Which is the True Church, Part 2 · Chapter 1

Which is the True Church · Part 2 · Chapter 1

p. 66CHAP. I. The Confutation of W. J's Reply.

THE first regardable Passage in W. I's Reply, is, p. 53, 54. Where he maintaineth, that [whatsoever hath been ever in the Church by Christ's institution, is essential to the Sect. 1.Church;] and nothing meerly Integral, or Accidents. Because I had omitted the word [ever] in the Confutation, he taketh that as the Insufficiency of all that I said against him; and challengeth me still to give an Instance of any Institution not essential to the Church of Christ, that hath been ever in it.

But, Reader, is Perpetuity any proof of an Essential? He was forced to confess, that as other Societies, so the Church hath Accidents; but he faith, no Accidents instituted have been Sect. 2.ever in it.

It may be we shall have a Quibble here upon the sense of the word [ever,] whether it was Sect. 3.from Everlasting, or from the Creation; or before Christ's Incarnation, or before his Resurrection, or the forming of his Church by the Spirit in the Apostles? But in Consistency with his own Cause, (which is) That the Papacie hath been ever in the Church, he must take up with this last sense.

Well, Let us see what work these Men make, and how they are taken in the Traps that they lay for others: But first he shall have some confuting Instances.Sect. 4.

1. Every word of Christ's own Doctrine and Speeches, recorded in the Gospel hath been ever in the Church, and instituted by Christ; but every word of Christ's own Doctrine and Speeches, recorded in the Gospel, is not essential to the Church: Therefore, every thing instituted by Christ, that hath been ever in the Church, is not essential to it.

If you say, that it was not all written till after some years, it was yet all in the Church, even in the Minds of them that wrote it, and the other Apostles, and in their Preachings as is like. If you say that all this is essential, alas, then if false Copies have lost us a word the Church is lost, and those Churches that received not some words, were Unchurched.

That Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate hath been ever in the Church's Creed; and yet the Name of Pontius Pilate is not essential to Christianity.

p. 672. The Administring the Lord's Supper in both kinds (Bread and Wine) hath been ever in the Church, and of Christ's own Institution: Is this essential to the Church? Perhaps some will have the impudence to say, that it is not now in it, because the Pope hath cast it out: but it is now in all the rest of the Church. And we might as well say, the Papacie is not now in, because other Churches do reject it.

3. Prayer in a known Tongue was ever in the Church, and of Christ's Institution; and yet you think it not essential to it.

4. The use of the second Commandment as such, (Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image, &c.) was ever in the Church; and yet you have left it out of the Decalogue.

5. The Office of Deacons hath been ever in the Church since their Institution, Act. 6. yet few think them essential to the Church.

6. Christ himself washed his Apostles Feet, and taught them to do the like, which was used in those hot Countries where it was a needful Act of Ministry: but yet it is not essential to the Church.

7. Baptism from the beginning, as Instituted by Christ, was Administred by dipping over Head in Water; but you take not that to be essential to the Church.

8. The Lord's Day's holy Observation, as Instituted by Christ and his Apostles, hath ever been in the Church: and yet many of your Doctors do equal it with other Holy Days, and make it not essential to the Church.

9. Christ and his Apostles distinguish Essentials from Integrals and Accidents in their time; therefore they are still to be distinguished: And it is a strange Society that hath not ever had Integrals and Accidents. Christ, Instituting Baptism, saith; He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved: Thus the Essentials. Yet he saith, [Teach them to observe all things whatever I have Commanded you. But all those are not Essentials; for Christ himself distinguished Tything Mint, Annise, and Cummin, from the great things of the Law: And yet saith, These ought ye to have done. And St. Paul saith, The Kingdom of God is not Meat and Drink; but Righteousness, and Peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost, &c. And yet more than these were then a Duty.

All things were to be done decently, and in order: And yet, who ever said, but you, that all this is essential to the Church?

Christ by his Apostles, instituted, that Collections for the Poor should be made on the first Day of the Week: yet is not that essential to the Church.

10. Afflictions are Accidents of the Church, and of Christ's appointment, and have been ever there; and yet are not essential to it.

11. All the numbers of Christians, and the higher Degrees of Gifts and Grace, have been of Christ, and ever in the Church; and yet it is not essential to it, that Christians be just as many as they have been, or of such measures of Gifts and Grace; for even Perfection is a Duty.

12. Few of your own do think that extreme Unction is essential to the Church, and that if it ceased it would be no Church. The like may be said of many other things.

But see how these Men Unchurch themselves; For if this be true, then the Church of Rome can be no true Church. For it hath cast off that which they call Essential: Were it Sect. 5.but the Cup in the Lords Supper, and Publick Prayers in a Known Tongue, the change hath Unchurched them. These Consequents fall on them that will Unchurch most of the Church of Christ.

But Page 55, 56. he saith, [That he doth not say, that every such thing must be necessarily believed Sect. 6.by every Member: No, not the belief of the Pope's Supremacy; but to such only to whom they are sufficiently propounded.

Answ. 1. And yet these Men tell our People, to affright them, That they cannot be saved out of their Church, or in our Religion. And now it is not essential to believe the Pope's Supremacy.

2. But who can ever know what will pass for a [sufficient propounding] while twenty degrees of Mens Capacities, make twenty degrees of Proposal respectively sufficient; what Man of Reason can believe that such self-confuting Disputes as yours, are a sufficient Proposal of the Pope's Supremacy? And sure the Christian Empire of Abassia then had no sufficient Proposal, when but lately your Emissaries told them, that they never heard from the Pope p. 68till now, because he could not have access, or send to them. (Q. Whether that Empire be true Christians through so many Ages, seeing they received not the Scriptures on the Authoritative Proposal of the Pope, or Papal Church; and yet confessedly were never bound to believe the Pope's Supremacy?)

3. By this account all Christians essentially differ from each other in their Religion; and Christianity is a word of such monstrous ambiguity, that it signifieth as many several Religions as there be persons in the World, whose divers Capacities maketh diversity of proposal become necessary or sufficient to them.

But he saith, that these are all essential to the Church, though not to the several Members. More difficulties still: 1. How shall we ever know the Church this way? If the belief Sect. 7.of the Popes Supremacy be essential to some, and only to some, how many must they be that so believe? Will one serve, or one thousand, to make all the rest Church-Members that believe it not? Or how many will this Leven extend to? Why then may not the belief of Italy prove all the World to be the Church.

2. How cometh another mans belief to be of such saving use to others; If you say, that it is not his belief, but their own (who believe not) then all the World is of your Church that want sufficient proposal: And Unbelievers are Christians, or of the Christian Church, so be it they never heard of Christ: and so all the unknown World, and Americans, and most of the Heathens are of your Christian Church.

And why may not the Pope be saved then without believing his own Supremacy. (I verily think that there is not one Pope of twenty that believeth his own Infallibility.) Doubtless some illiterate or ill-bred Popes have had but very defective Proposals of their own Supremacy, it being rather affirmed by Flatteries than ever proved to them.

Pag. 57. (Having first called for sense in my words, because the Printer had put [as] for [is]) he turneth his former assertion (whatever hath been ever in the Church by Christs institution Sect. 8.is essential to it] into another; [Because Christ hath instituted that it should be for ever in the Church, it is essential:] And this yet more plainly shameth the asserter than the former; For no man can deny but that Christ hath instituted, 1. That every word of the Canonical Scripture should be ever (after its existence) in the Church; 2. And that no Ministers should preach any thing but truth in the Church; 3. And that no man should commit any sin at all; 4. And that the Eucharist be delivered in both kinds, in remembrance of Christ, till he come, &c. And yet sure all this is not essential to the Church

Pag 58. He would perswade me that I miscite Fr. Sta. Clara, and that he saith not that Infidels may be saved, but only those that have not an explicite Faith in Christ, (through invincible ignorance) and that he saith not that it is most of the Doctors Opinions, nor that any may be saved who are out of the Church: and that my Friends will be sorry to see me so defective in my Citations, and he hopes I will mend it in the next.

Ans. That I will, if plain words transcribed be any amending: but I cannot amend your deceitful dealing. 1. I did not say that Sta. Clara saith▪ They may be saved out of the Church, but that such are in your Church, and so may be saved who indeed are no Christians, and so not of the Church indeed. 2. We know of no Faith in Christ, but that which you call [Explicite Faith in Christ:] Common custome calleth those Infidels that never heard that there is a Christ, or who he is, or hearing it doth not believe it: And he cannot believe it that doth not hear it. Most of the Infidel and Heathen World profess to believe Gods veracity, and that all that he saith is true; if this be an implicite believing in Christ, almost all the Heathen World believeth in him; use Names and Words as you see cause: These are Infidels in our use of speech. 3. The place in Sancta Clara is pag. 113. besides 109, 110. &c. the words are too large to be transcribed; he citeth many Authors to prove such in the Church and saved; where after much to that purpose he saith, What is clearer than that at this day the Gospel bindeth not, where it is not authentically preached; that is, that at this day men may be saved without an explicite belief of Christ: For in that sense speakes the Doctor concerning the Iews: And verily whatever my illustrious Master hold with his Learned Mr. Herera, I think that this was the Opinion of Scotus and the Common one.] and he citeth many for it. Read the rest your self in the Book, and I defie your pretence that this is unjust Citation. I cite none of this as if I were handling the question whether any besides Christians are saved. But whether the Nations that never heard of Christ be Christians and Members of your Church.

p. 69But pag. 60. he will prove [that nothing which Christ hath instituted to be ever in the Church Sect. 9.is accidental to the Church: For every accident is separable from the subject, without destroying the subject whose accident it is: But what Christ hath instituted to be ever in his Church, is inseparable from it.

Ans. 1. What if it were not an Accident, must it therefore needs be Essential? Are there not Integral parts that are not Essential parts.

2. You that boast so greatly of your Logick faculty should not so absurdly erre, as you do in your major. Do you not hereby deny all proper accidents which agree as omni & soli, ita & semper? Is not Risibilis an accident of man and yet inseparable? 2. Is not quantity inseparable from a Body or natural substance? 3. What the Porphyrians speak of an Intellectual separation, you ignorantly or deceitfully Smiglecii Log. p. 1. disp. 5… qu. 9. pag. 201. Resp. Illam definitionem Accidentis (potest abesse, &c.) non intelligi de separatione reali accidentis (etiam quinti praedicabilis) a subjecto, sed de separatione per intellectum. Quare potest esse accidens realiter inseparabile a subjecto, & necessario convenire subjecto, & tamen per intellectum erit separabile, & poterit abesse a subjecto salva subjecti essentia, &c. vid. caetera.apply to an actual eventual separation. If Christ had been otherwise put to death than by crucifying, or else-where than at Ierusalem; if his Bones had been broken, if he had not had the same integral parts and accidents of Body as he ever had, he had been Christ still: But yet it was Logically impossible that any of these should have been otherwise than they were, they being fore-decreed of God. If the Sun should cease moving, illuminating, heating, you may say it would be still the Sun: But yet it is certain, that these accidents are eventually inseparable from it. If you will cause Humidity to cease from Water, or separate Gravity from Earth of Stone, &c. I shall think you have made them other things. 4. But to instance as you do in such a being as [the CHURCH,] dishonoureth your boasted Logick greatly: The ratio formalis of a Church is Relative; and Relation is an accident; and to say, that accidents may all be separated from the Church without destroying it, is to say, that Relation may be separated; that is, the Church from it self, or formal Essence without destroying it. Do you conquer by such disputing as this? was it by such that you had your boasted printed victory over such great Logicians as Bishop Gunning and Bishop Pierson? Can you also prove that all accidents, that is, Relation, may be separable from Families, Schools, Kingdoms, without destroying them? I hope you will not say that you mean that the separation destroyeth not the humanity of the Members, and that this is the subject you mean: for no more would Apostasie or Unchurching them destroy Humanity.

3. And (that no part may be sound) your minor is false as well as your major. What Christ by his Law commandeth or prescribeth to be in the Church that he instituteth: But all cometh not to pass which Christ commandeth or instituteth. He commandeth us higher degrees of Faith, Love and other Duty than we perform. You say, No Man may change his institution; but doth it follow that no man doth change it? No man ought to plead for Errour or deceive poor Souls. Doth it follow that therefore you and such others do not so? It is Gods command that we never sin: It doth not follow that we never do sin: When the Apostles strove who should be greatest, it was Christs institution that they should not seek for domination or superiority as the Princes of the Earth do, but be as little Children, and strive who should be most humble and serviceable, and take the lowest place; and it was St. Peters Doctrine, that Bishops must not Lord it over the Flocks, nor rule them by constraint, but voluntarily; but doth it follow that all this is done by all? no nor by your pretended Head who is made an essential part of the Church.

I conclude then, 1. That many accidents are not separable without destruction of the subject. 2. That many more shall never be separated. 3. That relation is not separable from the Church, (nor numbers neither.) 4. That there are Integral parts which are neither Accidents nor Essentials. 5. That every thing is not ever in the Church (nor in any man) which Christ hath commanded or instituted to be ever in it: (And if that may be in a man which Christ forbiddeth, so may it be in the Church, and so that be absent which he commandeth.) 6. That it is a novel Opinion, contrary to common Reason and all true Theologie, and which a Catechized Child should be ashamed of, to hold, that all that Christ hath instituted to be ever in the Church is essential to it: And so that the Church would be nullified if one word of the Holy Scriptures perished by the carelesness of Scribes or Printers, or if one decent order were changed, or if one Office were depraved, &c. 7. It p. 70aggravateth the errour to hold that every instituted apex or perfection (for continuance) is Essential to the Church; and yet even the explicite belief, that Iesus is the Saviour, is not essential to a Church-Member or a Christian. 8. That this Disputer absolutely nullifieth the Roman Church, which hath changed the Sacrament, and Prayer, and Church-Officers, &c. which were instituted by Christ to be ever in the Church.

But I noted to him, that our question to him was, Whether the holding such thing to be instituted be essential to the Church, and not whether the institution it self be so: May not the Sect. 10.Opinion be but integral or an accident? Here he replies without blushing. 1. That thus I yield up the Cause, in naming Integrals, for those are not Accidents.

Ans. 1. My affirming that the Papacie is as much an Accident as a Leprosie is to a Man, did not make me forget that I was confuteing his assertion, that all is essential to the Church which is instituted to be for ever, (or indeed, which had been ever in it; for that was his saying;) And though Integrals be not Accidents, yet they are not Essentials, was this hard to see? And 2. by his now putting in the word [instituted] he would make the Reader think that I had granted that the Papacie was instituted by Christ.

2. He saith that [Nothing can be an accident to the Church, which Christ hath instituted to be perpetually in the Church; and consequently the Churches holding any thing to be so, if true, is essential to the subsistence of the Church; if false, is essentially destructive of the Church; so that whether true or false it will never be accidental to the Church.

Ans. 1. What work will Interest and Errour make. If so, then every Errour, and every Sin of the Church is essentially destructive of the Church: For Christ hath instituted that the Church shall perpetually hold and teach the truth only, and obey all his commands without sinning. If he say that the Church never hath nor had Sin or Errour; I answer, 1. If an essential part of the Church have had Sin and Errour, then so hath the Church had: But an essential part (in their account) that is their supposed Head hath had Sin and Errour: To pass by Peters denying Christ, disswading him from suffering till he heard, Get behind me Satan, Mat. 16. his dissembling, Gal. 2. sure Marcellinus sinfully offered Incense to an Idol, and Honorius and Tyberius sinned; and it was some sin in those Popes that defiled Wives and Maids at the Apostolick doors, and that were Whoremongers, and came in by Whores and Poyson, and that were condemned as Simonists, Hereticks, Incarnate Devils, Perjured, Murderers, &c. and that by Councils. 2. If all the particular Members of the Church have some Errour or Sin, then so hath the Church: But all the particular Members have, &c. If any Man say that he hath no Sin, he is a Lyer and the truth is not in him. 1. Joh. 1. And in many things we offend all, Iam. 3. 2. &c.

2. Why then doth he accuse us for separating from Rome, if it be as certainly unchurched, as it is certain that they have had Sin and Errour; it is certain that the Popes were such as aforesaid, or the Councils sinned that condemned them as such: and it is certain that either the Councils of Constance, Basil, and Pisa, erred and sinned, which decreed that Councils are above the Pope, and may condemn and depose him; and that this is de fide, and the contrary Heresie; or else the Councils of Laterane and Florence erred and sinned that said the contrary. And so of other Instances.

3. But as I have proved the Antecedent of his Argument false already, so his consequence (that the Churches holding any thing to be instituted for perpetuity, is essential, and the denying, destructive of the essence) would not follow but on two suppositions. 1. That such institutions are not only no Accidents, but no Integrals. 2. That every commanded truth is essential, which are both false: For else the institution might be essential, and yet not the believing it such be essential: And he confesseth that such belief is not essential to every Member; nor can he tell to how many, nor to whom ad esse Ecclesiae; If he say, To as many as have a sufficient proposal. 1. Then if none had a sufficient proposal, it would cease to be essential to the Church. 2. Then if any one sin be committed by the Church against a sufficient proposal, the Church is nullified. If he said, It is not known how many must believe it ad esse Ecclesiae, then no man can know whether the Church be nullified or not.

He saith, [pag. 6…. So the acknowledgment of it, by all those to whom it is sufficiently propounded, Sect. 11.is necessary to make them parts of the true Church, and the denyal of it when so propounded hinders them from being parts.]

p. 71Ans. 1. Still this sayeth nothing to the question, how far and in whom it is essential to the Church. 2. And this unchurcheth every person that erreth and sinneth against any one word of Scripture after a sufficient proposal; yet this same man said, pag. 36. of his explications, [Whatsoever their neglect be to know what is propounded, yet so long as they believe explicitely what is necessary to be believed necessitate medii, and implicitely the rest, they can be no Hereticks; for it is not the ignorance though culpable, &c. And do the wilfully ignorant acknowledge it? reconcile these if you can.

2. This Unchurcheth your whole Church; For it is sufficiently proposed, even in express words in the Scripture that there is Bread in the Eucharist after Consecration, (thrice together in 1 Cor. 11.) and that the Church should communicate with the Cup, [This do in remembrance of me, even to shew the Lords death till he come,] and that we should not make to our selves any graven Image, nor bow down to it, nor worship it, and that we should pray publickly in a known Tongue, and that Bishops should not Lord it over the Flock, &c. and you erre and sin after this sufficient proposal.

Pag. 36. I had given several Instances (of the Iberians, Indians, Americans, the primitive Christians, and their own Converts) to prove that the belief of, and subjection to, the Pope is not necessary to Christianity or Salvation; to which his answer is very remarkable, Viz. [I never said that all particular persons or COMMUNITIES are obliged to have an express belief or acknowledgment of the Roman Bishops Supremacy, that being necessary to all, neither necessitate medii nor praecepti: It is sufficient that they believe it implicitely in subjecting themselves to all those whom Christ hath instituted to be their lawful Pastors; and when the Bishop of Rome is sufficiently proposed to them to be the Supreme Visible Pastor of those Pastors upon Earth, that then they obstinately reject not his authority.

Ans. There is some moderation in this, though it utterly overthrow their cause. 1. This fully proveth that the poor Abassines, Armenians, and such others, (for all the Popish Accusations of them) are neither Hereticks nor Schismaticks, for not acknowledging the Pope, whose Supremacie hath not been sufficiently proposed to them: And so that the Church is greater than the Popes Kingdom.

2. This maketh out a receiving of the Popes Supremacie to be no more necessary than the receiving of every Word of the holy Scripture, or tradition, no… than the receiving e. g. of the Cup in the Lords Supper: For all are essentially necessary (say they) when sufficiently propounded.

3. This undeceiveth us, that thought their Doctrine had been that the Scripture and Christianity must necessarily be received by the Proposal of the Papal Church as such, whereas now we perceive that it may be received from the Church though they know it not to be Papal; And we thought it must have been received as from a General Council, or the Church universal: but it seems here, it is needful but that it be from their particular Pastors.

4. By this it seems that there are other Pastors that must be believed, received and obeyed before the Pope, and Subjection to them is of absolute necessity to salvation and Churchmembership, when subjection to the Pope is of no such necessity. How the Pope will take this we know not: but,

5. It leaveth us to new doubts as hard as any of the rest; How to know that such indeed are our lawful Pastors, before we know that there is a Christ or a Pope, and how to know which are they. We perceive now that Implicite Faith is not necessarily the believing Pope or Council, but the believing those that Christ hath instituted to be our lawful Pastors.

Qu. 1. But can we know that Christ instituted them before we know that there is a Christ, or that he is true Christ?

Q 2. Can you be true Pastors without derivation from, and dependance on the Pope; or be so known by the People? O that you would but come into the light and tell us how! And then, Q. 3. tell us why the same People may not take Protestant, Armenian, Abassine Bishops, or Presbyters for true Pastors, by the same Proof? Q. 4. And doth not the Proof, or Knowledge, that Men are our Lawful Pastors, without knowing that they have Ordination, Jurisdiction, Mission, or Confirmation (as you distinguish them) from the Pope, or are subject to him; also prove that, quoad esse, Men may be cur true Pastors without any of these p. 72relations to the Pope? For the esse rei is presupposed to the Proof and Knowledge … And in relations the Fundamentum entereth the Definition.

I conclude, that being my self unfeignedly and earnestly desirous to know the truth, whether the Pope be the appointed Church-Monarch, of Government of all Christians that dwell on the Face of the Earth; and having diligently read what you, and abu… … more have written for it, I profess that I never yet heard or saw any Proposal of it (nor yet of abundance of your Doctrines) which was sufficient to convince my understanding of it, but much to convince me of the contrary. And I may suppose this to be the case of most, who need as clear evidence as I; and therefore that we are none of us, by your Concession, obliged either necessitate medii, or praecepti, to believe you, or to be your Subjects.

And I confess I like the preaching of these Men whose labour is only to subject Men to Christ, and to their Lawful Magistrates, and Domestick Governours; and to the Teaching-Conduct The way by which men come to believe.of those that speak to them the Word of God; better than theirs that make it the Foundation of their Religion, to make all Men on Earth their Subjects.

And yet Teachers we acknowledge necessary to our Faith; but it is not first necessary to believe them to be sent by Christ, before we believe in Christ. But, 1. The first Messengers (Apostles) did at once affirm that Christ is the Saviour of the World, and that he sent them to witness his Resurrection, Miracles, and Works; and to preach his Gospel. And the Tongues, Miracles, &c. by which they proved it, was a Proof of both at once; but principally of the former: (For if an un-called Preacher had wrought a Miracle, it would have proved his Doctrine, but not his Calling.)

2. But ordinary Preachers now give us the Evidences of the truth of the Gospel, which were heretofore delivered to the Church. (The Doctrine's self-evidencing Divinity, as it hath the Impress of God's Power, Wisdom, and Love, his Holiness, Justice, and Mercy, with the antecedent Prophesies fulfilled, and the concomitant and subsequent Miracles, and the continued Seal of the sanctifying Spirit in all Believers.) And by these we are first drawn (by the inward operation of the Holy Ghost) to believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; before we believe that he sent these Men to be our Lawful Pastors: Yea, without believing them (oft-times) to be our Pastors, or any Pastors at all. We detest those Self-Preachers that would make the World believe, that we must believe them to be our Lawful Pastors, and receive them before we believe in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and receive him. And we detest that false Doctrine that saith, That a Lay-man may not convert Souls to the Faith of Christ; and that God's Word and Spirit may not, by his opening that Word, win Souls that know not yet what Ministry Christ hath instituted.

To my Instance of the Iberians (converted by a Maid) and the Indians by Frumentius Sect. 13.and Edesius, he answers, 1. That he can prove the Papacy preach'd to them, as well as I can Iustification by Faith alone, or any other parcicular Point of our Doctrine. 2. We must both say that all important truths of Christianity were preached to them; and till you have evinced this of the Supremacy to be none of those, it is to be supposed it was sufficiently declared to them. 3. Explicating the Article of the Catholick Church, it's supposed they were told it consisted of Pastor and People united, and that they must obey their Lawful Pastors; in which Doctrine the Pope is implicitely included.

Answ. 1. Our Doctrine (as you call it) is Christianity, and I can prove nothing preached but what made them Christians; which you confess may be without believing the Pope's Supremacy.

2. A brave Argument: All important truths were preached, Ergo you must prove that this is not one of them. 1. All important truths cannot in reason be supposed to be preached by those two Lay-men, and by a Maid: All essential truths we may suppose preached, or else they could not be Christians. We heard before that you would perswade us that every truth of continued institution, is not only important, but essential to the Church. Whence you may infer (in your way) that the Maid and the two Lay-men had preached every such truth, and left not one out; or else there was no Christians and Church. 2. It's your part to prove that the Papacy is such an important truth, and not mine to prove the Negative, (which yet I have oft and fully done.)

3. The Article of the Catholick Church was not at first in the Creed, as the old Copies shew: And Baptism was Administred without mentioning that Article.

p. 734. If holding that [People must obey their Lawful Pastors] will serve, then we are all right▪ … if this be an implicite belief of the Papacy, we are all Papists; yea, perhaps Mahometans and He…thens are Papists too, by such a belief.

To … Instance from Act. 2. he saith, 1. Who can tell whether Peter told them not of his Suprem… … 2. They address'd their Speech first to him, &c.Sect. 14.

Answ. 1. Who can tell that Peter did preach his own Supremacy? I prove he did not: Because if he did, it was as necessary to be believed, or not. If not, he preached it not among things necessary. If yea, then had he so preached it, that Text, or some other would have mentioned it: Peter or Paul, or some Apostle would have express'd it on Record; which they have not done, yea have denyed it.

2. Those that Paul preach'd to, Act. 16. and other places, address'd their Speech first to him: But doth it follow that therefore he was Governour of all the Apostles? How unhappy are great Conquerours that must fight many bloody Battels to win one Kingdom of another Mans, in Comparison of the Pope; who without a blow, or a word of good reason, can hope by such gross Sophismes as these to get the Monarchy of the whole Earth.

To my Instance of those converted by the English and Dutch in the Indies, he bids me prove them to be instructed in the true Faith?Sect. 15.

Answ. They that are instructed in the Baptismal Covenant, the Creed, and in general the truth of all the Sacred Scriptures; and are devoted to God by the Baptismal Covenant, and taught to conform their Desires to the Lord's-prayer, and their Practice to the Decalogue; to live soberly, righteously, and godly; and in love to God and Man, and in good works, and hope of Heaven, are instructed in the true Faith. But such are they in question, &c. Do you so oft say, that less than all the Creed is necessitate medii to be believed? and many of you, not so much as Christ himself; and yet is not all that Protestants teach the true Faith? O Impartiality!

Next to my Instance of the Abassian Empire, he bids me also prove them to be Orthodox Catholick Christians.

Answ. 1. I must first know what you mean by [Orthodox and Catholick] which your ill Sect. 16.faculty of expounding makes me despair of. If by [Orthodox] you mean such as have no errours, I cannot prove it; but it's shame for such erroneous Men as you to demand it. But if you mean but such as hold all the Essentials of Christianity and much more, the former Argument joyned with all just Testimonies of them, (such as you have in Damianus a Goes, Alvarez, Godignus, &c.) prove it. So if by Catholick you mean a Papist, I cannot prove it, but the eontrary. But if you mean [Parts of the Universal Church] it's proved as afore.

Note here what vafritious Men these are, that save or …amn Empires to and fro; as the interest of their arguing requireth. When we prove that the rest of the Christian Church is twice or thrice as great as all the Papal Church; then they tell us that Greeks, Abassines, &c. are of their mind; and they feign that the Greeks, Armenians, Abassines, &c. are all subject to the Pope, and have submitted to him; Godignus wrote to confute one of their own Writers that affirmeth the Abassines to be for the Pope. But when their Cause bids them say otherwise, then we are challenged to prove them Catholick Christians, and Orthodox. Had you put me to prove the Papists such, you had put me harder to it.

Our next Point is of [the Visibility of Christ as Head of the Church, where he saith, p. 65. Sect. 17.[He is most certainly an invisible Pastor, both in Heaven, and on Earth: For though his Person may be seen there, yet the Exercise of his Pastorship consisting only in spiritual Influences and internal Graces cannot be seen by any Corporal Eye whatsoever: Therefore as a Pastor of the Militant Church he is wholly invisible; so you put a visible Body without a visible Head, all that is visible in the Pastoral Function being performed by visible Pastors; and all that is invisible by our Saviour. So you by a strange piece of Novelty constitute a visible Body, without a visible Head; Of Christ as the Head, whether visible, and whether a more visible Head be necessary.you destroy the visible Church, and frame a Monster▪]

Answ. What abundance of Heresies must I charge on such Men, if I judged them according to their terms and rigour of judging? 1. Christ, as a visible Head of the Church, is here denyed: Whereas, 1. It is not that he is Visus, but Visibilis that we assert. 2. And he was seen till about thirty three years of Age on Earrh: He was seen to do Miracles, suffer, rise, ascend. 3. He was seen of Paul and Stephen after his Ascension. 4. The poor scattered Flock on Earth is but a Handful, to the Church Triumphant that see him still in Heaven; and it is the same Body. 5. He will come visible in Glory to Judgment. 6. Every p. 74Believer, after a few hasty hours, passeth to the sight of him. 7. And we shall all see him in Heaven for ever.

Compare this now with the Visibility of the greatest Earthly Monarchs, who are never seen to the thousandth Person of their Empires; and rarely to any but their Courtiers: and some of them rarely to the most of them, but to some very few, and quickly die and are seen here no more. And yet may not Christ be called a Visible Head. And yet we say but that he is visible in tantum, and not every-where, nor to every one.

2. But it is not his Person that he saith is invisible, but worse than that; it is [the Exercise of his Pastorship] which he erroneously (that I say not heretically) affirmeth to consist only in spiritual Influxes, and internal Graces.] So that here, 1. He denyeth all Christ's visible teaching and government, while he was on Earth (were his words to be strictly understood;) and all his Mission and Commissioning of his Apostles, &c. 2. He denyeth all the Sacred Scriptures, which are Christ's visible Doctrine, Laws and Promises; and so the visible Exercise of his Office, as the King's Laws are of his. 3. He denyeth all Christ's visible Administrations by his Officers, Princes and Pastors; as if it were a good Argument, that Christ doth it not, because they do it: whereas it is he that visibly ruleth (as to the effect here questioned) by them; as it is the visible Government of the King which is exercised all abroad the Kingdom by his Command. 4. He denyeth Christ's visible Mercies, Provision, Protection, Deliverances of many sorts; which are all parts of the Exercise of his Office. 5. He denyeth all the visible Miracles which Christ hath wrought by others, whilst yet their Church so boasteth of them as if they were their very Foundation, (as I shewed out of Knot against Chillingworth, who ultimately resolveth their Faith into them,) and they would have us think that they are costant things. If you say that Christ is not seen here: I answer, It is not Christ's Person now whose Visibility he speaks of, but the Exercise of his Office. 6. He denyeth all the visible punishments which Christ himself inflicteth on his sinning People, and on his Enemies, though they are many and notorious; and as God is known by the Iudgments which he executeth, Psal. 9. So all things and power now are given unto Christ, and he judgeth the World as Lord of all: For the Father judgeth no Man, but hath committed all Iudgment to the Son, Joh. 5. 22. 7. He denyeth Christ's final visible Judgment, if he hold strictly to his words, That the Exercise of Christ's Pastorship is only in spiritual Influences and internal Graces. If you say that some of my Instances are not of his Pastoral, but his Regal Offices, I answer that it is but some that you so except. 2. It is a mistake, because his Pastoral and Regal Office are one and the same indeed; not two Offices, but two inadequate Metaphorical conceptions of one and the same Office of Christ: And it belongeth to the Pastor to provide Food for his Flock, to govern them, to fetch them home, and to defend them and destroy the Wolves.

He saith, all that is visible is done by visible pastors, and all that is invisible by Christ (in the Pastoral Function,) as if Christ did nothing which they do, or no more than they do. And he reproacheth Christ's Church as being a Monster, unless it have some other visible Head: Like Cardinal Bertrand, see his words in his Book in Biblioth. Patrum, that saith; God had not been wise, if he had not made one Universal Monarch over all the World. And when we have fully proved that a mere Humane visible Church-Governour over all the round Earth is impossible, and such Power never was deputed by Christ to any; and that the far greatest part of the Church never owneth, or did own such: Will it not then follow, that his reproach of Christ's Church and Government is unjust and rash?

And would it not follow by the same reason that the Earth, as Gods Kingdom, (which Christ also is the King of) is a Monster, being a visible Body; unless it had one mere Humane visible Head? Are not Men as Men, and governable by the Sword, as visible as Men as Christians, and governable by the Word and Keys? If so (which is undeniable,) Why is the Christian World any more a Monster without a Monarch Bishop, than the Humane World without a Monarch King?

But pag. 66, 67. he asks [Whether Christ performed immediately any visible Action in relation to the Church?] and saith, Men will expect that I shew that Christ, not in his Person, but in the Exercise of his Pastoral Headship, works visibly by himself.

Answ. If it be not the Person's Visibility that you require, but the Action; that is considered either as it is Agentis, or as in Pass…, in the Receiver. The former is seen, if ever, only p. 75when it is the seen Mo…us of a Body. If the latter, I have named you divers visible Acts of Christ. But why must [immediate] come in? Doth not my hand write visibly unless I do it without a Pen? How little Government do great Emperours exercise immediately in all their Empire? even none in the far greatest part in all their Lives, but give out their Laws and Mandates to others. What Government hath your Pope exercised immediately in Abassia, Armenia, Tartary, Persia, yea or Mexico, much less at the terra australis incognita, and all that side of the Earth which Lactantius, Augustine, &c. denyed?

He confesseth that he cited not Ephes. 4. to prove the Papacie, but successive Pastors.

Reader, think seriously, 1. whether the Pope be not an invisible Head, and his Church a Monster by this mans rules. Doth he rule all his Church immediately or by others? If by others, doth not Christ do so, (and better.) And was Pope Zachary the visible Head at the Antipodes, when he commanded Boniface to excommunicate Vigilius for holding such a World under us as we call the Antipodes? And is this Pope a capable Head of all the World that denyeth the very Being of them, and holdeth that there is no such thing as so great a part of it? O what a Pastor or Apostle is this that excommunicateth men for affirming the existence of the charge which he undertaketh!