubt. 2. And that Greeks, Armenians. &c. plead Tradition and the judgment and custome of their fore-fathers for what they hold, is so farre past question, that I will not vainly wast time in citing authors to prove it. Even the Papists confess it when they tell us that these Churches joyn with them in pleading for tradition.

Is not then the consequence clear, which W. I. is so angry at? I know not what can be said against it, unless that both the Greeks and Protestants do confess that once they were under the Pope: but the Greeks say that they were never under him as a Governour of the whole Christian world, set up by God, but as the Primate of one Empire set up by man, upon such reasons (the Seat of the Empire) as are alterable as well as unnecessary. I have proved this fully before, 1. From the words of the Council of Calcedon. 2. From their equalling and after preferring the Patriarch of Constantinople, who pretended not to a Divine Right and that as over all the world; and they were not so blind as to set up a humane Law, above that which they believed to be divine; many other proofs I gave.

And even the Protestants hold that in rejecting the Papacy they follow the Tradition of the Church of Christ, however some Countreys where they live and their progenitors fell under the Papal errour or terrour.

There are some late Papists that think that what is held in this age was certainly held in the former, and that no Countreys Tradition can be false: Which is contrary to all experience. But if other Countreys Tradition may be false, so may the Roman.

Niceph. saith of the Armenians, [They do these things from Tradition, which resteth on no Reason; and their ancient Legislators and Doctors, do calumniously boast that Gregory the Bishop of great Armenia delivered them by hands, &c l. 18. c. 54.

And the Abassians that received the Gospel from the Eunuch and St. Matthew, being before too much addicted to some Jewish ceremonies and never cured of them, retain them as by Tradition to this day.

And it is known how Tradition differed about Easter-day and the Millenaries opinion.

By all this it is evident that most of the Christian world take the Religion which they hold, to be that which by Tradition the Church received for the Apostles: and therefore most being against the Papacy, think Tradition is against it. And the Tradition of two parts of the Christian world, especially those next Ierusalem, is more regardable as such, than the Tradition of the third part only that is contrary; unless better Historical proof mak a difference.

§. 29. 4. My 4th. proof was [Many Churches without the virge of the Roman Empire never p. 156subjected themselves to Rome (and many, not of many hundred years after Christ): Ergo there were visible Churches from the beginning to this day, that were not for the Roman Vicarship.

To this he saith, If I can prove (as I have proved) that any one Extra-imperial Church was subject to the Bishop of Rome, and you cannot shew some evident reason why that was subject rather than all the rest, I convince by that the subjection of all. Now it is evident that the Churches of Spain, France, Britain, of France, and Germany, when divided from the Roman Empire, were as subject as the rest, &c.

Answ. 1. Yes, and much more, Rome it … was then under Theodorick, and other Arrian Theodorick and his Successors were willing that Rome, when it was their regal seat, should claim the greatest power over the Churches of other Princes Dominious.Gothes; and those Rulers gave them their liberty herein, and being Hereticks, no wonder if the Bishops chose to continue their former correspondency and Church-order, to strengthen themselves. Here is then a special reason why Rome it self and the rest of the Churches should so voluntarily continue. 1. Their old custom, when under the Empire, had so setled them. 2 Their strength and safety invited them. 3. It was their voluntary act.

2. But what's this to those many hundred years before, when the Empire was not so dismembered? Though even till after Gregories daies (an. 6…) the Britains obeyed you not; yet I told you that when Pagans or Arrians conquered any parts of the Empire, the Christians would still be as much under the old Christian power as they could: which made the Major Armenia, when subdu…d by the Persians, crave the Romans Civil Government, and revolt to the Emperor and kill their Magistrates, even when they were not governed by the Pope at all.

§. 30. Here he repeateth what he had frivolously said before of the Council of Nice (with an odd supposition as if India were in America) and then betaketh himself to prove out of the Fathers the Roman Sovereignty; but with such vain citations that I dare not tire the Reader, with repeating and particularly answering them. 1. They being at large answered by Chamier, Whittakers, and many other Protestants long ago; and many of them or most by my self in my key, and my former answer to him. 2. Because it is needless to him that will peruse the Authors and Histories themselves, and useless to him that will not. 3. This general answer is sufficient. 1. Part of them are the words of spurious books, as St. Denis, an interpolate book of Cyprian, some new found Chaldaick, Nicene Canons, &c. 2. Part of them say nothing of the Pope, but only of St. Peter, as being the first of the Apostles, but not as the Governour of the rest. 3. Part, or almost all of them, speak only of an Imperial Primacy, that mention the Pope. 4. Part of them speak only of an honorary precellencie of Rome and the Church there. 5. Some speak only de facto, that at that time the Church of Rome had kept out the Arrian, Nestorian, and Eutychian Heresies, more than the …ast did (which was because they had more orthodox Emperours,) and therefore that those sects that then differed from them were not in the Right, nor in the Church. 6. Some are only the commendations of Eastern Bishops persecuted by the Arrians in the East, that fled to Rome for shelter. 7. As high words are often given by Doctors and Councils themselves of Cyril and other Bishops of Alexandria, and of Bishops of Ierusalem, Antioch and Constantinople, as those that are acquainted with Church-writings know. There needeth no longer confutation of his Citations.

§. 31. My fifth proof was, that The Eastern. Churches within the Empire were never subjects of the Pope.] He denyeth this Antecedent; I proved it (as formerly from the Africans Letters to Celestinus, and the words of Basil, &c:) So farther: 1. Because the Pope chose not the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, Ierusalem, or Constantinople, nor the Bishops under them, 2. He did not ordain them, nor appoint any Vicar to do it, nor did they hold their power as under him: To both these he saith, [It was not necessary, &c.] But their Patriarchal power was from him.]

Answ. Prove that and you do something, but no man verst in Church-writings can believe you; I remember not to have met with any learned Papist that affirmeth it, (that the Pope set up the other four Patriarchs): it is notorious in history, that as the Churches of Ierusalem and Antioch were before the Church of Rome, so Alexandria, Antioch and Rome were made Patriarchates together, and no one of them made the rest; and the other two were added since.

He proveth it because, he restored and deposed those Patriarchs as occasion required.

Answ. 1. Tell this to those that never read such writings, Princes and Councils did set p. 157them up, and cast them out as they saw cause; it were tedious, (and needless to any but the ignorant) to recite the multitude of instances, through the reign of all the Christian Emperors till Phocas time; how little had the Pope to do in most of their affairs? 2. They frequently set up and deposed one another, (far ofter than the Pope did any;) Doth that prove that they were Governours of each other accordingly? 3. Councils then judged all the Patriarchs Roman and all, as is notorious. 4. The Pope sometime when he saw his advantage, and saw one side striving against another; would set in to shew his ambition, as the prime Patriarch, to strengthen himself by such as needed him, and usually was against him that was likest to overtop him (as neighbour Princes in War are afraid of the strongest) and that was usually the Bishop of Constantinople.

3. I said They received no Laws of his to rule by. He replyeth The Lawes and Canons of the Church they received, and those were consirmed by his authority.

Answ. But did he make them any Lawes himself? by the Church your mean Councils: and those made Laws for him; therefore he was their subject. He had but a voice, and was not so much as a speaker in the Parliament: some Councils you confess he neither presided in, nor any for him (as Binnius confesseth of Council Const.) He had little to do in any † And yet will prove the Canons at Trent. and the Council void because the Pope did not call it or preside in it, but Callinicus of Constantinople.of the Councils for 500 or 600 years, less by far than the other Patriarchs.

4. I said They were not commanded or judged by him. He replyeth I have evidenced they were commanded and judged by him. Answ. Reader, the solution of such historical controversies is by reading the histories themselves. Read throughly the histories of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomene, Theodoret, Evagrius, Procopius, Victor, Nicephorus, &c. and judge as you see cause: especially if you will also read but the works of Tertullian, Cyprian, Nazianzene, Basil, Hilary, and the true Acts of the old Councils.

5. I added the equalizing the Patriarch of Constantinople, which he denyeth against the express words of the Council.) I might adde the after prefering the Bishop of Constantinople, The oft contempts and excommunications of him, the altering of Church power ordinarily by the Emperors; is Iustinian's making Iustiniana prima and secunda, to be absolute and under no Patriarch, as was Carthage; and saith Pet. a Marca and many others, Heraclea, Pontus and Asia long. The managing of many Councils without him, and passing Canons (as Calced. 28.) against him: The whole Council of Ephes. 2. going against his Legates, and that under a most pious and excellent Prince Theodos. 2. that used Cyril and made him President, Ephes. 1. and Dioscorous Ephes. 2d. and countenance this Council against the Pope.

When Zeno carryed on his Henoticon and Anastasius his Reconciliation, how little did he, or any of the Eastern Churches stick at the Popes dissent? No nor Iustinian when he turned to the Heresie of the Apththartodocitae, and when he drag'd Vigilius, as some Historians say, with a rope; instances might be multiplyed.

§. 32. My 6th proof of the novelty of the Papal Sovereignty was from the testimony of their own greatest Bishops, where I cited Greg. 1st. his words so plain and large against a Universal Bishop or Pastor, as plainer can scarce be spoke, and answered Bellarmine words against it; and I shall take the impartial Reader to need no more answer to W I. than even to read the words of Gregory themselves; only noting, that this Iohn of Constantinople that claimed the title of Universal Bishop, was a man of more than ordinary mortification and contempt of worldly things; for his poverty and great fasting called, Iohannes jejunus, and therefore not like to do it, out of any extraordinary worldliness and pride. And also that Gregory was of so little power himself (being then out of the Empire under other powers for the most part) that he did not blame Iohn as for claiming that which he hath right to, but that which no Bishop at all had right to. The case is most plain.

§. 33. My 7th. proof was, The Papists themselves confess that multitudes of Christians, if not most by far; have been the opposers of the Pope, or none of his Subjects: Therefore there have been visible Churches of such.

To this [He granteth the antecedent of Christians net Univocally so called, but of no others.]

Answ. Here he intimateth that most of the professed Christians of the world were not univocally Christians by profession, but equivocally only: and who will easily believe such Teachers, as unchristen most of the Christian World. Any Sect may take that course; their sence is this, none are Christians indeed but only those that are subjects to the Pope; therefore all the Christian p. 158World are his Subjects: Just so the Donatists, and some Foreign Anabaptists, take it but for granted, that none are Christians but those that are Baptized at Age; and then the Inference will be plausible, that all the Christian World is against Infant-Baptism.

§. 34. To Ae…eas Sylvius (Pope Pius 2d.) words, That small regard was had to the Church of Rome, before the Nicene Council: He replyeth, that he meaneth, not so small, as not to be the Head of all other Churches; else the Council of Nice had introduced a new Government.

Answ. His words are plain, and all History of those times confirm them. No one Church, before the Council of Nice, had any Government over others, but what was for meer Concord, by free consent; at least, before Constantine gave it them. And in the Council of Nice, there is not a word that intimateth, that the Pope was Ruler of all the World of Christians; but his power is mentioned, as limited to his Precincts; and the like given to Alexandria. Yet Innovation, in giving power to Patriarchs, is no wonder in Councils: How else came Constantinople and Ierusalem to be Patriarchs? Was it not by Innovation?

§. 34. Next he saith, I cite Goldastus; but where, the Lord knows.

Answ. I perceive the Man is a stranger to Goldastus, who hath gathered a multitude of Old Writers against the Papacy, for Princes Rights, and bound them in many great Volumns, De Monarchia, & Constitut. Imperial. I cited no particular words, but all these great Volumns of many Authors of those times, shew the opposition to Papal Claims.

§. 35. His saying, That the Schismatical Greeks were not Univocal Christians, is no more regardable than the Greeks Anathematizing Papists.

§. 36. My plain Testimony of their Reynerius, Armeniorum Ecclesiae & Aethiopum & Induorum & caeterae quas Apostoli converterunt non subsunt Ecclesiae Romanae. He first cavils at my saying [were not under.] instead of [are not] not seeing that I only recited the Assertion, as uttered by Reynerius so long ago; and must I not say, that he saith, then they were not under, if he so long ago say, They are not?

2. But he would perswade the Credulous, that this speaks of them but as Schismaticks; as Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, are not now under Rome, but have been.

Answ, But those that will be satisfied with forced abuse of words, may believe any thing that a Priest will say. The context confuteth you: You do not pretend that India turned from you, and was under you. By the Churches Planted by the Apostles, he plainly meaneth those without the Empire, as being none of the Provinces put under the Bishop of Rome nor of old claimed by the Pope.

§. 37. I cited Melch. Canus words, Loc. l. 6. c. 7. fol. 201. Not only the Greeks, but almost all (or most) of the rest of the Bishops of the whole World have vehemently sought to destroy the Priviledges of the Roman Church; and indeed they had on their side both the Arms of Emperours, and the greatest number of Churches; and yet they could never prevail to abrogate the Power of the one Roman Pope.

To this, he saith, That 1. Canus speaks of different times, not conjunctly. 2. And he taketh them not for univocal Christians. And here he finds a Root of Rebellion, q. d. Most of the Countries Rebelled against the King, Ergo, he had no Authority over them.

Answ. Our Question here was only of the matter of Fact: Whether, de facto, most of the Bishops and Churches have not been against the Papacy? This Canus asserteth, therefore I seek no more. And when you have proved them no Christians, or Rebels, I shall consider your Proofs. 2. Had he meant only the most of the Bishops and Churches, per vices, it had signified nothing to his purpose: For that had been no strength, but might have been some inconsiderable Town at a time. 3. But that all Church-History may help us better to understand his words; that tell us oft it was [at once] specially when Binnius said, that at Eph. 2. Concil. Only Peter's Ship escaped drowning.

As to his Cavil at my Translation, Whether [Ab aliis plerisque totius orbis Episcopis] be not to be Translated, if not [almost all the rest] at least [most of the rest of the Bishops of the whole World] rather than [very many others] I leave to the ordinary Readers Judgment.

And as for either Canus or his own saying, that all these (the Greeks and most of the Bishops of the whole World, the greater number of Churches, and the Armed Emperours, were all Schismaticks, Hereticks, and no Christians but Equivocally; it is no weak proof of the falseness of their Cause and Tyranny, that cannot stand without unchristening most of the Bishops p. 159and Churches in the World, with such Emperours: Canus his confession of the Historical Truth may be pleaded by me, while I hate their Robbing Christ of the greatest part of his Church, because they are not the Popes.

§. 38. My Eighth Proof of the Novelty of the Papal Sovereignty, was from Historical Testimony, that the Papal sovereignty was no part of the Churches Faith, nor owned by the Ancients: This is done at large by Bloudel de Primatu. and Pet. Moulin, de Novitate Papismi, usher, Field, of the Church, lib. 5. Chaucer, Whittaker, Io. White, and many other. I instanced only in many Historians, Regino, Herman, Contract. Marian; Scotus, Beneventus de Rambaldis, and others; that say, Phocas first constituted (saith one, or) Boniface obtained of Phocas (say others) that the Church of Rome should be the Head of all Churches.

To this, 1. He thinks I have forgot my first Thesis, because he forgot that when I had proved by three Arguments my Thesis, in the fourth, to satisfie their importunity, I proved it with the Addition, that there hath been a Christian Church still visible that Obeyed not the Pope; and so added ten more Arguments to prove this Negative or Exclusive part.

After he cometh to this again, and would have [ut Caput esset] to be no more than an acknowledgment of a controverted Title: But at least the Primus constituit confuteth that; and it is not ut diceretur, haberetur, or denuò esset. He citeth Platina, as if it were a wonder for the Popes Houshold Servant to say, that it was his Right.

2. But I specially note, that both what is said of Phocas, and by him, of Iustinian, Gratian, &c. who constitute and command this Primacy and Subjection to it, shew that it was but Imperial, as to bounds and Authority.

I before mentioned Suarez himself, in his Excellent Book, De Legibus, saying, That God hath made no Laws of Church-policy: And if so, not of the Papacy.

§. 39. I noted their Novelty out of Platina, in Gregor. saying, What should I say more of this Holy Man? whose whole Institution of the Church-Office, specially the Old one, was Invented and Approved by him: which Order I would we did follow; then Learned Men would not at this day abhor the reading of the Office.

Hence I Note, 1. That all their Church-Office was new, being Gregory's Invention (though, no doubt, much of the Matter had been in use before that form.) 2. Therefore the maintainers of Tradition cannot prove, that, because they thus Worship God now, therefore they always did so. 3. Gregory's Invented Office (hardly received in Spain) was so altered in Platina's time, that Learned Men abhorred the Reading of it. 4. Why might they not corrupt Church-Government (where Ambition had a thousand times greater baits) as well as Church-Offices? This is their Antiquity and constancy: This W. I. thought meet in silence to pass by.

§ 40. My Ninth Proof of the Novelty of the Papal Sovereignty, was, If the Generality of Christians in the first Ages, and many (if not most) in the latter Ages have been free from the Essentials of the Papists Faith, then their Faith hath had no Successive Visible Church professing it in all Ages: (but the Christians, that are against it, have been Visible.) But the Antecedent is true: The Antecedent I proved in twelve Instances.

To this he saith, It followeth not, that though our Church, as Papal, had no Successive Visibility; the Church, whereof the Protestants are Members, had ever since Christs time on Earth, a Successive Visibility: When you have proved this Consequence, I Oblige my self to answer your Instances; and so he durst not meddle with that matter, but puts it off.

Answ. Reader, see here what an Issue our Dispute is brought to: Can you wish a plainer? I proved that our Religion, being nothing else but Christianity, our Church hath been still Visible. because it is confessed, that the Christian Church hath been still Visible. But the Papists must have us prove also, that our Church-hath been still Visible, as without Popery. I now prove Popery a Novelty; and doth not that then fully prove my Consequence, that the Christian Church was Visible without it? And I prove, that this Novelty of Popery is yet received but by the third part of Christians (of whom I am perswaded ten to one are either compelled to profess what they believe not, or understand it not:) Therefore the Christian Church was once wholly, and is yet mostly without Popery. I know not when a Cause is given up, if here he give not up his Cause.

§. 41. Twelve new Articles of the Papal Faith I named: 1. That the Pope is above a… p. 160General Council; Decreed at Later. and Florence. 2. Contrarily, That the Council is above the Pope, and may Iudge him, &c. Decreed at Basil and Constance: True before, as a point of Humane Order, but not made ever an Article of Faith. 3. That the Pope may Depose Princes, and give their Dominions to others, if they exterminate not all their Subjects that deny Transubstantiation; Decreed at Later. sub. Innoc. 3. 4. That the Body and Blood, together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Iesus Christ, is truly, and really, and substantially in the Eucharist; and that there is a change of the whole substance of Bread, into the Body, and of the whole substance of Wine, into the Blood, which they call Transubstantiation: Decreed at Trent, and proved new by Ed. Albertinus, Bishop Cousin's History of Trans. and by my self. 5. That the Eucharist is rightly given and taken under one kind (without the Cup:) Decreed at Constance and Trent. 6. That we must never take and Interpret Scripture, but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. See the Trent-Oath; whereas, 1. We have no certainty whom to take for Fathers (a great part being called both Fathers and Hereticks by the Papists.) 2. And they greatly disagree among themselves. 3. And have not unanimously given us any sence at all of a quarter of the Bible (if of the hundredth part.) 7. That there is a Purgatory, and that the Souls there detained, are holpen by the Suffrages of the Faithful. 8. That the Holy Catholick Church of Rome is the Mother and Mistress of all Churches, (and yet it is the Catholick, that is, the whole it self.) 9. That Traditions are to be received with equal pious Affection and Reverence as the Holy Scripture. 10. That the Virgin Mary was conceived without Original sin: Decreed at Basil. 11. That the people may not read the Scripture Translated into a known Tongue, without a special License. 12. That the Books of Maccabees, and other such, are part of the Canon of Faith; (against which, see Bishop Cousins, and Dr. Io. Reignolds.)

See in Dr. Challenor's Credo Eccles. Cath. sixteen of their Novelties.

See Dallaus, De cultu Latinorum, their Worship proved new.

All this W. I. passeth over.

§. 42. My Tenth Argument was, If multitudes (yea, the far greatest part) of Christians in all Ages, have been Ignorant of Popery, but not of Christianity; then there hath been a Succession of Visible Professours of Christianity, that were no Papists: But the Antecedent is true: Ergo, &c.

Here I brought full proof of the Antecedent: 1. From the Ignorance which they themselves accuse the Aethiopians, Armenians, Greeks, Russians, &c. of; and the Protestants also. 2. The known Ignorance of the far most of the Vulgar, in their own Church. 3. The Papists charge on the Council of Chalcedon and others, about their power. 4. The difference of the Councils of Constance and Basil, and Later. and Florence, about their Essentials. 5. The large proof brought by Dr. Field, Append. l. 3. Potter, p. 68. (Bishop Morton Apol.)

To this, he Answers as to the last, by notorious giving up his cause, neither granting nor denying, That there hath been a Succession of Visible Professours of Christianity that were no Papists; which he saith, is all that I prove.

Answ. And what need I more? Is not the Succession of the Church, as Christian, granted by him? Therefore, if I prove it also Successively Christian without Popery, I know not what else the Man would have.

But he saith, Arrians may say so too.

Answ. Arrians are not Christians. If his meaning be, that, besides our rejecting Popery, we have some other Heresie which unchristeneth us. 1. That's nothing against my Argument, which is but Christians Visibility... 2. Why did he never tell us what that Heresie is? Would he not, if he could? And was he not concerned to do it? 3. It's known, that it is our rejecting Popery, that is the Heresie they charge us with; as to any other, we defie their Accusation. And 4. If any individual person be Accused, let it be proved: Our Religion Objective is justified by themselves from Heresie, and all positive Error: For it is nothing but the Sacramental Covenant, briefly explained in the Creed, Lords Prayer, and Decalogue; in the Essentials, and in that and the Integrals all the Canonical Scriptures: So that our proof of our Churches Visibility, as Christian, and not Papal, is all that Reason can require of us: And so this Task is done.

p. 161§. 43. After these Arguments, I added some Testimonies of Historians, which shew how Melch-Canus words, de facto, are to be understood; and how the word [Catholick Church] was then taken; and how small a party the Papal Sovereignty had in the very worst times, viz.

Rog. Hoveden, & Mat. Paris, in H. 2d. shew, that it was, Avitas leges consuetudinis Angliae, which the Pope here Damned, and Anathematized all that favoured and observed them. Here is Tradition, Antiquity, and the immutability of Rome.

The German History, collected by Reuberus, Pistorius, Freberus, and Goldastus, fully shew, That the Papal Tyranny only kept under by a Turbulent Faction, the greater part by fraud and force, which never consented to them.

The Apology of Hen. 4. the Emperour, in M. Freberus, To. 1. p. 178. saith, Behold Pope Hildebrand's Bishops, when doubtless they are Murderers of Souls and Bodies; such as deservedly are called the Synagogue of Satan:—Yet they write, that on his and on their party, is the Holy Mother-Church. When the Catholick, that is, the Universal Church, is not in the Schism of any **Where was it then? when for 40 Years there was nothing but Schism among various Popes at once.Side (or Party) but in the Universality of the Faithful agreeing together by the Spirit of Peace and Charity—And p. 179. See how the Minister of the Devil is besides himself, and would draw us with him him into the Ditch of perdition: Who writeth, that God's Holy Priesthood is with only thirteen (N. B.) or few more Bishops of Hildebrand's; and that the Priesthood of all the rest through the World are separated from the Church of God (our Mr. W. I. would say, that only these thirteen Bishops were Univocal Christians;) when certainly, not only the Testimony of Gregory and Innocent, but the Judgment of all the Holy Fathers agree with that of Cyprian—that he is an Aliene, profane, an Enemy, that he cannot have God for his Father, that holds not the Unity of the Church:—And p. 181. But some that go out from us, say, and write, that they defend the party of t…r Gregory; not the whole, which is Christ's, which is the Catholick Church of Christ (so the Catholick Church and the Popes Sect are distinct.) And p. 180. But our Adversaries (that went from us (N. B.) not we from them) use thus to commend themselves—We are the Catholicks; We are in the Unity of the Church. So the Writer calls them [Catholicks] and us, that hold the Faith of the Holy Fathers, that consent with all good Men, that love Peace and Brotherhood,—Us he calls Schismaticks, and Hereticks, and Excommunicate, because we resist not the King.— He addeth, out of Isidore, Etymol. l. 8. The Church is called Catholick, because it is not as the Conventicles of Hereticks, confined in certain Countries, but diffused through the whole World: Therefore they have not the Catholick Faith, that are in a part, and not in the whole, which Christ hath Redeemed, and must Reign with Christ: They that confess in the Creed, that they believe in the Holy Catholick Church, and being divided into Parties, hold not the Unity of the Church; which Unity, Believers being of one Heart and Soul, properly belongs to the Catholick Church. So far this Apol. of the Emperour.

Here you see what the Catholick Church is; and that the Papalines were then a little Sect of thirteen, or a few more, Bishops. And now, Reader, open thine Eyes and Judge, whether the Emperour, and all the rest of the Western Churches, besides all the rest (a greater part) of the Christian Word, are therefore no Univocal (but Equivocal) Christians, because a Papal Faction, and an Equivocating Jesuite may call them so.

All this the prudent Disputer thought best to Answer by silence.

§. 44. I added (because of their noise of Heresies charged on the Abassines, Syrians, Armenians, Greeks, Protestants, &c.) 1. That they differ in greater matters, yea, de fide, than many things which they call Heresies are. 1. I repeated the differences of their Councils (Const. and Basil against Later. and Florence, &c.) 2. Pighius words, Hierarch. Eccl. l. 6. That these Councils went against the undoubted Faith and Judgment of the Orthodox Church it self. 3. That St. Thomas Aquinas, and other Doctors, differ from the second Council of Nice, in holding the Cross and Image of Christ to be Worshipped with Latreia. 4. I added a large Testimony of the Theological Faculty of Paris, under their Great Seal, against one Ioh. de Montesono ordinis praedic. recited in the end of Lombard; Printed at Paris, 1557. p. 426. where they shew, that (though Tho. Aquinas was a Canonized Saint) we may believe that part of his Doctrine was Heretical. And the same they say of Cyprian, p. 162Ierome, Augustine, Lombard, Gratian, Anselm, Hugo de St. Victore, &c. To all this he Answereth by silence.

§. 45. At last (in vain) I importuned him to prove the perpetual Visibility of their Papacy (but could not prevail) citing their Authors that make the Pope to be the Church, and the whole strength of Councils—

§. 46. I added a few Miscellaneous Testimonies against their Foundations.

1. The first Council of Ephes. under Cyril, in Epist. ad Nestor. in Pet. Crab. Tom. 1. fol. 315. Petrus & Johannes aequales sunt ad alterutrum dignitatis.

2. Bishop Bromhal's citation of Comment. in Epist. synodal. Basil. p. 31. & 40. Impris. Colon, 1613. saying, The Provinces Subject to the four great Patriarchs, from the beginning did know no other Supreme, but their own Patriarchs:—And if the Pope be a Patriarch, it is by the Church, &c.

3. Cassander, Epist. 37. D. Zimenio (p. 1132.) saith, of Monlucius, the Bishop of Valentia (highly praised by Thuanus, &c.) that he said, Si sibi permittatur in his tribus capitulis, uti formâ publicarum precum de ritibus Baptismi, de formâ Eucharistae, sivae missae, Christianam formam ad normam priscae ecclesiae institutam, &c. confidere se quod ex quinquagint a millibus quos habet in sua Diocesi à praesenti discipliniae ecclesiae adversos, quadraginta millia ad Ecclesiasticum unionem, sit reducturus. Here you see what their Antiquity and Tradition is.

4. A closer passage I noted out of Cassander, Epist. 42. p. 1138. To all this I find no Reply.

§. 47. In the conclusion, I Answered a late paper that I received from him, wherein he Humbly intreateth me to declare my Opinion more fully, whether any professed Hereticks, properly so called, are true parts of the Universal Visible Church of Christ, so that they compose one Universal Church with the other Visible parts.

I wrote him so plain and full an Answer to this, that I shall only refer the Reader to the perusal of it, instead of any defence.

To this he concludeth with such a Discourse, that would make a Man lament that such distracted stuff should be thought sufficient to deceive poor Souls. He rants at me for distinguishing: He must have had me directly Answer his Question with Yea or Nay; and instead of Answering, ad rem, to have entred an Idle controversie with him, which of all the sorts commonly called Hereticks, are properly so called. And when no Man can resolve us, whether [properly so called] must be expounded by Etymology, or by the Canou; and by what Canon? Or by the Fathers Catalogues, and by which Fathers (Epiphanius, Philastrius, Augustine, &c.) or by common custom, or by the Pope? How should ever this idle controversie of [properly so called] have ever come to any Resolution, unless by making himself the Judge.

Yet doth the Man absurdly say to me, We are not agreed what the Universal Visible Church is: What of that? Are we not agreed there is such a thing? Think you or I what we will of the definition of it, 'tis sufficient to give an Answer, pro or con, to my Question, whether Hereticks be true Members of the Church: And it will be time enough to explicate what you mean by the Universal Church, when your Answer is impugned—See you not again, that whatsoever you or I understand by [Heretick properly so called] we both agree that there are Hereticks properly so called; and that's enough to Answer my Question, &c.

Answ. It would be irksom to Answer such a Man (if I knew whether this came from Ignorance or Dishonesty) were it not for the necessity of the simple. Is it not a wearisome thing to talk with a Man that must have a Disputation upon terms, whose sence we are disagreed of, and that abhorreth explication of doubtful words? As if, when the Question is, Whether Canis, properly so called, do generate, or do give suck? And I distinguish of Canis Coelestis & Terrestris, and of Canis Mas & foemina, and say, that only Canis Terrestris Generateth, and only Canis foemina giveth suck. He should have ranted at me for distinguishing, and said, We are agreed, that Canis there is, properly so called; and therefore you should Answer without distinguishing. Let him that studyeth deceit, dwell in darkness, and choose p. 163Confusion, but he shall not so draw me from the Light, and cheat me into a foolish Game at Words.

§. 48. But seeing he will not endure a distinction of Heresies, nor tell us how we may These Men that are so quick in damning and avoiding Men, as Hereticks, for a word not understood, can keep Communion with wickedness freely. Pope Gregory 2d. wrote to Boniface, who asked him, whether he should eat and drink with Debauched Priests and Bishops, that he should Admonish them to amend; but if they would not, yet not avoid Familiarity with them, it being likelier to reclaim them. And ordinarily Drunkards were endured. Read the Epistles of Pope Zachary to Boniface, seconding Gregory's, bidding him not avoid wicked Livers, that are Orthodox, but all Hereticks: And one Heresie was holding that there are Antipodes.know which are properly so called; I must suppose that he would have me Judge by the Ancient Catalogues or Rolls, or else by the Popes, or by the Council's nominations.

Reader, I will give thee but a little touch out of the Ancient Catalogue of St. Philastrius, and Judge whether all his Hereticks are damned or unchristened.

I. Of the Hereticks since the Apostles: The eleventh were those that kept not Easter at the right time, (for which Victor would have the Asian Churches Excommunicate; but Irenaeus as well as Socrates and Zozomene, &c. thought much otherwise of the case.) Our Old Britains and Scots then were all out of the Church.

II. His twelfth Heresie is that of the Millenaries, and so a great part of the Holy Fathers, before the Council of Nice, were Hereticks.

III. His twenty seventh Heresie is, of those called Artotyritae, for Offering Bread and Cheese at the Oblation.

IV. His 28 Heresie is, of the Ascodrogitae, that in the Church set New Vessels, and put New Wine into them.

V. The 29th. sort of Hereticks are called Passalorinchitae, that put their Fingers on their Mouths, and imposed silence on themselves (it's like with limitation, else they could not converse with Men.)

VI. 30. Some thought, that all Prophets ended not with Christ.

VII. The 33d. is the Excalceatorum, that were for going without shooes (like some Fryars.)

VIII. The 34th. was that of Novatus, who (erroneously) thought, that those that denyed Christ, or Sacrificed, or Offered to the Heathens Idols after Baptism, might be pardoned indeed by God, but not received again into the Church: Differing but one step from many Church-Canons, that deny Communion to many Sinners for many Years; yea, till they are dying, and to some at Death.

IX. The 41. Hereticks thought, the Epistle to the Hebrews was not Written by Paul, but by Barnabas, or Clement; and the Epistle to Laodicea, by St. Luke.

X. The 42. are the (Orthodox) Meletiani, that Communicated with the Catholicks, and some Hereticks too.

XI. The 46. Heresie doubted of the diversity of the Heavens.

XII. The 47. Heresie being Ignorant that there is another common Earth invisible, which is the Matrix of all things, do think that there is no Earth but this one.

XIII. The 48 Heresie thought, that Water was the common Matter, and was always, and not made with the Earth.

XIV. The 49 Heresie denyed, that the Soul was made before the Body, and the Body after joyned to it; and did believe, that God's making them Male and Female first, was to be understood of the Bodily Sexes: **So Iacob Behmen.When it was the Soul that was made Male and Female; and the Soul was made the sixth day, and the Body the seventh.

XV. The 50 Heresie thought, that not only Grace, but also the Soul it self, was by God breathed into Man.

XVI. The 51 Heresie is Origen's, that thought our Souls were first Coelestial Intellects, before they were incorporate Souls.

XVII. The 52. thought, that Brutes had some Reason.

p. 164XVIII. The 54. thought, Earthquakes had a Natural cause.

XIX. The 55 Heresie Learned of Trismegistus, to call the Stars by the Names of Living Creatures (as all Astronomers do.)

XX. The 56 Heresie thought, that there were not many Languages before the Confusion at Babel.

XXI. The 57 Heresie thought, that the name of a [Tongue] proceeded first of the Jews, or of the Pagans.

XXII. The 58 Heresie doubted of the Years and time of Christ.

XXIII. The 59 Heresie thought (as did many of the Ancient Fathers) that Angels begat Giants of Women, before the Flood.

XXIV. The 61 was, that Christians were after Jews and Pagans.

XXV. The 62 Heresie saith, that Pagans are Born Naturally, but not Christians; that is, that the Soul and Body of man are not daily Created by Christ, but by Nature.

XXVI. The 63 Heresie said, that the number of Years from the Creation, was uncertain, and unknown.

XXVII. The 64 thought, that the Names of the Days of Weeks, Sunday, Munday, (Lunae, &c.) were made by God first, and not by Pagans; as being named from the Planets (an Error no doubt.)

XXVIII. The 66 Heresie was, that Adam and Eve were blind, till God opened their Eyes to see their Nakedness.

XXIX. The 67 Heresie imputeth the sins of Parents to their Children (of which, see my Disputations of Original sin.)

XXX. The 68 Heresie was, of some troubled about the Book of Deuteronomy.

XXXI. The 69 Heresie thought, that those that were Sanctified in the Womb, were Conceived in fin.

XXXII. The 70 Heresie did mistake about the division of the World, thinking it was Described first by the Greeks, Egyptians, and Persians, when it was done by Noah, &c.

XXXIII. The 71 Heresie thought, that there was a former Flood, under Deucalion and Pyrrha.

XXXIV. The 72 Heresie saith, that Men are according to the twelve Signs in the Zodiack, not knowing that those twelve Signs of the Zodiack are divers Climates, and habitable Regions of the Earth.

XXXV. It's well that he makes it the 74 Heresle, that Christ descended into Hell, to offer Repentance there to Sinners, contrary to in Inferno quis confitebitur tibi?

XXXVI. The 75 Heresie doubted of the Nature of the Soul, thinking it was made of Fire, &c. (as many Greek Fathers did.)

XXXVII. The 77 Heresie is, about God's hardening Pharaoh, &c. where the Dominioans are described.

XXXVIII. The 79 Heresie is, that the Psalms were not made by David (it was David that said, By the Rivers of Babylon we sate down and wept, when we remembred Sion; and that described all the Temple-matters before the Temple was made, and the Captivity, and the Return.) And this Heresie denyeth the equality of the Psalms, as if they were not all written and placed in the Order that the things were done (dangerous Heresie.)

XXXIX. The 80 Heresie thought, that God's words to Cain [Thou shalt Rule over him] were properly to be understood, whereas the meaning was, Thou shalt Rule over-thy own Evil thoughts, that are in'thy own free-will.

XL. The 81 Heresie did not well understand the Reason of God's words to Cain, giving him Life.

XLI. The 82 Heresie did think, that the Stars in the Heavens had their fixed place and course, not understanding that the Stars are every Night brought out of some secret place, and set up for thier use (as a Man lighteth up Candles for his House) and at Morning return to their secret place again, Angels being Presidents and Disposers of them (as Servants of the Candles in a House.)

XLII. The 83 Heresie doubted (as some late Expositors) of the Book of. Canticles, lest it had a carnal sence.

XLIII. The 85 Heresie thought, that the Soul of Man was Naturally God's Image, before …ace.

p. 165XLIV. The 87 Heresie thought that really four living creatures mentioned in the Prophets praised God.

XLV. The 88 Heresie thought the Levitical feasts were literally to be understood, not Council. Roman. sub Zacha. an. 743. anathematizeth Clerk or Monk that presumeth, comam laxare, to wear long hair.knowing that it was the eight feasts of the Church that was meant.

XLVI. The 90 Heresie preferred the Translation of Aquila before the Septuagint.

XLVII. The 91 preferred a Translation of thirty men before the Septuagint.

XLVIII. The 92 Heresie preferred another Translation of six men before the Septuagint.

XLIX. Another Heresie preferreth the Translation of Theodotion and Symachus before the Septuagint.

L. The 94th. Heresie preferre the Scriptures found in a vessel after the Captivity, before the Septuagint.

LI. The 96 Heresie thought that Melchizedek had no Father or Mother, not perceiving that it was spoken of him as Learning that which his Father and Mother never taught him.

LII. The 97 Heresie hold that the Prophet Zechary of Fasts, is to be properly understood, when it is but for the four Fasts of the Church, viz. Christmas, Easter, Epiphany, Pentecost.

LIII. The 98 Heresie, holdeth that Solomons great number of Wives and Concubines is literally to be understood, but it is of diversity of gifts in the Church.

LIV. The 100th. Heresie thought that the measuring cord in Zachary was to be understood of measuring Ierusalem literally, when it meant the choice of Believers.

LV. The 101 Heresie not understanding the mystical sence of the Cherubim and Seraphim in Isaiah, are troubled about it and in doubt: (which mystical sence is mystically there opened.

LVI. The last Heresie think that one of the Cherubims came to Isaiah, and with a coal Pope Zachary tells Boniface (Bin. To. 3. p. 209.) How dangerous it is and bad for Christians to eat Jayes, and Rooks, and Badgers, and Hares, and Wood-horses. And he tells him when Lard must be eaten, viz. not before its dryed in the smoak or boiled on the fire: or if it be eaten unboiled, it must not be till after Easter. Also how there must be three great lamps, set in a secret place of the Church after the similitude of the Tabernacle, which must be kept burning, and others at Baptisms lighted by them.touched his Lips, and that it was an Angel or Animal with fire; when it is two Testaments, and the fire is Gods Grace.

Reader, wouldst thou have yet more unchristened and damned than all these? I will not go over all Epiphanius his catalogue lest I tire thee. Dost thou not perceive in this heretieating spirit, a great deal of mans Pride and Ignorance (that I say not fury) and of Gods curse, and Satans triumph?

§. 49. But all this is but jesting in comparison of the confusion and bloody stir that Councils and their adherents made about Heresie; condemning and cursing one another. The History of which is one of the greatest scandals on the Christian Religion that everbefell it since its Being. I purpose, if God enable me, to write more seasonably of this subject; and not to drown it in such a rambling dispute as with this man. In the mean time if you get a book of David De rodons de supposito, proving Nestorius Orthodox, and Cyril, and the first Council of Ephesus as well as the 2d. to be Hereticks, even Eutychians, with Celestine and many other Popes and Ancients, it will shew you that which is not commonly observed: though for my part I am perswaded that as Nestorius (by the will of one woman) was wronged (but Gods judgment was just for his over fierceness against others as Hereticks) so Cyril, Eutychus, Dioscorus, (all of a mind no doubt) on one side, and the Orthodox on the other; did all three Parties (for the generality of them) differ but in second notions and words, for want of skill to discuss ambiguity, or of patience and impartiality to hear each others explications.

§. 50. And if yet Hereticks are all out of the Church, think what a case the Church is in when the Abassines, Copti's, Arminians, Syrlans, (Iacobites, Nestorians, Eutychians,) and the Greeks and Protestants are Hereticated by the Papists; and the Papists curst and excommunicated by the Greeks and others: and Marcellinus, Honorius, Liberius, and many other Popes Hereticated by Fathers, or Councils; yea Iohn 23, Eugenius 4th. and others p. 166condemned as Hereticks of the most odious sort by Councils, and the Pope being an Essential part of the Church, the Church consequently hereticated or damned with them: and so all this mans arguments are to prove that the Popes and their party were none of the Church as being properly called hereticks, if Councils know who are properly so called.

§. 51. But if yet this be not enough by that time, you have considered how many Councils have hereticated one another, and so the Church Hereticated the Church, you will think that they left no Church on Earth.

§. 52. But if you go yet further and mark how the Councils at Lateran and Trent have hereticated all that believe their own or other mens sences (that bread is bread and wine is wine,) and judged such to extermination or flames, you may doubt whether they have not hereticated and damned Man as Man, making Humanity and Sense a Heresie.

§. 53. In all this I advise all to be truly tender of every truth of God, and enemies to all Error; but, Reader, if thou discernest not, that when Satan could not turn all men from practical Faith and Holiness, by worldly interest and fleshy lusts; how he made it his last game to make Religion a game at words, or rather a word-warre, or a Logomachie, and to destroy the Love of God and Man, the life of Christianity and Concord, Peace and Humanity it self, by pretense of Orthodoxness and Truth, and contending for the Faith: and how the Proud, and Worldly, and Ignorant part of the Clergy, become the Plague and Firebrands of the Church, by pretending zeal against Heresies and Errors; and if thy Soul lament not the doleful mischiefs which the Church hath by this plague endured, thou seest not with my Eyes, nor feelest with my Heart: which I speak with freedom and constrained grief, while I doubt not but these firebrands that have Hereticated Papias, Iustin, Irenaeus, Clem. Alexand. Origene, Dionys. Alexand. Tertullian, Cyprian, Tatianus, Athenagoras, Lactantius, Chrysostom, Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomene, Ruffinus, Cassianus, Hillary Pictav. Hillary Are…at. and abundance more such, will Hereticate me also, were it but for lamenting their rage.

§. 54. But our Champion W. I. (having vented his Spleen on the by, about ministers favouring of Rebels, with some false insinuations as if he thought we had never read the Councils, and Epistles, and Warres, nor all the expresse citations of the Papists Doctrine of King-killing gathered in folio by Hen. Fowlis of Pop. Treasons) cometh to prove by argument that [Hereticks properly so called are no members of the Church.]

Before I answer them, I intreat him to tell me, 1. Whether then those many Papists Doctors are members of the Church that maintain the contrary. 2. Whether their Church be well agreed in it self. 3. Why the Baptism of Hereticks (that change not the form) is counted valid, and Cyprian accounted Erroneous for denying it? Yea and the ordination of Hereticks too. But yet I grant him that Hereticks are out of the Church that knowingly deny any Essential part of Christianity.

§. 55. His first Argument is from Tit. 3. 10, 11.

Answ. 1. Paul bid, 2 Thess. 3. avoid disorderly walkers, and yet to admonish them as brethren.

2. But I grant it of such Hereticks as Paul there speakes of; make him the judge of your [properly so called] and we shall agree. Yea I grant it of such as Iohn 23. Eugenius 4th. and many other Popes have been; and I doubt whether I may not grant it you of a true knowing Papist as such.

§. 56. His 2d. Argument is from 1 Iohn 2. 19, They went out from us, &c.

Answ. 1. But it's said they were not of us. 2. Some go out from particular concordant Churches, that go not from the whole Church. 3. But we grant it, for all that, of such proper Hereticks as St. Iohn mentioneth. Call no other Hereticks and we agree with you.

§. 57. His next Argument is from 2 Iohn v. 9, 10, 11.

Answ. Of such also we never deny it, but all that speak against any less necessary point of Scripture or Tradition, be not the denyers of Christianity, called the doctrin of Christ. If they be, all men living are like to be Hereticks, but specially the Papists.

§. 58. Next he referreth me to their dispute against Dr. Gunning and Dr. Peirson called Schism unmasked; which I have perused to little purpose. And then he citeth divers Fathers, which I have not the vanity to answer to a man that will not first agree what we mean by Hereticks, it being true of many so called by the Fathers, and false of others; even such as p. 167Philastrius hath named. I believe the Novatians erred, and yet as farre as I can discern by history, if serious piety be the way to heaven, I think it probable that proportionably to their different numbers, there are more of the Novatians in heaven than of their adversaries.

§. 59. He repeateth his Reason, because all Hereticks evacuate the formal object of Faith.

Answ. 1. I dare say I have sufficiently answered that. 2. I grant that none is a Christian that doth not believe that God cannot lie, and that his word is all true.

§. 60. But he saith, Though Hereticks perversely perswade and delude themselves, that they assert for the infallible authority of God to such Articles as they believe, yet they attribute not an infallible authority to God; because what they Believe not, is sufficiently proposed.

Answ. If this be not fully answered, let it prevail. Must the Christian world be Hereticated by such sottish stuff as this. 1. When will he make me know how his sufficient proposal may be discerned. 2. And how the Hereticaters can know the sufficiency of the proposals to others? Even many Kingdoms of men that they never saw: seeing variety of Capacities, Opportunities, Educations, Temptations, &c. maketh that insufficient to one that is sufficient to another. 3. When will he prove that the plainest Scripture is no sufficient proposal, till the credit of the Papall Clergy make it so: and yet that the obscure volumnes of militant Councils (that curse one another) are sufficient proposals. 4. Or that the word of a Jesuite is a sufficient notice to us, what is in the Councils? or what is their sence. 5. Or who shall expound dark Councils to us, when there are no Councils in our age in Being. 6. How shall we know that a culpable neglect of a sufficient proposal (through prejudice or temptation) may never stand with Faith? If so, is there any man living that is not an Infidel or Heretick? I challenge any man living to dare to make good, that he never erred or doth erre in any point revealed in Scripture or Councils, against sufficient proposal (taking [sufficiency] as it is commonly in the controversie of [sufficient Grace]. What if a man through culpable negligence, know not how many years it was from Adam to the flood, or know not who was the Father of Arphaxad, &c. when these are sufficiently proposed? Doth this prove that he believeth not Gods Veracity? As if there were no other sin that could frustrate any one sufficient proposal.

7. But it is the fate of rash condemners to condemn themselves most notoriously; If the plain words of Scripture, in the institution of the Cup in the Eucharist, against praying in an unknown tongue, &c. If the sensible evidence of Bread and Wine to all sound Senses that are neer, be not a sufficient proposal, what is? Surely not such self-contradicting disputes as this of W. I. and others like him; nor the Cant of [the Church and all the world] by a partial Sect: but if Scripture, the Tradition and Judgment of the most of Christians, Reason and Sense, can make up a sufficient proposal; out of their own mouths are these men condemned as Hereticks, to be avoided by all good Christians. But I have more Charity for some of them, then herein they exercise to themselves, (or others.)

And in particular I will be so far from partiality, as to profess that though Pope Honorius was an anathematized Heretick in the judgment of the 6th. and other General Councils, and of his Successors Popes, I am not one of those that take him really for such, in W. I's. sence; as held a Doctrine that did unchristen him. Nay I take his Epistles to Sergius read in the 6th. General Council, to be two of the honestest peaceable Epistles that I have read from a Pope, except some of Leo's, and few more; and I think that his counsel for to avoid contention, to forbear both the name of [two operations] and of [one operation] and leave it to Grammarians, and hold to plain Scripture-words, was honest counsel. And the hereticating of him and the rest by that Council increaseth not my veneration, but my great dislike of Hereticating Councils and the factions of the Bishops: it was not long after (under the Emperour Philipicus) when another General Council so great, as it's said it consisted of Innumerable Bishops at Constantinople, revoked, undid, and destroyed all this that was done against Honorius and the Monothelites at the said 6th. Council; so ordinarily did General Councils condemn each other.

But what I say in excuse of Honorius, I must say also in excuse of Sergius Constant. For he said but the same that Honorius did, viz. that he would have had the controversie, and the names of [Two] or [One] Operation laid by; and yet Binnius can call Sergius a lying Heretick, while he (with others) excuseth Honorius for the same.

And on this occasion, I will conclude with a note out of the two Epistles of Cyrus to Sergius, p. 168read in the same 6th. General Council; which hath this title: Deo honorabili me… Domino benigno, Principi Pastorum, Patri Patrum, Universali Patriarchae Sergio à Cyro humil… vestro. I would know whether the Pope can shew that ever any one of his Predecessors had higher titles given him than these. And if these prove not an universal Sovereignty of the Patriarch of Constantinople, whether the like or less will prove it for Rome? if you say that it was but an Heretick that gave it him: I answer 1. That's nothing to the matter in hand. 2. He was but such a harmless Heretick as Honorius. 3. The Council reprehended not the title. Many such instances might be given of as high titles given to Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, as Rome pretendeth for the proof of its Universal-church-monarchy. And if it prove no such power in others, it proveth it not in the Pope.

FINIS.

End of the text · Richard Baxter, Which is the True Church (1679)