Which is the True Church, Part 1 · Chapter 1

Which is the True Church · Part 1 · Chapter 1

p. 1CHAP. I.

Question 1. WHAT mean you by the Catholick Church?Sect. 1.

W. J. The Catholick Church is all those Visible Assemblies, Congregations or Communities of Christians, who live in unity of true faith, and external Communion with one another, and in dependance of their lawful Pastors.

R. B. Qu. 1. Whether you exclude not all those converted among Infidels, that never had external communion, nor were members of any particular visible Church, of which you make the Catholick to to be constituted.

W. J. It is sufficient that such be subject to the supreme Pastors in voto, or quantum in se est, resolved to be of that particular Church actually, which shall or may be designed for them by that Pastor, to be included in my definition.

R. B. You see then that your definitions signifie nothing: No man knoweth your meaning by them.

W. J. You shall presently see that your Exceptions signifie less than nothing.

R. B. 1. You make the Catholick Church to consist only of visible Assemblies; and after you allow such to be members of the Church, that are no visible Assemblies.

W. J. I make those converted Infidels visible Assemblies, as my definition speaks, though not actual members of any particular visible Church. For though every particular visible Church be an assembly of Christians, yet every assembly of Christians is not a particular visible Church. I do not therefore allow such to be of the Church, who are no visible assemblies, as you misconceive.

R. B. 1. Would any man have understood that by [Visible Assemblies] the man had not meant only [Churches] but also Families, Schools, Cities, &c? 2. Doth he not here expresly deny all those persons to be of the Church, who are not members of some other visible assemblies. And if a man be a Pilgrim, a Hermite, or if one or many be cast upon an uninhabited coast, and if any are members of no visible assembly, as Merchants, Embassadors to Infidels, &c. when will he prove that this unchristeneth or unchurcheth them?

R. B. 2. You now mention subjection to the supreme Pastor, as sufficient, which in your description or definition you did not.

W. J. Am I obliged to mention all things in my definition, which I express after in answering your Exceptions.

Ans. All that belongs to a notifying definition.

p. 2R. B. 3. If to be only in Voto resolved to be of a particular Church, will serve; then inexistence is not necessary: To be only in Voto of the Catholick Church, proveth no man a member of it, because it is terminus diminuens, but the contrary. Seeing then by your own confession, inexistence in a particular Church, is not of necessity to inexistence in the Catholick Church, why do you not only mention it in your definition, but confine the Church to it?

W. J. I make them actually inexistent in some visible assembly, according to my definition, and in Voto only in a particular Church: Now every particular family or neighbourhood, nay two or three gathered in prayer, is an actual assembly.

R. B. Strange Doctrine! so it is of necessity to our Christianity and Salvation, that we be members of a Christian City or Village, or Fair or Market, or some Meeting! And so all Christians that live solitarily in Wildernesses, or among Turks or Heathens, are all unchristened and damned.

W. J. St. Hierome saith, Ecclesia est plebs unita Episcopo.—In this consists your fallacy, that you esteem none to be actually members of the Universal Church, unless they be actual members of some particular Church, which I deny.

R. B. I thought verily it had been I that was denying it, all this while. This is dispu…ing in the dark. Will you say that you meant in Voto? who can understand you then, when you say, They must be of visible assemblies, and mean that they need not be of any, but wish they were, or purpose to be so.

W. J. It is sufficient if they be actually of some assembly or congregation of Christians, though it be no particular Church.

R. B. 1. Here is a new Exposition of Solomon's Vae soli, Wo to him that is alone; for he is unchristened by it, or unchurched. O poor Anchorites, Hermites, that are alone, and shipwrackt Christians, &c. 2. Here is a new found priviledg of having company, if in a Tavern or Alehouse; and of being married and in a family; such may be Christians, when the solitary cannot. Who would have thought that the Papists had held this!

But you say nothing to the case of them that are converted to Christ by a solitary Preacher, that never tells him of a supreme Pastor, as the English and Dutch convert many Indians: Can they be subject to him that they hear not of?

W. J. Whether he be named or no, the Church must be supposed to be sufficiently explicated to them, as having some prudent manner of Government; so that they must be instructed to render obedience to such Governours as Christ instituted in his Church, which is virtually to a chief Pastor.

R. B. 1. So they that take the Pope for Antichrist, may virtually be Papists: Be content with that virtue. 2. But I think that even that general belief of Pastoral Government is necessary ad bene esse, rather than ad esse of a Christian.

R. B. 1. I note by the way to be hereafter remembred, his description of a particular Church as given by Hierome, that it is Plebs unita Episcopo; and Cyprian saith, Ubi Sect. 2:Episcopus ibi Ecclesia. And Ignatius, To every church there is one Altar, and one Bishop, with the Prosbyters and Deacons. But by this Rule they make those that are now called Parish-Churches, to be no Churches, but only parts of a particular Church.

2. Note, that in his Definition he maketh living in external communion essential to those Congregations or Communities of Christians who make up the Catholick Church; but tells us not whether it must be a Civil or only a Religious Communion; or what Religious Communions besides unity of faith and dependance on Pastors it must be: If by those words, pag. 3. every particular family or neighbourhood, he express that external communion, then if their Pastors never give them Gods Word, Sacraments, or Prayer, it may serve.

3. He saith, p. 4. In this consists your fallacy, that you esteem none to be actually members of the universal Church, unless they be actual members of some particular Church, which I deny. Which is his meer fiction, of which I was so far from giving him any occasion, that I was p. 3charging it as an error on himself; reasonably supposing that by Visible Assemblies he had meant Churches.

4. Note that he maketh it essential to the members of the Catholick Church, that they depend on their lawful Pastors, and yet that it is but a virtual subjection to the Pope (by subjecting themselves to Christs manner of Government) which is essential. 1. Are not all Protestants and other Christians that own not the Pope, true members of the Church then, while they subject themselves in general to Christs manner of Government? 2. He subjecteth himself to no Governour, who doth it not to some existent individual: For the universal, existeth not but in the individuals. And if it be not necessary that the Pope be this individual then subjection to some other is more essential than to the Pope And who is that who must be preferred before him?

Q. 2. What is that Faith in unity whereof all members of the Catholick Church do live? Is it the belief of all that God hath revealed to be believed? or of part? and of what part?

W. J. Of all, either explicitely or implicitely.

R. B. He might easily have known that it is explicite belief which the question meant; for his implicite belief is the actual belief of nothing but the general, and not of any unknown particulars. Where there is no object in esse cognito vel percepto, there is no act of faith (for the object essentiateth the act in specie.) And where only the general object is perceived, and no particular, (e. g. All that God saith in Scripture is true, when one word of Scripture is not known) there is no object for a particular belief: But it is the belief of this or that in particular that we enquire of (e. g. that Jesus is the Christ, &c.) Your implicite belief is actual belief of the general; but of particulars it is actually none at all, as common reason tells us.

His reply to this I shall answer by parts in order.

R. B. We have here a most implicite account of the implicite faith which is essential to a Sect. 3.Church-member. The man would make the ignorant believe, that their Schools are agreed of the sense, when he might easily know the contrary. I mentioned different senses of implicite faith. 1. When Particulars are known and believed actually, but confusedly, and not distinctly, but in gross. So Dr. Holden in Analys. sid. seemeth to take it: so the parts are seen or known oft in the whole; so a purblind man seeth all the letters, men, trees, &c. before him. I see all the sand in the hour-glass, or much; but not distinctly one sand from another. This is a real knowledg of the very things, but an imperfect knowledg. 2. But besides this, there is a knowledg of things only in their general nature, which is a real knowledg, but partial and imperfect. As when I see something coming towards me afar of, and know not whether it be a man or a beast, I say it is an animal or a wight; but what, I know not. This is not to know the thing formally, but to know aliquid rei, somewhat of that thing.

3. There is also a knowledg which besides the general nature, extendeth to some inadequate conception of the form, but leaveth out other parts of the conception which are essential. As when one knoweth so much of a man as that he hath a rational soul, and not that he hath a body; or that his soul is a virtus intellectiva, but not that it is volitiva; or when one knoweth that fire is formally a virtus illuminativa, but not that it is calefactiva or motiva. This is a real knowledg, but partial, and not formal, being not of the whole essence. So when one knoweth Christ to be God, but not to be man, or man and not God; or to be a Teacher, but not a King or Priest; this is not properly to know Christ, but somewhat of Christ.

4. There is a knowledg of meer universal Propositions, (which is but Organical as to things:) And this is no knowledg of all the particular things spoken of, nor oft of many, nor sometimes of any of them; nor of the particular Propositions which should be further known; nor of the conclusion that should be infer'd from both. For instance, Men may say that Omnis spiritus est immaterialis. And one may mean and know by it, but as the Sadducees, or Hobs, or Gassendus, that a spirit is a chimaera, & si daretur spiritus, immaterialis foret. And another may doubt and mean, si detur spiritus, immaterialis est. And another may hold that there is no spirit but God, and the Anima Mundi, and say that these are immaterial, and never the more p. 4believe that Angels or Souls are spirits: And no man can reasonably imagine, that omnis spiritus est immaterialis, doth include omnis anima est spiritus; or that W. I's est spiritus immaterialis.

So one may say, that all that are sanctified shall be glorified; and yet not believe that Peter, Paul, yea, or Christ were Holy: of this sort of knowledg I mentioned that which is a belief of no more but the formal object of Faith, that is, Gods veracity, that God cannot lye; and so, that all that God saith is true: when yet one that confesseth this, denieth all the Bible to be his Word, and believeth rather. Mahomet, Amida, or Confutius to have been Gods Messengers, or the ancient Oracles at Delphos, &c. to have been his word.

But the confused Head of W. I. confoundeth several of these different sorts; and because he thought that he might handsomly call a meer general knowledg, or faith, confused; therefore he confoundeth the true confused faith with the general, which are easily distinguished.

And first he calls for my proof, That a meer general belief, is no belief at all of the particulars; (though a confused faith may) I prove it.

1. Where there is no intellectual conception of the particulars, there is no actual belief of the particulars: But where there is only a conception of a general proposition, there is no intellectual conception of the particulars: Ergo, &c. the major is undeniable, and the minor no less.

2. Where the particular Object is not understood or believed, there is not the particular Act of knowing or believing that Object; for the Object is essential to the Act: But where there is only a knowledg and belief of the general Object, there the particular Object is not understood or believed. Ergo, &c.

3. That is not an actual belief of the particulars, which may consist with the actual belief of the contradictory: But a meer belief of the General Proposition may consist i h the contradictory to the belief of particulars. Ergo, &c.

But he comes upon me with some instances so worded, as may deceive the ignorant.

1. Saith he, Doth not this Proposition, Omne animal vivit, contain the substance of these truths, Equus vivit, Leo vivit, Aquila vivit, &c?

Answ. No surely, unless by substance, you mean not the other Proposition, but somewhat else, what you list; for it containeth not the very subject, that there is such a thing as Equus, Leo, Aquila in being, and that they are animalia. May not a man that never heard or believed that there was such a creature as an Eagle, Lyon, &c. (no more than a Unicorn or Phaenix) yet know that omne animal vivit?

2. He saith, Believing all that is in Scripture is the Word of God, and true expresly, I believe in confuso, all that is in Genesis, &c.

Answ. Yes, if (in confuso) be terminus diminuens to actual belief of the particulars: By meer believing the first, you do not actually believe a word of Genesis or Exodus, &c. for your Proposition saith not that there is any such Book in the Scripture: As I believe all the holy Scripture to be true, and yet believe not Tobit, Iudith, Bell and the Dragon to be true, because I believe them not to be the Holy Scriptures; so may others by Genesis, Exodus, &c. as the Hereticks of old denied many Books: and as Infidels may believe all that is Gods Word to be true, and yet not believe that the Scripture is his Word.

3. Saith he, Is not an express knowledg of the Genus, a confused knowledg of species under it: and so the species of the individua?

Answ. Yes, if by confused knowledg, you mean no knowledg of them, it is no true knowledg of them at all.

4. But he saith that my words (not knowing whether you be Animal or Cadaver) is a contradictory Proposition.

Answ. Say you so? May not I see you asleep, and think that you are dead? Doth this Proposition, Omne animal vivit, include that there is such a Wight in being, as W. I. or p. 5N. N? or that he is now alive? or that it is really a Man and not a Horse that is so called, any more than that Bucephalus was a Man? Yet doth he back these absurdities with advising me to a little more heed to what I write?

Note that page 9, he asserteth that, The object of implicite faith delivered in the Schools, is nothing save particular truths contained in substance under some general propositions; so that they be neither known nor believed distinctly and expresly; yet in confuso they are, by the knowledg or belief of their general proposition.

Answ. But there is a confused knowledg of particulars which is actual, of the Being of them, though not distinct, not fit or ripe for words to utter it: This is different from the knowledg of meer Generals; which is indeed no knowledg of the particulars, that any such are contained in those generals at all.

He next comes to expound his words, That faith believeth all that God revealeth explicitely Sect. 4.or implicitely; that is now some things explicitely, and some things implicitely; when as I asked him, What was the faith in which we must unite? who would have expected such an answer, That it is a general belief of all things revealed, and a particular belief of some things? That it is such a belief of all particulars, as is no real actual belief of some of them; and it is an actual belief of other some? But is any man ever the nearer the knowledg of their minds by this?

1. Here is no notice what the General is that must be believed: He professeth that it is not the formal object only, that is, The veracity, or faithfulness of God the Revealer: And what else it is whether that all that the Scripture revealeth is true, or that all that the Church declareth to be Gods word is true; and whom we must take for that Church, &c. he hath not told us; and so hath given an answer which is no answer.

2. Nor hath he told us what the Particulars are that must be believed: But we may know what faith it is that the Church must unite in, by hearing that it is something we know not what; or that it is somewhat in general, and somewhat in particular: Doth this account satisfie themselves? or do they look that it should satisfie us? Will this distinguish their Church from Hereticks or Mahometans? Do not these believe somewhat in general, and somewhat in particular? And do not Heathens do the same? If this be enough for Christianity or Concord, why do they call us Hereticks? Are we not all of that Faith which believeth somewhat in General (even that all Gods Word is true) and somewhat in Particular? But it's well that he saith, that the explicite belief of somewhat is necessary, though we may not know what.

And he tells us, That while they have an explicite belief of some Articles they can never be thought to be without faith.Sect. 5.

Answ. Either he meaneth that faith which was in the question, which must notifie us from Hereticks and from others without, and which the Church must unite in, or some other faith: If any other, doth he not wilfully juggle, and fly from answering when he pretends to answer? If he means the faith in question, then Mahometans and Heathens are of their Faith, and Members of their Church; yea, and all that they call Hereticks, and anathematize themselves; yea, and the Devils that believe and tremble.

But one would think, that, pag. 11, he described the necessary implicite Faith▪ when he saith, Our ordinary sense is, so to believe that point, that we have no distinct or express knowledg Sect. 6.of it, but only a confused understanding; because it is contained, in confuso, under this proposition, I believe all that God hath revealed: or I believe all that is delivered to be believed in the Holy Scripture.

Answ. 1. But I must again repeat, that here the word, confused, is used but to confound: This is no actual belief of any particular under that proposition. When a thing is actually known in it self, but only by a General knowledg, or not d…stinct, this is truly an Impersect knowledg; It is to know somewhat of that thing, though not its form or individuation: If I see something, which I know not whether it be a Man or a Tree, a Steeple or a Rock; I verily know somewhat of that thing it self, but not the form of it. p. 6If I see a Book open at two-yards distance, I see the Letters distinctly, but not formally; for I know not what any one of them is. If I see a clod of Earth, or a River, I see much of the very substance of the earth and water; but I discern not the sands or the drops as distinct parts: Here something is known, though the special or numerical difference (much more some accidents) be unknown. But in knowing W. I's general proposition only, I know nothing at all of the particulars, as shall yet be further manifested.

2. And mark what his general Proposition is, which, he saith, is the object of their Sect. 7.Implicite saith, viz. I believe all that God hath revealed, or, all that is delivered to be believed in the Holy Scripture. Either he really meaneth that this is the implicite faith by which Christians are notifi…d, and which uniteth the Members of the Church, and distinguisheth them from those without; or he doth not: If he do not, what doth he but deceive his R…ader? If he do, then as I said, All Christians, Hereticks, most Mahometans and Heathens, believe the first proposition, viz. That all is true that God revealeth. And Protestants and Papists, and most other sorts of Christians agree in the second, The Scripture-truth. Here then is a justification of our Faith so far. But do you think that he meaneth as he seemeth to mean? Do they not hold it also necessary, that men must take their Church to be the declarer of this Scripture-truth? And also that Tradition not written in the Bible be believed? Must not both these make up their Implicite Faith? If our general Faith and theirs be the same, what maketh them accuse us herein as they do?

But now, pag. 11. he proceeds to assault me, with such reasoning as this: No man knoweth all that God hath revealed, to wit, with an actual understanding of every particular: Sect. 8.Ergo say I, No man believes all that God hath revealed. Now I proceed, If no man believe all that God hath revealed, then you believe not all that God hath revealed. Then further, Whoever believeth not all that God hath revealed, is no good Christian, nor in state of salvation: But you believe not all that God hath revealed, Ergo, you are no good Christian, nor in a state of salvation. See you not how fair a thred you have spun? Or will you say, that he that believes not all that God hath revealed is a good Christian? If you will, you may; but no good Christian will believe you.

Answ. The man seemeth in good sadness in all this Childish Play; And must Rome be thus upheld? And must poor mens Faith and Consciences be thus laid upon a game at Cheating Words? No wonder that this Hector would have nothing said in dispute but syllogism, &c. Few Lads and Women would unmask his pitiful deceits; whether the great disputer saw their vanity himself I know not: But men at age, that can speak and try sense, will see, that all this Cant is but the sporting-equivocation of one syllable ALL: This ALL is either a term of a meer general proposition: e. g. All Gods word is true. Here I believe what is predicated of this general word ALL, and take this for a true proposition, ALL Gods word is true: Or it signifieth the very things, species, or parts, as in themselves known; and so if the very things, species, or parts generally expressed by the word ALL, be not themselves known as such things, species, or parts, it is no actual knowledg of them at all, to know that truth of the said general proposition. And doth not every novice in Logick know this? The same I say of Beliefs as of Knowledg; He is no good Christian, who believeth not that all Divine Revelations are true (which Hereticks and Heathens believe) But neither I, nor any Christian known to him or me, knoweth or believeth ALL the particular verities which God hath revealed: And he believeth not one of them (beside that proposition it self which is found among the rest) who believeth but that general.

But yet he will justifie his vanity by more instances: pag. 12, he saith, When you profess in Sect. 9.t…e Creed, that God is the Creator of all things visible and invisible, I demand, Do you believe as you profess? If you do, then you may believe with an actual belief, that he is the Creator of many things visible and invisible, whereof you have no actual understanding, or which are p. 7wholly unknown particularly, or distinctly to you, or by any other knowledg, than as confusedly contained in the word ALL.

Ans. 1. What's all this, but to say, that I believe this proposition, All things, of which many are unknown to …e, are created by God? This proposition I know and believe; but the things themselves as such, I no further believe than I know: if I know not that they are, I believe not that they are: if I know not what they are, I believe not what they are; that is, if I have not an intellectual conception That they are, and What they are: for believing is indeed but a knowing by the medium of a Testimony or Revelation, and the veracity of the Revealer.

I believe that God ma… all that is about the Center of the earth; and yet I neither know nor actually believe any one thing, species, or individual or part that is there. If the question be, whether there be there fire, water, air, earth, gold, silver, or men or divels, created by God? I neither know nor believe that there is, or is not.

A Sadducee or an Atheist may believe, That all that is in heaven is good: Is this an implicite actual belief, that God, Angels, and Spirits are good, when he believeth not that in heaven or any-where else, there is any God, or any Angel, or Spirit?

A Protestant believeth, that he can prove by the Bible, that the Pope is a Traytor against Christ by claiming his prerogative. Doth he also believe, that he is Christs Vicar-General, because he believeth that the Bible is true?

Protestants believe that all Tradition is true which really cometh down to us from Christ and his Apostles by credible evidence: Doth it follow that they believe the Papists Traditions to be true, when they believe multitudes of them to be novelties or fictions contrary to Scripture, and to the Tradition of the greatest part of the Church?

The Papist woman mentioned by Dr. White, believed the Creed; but she knew and believed no more of Iesus Christ, but that it was some good thing (she knew not what) or else it would not have been in the Creed.

But he goeth on: You profess to believe that All men shall rise at the last coming of Christ; and yet you have no actual knowledg of many thousands.

Ans. And what then? If I know not that those thousands had a being, and were men, I cannot know or believe that they shall rise; notwithstanding I believe, that All shall rise: and if the question be, whether this, or that, or thousands that you may name, shall rise, I know not, because I know not whether you feign not men that never were. If any were so foolish as not to know that there ever were more men in the world than he hath seen, he cannot believe that any more shall rise; and yet may believe that All shall rise; not all in true reality, as signifying the whole that hath existed indeed; but all as the subject-term in the proposition. When I say all shall rise, I do not only say that I believe that proposition; but I know many individuals contained in the whole; and I know that there are more than I personally know, and that there have been more than I have heard of; and by the word all▪ I mean all these particulars inclusively; and so the word being a General expressing A Totum▪ some of whose parts I have known by sight, and others by history, and I know that other parts have been, but some parts I know not at all that they have been, accordingly my belief is according to the object, partly singular, partly particular, partly indefinite, and partly universal.

He proceeds: Act. 24. 5, 14. Credens omnibus quae in Lege & Prophetis scripta sunt: Yet Paul had not an actual understanding of every particular contained in them.

Ans. Then he had not an actual belief of those particulars. He believed in general, that all Gods word was true; and he believed all in particular which he knew to be part of that word: But when he thought that he ought to do many things against the Name of Jesus, and persecuted and blasphemed him, had he then an actual belief that This Iesus was the Messiah?

He addeth: A Christian that hath forgotten some sin, yet at death is sorrowful for all his sins; Hath he no actual sorrow for that forgotten sin?

I answer, No: if he have no actual understanding of it. There were some that Christ foretelleth would think that they did God service by killing his servants: Do you think that if these repented of all sin in general, and took this for a duty, that this were an actual repentance p. 8for this sin? Nay, is a meer general repentance, any actual repentance at all, if it extend to no particulars? If a man say, I repent of all my sin, but I think I have no sin, but my hearing, praying, being a Christian, &c. doth he actually repent of any? And as to your instance, if you do but forget a sin, it implieth that you did once remember it, and perhaps repented of it then; but if you know not or remember not that ever you committed any such thing, or that it is any sin, you have no actual repentance of that sin.

O but saith he, What horrid Doctrine would this be?

Ans. What a childish exclamation is this! It's ten to one but if you were well examined Sect. 10.your self, you would confess that all this quarrel is but de nomine. You confess that here is no particular repentance or faith of the thing in question; nor are universals as containing the particulars known confusedly in themselves; but with the bare name of an actual knowledg of Particulars, you would cheat them that have only the knowledg of the universal Proposition. That you may see it is no horrid Doctrine, consider, that 1. If this general repentance have also joined a particular repentance of all such sin as must be so repented of, of necessity, to Salvation, then a virtual repentance of other forgotten particular sins, will prove sufficient to pardon and salvation. A general repentance which hath an actual hatred of sin as sin, and a habit inclining the person unfeignedly to repent of all sin when he knoweth it [joined with an actual repentance of all that he knoweth, and a faithful endeavour to know all] this is not an actual repentance of the unknown particulars; but it may be called a virtual repentance of them, because there is that cause, that virtue, that Grace which would produce an actual repentance if the impediment of forgetfulness were removed. But even confused actual repentance, hath not a total oblivion or ignorance of the particulars, but only a confused knowledg and memory of them, and is another thing than the knowledg of Universals.

He adds, One that forgiveth all injuries, and hath forgotten some; doth he not forgive those forgotten?

Ans. Yes, if the word forgiveness signifie the effect, or his act as sufficient to that effect: For it is in his power to discharge, acquit, or forgive another, by a meer general remission or discharge, though he remembred but one or no particular at all: But if by forgiving you mean an act of his will whose object is the crime as well as the punishment, and evil consequents remitted; he so actually forgiveth in his own mental act no more than he knoweth: But his general forgiveness sufficeth to all the ends without it; and such a sufficient remission goeth commonly by the name of full forgiveness: But instead of speaking to the point in hand, you play with ambiguous words of another sense and subject. Forgiving another is an act of the Will, whose effect is extrinsecal; and as a man may burn a house, or give away or sell a house, and all that is in it, though he know not what is in it; so a man may remit all debts or penalties to another, or the King may pardon all crimes by an Act of Oblivion, without knowing what they are: But if the question were about an intellectual act, whose object doth specifie it intrinsecally in the mind; As whether the King actually know the particular crimes which he pardoneth? If you say that he knoweth the particulars actually in confuso, because the only knoweth in general that some crimes there are, this is but to talk against all the usual …ense of mankind, and to call that, An actual knowing of particulars in confuso, which other men call, No actual knowledg of particulars, but only of generals, which in some cases may be called a virtual knowledg of Particulars, (which is no actual knowledg of them) and in some not. But if he had heard some imperfect confused Narratives of the crimes themselves, this might be called, An actual conf…ed knowledg of them.

But mark Reader what edification is to be expected from these mens Disputations. He knew very well that he and I are agreed that all Christians must take Gods Veracity in his Revelations Sect. 11.for the formal object, without which faith is no faith, and so must believe that God cannot lie, and that all is true which he asserteth. And that we Protestants hold that this is not enough, nor includeth the knowledg or belief of any thing which he hath revealed (beside this one general): He knoweth that our question is, Whether it be not necessary to believe some p. 9particulars as revealed by God? And whether this faith do not go to essentiate a Christian and a member of the Church? And if so, then what those particulars are which must be believed to constitute a true Christian and member of the Church. Now he durst not come into the light, and answer this question; but as if he were mocking women or children, saith, All that God hath revealed must be believed explicitely or implicitely. We understand you, Sir, that we must believe this Proposition, All that God revealeth is true. But is that enough? then Heathens, Idolaters, Sadducees, Infidels, Mahometans, are Christians and members of your Church. (But do they think so themselves?) If you can thus with a juggle make all the world Christians, the like art may make them subjects of the Pope. No, saith he, there must some things also be believed explicitely. But the question is, What they are? O there you must excuse him; he dare not, he cannot tell you what. But Sir, are these [some things] essential to Christianity and Church-membership, or not? If you say, Not; what! nothing essential to Christian faith in particular? Is it faith, and yet a belief of nothing in particular? Is there no material difference at all between a Christian and a Sadducee, Infidel, Mahometan, or Heathen? And yet cannot Protestants be saved for want of the right belief? O marvellous Religion! But if any particular belief be necessary, cannot it be known what it is? How then can a Christian be known by himself or others from all the unbelieving world? or your Church from other men? This was my question to you, Is not your Church then invisible, when no man can know what makes a member of it?

And yet the man talketh confidently in his darkness, as if this would serve instead of light: Sect. 12.and saith, I make my Church visible, though by comprehending in it all those who profess an explicite faith in several Articles, which they understand distinctly, and an implicite belief of the rest whereof they have not distinct understanding, by professing that they believe all that God hath revealed to be believed by them, whatsoever they be in particular: Now so long as they persevere in this belief, though they should happen through culpable negligence not to arrive to the knowledg of many things which they ought to know necessitate praecepti, yet they remain members (though corrupt and wicked) of the Church: Whereby you see how easily I avoid that difficulty which you thought I could not.

Ans. Too easily against all reason, Reader, this Paragraph is worth the nothing. 1. Several Articles must be believed explicitely: but not a word to tell you which, or what they are; or whether it be any whatever that will serve the turn, if it be but that Cain was the son of Adam.

2. The implicite belief of all the rest, is not here said to be any implicite belief of the Pope, Council or Church of Rome, but that they believe all that God hath revealed to be believed by them. And are we not yet so far right and reconciled? This is too kind to the Protestants, For it takes in all mankind with them who confess a God. For to give him the Lie, is to deny his Perfection, that is, his Godhead.

3. Mark, that even culpable ignorance of other things unchurcheth not.

4. And yet all this denoteth but a corrupt and wicked member of their holy Church, which (if such) cannot be saved.

5. And with this chat the man thinks he hath done his business. And doubtless there are some so ignorant as to believe him.

But all this wants but two things to make it just the true Christian faith: One is to name those Particulars essential to Christianity which must be believed: The other is to distinguish between a sound and serious practical belief, and a dead opinion or profession: And to conclude that the sincere practical belief constituteth invisible justified members, and the profession maketh only visible ones.

Next he hath another bout against Omne animal vivit, the question was whether to know this, be to know that W. I. Bucephalus, a Phoenix, or an Unicorn liveth? I say, No: because Sect. 13.it may stand with the ignorance that ever there was or will be such an Animal as is called W. I. or any of the rest. But he makes all good on his side by talking of Impossibilities and such-like words, which are of the same use in respect to our arguments, that Drums in an Army are to drown the groans of dying men, and put courage into the Soldiers. He saith, p. 10When Philosophers say, Omne animal vivit, they mean it of the essence or notion of Animal to be a living thing; and this is true of me and all particulars, whether we be in actual existence or not. Is not here excellent Philosophy! It's very true that this is a true Proposition, Omne animal vivit, whether VV. I. exist or not. But is this true of VV. I. and all particulars, VVhether they exist or not? That which existeth not, is nothing, neither VV. I. nor any particular. The sum is then, Nothing is a living thing, or animal. There is a VV. I. and all particulars, which are all nothing, and yet are animals, or live. Who would not turn Papist, and run into a Nunnery that is but charmed with such Philosophy?

Next, pag, 15. he saith, That how much must be believed explicitely, is a dispute among Divines, not necessary to be determined here; yet I will say something to that presently.Sect. 14.

Ans. I warrant you, nothing is necessary to you to do, which you cannot do without coming into the light. It's a dispute among the Papists Divines what a Christian is, or what Christianity is? And yet they have an Infallible Judg of all the Scripture, and all Controversies. And yet they can tell that Protestants are Hereticks. And yet they can tell who are members of their Church though it be a dispute among Divines. But mark, that this is not then with them de fide, any point of faith (what a Christian is, or what must be believed): For their Divines dispute not that which they take to be de fide.

I told him that a man may believe that the Bible is true, and Gods word, and yet not know a word that is in it, or that Christ is the Messias, or that there was ever such a person.Sect. 15.

He answereth that, This is morally impossible: For either such a person believes the Bible rashly and imprudently, and then (according to all Divines) his faith cannot be supernatural and divine, or sufficient to constitute him a Christian; or he believeth it prudently by, prudential motives of credibility.—Now that can be no other than the authority of the Catholick Church, which he cannot be ignorant to profess the faith of Christ, there being no other save that; though he know not by experience that Christ is mentioned in the Bible, he cannot but know that he is professed to be the Son of God, and Saviour of the world by those of the Catholick Church, who delivered the Bible to him as the word of God, and that such a faith is necessary to Salvation.

Ans. Here are many things worthy our consideration. 1. That a man is not a member of the Church that is, a Christian, unless his faith be supernatural and divine, not only in the object, but his act: And surely no man knoweth what other mans act of faith is supernatural and divine: Therefore no man knoweth who is a Christian, and so their Church is still invisible.

2. No man that believeth the Bible rashly and imprudently is a Christian: And no man knoweth whether another believe it not rashly and imprudently, (yea whether he believe it at all:) Therefore no man knoweth who is a Christian, or member of the Church of Rome.

3. No other motive than the authority of the Catholick Church, can serve to free a man from this rashness, imprudence and nullity of his Christianity. 1. But why then had we not this General, The Church Catholick is to be believed, and the Scripture to be received only by its authority, before, in the description of implicite or explicite faith? 2. Was that man no Christian in the Primitive times who was converted by a single Apostle, and took not the faith on the authority of the Catholick Church? Did the Eunuch converted by Philip, Act. 8. or the Jaylor and Lydia converted by Paul, Act. 16. or the 3000 converted by Peter, Act. 2. receive faith on the authority of the Catholick Church? Or the Indians when converted by Frumentius and Edesus? or the Abassian Empire that till lately knew nothing of the Pope and his pretensions? Or do we read that the Apostles did use that argument, The authority of the Catholick Church, to convert their hearers? or that they always first told them of the authority of such a Church? If by the Church you mean any single Apostle or Teacher, hold to that, and we shall do well enough with you. 3. But Authority is an ambiguous word, and may deceive. We maintain that a preserving and teaching ministerial authority, is usually needful to mens conversion to the faith, though not absolutely necessary to be first believed by the hearer: But a judging authority, (viz. Whether there be a God, a Christ, a Scripture, a Heaven, &c. or not) which determineth by a sentence, rather than teacheth by opening that evidence which caused p. 11belief in the Teacher himself) this is not necessary to mans faith. 4. And what if a man should hear a Preacher open the other reasons of Christianity without talking of the Catholick Church, and its authority, and should hereupon believe? or should believe by the bare reading of a Bible? how prove you that this man is no Christian, nor shall be saved? when Christ saith, He that believeth shall be saved, and shall not perish; and saith not, He that believeth on any other motive than the authority of the Catholick Church (and that must be the Romans) believeth rashly and impudently and shall perish?

4. But it's well worth the enquiry, could we possibly find it out, what he meaneth by Sect. 16.knowing the Church, and its profession, and its authority, and whether this be an act of necessary faith before any thing else can be believed? Or what other points of faith are contained in our belief of this Church and its authority? And what is the foundation of this faith?

It seems that he supposeth that the Church must be known before that the Christian faith be believed: And that in knowing the Church we must know the faith of the Church. It is one thing to know that they are a company of men called the Christian Church; and another thing to know what a Christian Church is; and another thing to know that this company of men is that Church: Must all these be known before we can believe? or but one, or two? and which?

1. If the name were enough, a man may know that a company of men are called Christians, (or Mahumetanes) who knoweth not at all what Christianity (or Mahumetanism) is. You say, that it must be known that they profess to trust in Christ: this they may do and not know who Christ is, whether God or man, or what he hath done, or will do for us. If you say, that they must know that they profess that Christ is the Saviour, so they may do, and yet not know what the word Saviour signifieth, or what Christ ever did or will do for our Salvation.

2. But if he mean here that every one that will believe Gods Word, must first know the Church as defined, or know it in all its essence; then 1. How few will he be able to prove to be Christians? And how will he know who they are? 2. And still the question recurreth, what is it that must be particularly believed to essentiate the Church? For if he know not that, he cannot know that he knoweth what the Church is.

3. And when that is done, it seems he must know which is that Church considered in existence, as different from all Heresies, and other Societies.

But by this method our difficulties are multiplied. 1. How shall I be sure that this Church doth not deceive me, in saying that this and not that is Gods Word? Is this by an act of knowledg, or of divine faith? If of knowledg, what evidences prove it? If of faith, then I must believe God before I can believe him? that is, I must believe that this is his Revelation and true, that the Roman-Catholick Church cannot or doth not err in telling me what is Gods Revelation, before I can know or believe any of his Revelation. If they mean that this act of faith must go first, before I can have any other, why may I not know and believe other articles of faith without the divine belief of the Churches authority or infallibility, as I may believe this one, God hath revealed that the Church is infallible or true in telling me what I must believe. If one Article may be believed without that motive (and sure it is not believed before it is believed) why not others as well as that? 3. And which way, or by what Revelation did God confer this Infallibility on the Church? If by Scripture it is supposed that yet you know not what is in the Scripture, or believe it not to be true, till you have first believed the Churches Veracity. Therefore it cannot be that way: If by verbal tradition, it is equally supposed that you know not that Tradition to be Gods word and true, before you know the Churches Veracity that tells you so. So that the Question, How I must believe the Churches Veracity herein? by what divine revelation (before I can believe any other revelation)? is still unanswered, and answerable only by palpable contradiction.

But (were it not for interpreting him contrary to his company) I should by his words here Sect. 17.judg that it is no Divine faith of the Churches Veracity, which he maketh pre-requisite to all other acts of faith; but it is Prudential motives of cre…bility, which must draw him to afford credit to that authority as derived from God, which commends to him the Bible as the word of God: now that can be no other than the Authority of the Catholick Church.

p. 12Ans. Mark Reader, It can be no other than the authority of the Church which must be the prudential motive to credit the authority of the Church as derived from God. So the Churches Authority must be first credited, that he may credit it; or else the Authority not credited must move him to credit it; which is all contradiction, unless he mean that the Churches Authority credited by a humane faith, or by some notifying or conjectural evidences, besides divine revelation, must move him to believe that it is authorized by God. When they have told us, whether that first credit given to the Church, have any certainty for its object, and also what and whence that certainty is, we shall know what to say to them. Knot against Chillingworth is fain tosay, That it is the Churches own Miracles, by which it is known to have divine authority, before we can believe any word of God. And so no man can be sure that Gods word is his word, and true, till he be first sure that the Church of Rome hath wrought such miracles as prove its veracity as from God; which will require in the Catechumene so much acquaintance with Historical Legends (which the more he reads them, the less he will believe them) as will make it a far longer and more uncertain way to become a Christian, than better Teachers have of old made use of.

And 2. it seems, when all is done, that he taketh this Authority of the Church but for a prudential motive. But is it certain or uncertain? If uncertain, so will all be that's built upon it. If certain, again tell us by what ascertaining evidence?

Reader, it is the crooked ways into which byassing-interest hath tempted these men to lead poor souls, which are thus perplexing and confounding.Sect. 18.

How plain and sure a way God hath prescribed us, I have told you in a small Tractate called The Certainty of Christianity without Popery. In short, it is possible if a man never hear but one Sermon (which mentioneth not the authority of the Church) or find a Bible on the high-way and read it, that he may see that evidence in it that may perswade him savingly to believe (through grace) that it truly affirmeth it self to be the word of God. But the ordinary method for most rational certainty is, To have first Historical ascertaining evidence of the matter of fact, viz. that This Book was indeed written, and these miracles and other things done as it affirmeth. Or first perhaps, That this Baptismal Covenant, Lords Prayer, Creed, and Decalogue, have been delivered down from the first witnesses of Christ, and Miracles wrought to confirm the Gospel, which is also written at large in that Book. This we have far greater Historical Certainty of, than the pretended authority of a judging-Church of Rome; even the infallible testimony of all the Churches in the world; and as to the essentials (Baptism, the Creed, &c.) of Hereticks, Infidels, and Heathens, which I have opened at large in a Book called, The Reasons of Christian Religion, and another called The Unreasonableness of Infidelity, and in other writings. And the matter of fact with the Book being thus certainly brought down to us (as the Statutes of the Land are) we then know the Gospel and that Book to be of God, by all those evidences which in the foresaid Treatises I have opened at large (and more briefly in a Treatise called The Life of Faith) the sum of which is the Holy Spirit as Christs Agent, Advocate, and Witness, in his Works of Divine Power, Wisdom, and Goodness, or Love, printed first on Christ himself, his Life and Doctrine, and then on the Apostles their Works and Doctrine, and then on all sanctified believers in all ages, and especially on our selves (besides his antecedent prophesies).

Pag. 16. He again pretendeth that he need not name the necessary, Articles of Faith, because I my self say, They must be the Essentials; and it is supposed I understand my own terms.Sect. 19.

Ans. A candid Disputant! The light followeth him while he flyeth from it. Doth it follow that if I know my own meaning, I therefore know yours? and if I know which are the essentials, that therefore you know them, and are of the same mind.

Pag. 17. The man would make me believe, that I speak not true divinity, when I say that Divine and Humane Faith may be conjunct, when the testimonies are so conjunct, as that we are sure Sect. 20.that it is God that speaks by man, who is therefore credible, because God infallibly guideth and inspireth him. He would make you believe that I am singular and erroneous here:

p. 13Ans. And why? He saith, that would make Christian faith partly humane. But 1. when I talk but of two faiths conjunct, what if I called the former divine faith, only the Christian faith? May not a humane yet be conjunct with the Christian?

2. But words must be examined. If Christian faith be so called from the Object, then Christ and not his Apostles, are the reason of the name materially; we are called Christians for believing in Christ, and not for believing in them. 2. If Christian faith were taken subjectively it is humane faith, for men are the subjects of it. 3. If Christian faith be denominated from the prime or second efficient of the revelation, it is the belief of God, and of Christ as Mediator, and not of the Apostles: and so Gods own Veracity, and not mans, is the objectum formale, fidei divinae. 4. But why may not a subordinate humane faith be conjoined with this, and so we believe Christ to be the Messiah at once; 1. By the testimony of God, 2. Of Christ as man 3. And of the Prophets and Apostles?

1. Did not the union of the Divine nature with the humane, make Christ as man to be credible? If so, why should we not believe him?

2. Did not the sanctifying work of the Holy Ghost, and divine inspiration joined to it, make the Apostles and Prophets credible persons? If so, why should we not believe them?

3. Did not the Miracles which they wrought, render the persons and their testimonies credible, together with the circumstances of their being eye-witnesses, and such-like?

4. Is not every honest man credible according to the measure of his skill and honesty?

5. Doth not every man know that there may be many efficient causes conjoined in producing one effect? May not faith now be wrought by the Preachers word and Spirit? Why else doth Christ say to Paul, Acts 26. 17, 18, I send thee to open their eyes, and turn them, &c. And Paul directeth Timothy to save himself and those that hear him. Why may not believing God, believing Christ as man, and believing Peter and Iohn, &c. that saw him risen, be conjunct causes of our faith in Christs Resurrection? If they might not produce one faith, at least they might produce three faiths united by conjunction.

But would one ever have expected this from a Jesuit or Roman Priest? Remember, Reader, that Divine belief, and a belief of the Church, Council, Pope, or Priest, are not to be taken for conjunct causes of our believing the Gospel, or Christian faith, in this mans opinion.

But he saith, Though the Prophet be a humane person, yet he speaks when he is inspired by God, not by humane, but divine authority, God speaking by his mouth.

Ans. It is Veracity that is the thing that we now speak of, and is the authority in question. And doth not Gods Veracity give Veracity to the Speaker, and use it? Doth God speak by Prophets and Christs Humanity, as through an inanimate Pipe or Whistle, or as by Balaam's asse? Doth he make no use of the reason and honesty of the speaker? nor make them more knowing, and more honest, true and careful, that they may be the fitter to be believed? Is this Roman Divinity? Why then do the Apostles so oft protest that they speak the truth and lye not, even of that which they had seen and heard? Would the Gospel have been equally credible to us, if all the witnesses had in other matters been knaves and lyars?

2. Reader, judg whether those that accuse the Roman Clergy of Fanaticism and Enthusiasm, do them any wrong, while they think that God maketh them infallible by such inspiration, as maketh no use of their Reason, Learning, or Honesty. And read but what their own Historians say of Fifty Popes together, besides all the rest, and of the Ninth and Tenth Centuries of the Church, and of the Popes that were lads, and could not read Mass, but were illiterate. Read what their Councils have said of some whom they deposed as inhuman Monsters, and judg whether it be easie to believe that any inspiration used those men as infallible deliverers of that Christian faith; and see here why it is that they think wit and honesty no more necessary in Pope or Councils, if God use them but as an organ-pipe or trumpet.

Pag. 18. When he is urged to tell me, what it is that is the necessary belief of their Church, Sect. 21.which must make a man a member of it: he again bids me tell him what points I make essential to a Christian, and I shall save him the labour.

Ans. And are we indeed agreed? And yet do they writeso many Volumes to the contrary? p. 14Reader, I take him at his word: I have said that it is. The belief and consent to the Baptismal Covenant, that is the constitutive essence of a Christian. Remember this when they jest at Fundamentals, and tell us of damnation if we believe not their Councils, and the Country-Priests that are the reporters of them. Remember now the extent of the Christian Church, that it reacheth to all that believe and consent to the Baptismal Covenant. But will these wavering men long stand to this, and confess their Sect to be but a fourth or third part of the Church?

But perhaps they will say. That words not understood are no true faith, we are yet to seek what believing in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost do mean and comprehend.

Answ. These ignorances or artifices have too long abused unstudied men. It is not now the unsearchable, truth of mens subjective faith or internal acts which we dispute of: But it is of necessary objective faith, or what ex parte objecti is essentially necessary to true subjective faith in case it be truly believed (which God only can tell,) And I say, 1. It is no meer words spoken more or less which can prove to another the sincerity of the speakers belief of them. 2. But the words of the Baptismal Profession and Covenant if sincerely believed, contain all essential to the Christian faith. 3. And for more or fewer words, I say, that the more understanding any man hath, the more fully and easily he may understand the sense of those words, though general and few; but to an ignorant person there must be many words and oft repeated to make him understand the same thing which the other doth by these few. And must we therefore have as many symbols of Christianity as there are various degrees of Understandings? 4. And the Church hath in its best times taken up with the Creed as the Exposition of the Baptismal faith; and if it now contain any words more than essential, that crosseth not its use, which was to be a just and satisfactory Explication of that Baptismal faith, which had nothing but the Essentials. And accordingly till faith and piety degenerated into opinion and tyranny, Baptized persons were accounted Christians and members of the Catholick Church, and as obliged to live as Christs Disciples in love to one another; it being none but Christ himself who instituted Baptism as our Christening, to be the symbol and badg of his Disciples.

Pag. 19. When I had prest him to a particular answer, and told him what would follow Sect. 22.upon the Answers which I supposed he might make, he tells me that Divines have a hundred times told us that some things must be believed necessitate praecepti, and some things necessitate medii.

Ans. We have heard some things, some things so oft, that we would fain know what things at last, are necessary ut media? Reader, if these Writers must not be ashamed of their tergiversation, what sort of Disputants should blush? would you think after all this, what his answer is? You shall have it in his own words: And know you not that Divines are divided what are the points necessary to be believed explicitely necessitate medii? Some, and those the more ancient, hold that the explicite belief of God, of the whole Trinity, of Christ, his Passion, ☞Resurrection, &c. are necessary necessitate medii. Others among the Recentiors, that no more than the belief of the Deity, and that he is a rewarder of our works, is absolutely necessary with that necessity to be explicitely believed. Now to answer your Question, what it is whereby our Church-members are known? I answer, that 1. All those who are baptized and believe all the points of our faith explicitely, (if any such are to be found) are undoubted members of our Church. 2. All those who believe explicitely all the Artiales whatever belongs to them in particular, by reason of their respective offices in the Church. 3. Those who so believe all things necessary, necessitate medii, or necessitate praecepti extended to all adulti. 4, All those who believe in that manner all things held necessary necessitate medii according to the first opinion of the more ancient Doctors. 5. It is probable, though not altogether so certain as the former, that such as believe explicitely the Deity, and that he is a rewarder of our works? and the rest implicitely as contained in confuso in that, are parts of the Catholick Church (Baptism supposed) … Now… seeing all those in my four first Numbers (which comprehend almost all Christians) are certainly parts of the Catholick Church, we have a sufficient certainly of a determinate Church, consisting at least of these, by reason whereof our Church p. 15has a visible consistency, those of the fifth rank, though not so certain, not taking away the certainty of the former,—See you not by this Discourse that we answer sufficiently to your question by telling which are undoubted members.—

Ans. Reader, how sad is the case of mankind, when such a talker as this shall go for a Champion, and prevail with silly souls in the matters of Salvation, against common reason, and the notices of Christianity? Mark here, 1. He asketh me, Know you not that Divines are divided? Yes, and I know how lamentably you have divided the Christian world. See, Reader, what is the unity and concord of the Church of Rome: Not only the Laity but their Divines are divided about the very essence of a Christian, and their Church. These are the men that cry up Unity as a mark of their Church, and cry out of us as Schismaticks, as if we were all crumbled into dust by Sects, because we differ about some small circumstances of Worship, or Exposition of some imposed words of men, or of some difficult point of no flat necessity.

2. Note here also the Infallibility of their Church, and what a priviledg they have in having a Iudg of Controversies; While their Doctors are divided on the question, what a Christian is? And Pope and Council dare not, or cannot, or will not determinate what maketh a Christian or member of their Church? O happy infallible Judg of Controversies!

3. Note also the extent of the Roman faith … it is so big as that it and its circumstances fill large Volumes, called the Councils; and yet it is no article of their faith, what Christianity is, or what must constitute a member of their Church, but this is left at liberty to disputes.

4. Note also the great partiality of the Papists. The Doctors may be divided about the essence of Christianity, and may deny faith in Christ to be particularly necessary to a Christian. But if a man believe not that Rome is the Mistris of all Churches and the Pope the Universal Governourr, and that there is no bread and wine in the Lords Supper, when the Priest hath consecrated, he is to be exterminated or burnt as a Heretick, and Princes deposed that will not execute it.

5. Note here, that here is not a word in all this of believing the Pope to be the Governour of all the Churches in the world. Either they take this to be essential to a member of their Church, or not, If they do, are they not juglers and ashamed of their faith, when they thus hide it? If not what is become of their Sectarian Church, and all their accusations and condemnations of most of the Christian World, who believe no such office of the Pope? And what a Society is that where the reception of the Pars Imperans is not necessary to every subject?

6. Note here whether the Roman Religion be mutable or not? and whether constancy be a note of their verity? When he professeth that the ancient Doctors, and the Recentiors (or Novelists) do differ about the very essence of Christianity. Have these Recentiors antiquity to boast of?

7. Note also from hence the validity of their common argument from Tradition, As if all their Church were now and always of one mind! when at present they are divided about the essence of Christianity; and the Recentiors forsake the Ancients. But had these Ancients Tradition for their opinion or not? If they had, how come the Recentiors to forsake it? If not, what an insufficient thing is your Tradition, that hath not told you what a Christian or Church-member is? And yet we must take this Tradition as sufficient to tell us what orders and ceremonies Peter setled at Rome.

8. I pray you note, that even their ancient Doctors opinion (which is all that must keep his cause from utter shame) he durst not describe in answer to my question; but having named five words, God, the whole Trinity, Christ, his Passion, and Resurrection, he craftily shuts it up with an E… caetera; so that if you suppose him to say that these five things are all that they require, he may deny it, because he added an &c. If you ask, what are the …est? you, are where we begun, an &c. is all the answer.

9. Well, let us peruse his five particular sort of members distinctly, which make up their Church, and try … be the m…ey … … or … or whether the Reader will not wonder that such trained disputers have no more to say, nor a more plausible sort of fraud to use.

p. 161. His first sort of visible members are, All those that are baptized, and believe explicitely all the points of our faith (if any such are to be found.)

Ans. Is not this a modest Parenthesis? whether any such are to be found, he seemeth uncertain; and yet saith, These are the undoubted members of our Church. The undoubted members! when he doubteth himself whether any such are to be found? And can we find the Church by them then? And no wonder that they are not to be found; for note, Reader, that he never tells you here yet at all, what the faith of their Church is, but only that if any have it all, they are Christians. Is this a satisfactory answering? And yet if you will know the truth from their common writings, the faith of their Church containeth these great bodies: 1. All that is in the holy Scripture and the Apocrypha. 2. All the Decrees of their General Councils (if not also the Provincials and Popes Decretals) that are de fide. 3. All their unwritten Traditions de fide, which they have yet to bring forth as need requireth. And do you not approve his modesty that saith, If any such be found that believeth all this.

2. The second sort of their Church-members are, All who believe explicitely all Articles, and whatever belongs to them in particular, by reason of their respective offices.

Ans. But he tells you not a word what Articles these be, nor what belongeth to their Offices; whether it be all the Articles of all the Creeds, or also of their Councils, Decrees, or when it shall be known what is necessary to be believed about their office. And is here any notice how to know a member of their Church any more than in the former? He that believeth all that he should believe is a Christian; But is there any such? and what is that all? and how shall we know them?

3. His third sort of members are, Those who so believe all things necessary necessitate medii vel praecepti, extended to all the adult.

Ans. And what's this but the same again? we know none but the adult that are to believe. And so here we are told, That all men that believe all things commanded are Christians. We were told this before: But it was with, If any such are to be found. And who knows by this what your All is? When we find men that do all commanded and sin not, we will hope to find men that know all revealed, and have no ignorance; yet here is no visible Church.

4. His fourth sort are, All those who believe in that manner all things necessary necessitate medii, according to the first opinion of the more ancient Doctors. But what those things are, we are not yet told, but five words set down with an &c. And is here yet a word to satisfie any man of reason what their faith is, or what Christianity is, or what maketh a member of their Church, or is the bond of union?

But Reader, hath God left us so much in the dark? Is Christianity any thing or nothing? If something, hath it not an essence which may be defined? Is this all our notice of it. That men that know all that God hath reveal'd, and believe it, are Christians? or such as believe five Articles, & caetera? Judge now whether their Church be not invisible. And if any little part of it were visible, what's that to the rest? or to that visibility of particular members? He tells us these are almost all Christians; and yet questioned whether any of the first be found; and the rest are no more to be found than they.

5. And his fifth sort he confesseth himself to be uncertain, which yet its doubted are no small part that go for Papists.

And note, I pray you, that it is the present Church which they use to approach to for necessary resolution; and the Recentiors are more the present Church than the Ancients. And according to these, 1. Their Church is confessedly doubtful or unknown as to most or multitudes of members. 2. And note; that their Articles being but two, That God is, and that he rewardeth works, all the common Heathens of the world, and all the Mahometans, are of the Papists Faith and Church, according to this opinion. 3. But mark, Reader, another desperate corruption, That Baptism must concur with these two articles. O horrid corruption of Christianity it self! Is this antiquity and tradition? Did the Christian Church use to baptize men that believed neither in Jesus Christ nor the Holy Ghost, if they did but believe a God and a Rewarder? Do you baptize such in your Church? I suppose even Pope Stephen himself would have been for the re-baptining of such.

p. 17Reader, if one of us had charged such doctrine on the Papists as this their Champion doth, should we not have been thought to slander them? viz. That their later Doctors hold that all that believe explicitely but a God and a Rewarder, and are baptized, are members of the Church of Rome; and consequently, that all that believe but this much, should be baptized; that is all the Mahometans, and almost all the Heathens in the world: And is Baptism and the Creed come to this? But I confess if the world were perswaded of this, the Pope could make his use of it: For when he is once taken for Governour of all the Church on earth, if he can but prove all the world to be the Church, it followeth that he is Governour of all the world. And what need they now their feigned embassies and submissions to prove the Abassines, Armenians, and Greeks to be of their Church, when Heathens and Mahometans are proved of it? and yet are Protestants no part.

He tells us, That a living body may be defined by head, shoulders, arms, though there be a doubt among Philosophers, whether hair, humours, &c. be animated or parts.

Ans. But 1. it is known then that there is visibly head and shoulders, &c. But you tell us not how to know any individual persons to be visible members of your Church. To tell us that there are some men that hold all that they are bound to hold, maketh none visible, while we are not told either what they are bound to believe, or by what profession or proof it must be known that they do so. When we tell you that sincere justifying faith and love do prove true Christians, and that such there are, it's agreed that this proveth but a Church as invisible or unknown to us, because we know not who have this sincerity. So is it when you tell us that there are men that believe all that's necessary; for till it be known what that is, no profession can thereby prove them Christians.

2. But what if you had told us how to know those men that are certain or eminent members of your Church? Is it nothing to you to leave all the world besides, almost, uncertain whether they be in the Church or not? How know you whom to admit to your Sacramental Communion, or to use as a Christian? When a Congregation of many thousand persons called Papists meet, you cannot tell how many of these are of your Church, and yet you give them the Eucharist? And it seemeth by you that they must be Baptized, though you know not after whether they be members of the Church.

Remember, Reader, that our question is not what mercy God sheweth to the rest of the world, nor whether any out of the Christian Church be saved? But it is, what is the faith which is essential to a member of the Christian Church? and whether Papists make it not uncertain? and whether he that believeth only that there is a God that rewardeth, and believeth not in Christ, or the Holy Ghost, be a member of the Christian Church, or should be baptized.

My third Question about his definition of the Church was, Is it [any] lawful Pastors, or Sect. 23.[all] that must necessarily be depended on by every member? who are those Pastors?

To this he said, Of all respectively to each subject; that is, that the authority of none of them, mediate or immediate, be rejected or contemned.

I shewed him how he contradicteth himself; for dependance is more than non-rejection: and Millions of Heathens neither depend on the Pope or reject him, that never heard of him.

To this he rejoineth, that he spake of subjects only, and not of others.

Ans. 1. But we are never the nearer knowing their Church by this, while we are not told who the subjects are, and what maketh a visible subject? 2. Do not they take all Infidels and Heathens, and the Christian Abassines, Armenians, Greeks, Protestants, &c. to be subjects of the Pope, as to obligation and right, though not consent? yet the Abassines neither obeyed the Pope, nor rejected him till Oviedo was sent to them. 3. For about forty or fifty years one part of Europe took one man for Pope, and the rest took another man for Pope, and men were uncertain which was the right, or whether either of them, and so of the Clergy authorized by them. Which was the Church then, and who were the members, when Millions received one, and Millions rejected him? and many neither received nor rejected, but remained in suspense? 4. And if all the Priests should desert a Country (as Ireland, Me…co, or our Wales, or Highlands) are all the people thereby unchristened or unchurched, p. 18while they have no Priest either to receive or reject, and perhaps hear not of a Pope.

But I specially answered him, That this maketh every Priest so essential to that Church, that a man is unchurched that rejecteth or contemneth any one of them, though he should …onour the Pope, Councils, and thousands others: If a man take a Priest in such a crime, as Watson, Montaltus and others tell us of, is contemning him an unchristening of us? Yea, if it be done causelessly upon a quarrel? This is a notable advancement of the Clergy. If contempt of one Priest be damnation or unchristening us, he that can make Priests for all the world, may well be Lord of all the world, even of Princes as well as other men.

To this he rejoineth, that by the word respectively he did not mean all Priests, but all that are Pastors to that man; for there are some Priests that have no care or cure of souls committed to them; but a private Christian rejecting the authority of his Parish-Priest, Bishop, Archbishop, Metropolitan, Primate, Patriarch, or supreme Bishop, becomes a Schismatick, and casts himself out of the Church.

Ans. 1. He is a strange Priest that hath no Cure of Souls, what then is his office? If he be not affixed to a particular charge, sure he hath an indefinite cure of Souls in the Church Universal. 2. Then one of the next Parish may take our Parish-Priest and all the Parish-Priests in the Country save his own, for Hereticks, Fornicators, Traytors, and such as must be rejected, and yet be no Schismatick but a Church-member: But if I reverence all other Priests, and take our own Parish-Priest for an ignorant sot, or a knave, or a wicked man, and contem… him, I am cut off from the Church. This tells us more reason than I knew of before, for our Canon against going from our own Parish-Churches when we have no Preacher there And this ells me how great the power of Patrons is, who can make an ignorant wicked man so absolute a Lord of all his Parishioners, though they be the greatest Lords, that to contemn him shall cost them their damnation.

And this tells me more than I knew before, that the Roman Clergy do not plead for the Pope for his sake only, but for their own; if all men be in as much danger of damnation or unchurching for rejecting any Parish-Priest, as for rejecting the Pope.

And this tells me more than I knew before of the great Pre-eminence of the Secular Clergy (as they call them) above the Regulars, and how low comparatively the Jesuits and Friers are, when it will cut a man off from the Church to contemn one sottish drunken Curate, or Parish-Priest that can but read Mass, and to contemn ten thousand Friers and Jesuits will not do so?

And this tells us of how great concernment Parish-bounds are, and what a priviledg it is to remove ones dwelling: For if I will but remove my dwelling one yard out of the Parish, I may then contemn the Parish-Priest without being unchurched, which on the other side the way I could not do.

And this … us why the Clergy are exempt so much from Princes and Magistrates judgment. It may cut off a Prince from the Church to contemn his Priest, (whether to hang him if he prove a Traytor, be contempt I know not.) Many such lessons may be hence learnt.

3. But how came Cyprian then so much mistaken, that said, Plebs maximam …abet potestatem—sacerdotes indignos recusandi? And how came all the ancient Churches to use that freedom in consenting or di…enting, electing or rejecting their Bishops and Priests, which Blonde… hath copiously proved, pro sentent. Hi…ron. & de jure plebis in regim. Eccles.

4. And what a priviledg hath the Pope or a Patriarch above an inferiour Christian? when he may reject a …housand Priests, or Interdict whole Kingdoms, or reject most Christian Churches and Pastors in the world▪ as being none of Christs, and yet not be himself cut off for so doing; whereas one that falls out with his P…rish-priest and rejecteth him alone▪ is presen…ly …o member of the Universal Church?

It seems that God punisheth not men according to the greatness of their sin; for sure it is a greater sin unjustly to reject ten thousand Priests▪ than one. Or to contemn all other Priests in the Country, mistaking them all for Hereticks, Usurpers, or in…ollerable, than so to do by one Parish-priest only.

p. 195. How many Millions then that seem to be of the Church of Rome are not so; because they contemn the authority of their Parish-priest?

6. But what is the proof of this assertion? None at all▪ In other Societies no Union is essential to a member but that which is with the Pars Imperans, or supreme power, and with the body. A man that rejecteth a Justice, or the Mayor of a City, or the Master of a Colledg or School, &c. may be yet a subject, and a member of the Kingdom while he rejecteth not the King, though he be faulty, and be cut off from the City, Colledg or School. And I think that to reject a Parish-priest that ought to be so rejected, is well done: and if he ought not, it's ill done. And that he that separateth from that Parish-Church, may yet be … member of the Church Universal, while he separateth not from it. But I see that Guiliel▪ de Sancto Amore, and such others, had greater reason to condemn the Friers; and Watson, and such others, the Jesuits, than we knew of.

I noted also the difficulty▪ How we shall know the Authority of every Parish-Priest, Bishop▪ Archbishop, Patriarch, and Pope. And 1. in a Country where Orders have ordinarily been forged.

To this he answered, As much as you can be assured of any being Pastor of such a Church, or Bishop, or Iustice, &c.

A…s. 1. If you prove it a duty to believe and obey every such deceiver that hath no authority, we will not believe till you prove it, that to do otherwise doth unchurch us. 2. And if two or three claim authority over us at once (as they did in the Papacy about forty years together) are we cut off from Christ if we receive not both? or how shall we know which▪ If either will serve, then they that took Iohn of Constantinople for Universal Bishop, were as much in the Church, as they that received Pope Boniface as such. And they that followed Dioscorus at Alexandria (being Orthodox), as they that adhered to Proterius? &c. Is it no matter who it be, so we think him to be the right? Why then do you deny our English Clergy, when we judg them to have the true authority?

2. I asked, What if we be ignorant whether the ordainer had intentionem ordinandi, how shall we be sure of the authority of the Ordained?

He answered, As sure as you can be that you were the lawful child of your parents who could not be truly married without intention.

Ans. This is new Doctrine; they that speak the words and do the actions which properly signifie a true intention, and do profess it, do thereby mutually oblige themselves in the relation of husband and wife to each other; and they that truly so oblige themselves, are truly (though sinfully) married: For what is Marriage, but such a mutual obliging contract; they are truly my parents, and I owe them obedience whatever their intention was. But you hold a man to be no Priest that was not ordained ex …entione ordinandi, and our Salvation to lie on our obeying him as a Priest who is none.

My fourth Question was, How the people that dwell in other Countrys can know whether the Sect. ….Priest, Prelate, or Pope, had necessary Election and Ordination.

To which he saith, W…en it is publickly allowed in the Church, witnessed to be performed according to Canonical prescription, by those that were present, and derived to the people without contradiction by publick fame.

Ans. 1. This alloweth the Ministry in Ethiopia, Armenia, Moscovie, Gr…ece, as much as the Roman: For it is publickly allowed and attested, and brought to the people by uncontradicted fame. And so is the Ministry of the Reformed Churches to all that hear not your contradiction. 2 But with Rome the case is otherwise, one part of the Church hath publickly allowed one Pope and all his Clergy, and another part rejected him, and allowed another and his Clergy▪ and publick fame hath contradicted one party. 3. And what can fame say to us in England of the Election or Ordination made at Rome, of a Pope, Prelate, or Parish-priest, when we hear not any witness of it? 4. And how can we expect contradiction of an action done a thousand miles off, which none near knew of? 5. And yet how few Priests or Prelates are they whose authority fame publisheth without contradiction? Do not Protestants contradict p. 20the authority of your Priests, and most of the Christian World the authority of your Pope?

My fifth Question was, If you tell me your own opinion of the sufficient means to know the Popes or Priests authority, how shall I know that you are not deceived, unless a Council bad desined Sect. 25.it. sufficient?

To this he saith, That the orders prescribed in the Canon Law, and universally received, are sufficient for this, without Decrees of General Councils: for they are no points of faith but of order and discipline, whereof a moral certainty and Ecclesiastical authority are sufficient.

Ans. 1. Is this moral certainty, true certaints, or uncertainty? If true certainty, it hath its moral ascertaining evidences. And what are those?

2. Who is the maker of this Canon Law? If not General Councils, how shall we know their authority? If the Pope and Cardinals, how shall we know whether those of e. g. Stephen, Sergius, or Formosus, be the authentick ones? and so of many other contradictory ones? If a General Council damn and depose, e. g. Eugenius the fourth as a Heretick, &c. and he make Canons after, how shall we know that they are authoritative?

3. But are your matters of order and discipline no matters of faith? Then God hath not bound us to believe that the Pope is the Universal Bishop or Pastor, or that Rome hath any authority over the world, or other Christian Churches; or that your Priests are the true Ministers of Christ, and have any authority over us; or that the Mass is to be celebrated, &c. But either these are matters of Divine or Humane Law. If man only command them, how cometh our Christianity and Salvation to be laid on them? What man commands, man may abrogate, unless extrinsick accidents hinder. If God command them, doth God command any thing which he binds us not to believe to be our duty? Many things may be de fide, revealed, which are not de moribus, nor to be done; but nothing is by God commanded to be done, which is not first to be known or believed to be duty.

4. If it be no matter of faith, how to know that your Elections and Ordinations are true; then it is no matter of faith that you are true Pastors, or have any authority (because without true Election and Ordination, it is not so; and if so, then it's no heresie to believe that you are all deceivers.

5. Your Authority (or Decrees) below that of Pope and General Councils, pretend to no Infallible certainty: upon this it seems your Church is built, and into uncertainty its authority resolved; and yet from this we must fetch our certainty of the Gospel in your way. And is not the Gospel then made uncertain by you, which must be believed on the authority of an uncertain Ministry? yea, and are not Councils uncertain which consist of such a Ministry?

6. It's a vanity to pretend that your Canon Law is universally received; most of the Christian World receive but part of it, and much no part at all, unless you call the Scripture the Canon Law.

7. If your Canon Law be so universally received and sufficient, then when that Law is received into England, England must be burnt as a land of Hereticks; for that's part of your Law; and so your Ministry and our burning as Hereticks, have the same authority.

My next Question was, If I culpably were ignorant but of some few Priests authority among thousands, am I cut off from all the rest, and the Church?Sect. 26.

His answer is, It is not all Priests, but all Pastors in relation to their flocks.

Ans. 1. But if my Parish-priest be but one of twenty or an hundred thousand, doth my culpable ignorance of his authority cut me off from all the Church? It may be I believe Pope Nicolas Decrees, that a man must not hear Mass of a Priest that hath a Concubine? Or that a Simonical Pope or Bishop is no true Pope or Bishop. 2. And remember, that my Parish-Priest, and my Bishop, Metropolitan, Patriarch and Pope, can never make a General Council: Either I may be safely ignorant of the Priesthood of all the rest in such a Council, or not: If not, then I must know the certain Priesthood of all others as well as of my own Pastors, contrary to what you say; If yea, then I have no certainty of the Priestly authority of Councils.

p. 21I next argued, That it is not the rejecting of a Constables authority which maketh him no subject Sect. 27.th… owns the Soveraign.

To this he rejoineth, That yet if I reject the Constable, and with him all superior Magistrates, and at last the Sovereign, I am a rebell. And so if I reject the authority first of a Parish-priest, and then the Bishop of the Diocess, and after of all his Superiors to the highest, I am a rebel to the visible Church, and cast out, and reject Christs authority.

Ans. 1. Do you see what all our dispute is come to at last? All this while it was the rejecting of any one Pastor that cut us off; and now it is the rejecting of him and all above him to the bighest, Is it not lost labour to dispute with these men?

2. When you have proved that Christ hath such a thing as you call the visible Church, that is, all the world obliged to obey any one man or Governour besides Christ, (when he is naturally as uncapable of it, as of being the Universal Physician) even at the Antipodes, and where he can never send, then we will take it for rebellion to reject that Head: Till then, we shall take it to be Treason against Christ to claim and own that which is his prerogative.

How cometh it to pass that no one yet learned to call himself the Universal King of the Earth? or the Universal Iudg, Physician, School-master, &c. as well as the Universal Priest and Teacher of Religion?

Next I craved his answer to much which I had written on this subject before in my Safe Relig. which he refuseth, and tells me, That I make a visible body with an invisible head to the Church, which Government is internal and invisible, abstracting from visible supreme authority.

Ans. 1. Christ was seen on Earth. 2. He is seen in the Court of Heaven. 3. He hath left a visible Universal Law, by which he governeth. 4. He hath appointed visible Officers over the world (though no Head) which is the way that the Pope pretendeth to govern, (even per alios, when he never sent to a quarter of the world). 5. His subjects are men visible, known by audible profession and visible worship. 6. He will visibly judg the world in Glory, and be seen by all his Church for ever. And when you prove that he hath a Church that is otherwise visible, we will hear you.

They that assert an Anima Mundi, and they that think one Intelligence or Angel ruleth all the Earth, say that which is possible, though they can never prove it: But to talk of a Governour of all the World, that never heard who dwelleth on a third part of it, and that can get no Ships to sail about the Earth in many ages; and when they do, come not near the hundredth part of the world, this is a prodigious claim for a waking man.

My fourth Question about his definition of the Church was, Why exclude you the chief Sect. 28.Pastors that depend on none?

He answereth, I include them, Ecclesia est plebs Episcopo unita.

Ans. 1. But he had defined the Church as those that depend on the Pastors: which seemed to exclude the Popes that depend on none. 2. Hierome defineth a particular Church, and not the universal. 3. They oft call the Clergy the Church.

He rejoineth, That Terms have different acceptions.

Ans. But by all this ado I can have no reasonable satisfaction from you, what you mean by the Church, or what that Church is which you call us to unite with, and which you accuse us as separating from. We are like to dispute well with men that cannot or will not explain the terms of the question.