Which is the True Church, Part 2 · Chapter 1
The Answer to W. J's second-Chapter.
Whereas W. I. would perswade men that it is first incumbent on us to prove where there hath Sect. 1.been a Church in all Ages without the Roman Papacie, I first evidenced that it is incumbent on them, as having the Affirmative, to prove that the Universal Church hath been headed by the Pope in all Ages: For 1. our Religion is nothing but Christianity as such: And this they confess hath been in all Ages since Christs and Churches professing it; so that all our Religion being past Controversie between us and them, (which is still to be noted) we have no need to prove that which is not denyed, who denyeth that there have been Christian Churches?
But it is their addition of the Papal Soveraignty over the Universal Church which is denyed Of our departure from the Romans possessed power.by us, and must be proved by them according to the common Rules of Disputation.
2. And the denyal of their addition is the Renunciative Consequence, and no direct and proper part of our Positive Religion: True Faith is one thing, and the Renunciation of all Errors contrary to it is another thing: The one is such as may be defined; the other in particulars hath no bounds: I can soon say that There is one God the Father Almighty, &c. and in general that I deny any other; but if I will undertake to name them all that are worshipped as Gods, and say, e. g. Sathan, Iupiter, Sol, &c. are no Gods, I can never know when I have done; and this is but a consequent of my Faith: so it is to believe that Mahomet, Amida, Zachea, &c. are no Saviours.
Now if any would bid me prove Where there hath been Church in all Ages that did renounce Arrianism, Macedonianism, Nestorians, Eutychians, Monotheli…es, &c. I cannot prove that any did expresly renounce these before they were known in the World; and yet Christianity was the same Religion of the Church without any change before and after.
So W. I's demand upon his Plea of present possession, is as if he should say, The man of seventy years of Age which is now gray-headed and lame was ever so: Or the Church which now honoureth St. Martin, St. Thomas Aquinas, as Saints, is the true Church of Christ: And if you cannot shew, us that your Church hath in all Ages so honoured St. Martin, &c. you are not the true Church of Christ. What if it had been [The Church that keepeth Easter-day as now we do, and Christmas-day on the 25th of December is the true Church of Christ; therefore you must prove that your Church hath ever done so. Could they prove their Papacy in the Empire as old, it would have the same answer, viz. It was but a part of the Church, and not the whole, that kept Easter and Christmas as we do now; for one part kept Easter on another day, till the Nicene Council ended that Controversie in the East, and Christmas-day on the 6th of Ianuary till after the middle of Chrysostom's time; and so in the present case, had it been as ancient as they pretend, it was not Universal.
2. But he saith that [at least, as Patriarch of the West by the Churches grant, they were in full quiet possession of that Right or Power which we confess was lawful.]
Ans. No such matter: We make no such Confession: Those Protestants, who think that the superiority of Patriarchs is lawful, do hold that it is by humane Laws; and that if any such Laws were made by that which you call the Church, that is, by Councils, it was by such Councils as in such matters received their Power from the Emperours, without which they might not set up one City above another, nor distribute Provinces and Diocesses, and as was done; and therefore that while the Imperial Laws enforced them, they had the Law to bind Subjects to obey them: but when any Kingdom was cut off from the Empire, it was from under those Laws, and under the Laws of their own Prince, and the former decrees of Councils were no Laws to them any longer; though they might by voluntary contract still associate with Forraign Lands.
So that such hold, 1. That while Britain was under the Roman Empire they owed some respect or obedience to the Pope as Patriarch of the West, as English-men do the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury. 2. That before and after, they owed him no more obedience than to the Bishop of Rhemes or Arles. 3. That when the Saxon Kings permitted the first English Bishops voluntarily to subject themselves to the Patriarch of Rome, they made themselves Debtors of all lawful obedience which they promised. 4. That when the Saxon and Danish Kings Commanded their Subjects such lawful obedience to the Bishop of Rome, they owed it him by the obligation of their Soveraigns Laws. 5. And when those Laws ceas'd their obligation ceased; and when those Laws forbad it, it became unlawful. And so the Roman Patriarch had no power in England when the King and Law did deny it him, or cease to give it him. This is the judgment of those Protestants that think such Patriarchs lawful: The other that think them a sinful Usurpation, think that they were never lawful; yet he urgeth us with what Conscience we ceased to obey them.
Pag. 74. he saith [Prove that any Church which now denyeth it, hath been always visible and Sect. 3.I am satisfied whether that Church always denyed it or no.
Ans. This hath some moderation in it. 1. There hath no Church but that of Ierusalem been always visible from the beginning of Christianity; for no other was at first existent.
2. And that was not visible from the beginning of the World.
3. This Church of Ierusalem as it consisteth of the most Christians there, now denyeth your Papal Power.
4. The Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, and Abassia now deny it, and have been always visible.
5. The Church of Ephesus, and many others of Greeks that now deny it, have been always visible since Paul's time; and Constantinople since the first planting.
6. And I pray you note that the Church of Rome hath not been always visible, for it did not exist till some years after that at Ierusalem. Yea note, that you cannot pretend that the Bishop of Rome was the Universal Bishop from the beginning; for you confess Peter was first Bishop of Antioch, and all that while Rome was not the Mistress Church: And so if you should have the Supremacy; it must be by a change from the first State: Though indeed Peter himself never claimed nor exercised any such thing, much less did he ever leave it to a Successor, and least of all as fixed to one City, any more than St. Iohn's power was to the Bishop of Ephesus. And indeed Bellarmine himself dare not deny but that the Seat of the Universal Bishop may possibly be removed from Rome to some other place. And then (suppose it were to Avignion, or to Constantinople) where is St. Peter's Successor? How must he be chosen? or how shall his power above others be known, when all the old pretensions faile?
Pag. 78. (till then there's nothing but vain words) When I noted that They that make Sect. 2.Christ corporally present in every Church in the Eucharist, should not say that the King of the Church is absent.
He replyeth [We dispute of a proper visible presence, such as is not in the Eucharist.
Ans. You affirm that Christ is there corporally present under the Forms of Bread and More of the visibility of Christ.Wine; and that the Bread which we see is the Body of Christ and no Bread; and yet that we see not the Body of Christ: Sure we see something or nothing; and if it be something and not Bread, nor Christs Body, what is it? But suppose that it be not Christs Body which we see, yet while the Bread is turned into his Body, that which you do see is nearer to him than a Kings Crown or Clothing is to the King; and yet if you see the King only in his Cloths, his …ace being vailed, will you say that he is not a visible King? Doth clothing make Kings, or the species of the Consecrated Bread make Christ to become invisible? 2. Do you not bow towards him on the Altar? Do you not carry him in procession about the Streets? and do you not constrain all that meet you to kneel down and adore? sure you do not think him to be out of sight, or hearing, or far off, to whom you pray, and whom you so honour as present? As Paul said to the Iews, God is not far from every one of us; so that Christ, who is adorably present in his Body on the Altar, and corporally present in every Receivers hand and mouth, surely hath not yet forsaken the Earth, so far as to be uncapable of constituting a visible Kingdom without a Pope.
Pag. 79. I told him that [When they prove 1. That Christ is so absent from his Church that there is need of a Deputy to essentiate his Kingdom, and 2. that the Pope is so deputed, they will have done their work]
He replyeth [I have proved that Christ instituted St. Peter and his Successors to govern visibly his wholly Universal Church in all Ages]
Ans. Wonderful! when was it, and where? Let the Reader find any such thing in your writing, for I cannot, no not a word: Had that been done I had contradicted you no longer; but if it be by an Invisible Proof that your Visible Head reigneth, I cannot judge of it.
He next addeth [I press you therefore once more to give an instance of something which hath been ever in the visible Church by Christs institution, and yet is accidental to the Church.]
Ans. 1. If I have not given you such Instances and Reasons also to prove that all that Christ instituted to continue is not essential, let the Reader say that I have failed you. 2. But if I had not, what is it to your cause; will it thence follow that you have said a word to prove that Christ instituted the Universal Head-ship of the Pope? Or rather do you not overthrow it your self by such arguing, seeing 1. the Headship of Rome hath not been ever in the Church as you confess. 2. It never was in the Universal Church either instituted by Christ, or received by the Church one hour, but only for a time received by a corrupt oppressed part of the Church. 3. The Pope hath cast out divers things instituted by Christ for continuance, as is proved.
I told him, that though the King were absent [it is only the King and Subjects that are essential to a Kingdom; the Deputy is but an Officer and not essential.]
He replyeth ['Tis so indeed de facto: But suppose (as I do) that a Vice-King be by full authority made an ingredient into the essence of the Kingdom, then sure he must be essential.
Ans. Yes, by very good reason; if he be made essential he is essential: and now I understand what is your proof; you suppose it to be so. But if it be so in our case, then the Pope is essentially so the Churches constitutive Head that when-ever he dyeth the Church is dead, (unless you can say as our Law doth of the King; Papa non moritur) and when the Church hath been two or near three years without it was no Church, and when it had two or three Popes it was no Church or two or three Churches.
But saith W. I. [This is evident in our present Subject; for though all the Pastors in Christs Church be only his Officers and Deputies, yet you cannot deny such Officers are now essential to his visible Church.]
Ans. 1. When I heard the word Evident, I lookt for something: But I had nothing but Whether Pastors are Essential parts of the Church Universal.[you cannot deny it: and what true Christian ever yet denyed it?] But I do not remember that ever I heard it disputed before; affirmed or denyed. He that would deny it, will say that as all the Mayors, Bayliffs, and other Magistrates of Corporations, are indeed essential parts of those Corporations, and these Corporations are the noblest integral parts of the Kingdom, but no essential parts of it, so that if the Kingdom should be resolved into a King and meer common Subjects only, it were a Kingdom still: so it is in the Church. Particular gathered Churches are the noblest integral parts of the Universal Church, but not essential: And Pastors are essential parts of those particular Churches: But if all the particulars and Pastors should cease, the Church would be a Church still, while there is a Christ and meer Christians. But this never will be in this world; because Christ will not only have a Church, but a well-formed organized Church.
Those that had rather use the word essential of the Pastors will say, that as soul and body are the only essential parts of a man, and yet the brain, heart, and liver may be called essential parts of the body, as distinct from the rest, because without these it is not corpus org… nicum, and so not humanum; so though Christ be the only soul of the Church, yet Officers may be essential parts of his body as organical, capable of such a soul: And though the other will reply, that this is but a deceiving Metaphor, Christ being not only the soul but the head, and no organical Members being more than noble Integrals, because if an Intellectual separation be made, the Church is a Church still in such a conception. Yet all this is but a Controversie of the aptitude of the word Essential, in that case; we are agreed that Officers shall be in the Church to the end. And yet Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 12. calls them but eyes and hands, and never heads, but reserveth that title to Christ alone; yea even when he speaketh of Apostles. And yet if any Officers were Essential it would be Apostles, who are called Foundations and Pillars of the House; but none of them the Head.
2. But what's all this to our Controversie? What if Pastors were Essential to the Church, viz. that there be some? Doth it follow, that the Bishop of Rome is any more essential to it than the Bishop of Ierusalem or Antioch? If so, then 1. Before Peter is feigned Bishop of Rome, the Church was no Church: All the while that he dwelt at Ierusalem and Antioch. 2. And then if Rome were burnt, or the Bishop of it ceased, the Church were no Church.
Sir, our true question is, Whether a trayterous Usurper of Universal Soveraignty, received by a third part of the Church, and refused by all the rest, be essential to the Church? Not as whether the heart or head, but a Scab or Cancer, be essential to the body?
After some vain repetitions, pag. 82. he repeateth the sum of his fraudulent Argument, which he calls [The force of his Discourse] viz, [No Congregation of Christians hath been perpetually Sect. 5.visible, but that which acknowledgeth the Popes Supremacy: Ergo, No Congregation of Christians is Christs true Church save that.]
Ans. I will therefore repeat the sum of my Answer: viz. The word [Congregation] is ambiguous: 1. Either it meaneth a company met together. 2. Or a number of such Congregations owning one Superiour, being part of the Universal Church. 3. Or the Universal Church it self.
Accordingly I answer, 1. That in the first sense a Congregation is called the same, either because the same men live, or because the survivors dwell in the same place, or because they are of the same profession. In the two first respects, it is not necessary that any Congregation continue the same; for men dye, and places may be conquered or ruined. In the third sense, All true Christian Congregations in the world are of one and the same species (as Christian) from the beginning to this day.
II. In the second sense of the word [Congregation] I answer like as to the former: The men dye; the places are mutable: but as to the common Christian Profession, they are the same that they have been: but as to the extent of Diocesses, neither you nor we can deny but that they have altered: Scotus, Petavius, and Doctor Hammond, who hold that Bishops without Presbyters were first setled, must hold that a Church then was but one Assembly, or no more than one Bishop could speak to. But de facto all agree that it was not long before they widened by degrees. And in this sense the Churches of Abassia, Armenia, Ierusalem, Alexandria, &c. are visible and have been from their beginning, and some of them before Rome was. The Churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Thessalonica, &c. are and have been such. And some Churches are visible which do not acknowledge the Popes Soveraignty, that sometimes did, viz. The Church of Britain in England and Scotland at first owned it not, and after did receive it, and after that cast it off again; but it is visible and hath been from its beginnings. The Churches of Denmark, Sweden, Transilvania, and divers Countries of Germany (were not Churches from the beginning of the Christian Church, nor was Rome it self so, but) ever since their beginnings they have been visible, sometimes obeying the Pope, and sometimes rejecting him: the Abassines and several other Extra-imperial Churches, never obeyed him: The most of the Churches of the Empire (the Eastern and African) sometimes obeyed him as the chief in the Empire by the Laws of the Empire, amd sometimes they cast him off when the Eastern Empire cast him off: but they never obeyed him as the Soveraign Bishop of the whole World.
III. In the third sense of the word [Congregation] as it signifieth the Universal Church, I confess that I can shew you no Universal Church now visible rejecting the Pope; for the Universal leaveth out no part, though a corrupt part; and while Papists own him I cannot say that the Universal Church disowneth him; but I can prove, 1. That the Primitive Universal Church never owned any Universal Head or Governour but Christ and his twelve Apostles, whose indefinite charge may be called Universal. 2. That the Universal Church never owned the Roman Universal Soveraignty. 3. That the far greatest part of the Church doth not own it at this day; and therefore if the whole may be denominated from the major part we may say, that now the Universal Church disowneth him.
And now Reader answer these like Sophisms and you have answered this man of Art.
1. No Congregation of Christians hath been perpetually visible, but that which acknowledgeth the Patriarchs in the Empire, (at least heretofore;) Ergo no other is the true Church of Christ. Answ. 1. But another is part, and the best part of the Church of Christ. 2. And none that doth, or ever did acknowledge those Patriarchs, was the whole Church. 3. And none of the Church acknowledged them at first, before they were erected.
So, 2. Inst. [No Congregation of Christians hath been perpetually visible, but that which condemneth the Monothelites, the Nestorians, the Eutychians, the Audians, the Luciferians, the Quartodecimani, &c. Ergo no other is the true Church.
Answ. 1. Part of the Church condemn them, and part never heard of them: And before they rose, none of the Church condemned them.
So, another Instance is, [No Congregation of Christians hath been perpetually visible, but that which Administreth the Eucharist only in one kind (without the Cup) and which useth publick Prayers in an unknown Tongue; and which forbiddeth the reading the Scripture translated without special License, &c. Ergo no other is the true Church.
Answ. 1. Only a corrupt part now doth these; The most discover it, and none were guilty of it in many Generations, Doth there need any other Answer to such palpable Sophismes? His Argument plainly should run thus; [No Congregation of Christians hath been perpetually visible, but that which now owneth the Trayterous Usurpation of the Pope, and the Council of Trent, and of Lateran; and part of whose Religion is for exterminating, or burning all that will not renounce all belief of Humane Senses, in believing Transubstantiation; and for casting out Princes that execute not this, and absolving Subjects from their Oathes of Allegiance to them; and which hath corrupted the Doctrine, Worship, and Government of Christ; Ergo no other is the true Church.]
Answ. A diseased part of the Church only is guilty of this now; and the whole Church was far from it heretofore.
But pag. 83. he telleth me that he meaneth neither one present Assembly, nor yet one as united in one visible Humane Head; but abstracting from that also, be it but truly and properly one: Sect. 6.whencesoever the Unity is drawn, 'tis all alike to the solution of the Argument.]
Answ. Then sure our business is in a hopeful way, if not as good as ended. Remember this and fly not from it: Our Unity is in Christ our Head: One King maketh us one Kingdom: All Christians are one Body of Christ. Yea, moreover we are one in all the seven Points of Unity required by the Holy Ghost, Eph. 4. viz. We have, 1. One Body, (of Christ, not of the Pope.) 2. One Spirit. 3. One hope of our Calling, (viz. Eternal Glory.) 4, One Lord, (without a Vice-Christ.) 5. One Faith, (summarily in the Creed, and integrally in the Holy Scriptures) 6. One Baptisme, (or solemnised Baptismal Covenant.) 7. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all: Yea, as to the Integrals, though our Grace hath various degrees, we all receive the inspired Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists, Authority and Doctrine; and the ordinary Pastors and Teachers that are sent by the Holy Ghost, and called by the way which God hath appointed; (though we receive not an Usurper that maketh himself the Governour of the whole World in Title, while he Governeth not the tenth part of it, nor any according to God's Law; and who is oft obtruded by Whores and Murders, and is a wicked Slave of Satan, so judged by his own General Councils.)
We acknowledge that there are among us different Opinions; but neither for Kind or Number comparable to the differences of the Papal Sectaries among themselves. Not for Kind, such as about Murder, Adultery, Perjury, Lying, False-witness; yea, about the Love of God it self are by the Iansenists charged on the Iesuits, and proved out of their express words: Nor such as Mr. Clarkson hath collected from the express words of their most famous Doctors of all Parties: Nor such about King-killing, dissolving Subjects Oathes, &c. as H. Fowlis hath gathered from the express words of your greatest Doctors, And for Number, all the Sects in the World (of Christians) set together, have not half the Controversies and contentious Writings against each other, as your Schoolmen and other Writers of your Church have.
For our parts, we look not that our Union should be perfect, till our wisdom, and holiness, and patience, and we our selves be perfect. They that know but in part, will err in part, and differ in part. We believe that [there are diversities of Gifts, but the same Spirit; and differences of Administrations, but the same Lord; and diversity of Operations, but the same God, who worketh all in all. For as the Bedy is one, and hath many Members; and all the Members of that one Body, being many, are one Body; so also is Christ: For by one Spirit we are Baptised into one Body, and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. Thus are we the Body of Christ, (not of the Pope,) and Members in particular: And God hath set some in (this Body) the Church, first Apostles, (not first a Vice-Christ,) secondly Prophets, thirdly Teachers; (but no Universal Vicar-Head.) All these are Members, and should so live in love that there be no Schisme in the Body.
But pag. 84. the Man is not satisfied, though I name them, what I mean by [These Churches united in one Christ.]Sect. 7.
Answ. How should I make a Man know that is unwilling? or how but by naming them by their Country and Profession? I mean, All the Christians of Abassia, Armenia, Egypt, Syria, the Georgians, the Iacobites; those falsly called by you Nestorians, and Eutychians, the Africans, Greeks, Muscovites, the Britains, Seots, Swedes, Danes, Belgians, Saxons, Helvetians, the rest of the Germans, Transilvanians, Hungarians, French, &c. which now disown the Papacy; who were some Countrys never under the Pope, some Countries at first under him, and after rejected him; and some at first from under his Government, next under him, and after repented; and all of them have been Christians from their first conversion to this day. Can I speak plainer?
But Num. 42. he granteth that All that are true Christians are one Kingdom, or Church of Sect. 8.Christ; but denyeth that these are true Christians. And pag. 84. He would seem to give some reason for his denyal, saying, [I deny it, if they were independent on the Bishop of Rome.]
Answ. 1. Even now he abstracted from this: But now they are no Christians, unless they be Dependendents on the Pope. Such a Denyal is an easie Task, and the sum of all their Writings. But what need there then so many Ambages and large Volumes, to bring out such a short and crude Assertion? Could you not have said this without all the rest, [He is no Christian that dependeth not on the Pope.] But is it not incumbent on you to prove it? Undoubtedly it is. 1. In foro Scholastico, as an Affirmer. 2. In foro civili & Ecclesiastico, as an Accuser. And till you have proved it, what need they, or I care for yoùr words? Must all Men pass for no Christian, that a Priest or Jesuit will say are none? Or am I, and all Men, disobliged from loving all those as Christians, whom such as you will affirm to be no Christians? Love is easily destroyed, if this much will do it: But it costeth more than so to cause it.
Pag. 85. He addeth, [Let them have been as visible as you please, that's nothing to me; so were the Arrians, Sabellians, Montanists, &c. Prove they were no more than one visible Congregation Sect. 9.of Christians among themselves, and with▪ Orthodox Christians: that's the present Controversie.]
Answ. I hope we shall find out the Controversie at last; though it seems as hard almost as to resolve it: How oft must I repeat the same Proof? Again my Proof is this, [Those that are baptised into the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and hold all essential to Christianity; not apostatizing from the whole, or any essential part, are true Christians: But such are they before mentioned.]
1. That they are Baptized is not denyed; and Baptizing is Christening; and supposeth the profession of all that is essential to Christianity; or else it could not make them Christians. 2. No man that professeth himself a Christian must be taken to be no Christian, till he be convict by lawful proof; because as sincerity or heart-consent to the Covenant of Grace is our Christianity as invisible before God, so Baptism and professed consent to that Covenant is our visible Christianity before men; every man being the Expositor of his own belief and resolution: but that these Churches have Apostat…zed from the whole or any essential part of Christianity, is unproved, and therefore not to be supposed: As every particular man is to be taken for a Christian who is baptized and professeth it, till his profession be disproved, so much more whole Countries and Churches that profess Christianity, must not be supposed without proof to be no Christians. If a Papist will say to all the men in the City, prove that you are no Thieves, no Adulterers, no Murderers, no Lyars, no Traytors, or else I will take you for such. I think they may more justly say, prove that we are such, or else we will take you for a standerer.
And that they are of one Church I prove; [All Christians are one Church, but those are Christians; therefore of one Church.
The major is certain, [They that are the Members and Subjects of one Christ, are of one Church. All Christians are the Members and Subjects of one Christ, therefore they are of one Church.]
All that have the seven terms of Union before mentioned out of Eph. 4. are of one Church; but such are these before named.
Here remember, 1. That I plead not for the Christianity of any that are proved to deny indeed any one essential point of Christianity; but I will not believe this man, that every thing instituted by Christ (and so every word in the Bible) is such an essential; nor that our Church or Religion is so strange a thing as to have no perpetual, integral parts nor accidents; but what will not some men have a Face to defend? 2. That this same man hath already maintained that no man is bound to be subject to the Pope to whom he is not sufficiently propounded; and that he confesseth, that it is not yet agreed among them that any more is necessary to Salvation to be explicitely believed, than that there is a God, and reward for good works: And yet two or three parts of the Christian World must be no Christians, nor Members of the Church of Christ, because they are not Members of the Pope.
And let it be still remembred to acquit the Eastern and Southern Churches from the Papists charge of Heresie, (as being Nestorians and Eutychians,) 1. That the Accusers are to be taken for Calumniators, till they prove it, by all the rules of common Justice.
2. That if they could prove Dioscorus e. g. an Eutychian, that's no proof that all the Bishops that adhered to him were such: for it's apparent by the Acts of the Councils that Multitudes adhered to him because they thought him no Eutychian: [and Derodon de supposit… hath undeniably proved, that Dioscorus said but what his Predecessor Cyril hath oft said, whom you approved.] and many because they thought the Judgment unjust that judged him so, and cast him out, and many for the honour of the Seat, yea many for fear of death by the people that were affected to him as their Patriarch, though they understood not the cause in question. He that readeth the Bishops at the Council of Calcedon, part crying out prostrate on the Earth, miseremini, miseremini, non dissentimus; else, kill us here, we dare not go home, if we desert and raile against our Patriarch before another be chosen, the people will kill us; and another part of them confessing that fear made them subscribe at the Council at Ephes. 2. and some crying out, Away with them they are Hereticks, who cryed non dissentimus; may well judge that all were not Hereticks that clamor called so. 3. If they could prove those few Bishops that were openly accused and noted to be Eutychians, that's no proof that the rest were so. 4. If they could prove that many then were so, that will not prove that those that now there inhabit are so. 5. And of Nestorianism there is less publick shew of proof. 6. And indeed the main Body of the Common People, yea and Clergy, it's most probable never understood the Controversies. 7. Yea he that with judgment readeth the Acts, History, and Debates of those times, may well doubt whether Nestorius, Eutyches, or Dioscorus understood them themselves: and whether the Heresie lay not mostly in an unskilfulness of interpreting of words and expressions. Dioscorus solemnly professed that he held neither division of Natures, nor confusion of them, nor transmutation, and that antecedent to their Union they were two: These are unskilful expressions: But one would think that he that held that Union did neither change nor confound them, must needs mean that they were distinct though not divided: and the Orthodox denyed division as well as he. And if men had in those Councils but distin guished the senses of the word [Union] or [One] half as exactly as all Metaphysicks and Schoolmen use to do, it's a great doubt whether it would not have reconciled both Eutyches and Nestorius to the Orthodox, it being most undeniable that there is a sense of the word in which Christs Natures may be said to be One, and a sense in which they cannot be so said: A sense in which he had two Wills, and a sense in which he had …ut one: A sense of the word [person] in which it might be said to have had two persons, and a sense in which it could not be so said: And he that readeth how Hierom was a while Hereticated for refusing the word hypostasis, and what Controversie was about that word and persona between the Eastern and Western Bishops, till it was found out by Nazianzene and other peaceable men that they meant the same thing, may possibly hope that if such men as are peaceable and skilful in discussing ambiguous terms, and driving unskilful men to understand others, and speak aptly themselves, had patiently searched the business to the bottom, they would have found fewer Hereticks than were judged such. And their own Writers have no other Argument to excuse Pope Honorius, (condemned for a Heretick by a Council as well as Nestorius and Dioscorus) but that he understood not the words and was misunderstood: And Nestorius (whatever some say to the contrary) denyed Christ to be two persons; These are his words to Cyrils Papers [In eo … laudo quod distinctionem Naturarum secundum Divinitatis & humanitatis rationem harumque in Una duntax…t persona proedicas. His Heresie lay in two words, 1. That he said Mary was not to becalled foreign Deipara, but foreign the Mother of Christ: 2. That he said in the Synod, He would not say that God was two or three months old; and do not Cyril's answer to the objections of the oriental Bishops plainly shew, that the aptness of the word Deipara was the Controversie: And he that had but said that Christus non Qua Deus, sed Qui Deus, & qua Deus Unitus humanitati was born of Mary, had been like to have reconciled them all.
However, the number so judged was inconsiderable as to all the Christians in those Countreys; and among millions of Christians it is not twenty Bishops thought guilty that are a proof that the Country or Multitude was so.
8. To conclude, the Papists themselves ordinarily justifie them from that charge, and confess, that the Christians of those Countries are honest harmless men, that understand not what such Heresies are or detest them; as I have before shewed out of Brochardus that dwelt at Ierusalem, and others. And what man can tell us that millions of professed Christians are Hereticks, that never declared any such thing themselves. Were it lawful so boldly to censure others, how much more excusable should we be if we judged the Pope and his Followers Hereticks, who are far more corrupt and erroneous than these whom they accuse, and deny to be Christians?
But page 86. 87. malignity is so hard put to it for some sorry pretensions against Christian charity, and for Unchurching the most of the Church of Christ, that he hath nothing to Sect. 11.say but such stuff as this.
I require the nomination of the determinate Opinions of Societies, as Hussites, Waldenses, Nestorians, Eutychians, &c. not of their persons; and therefore I say you nominate none, much less prosecute you those with whom you begun: Now these were Greeks, Armenians, Ethiopians, Protestants; So that I speak undeniably of the nomination of Sects and Societies, not of Names and Sir-names and Genealogies of persons: There were different Sects and Professions in different Countries, as Armenia, Abassia, &c. I require the nomination of which of those Sects or Parties you mean in those Times and Nations, not what were their Names and Sir-names: nor is it sufficient that you say there were Christians, that is, Christians univocally so called or true Christians in all Ages, in Armenia, Ethiopia, Egypt &c. who denyed the Popes supremacy; for unless you nominate of what Party, Sect, Opinion, or Profession they were, how shall any man judge whether they held not some Opinion contrary to the essentials of Christianity, and by that became no Christians, &c.
Answ. I would not insult over Men in their sin and folly; but I must say that I reverenee that Wisdom and Justice of God which hath made the Evidences of Christian Truth, and the Rights of his Church, and the Obligations to Love and Concord so clear; that Learned Malice, trained up in Satan's … cannot speak against it, without such impudencse as this Man here is put to exercise. When he denyed most of the Church to be true Christians, he puts me to prove that they have been such: I convince him that I am not bound …o name the Men, and even the Country it self may prove but a mutable Seat of Religion; but I prove that Christians that deny the Pope's Supremacy, or are none of his Subjects, have successively from the beginning inhabited those Countries: And now the Man is angry that I will not call them by the Names which their malice casteth on them, but only call them Christians of Armenia, Ethiopia, &c. Their factious Interest taught them to stigmatize better Men with odious Titles, and I must needs do so too. But, Sir, resume some modesty; if I prove them Christians, do you prove them unchristned if you can. I prove that they are baptised, and profess all these Creeds which were the Symbol of Christians for many hundred years; and they receive the Holy Scriptures: Do you prove that they invalidate all this Profession, or confess your self a Calumniator. Must I tell you what By Opinions they all hold, that you may judge whether they are Christians or not? Cannot you judge by their Baptism, Creeds, and Profession of Christianity, till you are told their Opinions in controverted things? Why then said you, that you call not for their Names? How can I tell the Opinions of Men un-named and unknown, but by their Professions? I know not the Opinions of my Neighbours at the next Doors; and must I tell you the Opinions of all the People of foreign Lands. Is this necessary to know a Papist? Cannot I tell you that Men are Papists that profess subjection to the Pope as the Vice-Christ, unless I tell you that they are Molinists, or Dominicans, Franciscans, Benedictines, Jesuits, Jansenists, &c. Their Profession of Christianity is notorious; if you can prove them no Christians, do. I suppose that one of twenty thousand of them never studied the Eutychian, or Nestorian Controversies, any more than those Christians that died before these Names and Men were born; and I suppose that when these Names came first up, one Pastor of an hundred might side with one of these Sects, which the Ages following little minded, as to any considerable number: and I suppose that some that defended Eutyches and Nestorius knew not what the Heresie was, and erred not so grosly as those Iesuits did about Murder, Adultery, Perjury, &c. whom Montaltus and the Iesuits Morals describe; nor your common Doctors cited by Mr. Clarkson; no nor so bad as the Councils of Rome, Constance and Basil say your Popes have done, nor as others of you say those Councils did; no nor as the Council at the Laterane, did in decreeing the Exterminations of all that you call Hereticks, and the deposition of Princes that will not exterminate them, and the disobliging Subjects from their Oathes of Allegiance.
But if this arguing of yours be good, suppose it used with your selves: [It is not enough that you profess your selves Christians and Papists; tell us what other Opinions you are of, or else how can we know that you are Christians?] But we are ashamed of such Methods; when the Law of Nations bindeth all Men, beyond their Profession, to prove that they are no Traytors, no Thieves, Fornicators, Lyars, &c. then I may yield that Men professing Christianity must prove further that they are no Hereticks, or invalidate not their own Profession: But yet I will not then grant you, that any are obliged to prove this but themselves. How can I prove such Negatives of millions in the remote parts of the Earth? (if they could prove it of themselves) Call them to do it, if you must have such Negatives proved: But see that you call them one by one; for my Neighbour's errour proveth not mine. If I were put to take you and all the Papists in England for no Christians, unless I could prove you to be no Sectaries, no Hereticks, no Traytors, no Drunkards, Perjured, Fornicators, &c. How were it possible for me to prove it by any one of you? This is one difference it seems between the Justice of the Papal Church-Government and Christ's: And perhaps this is the ground of the Racks and Torments of the Inquisition, to make Men confess what Opinion they are of.