WHICH IS THE True Church? The whole Christian World, as Headed only BY CHRIST, (Of which the Reformed are the soundest part) OR, THE POPE of ROME And his SUBJECTS as such?


I. The Papists Confusion in explaining the terms of the Questions; not able to bear the light.

II. A Defence of a Disputation concerning the continued Visibility of the Church of which the Protestants are members.

III. A Defence of the several Additional proofs of the said Visibility.


Written especially to instruct the younger unexperienced Scholars how to deal with these Deceivers in these dangerous times.

LONDON; Printed, and are to be sold by Richard Ianeway, in Butcher-hall Lane. 1679.

The Preface to the Lovers of Truth.

ABove eighteen years past I received a Paper (by the me­diation of one Mr. Langhorne) from one that called him­self VVilliam Iohnson, to prove the Papal Church to be the Catholick, because no other had been visible in all Ages. I answered it, and received a Reply, and wrote a Rejoinder. But being not rich enough to pay either an Amanuen­sis or Transcriber, I never (to my remembrance) took a Copy of any Book which I wrote, except this Rejoinder to him, and one o­ther; and I never (to my remembrance) lost any but those two. When I had sent this by the ordinary Carrier, he lost it, but took on him that he never knew how. Whereupon when I lookt for a Reply, I receiv'd an insulting Letter for not answering. But when I sent my Rejoinder the second time, I could never have any Reply thereto. Above a year after, coming up to London at the Kings Restoration, I enquired after the Disputer, and called yet for some Reply, but could get none: and I was there informed, that his name was Terret, and that he usually lived with the Earl of Shrewsbury (within seven miles of me, when I was told he lived near an hundred miles off): But that he was one of the greatest of their Disputers about London, where he spent much of his time, and had lately disputed with Mr. Pet. Gunning, and Mr. Pierson (now both Bishops), and had printed the Dispute without their consent. And lest he should do so by any part of mine, I sent him word, That if he would not prosecute the Dispute, I would publish what was done. Whereupon he offered to do it rather by Conference than by Writing: Which I accepted, and he came to me, and we agreed to begin with the true explication of some terms which were likest to be most used in our Controversie. I offered to give him my sense of any terms of which he would desire it, and desired the like of him, which he granted. He desired none at all of me; but such terms as I offered to him, he wrote me immediately his explica­tion of; which because it rather encreased the darkness and uncertain­ty, I excepted against it, and desired fuller explication. By this time our hour was at an end, and I expected him to prosecute the Dispute, [Page] but could never see him more. Whereupon after urgency and expe­ctation, I published what had passed between us.

The next year the Countess of Balcarres (now Countess of Ar­gyle) a person to whom I had extraordinary obligations, sent for me, being in great affliction for her eldest Daughter turned Papist. Where­upon I offered a Conference with the person that had perswaded her, or any other whom she would chuse: which the Lady accepted, and undertook to bring one speedily to perform it. But at last she said the person was afraid of the danger of the Law. I urged her still, and then she told me, that when he knew who it was that he was to speak with, he professed that he feared no danger from me, and greatly honoured me, being one that knew me; but refused the Dispute. I provoked her to get some other, though it was the ablest that then attended on the Queen mother (who then encourag'd her:) But she would have none but him that did refuse it. Whereupon (her mother being in danger of death by grief) I was forced to speak more harshly to her, and ask her, Whether she dealt wisely to follow such as durst not let her hear what was to be said? I told her, that if he would spend but one hour in giving the reasons why she should turn Papist, and let me spend another hour in giving her my reasons to the contrary, I would leave the issue to her Conscience. After long denial, at last she told me, that the person did consent, on condition that there might be no speak­ing, but only writing ex tempore, and nothing done but by syllogism, according to the Laws of Disputation. I asked her, Whether that way was most suitable to her understanding and patience? And whether she would stay till we had done our writings, which might possibly be some years? And whether she might not as well read what is writ­ten already? But when nothing else would be consented to, I yeild­ed to such writing, so be it she would but hear our several Reasons one hour or two first. And when that could not be obtained, I con­sented to meet him, and only to write. But just when the time came, the Lady was stoln away; and when they followed and overtook her, she told them that she was but going on some business, and would presently return (her mother professed that before her per­version she scarce ever found her in a Lye or disobedience, and after could scarce believe any thing that she said). But she went to a Nun­nery in France, and her Mother saw her no more; but ere long re­ceived Letters of the Reasons of her Religion, which at her Mothers desire I answered, but you may suppose that they suffered her not to see the Answer.

[Page] When she was gone, I understood that it was this same Mr. W. Iohnson, alias Terret, who was the man that had seduced her, and refused the Dispute.

But not long after he Printed a Reply to the Book which I had published, and called it, Novelty represt: which when I perused, I saw that a Rejoinder would be of little use, because it must consist for the far greatest part, of the detection of his fallacious words, and of the vindication of a great deal of Church-History; and the for­mer would rather tire than edisie the Reader, and the later would profit none but those that were already well acquainted with Church-History, or such as would fully search the Authors cited, till they un­derstood by them who it is that citeth them aright: He that will not do this cannot judg of our case, and he that will do it needeth not my help. Wherefore having much better work, and no time to spare, expecting that my change was near, my Conscience forbad me such a frivolous expence of time as a Rejoinder to his Reply would prove. But having since written many Books against Popery, to none of which I can procure yet a word of answer, and hearing that they are obliged not to answer me till I am dead, (which they may shortly expect) by the perswasions of some I have attempted to make this Return to this one Reply, which is all that ever they published against me, that I know of.

And because true Order requireth first that we understand each others terms, I must begin with that, though it be the last thing in his Book; in which you will see what a sandy fabrick it is which is adorned by them with the great Epithetes of Apostolical, Ancient, Universal, Infallible, and how little they know, or can make others know what it is of which they do dispute, or what that Church is, to which so many hundred thousand Christians (called by them Here­ticks) have been sacrificed by sword and flames.

In the second Part I defend the Visibility of the Church which the Protestants are members of, against his vain Objections. And in the third Part I defend those Additional arguments by which I proved it.

In all which I doubt not but the impartial understanding Reader may see, that their Terrestrial Universal Monarchy, and their con­demnation of the greatest part of the Church of Christ, are contrary to Sense, Reason, Tradition, Consent, Antiquity and Scripture; and that their Kingdom standeth but on three Legs, IGNORANCE and de­ceit, worldly INTEREST, and the SWORD and violence. And when these (and especially the sword of Princes) do cease to uphold [Page] it, it will presently die and come to nothing. For though Melchior Canus say, that the Roman Priviledges (as he calleth them) have stood, though the greater number of Bishops and Churches, and the Arms of Emperours have been against them, yet was it upheld against all these by no better means than those aforesaid. The greater number of Chur­ches and Bishops (viz. of East and South) being against them; and all the other four Patriarchates renouncing them (as they do to this day) they laid the faster hold of the West, and by mastering Italy, flatter­ing and advancing France, promising Kingdoms and Empire to their Adherents, threatning the deposition of others, dividing Germany and all Europe, that many might need the Pope, and few be able to resist him, and by keeping men ignorant that they might be capable of their Government, by these means they overcame the Arms of Emperours, and made them their Subjects, whose Subjects they had been.

If there were nothing else to satisfie the Reader against Popery but these following Particulars, it were a shame to humane nature to re­ceive it. 1. The natural incapacity of one man to be a Church-Mo­narch, any more than to be a Civil Monarch of the whole Earth. 2. That Bellarmine confesseth that the Pope succeedeth not Peter as an Apo­stle (but as an Universal Pastor): But Peter never had any higher office than to be the first, Apostle, 1 Cor. 12. 28. God hath set in the Church first Apoctles, (not first a Vice-Christ.) 3. That they affirm that it is not de fide that the Pope is Peter's Successor. 4. That none of the other Apostles had Successors as in superior seats; nor did any Pa­triarch (much less twelve) claim power as Successors of any Apostle, save Antioch and Rome, and Antioch as from the same St. Peter, but no Universal Soveraignty. 5. That whoever will turn Papist, must confess that he was an ungodly hypocrite before, and that all profess­ed Christians are so, save the Papists, that know their doctrine. 6. That he must renounce the senses of all sound men, and believe them all deceived by Miracle.

The Contents of the first Part.

CHAP. 1.
  • Sect. 1. HIs Explication of the terms CATHOLICK CHURCH.

    • 1. He excludeth all from Christs Universal Church, and Christianity, that are no Members of Christian Congregations: Yet meaneth not only Churches, but Families, Ships or any civil Assemblies. Damning all solitary Christians, or that are alone among Infidels.
    • 2. He maketh subjection to the supreme Pastor necessary, and yet saith the Votum of it alone will serve.
  • Sect. 2. He unchurcheth Parish-Churches. He maketh dependance on lawful Pastors in general necessary, but not on the Pope particularly.
  • Sect. 3 What Faith must be in a Church-member. His implicite discourse of implicite faith, which indeed is no faith of any particular Article. Several senses of impli­cite faith opened His general faith proved, No particular faith. In what sense we believe all that God hath revealed, Sect. 8. His instances explained, Sect. 9. When virtual repentance sufficeth, Sect. 10. His avoiding to answer, Sect. 11.
  • The Papists Church invisible Sect. 12.
  • His strange Doctrine of generals. Sect. 13.
  • What Christianity is, is no point of faith with them, Sect. 14.
  • The invisibility of their Church further proved, Sect. 15.
  • Their contradictions about receiving all faith on the Churches Authority. Sect. 16. 17.
  • The true method of believing. Sect. 18.
  • Humane faith is joyned with Divine. Sect. 20.
  • What the Essentials of Christianity are. Sect. 21.
  • Papists utterly disagreed what a Christian is, and confounded, and their Church invisible, Sect. 22. Notes of great moment hereupon. The baptizing of men that believe only that [there is a rewarding God] is a new false baptism.
  • Sect. 23. Q 3. Who are the Pastors whose rejection unchurcheth men? Of Parish Priests.
  • Q. 4. How shall all the world be sure that Popes and Priests had a just Election or ordination. Sect. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28.
CHAP. 2. Their sense of the word HERESY.
  • Whether Heresie be in will or understanding. Sect. 1. Hereticks by their definition are unknown, Sect. 2. The power of judging of the [Sufficiency] of proposals, make's the Clergie Masters of all men lives, Sect. 3.
  • [Page] He maketh none Hereticks that deny not Gods Veracity. Sect. 4. And all Hereticks to deny it; Yea all that receive not every truth safficiently proposed. Yet unsaith all, and saith, that not culpable neglect of sufficient proof of all, but contradiction to the known proposal of lawful superiours, makes a Heretick. Sect. 7.
  • Q. What sufficient proposal is. Sect. 8. 9.
  • He saith that the true Church-Governours may be known without Revelation. Sect. 10. Sufficiency further examined. Sect. 11. He hereticateth themselves or none. Sect. 12.
  • Whether every misunderstanding of an intelligible Text of Scripture be Heresie. Sect. 13. What Heresie is indeed. Sect. 14.
CHAP. 3. Their meaning of the word POPE.
  • Sect. 1. Popes judged Herteicks by many Councils.
  • Where Christs institution of the Papacy must be found. Sect. 2.
  • Who ad esse must elect the Pope. Sect. 3. W. J. cannot and dare not tell Consecration denyed to be necessary to the Pope. Sect. 6.
  • Neither Papal nor Episcopal Iurisdiction, he saith, depends on Papal or Episcopal or­dination. Sect. 7. So they may be Laymen. What such jurisdiction is.
  • Sect. 8. What notice or proof is necessary to the subjects.
CHAP. 4. Their sense of the word BISHOP.
  • The Pope is not of Gods ordaining, in their way. Sect. 1. 2. Their Bishop of Calcedons testimony put off. Sect. 3. They make all men that will, or no men to be Bishops. His great confusion and contradictions. Saying, we want not Episcopal Consecration, but Election, Confirmation, Vocation, Missions, Jurisdiction. All these explained. Sect. 8. He makes the Chapters in Queen Elizabeth days to have had the power of choosing all the Parish Priests. Popes no Popes for want of common consent. Sect. 9. who must choose a Monark of all the earth. Sect. 10. Their succession inter­rupted. Sect. 11. 12. Is it essential to a Bishop to have many Congregations, parishes or presbyters. By affirming this he nullifieth all the first Bishops, who were Bishops before they made presbyters under them, and so denyeth all succession by denying the root.
CHAP. 5. What they mean by TRADITION.
  • Sect. 1. He thinks the Tradition of all the world may be known by every Christian; as easily as the Tradition of the Canonical Scripture. Sect. 2.
  • Tradition against Popery. Sect. 4. The Protestants, Abassines, Armenians, Greeks, &c. are of one Church. Sect. 4. The contradictions of W. J. The unity of all other Christians, as such, greater than the unity of Papists as Papists, Sect. 5.
CHAP. 6. What they mean by a General COUNCIL.
  • His definition of a general Council is no definition. Sect. 2. Councils of old not called [Page] by the Pope, Sect. 3. His confusion and contradictions. Sect. 4. General Councils were but of the Empire, proved. Sect. 5. The impossibility and utter unlawfulness of a true universal Council of the whole Christian world, proved. Sect. 6. How many make an universal Council. Sect. 7. They make presbyters uncapable of vote­ing in councils, and yet the highest ancient part of the Papacy (viz. to preside in councils) is oft deputed to presbyters, Sect. 8. The council of Basil that had pres­byters rejected by them for other reasons. Sect, 9.
CHAP. 7. What they mean by SCHISM.
  • Papists acquit all from schism who separate not from the Whole visible Church of Christ, Sect. 1. We separated not from the Greeks, Arminians, &c. Sect. 3. He absurdly requireth that we should have our Mission and Jurisdiction from them, if we have communion with them, Sect. 4. We have the same faith with them, Sect. 5. How far we separate from Rome, Sect. 6. They were not our lawful pastors, Sect. 7. Of hearing the pharises, Sect. 8. We infer not Rebellion against Authority by our rejecting trayterous Usurpers, Sect. 9. Whether the first Reformers knowingly and wilfully separated from the whole Church on earth, Sect. 10. He pretendeth that the Churches unity is perfect, and therefore that it is impossible there should be any schism in it, but only from it, when their own sect had a schisme by divers Popes for forty years. Whether all that followed the wrong Pope those forty years were out of the Church and damned, Sect. 11. His definition of schism agreeth best to the Papists, who separate from all the Church save their own sect, Sect. 12. An admonition to others, Sect. 13. My Reasons unanswered by which I proved. 1. That we interrupted not our Church succession when we broke off from Rome. 2. That the Roman Church is changed in Essentials.


  • ALL was not well said or done by every Bishop, or Council of old, Sect. 1, 2, 3. Of the considerableness of the extra-Imperial Churches of old. Sect. 4, 5. The plea of Peters supremacy, and their succession, overthrown: There never were twelve Patriarchal seats as the successors of the twelve Apostles. No one Patriarch claimed to be an Apostles successor but Rome and Antioch, and Antioch never claimed supremacy on that account, Sect. 6. The true state of the controversie about the Churches perpetual visibility, Sect. 7. Papists make Christians no Christians, for not obeying the Pope, and no Christians to be Christians if they will be his subjects, Sect. 8, 9. What I maintain, Sect. 10. A discourse republished proving that Christs Church hath no Universal Head but himself, (Pope nor Council)
CHAP. 1. The Confutation of W. I's. Reply.
  • Twelve instances confu [...]ing the wild fundamental principle of W. J. that [whatever hath been ever in the Church by Christs institution, is essential to it] Sect. 4.
  • [Page] By this he unchurcheth Rome, Sect. 5. He saith that every such thing is essential to the Church, but not to every member of the Church, but to such as have sufficient proposal, confuted, Sect 6. By this their Church cannot be known, or the faith of a few may make others Christians, Sect. 7. His assertion further confuted, Sect. 8. His Logical proof shamed [that every accident is separable] and therefore all that Christ instituted to continue is no accident, Sect. 9.
  • Whether the belief of every institution for continuance, be essential to the Church, Sect. 10.
  • They unchurch themselves, Sect. 11.
  • He acknowledgeth that all Christian Nations are not bound to believe the Popes supre­macy expresly, but implicitely in subjecting themselves to them that Christ hath in­stituted to be their lawful pastors. Five notable consequents of this: The true me­thod of believing, Sect. 12.
  • The instance of the conversion of the Iberians and Indians vindicated. He supposeth that every revealed truth was taught them by lay-persons, Sect. 13.
  • The instance of Peters not preaching his own supremacy, Act. 2. vindicated, Sect. 14.
  • The Indians converted by the English and Dutch are taught the true faith, Sect. 15. And so are the Abassines, Sect. 16.
  • His Doctrine against Christs visible reign, containeth many gross errors commonly called Heresies. And by making the Christian world a Monster if it have not one Papal Head, he maketh the humane world a Monster because it hath not one humane King. Sect. 17.
CHAP. 2. Our Churches visibility confessed.
  • Theirs to be by them proved. How far any Protestants grant the power of Patriarchs, and the Pope as Patriarch, Sect. 1.
  • He biddeth me but prove that any Church which now denieth the Popes Soveraign­ty hath been always visible, and he is satisfied, whether that Church always denyed it or not, Sect. 2. Notes hereon.
  • Whether they should exclaim against Christ as an invisible Head, who make him as visible in the Eucharist to every receiver, as a King is in his cloathes, Sect. 3.
  • Whether a Ministry be essential to the universal Church, Sect. 4.
  • His Argument against our Christianity re-examined, and confuted by divers instances of such fallacies, Sect. 5.
  • He requireth an instance of any Church-Unity, though without a humane head: which endeth the controversie, Sect. 6. More differences and greater amongst Papists than among all the other Churches, Sect. 7. He hath no evasion, but saying that these Churches are not Christians (because they depend not on the Pope) from which he before said that he abstracted, Sect. 8.
  • He denieth us (with the Abassines, Greeks, Armenians, &c.) to have been of the Church, and of one Church, both fully proved, Sect. 9. The charge of Nestori­anism and Eutichianism on many Churches, examined, Sect. 10.
  • His shameful calling for the names of sects, and requiring proof of the Negative, that they are not such, Sect. 11.
CHAP. 3. More of our Unity.
  • [Page]Of the speech of Celestines Legat at Ephesus, Sect. 1, 2. His saying and unsaying, Sect. 3. His instances of Goths, Danes, Swedes, examined, Sect. 4, 5.
  • Whether extra Imperial Churches were under the Pope, Sect. 5. In what cases some were, and which.
  • His pretence to the Indians, Armenians, and Persians, examined, Sect. 6.
  • The Tradition of these Churches is against Popery, Sect 7.
  • His notorious fictions about the subjection of the Indians, Armenians, and Abassines, to Rome, Sect. 9. 10. Of Pisanus, Arabick, Nicene Canons, Sect. 11.
  • He intended to write a Tractate to prove that extraneous Bishops were at the Councils. But that put-off goeth for an answer, Sect. 12.
  • He confesseth that the very Gallicane and Spanish Liturgies mention not the Popes Soveraignty, no more than the Ethiopick, Sect. 13.
  • When Constantine intreated the King of Persia for the Churches there, the Pope did not command there, Sect. 14.
  • Whether before Gregory's Mission, the British Church was ever subject to the Pope, or heretical, Sect. 15.
  • Reynerius words vindicated, viz. [The Churches of the Armenians, Ethiopians, and Indians, and the rest which the Apostles converted, are not under the Church of Rome. Sect. 16.
  • The 28. Can. of the Council of Calcedon vindicated, which declareth the Pope to be but the first Patriarch in the Empire, by humane right, for the sake of the Imperial City, Sect. 17. 18, 19, 20.
  • His brave attempt to prove that extra-Imperial Bishops were summoned to the Councils, At Nice of John Persidis, Armenians, Gothia; At Ephes. 1. Thebamnon Bishop of Coptus, Sect. 21. 22. His other citations confuted, Sect. 23. Of Eusebius his circular Letter, Sect. 24.
CHAP. 4. The Emperors and not the Pope called the old Councils, Sect. 1.
  • Myraeus his Notitia Episcopat against him, Sect. 2. Of the authority over the bar­barous given, Con. Calced. c. 28.
  • Proof that the Papal power was held to be but jure humano, Sect. 5. He was over but one Empire, Sect. 6. No councils but of one Empire.
  • Prospers testimony examined, & caput mundi expounded, Sect. 7.
  • Pope Leo's words examined, Sect. 8, 9.
  • The Decretal Epistles shew the Popes ruled not the world, Sect. 10. More of Ethio­pia and Pisanus's Canons, Sect. 11.
CHAP. 5. The Case re [...]eated. The uselesness of his Testimonies therein.
CHAP. 6. The Vanity of his proofs that Councils were called General as to all the world, and not only to the Empire. From the words [totius orbis] from the end, the peace of the World: and the rest, Sect. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
  • [Page]His Question answered, what Hereticks are Christians, Sect. 8, 9, 10, 11.
  • He saith that no Heretick believeth for the authority of God revealing; and so acquitteth all that do but believe that God is true, which is all that believe indeed that there is a God, Sect. 12.
  • Of sufficiency of proposal of truths. It is not equal. He absolveth Hereticks. And maketh Hereticks of the Papists, Sect. 13, 14, 15.
  • Whether the Papists and Protestants are one Church. Whether the Pope and Christ are two heads. Whether a King that saith God hath made me the Vice-god of all the earth, set not up a policy destinct from Gods, Sect. 16.
  • One called a Papist may be a Christian, and another not, Sect. 17. 18.
CHAP. 7. Whether we separate from the Church, as the old Hereticks did, Sect. 1.
  • Whether we separate from other Churches as we do from the Papal, Sect. 2. Arrians separate from the Church as Christian, Sect. 3. Why they-call us Schismaticks, Sect. 4. 5. Papists agree not whether Hereticks are in the Church, Sect. 6. What we hold herein, Sect. 6. His absurd answer, Sect. 7. Whether every man deny Christs veracity who receiveth not every truth sufficiently proposed, Sect. 8, 9.
  • He maketh it a grand novelty of mine, to say that there may be divisions in the Church, and not from the Church, because the Church is a most perfect unity. The shame of this charge, Sect. 10, 11.
  • His charge of Eutychianisme on the Abassines, &c. Sect. 12.
  • Of self-conceited hereticating wits, Sect. 12.
  • Whether the Abassines confess themselves Eutichianes, Sect. 14.
  • Of the Greek Churches rejecting us, Sect. 16.
  • The Greek Church claimed not Soveraignty over all the world, but in the Empire Sect. 17, 18, 19.
  • Whether every child, subject, or neighbour, must judg Hereticks, and avoid them un­sentenced, Sect. 20.
  • His false answer to the testimony of their own writers, that free the Greeks from heresie, Sect. 21.
  • The witness of the Council of Florence, That the Greeks meant Orthodoxly, Sect. 23.
  • Nilus testimony vindicated, Sect. 24 Our unity with Greeks and others, Sect. 25.
  • A notable passage of Meletius Patriarch of Alexandria and Constantinople, for the sole Headship of Christ, and the Popes usurpation, novelties, and forsaking tradition, which (with Cyril's testimony) W. J. passed over, Sect. 26.
The Answer to W. J's second part of his Reply.
  • [Page]Sect. 1. SUfficient answers to all his citations pretermitted in terms.
  • Sect. 2. Because I cite a Patriarch and Councils excommunicating a Pope by the Emperor Theodosius countenance, he saith, I plead for Rebellion.
  • Sect. 4. His instances of the Popes extraneous power confuted.
  • Sect. 5. His particular proofs (before promised in a special Tract) examined, 1. His error of Theophilus Gothiae, Sect. 6. 2. Of Domnus Bosphori his gross error, Sect. 7. 3. Of Joh. Persidis, Sect. 8. 4. Of Bishops of Scythia, Sect. 9. 5. Of Etherius Anchialensis (for Sebastianus), Sect. 10. 6. Of Phaebamnon Copti. Sect. 11. 7. Of Theodulus Esulae (so falsly called), Sect. 12. 8. Of Theodo­rus Gadarorum, Sect. 13. 9. Of Antipater Bostrorum, Sect. 14. 10. Of O­lympius Schythopoleos, Sect. 15. 11. Of Eusebius Gentis Saracenorum, Sect. 16. 12. Constantinus Bostrorum, Sect. 17. 13. One pro Glaco Geras­sae. All shew his gross ignorance of the Bishopricks of the Empire.
  • Sect. 19. The Nestorians Epistle at the Council Ephes. to Callimores Rex, expounded.
  • Sect. 20, 21. Remarks upon passages in the first Ephisine Council.
  • Sect. 22. Remarks of the Council of Calcedon.
  • Sect. 23. Of the Titles, Caput Mundi, Mater omnium Ecclesiarum, Primatus A­postolicus, &c. given to Antioch and Jerusalem.
  • Sect. 24. Binnius confession, that at Conc. Const. 1. The Pope presided not, per se vel per Legatos.
  • Sect. 25. His assertion, that the Councils pretended to jurisdiction over the Church through all the World, examined.
  • Sect. 26. The vanity of his first proof. Sect. 27, 28. Of his second and third. More Notes of the Council. Calced. Sect. 29. His fourth instance confuted. Sect. 30. His fifth confuted. Sect. 31. His sixth confuted. Sect. 32. His last instance vain.
  • Sect. 33. He could not disprove the Roman Church from being really two Churches (named one) as having two supreme Heads.
  • Sect. 34. I could not intreat him by any provocation, to prove the continued visibility of the Church as Papal.


A Defence of my Arguments, for our continued visibility.
  • Sect. 1. WHether all Believers are Christians.
  • Sect. 2. The vanity of his next Cavil against my definition.
  • Sect. 3. My definition of Protestants vindicated.
  • Sect. 4. One may have communion with faulty Churches.
  • Sect. 5. His shameful reformation of Syllogisms, and pretence of Logical form.
  • Sect. 6. He denieth Protestants to be of the Church of Christ. I prove it. His silly cavils at the form of the Argument.
  • [Page] Sect. 7. Protestants profess all the Essentials of Christianity. Proved. His cavils shamed.
  • Sect. 8. His oft repeated Reason confuted, of not receiving the Churches expositions.
  • Sect. 9. The novelty and discord of Popery. The confusions in Councils.
  • Sect. 10. My second Argument's to prove, that we hold all essentials: The Popish faith explained.
  • Sect. 12. My third Argument, Creed and Scriptures are with them too little; and yet, an insufficient proposal makes Christianity it self unnecessary.
  • Sect. 12. He giveth up his Cause, confessing the sufficiency of our explicite belief.
  • Sect. 13. My fourth Argument, His ridiculous denying, that to deny the minor, is to deny the antecedent.
  • Sect. 14. The minor proved: All Protestants, as such, profess to love God: Ergo, sincere Protestants do love him. What miracles believing in the Pope doth.
  • Sect. 15. He had no way to deny that Protestants profess true faith, but by his impu­dent denying, 1. That we profess to love God. 2. And that we feel that we do love him.
  • Sect. 20. My second Argument, to prove the perpetual visibility of our Church, con­foundeth him.
  • Sect. 21. Scripture sufficiency.
  • Sect. 22. My third Argument, and his shameful Answer.
  • Sect. 25. My fourth Argument proveth the visibility of our Church, not only as Chri­stian, but as without Popery. Ten sub-arguments for that, 1 From the twenty­eighth Canon of Conc. Calced. 2. From the silence of the old Writers against Here­ticks.
  • Sect. 28. 3. From Tradition proved. 4. From Churches never subject to Rome. His citations briefly confuted.
  • S [...]ct. 30. 5. From the non-subjection, even of the Imperial Churches.
  • Sect. 32. 6. From Gregory the first's testimony.
  • Sect. 33. 7. From their confessions, Aen. Silvius, Reynerius, Canus, Binnius, vindicated.
  • Sect. 38. 8. Phocas giving the Primacy to Boniface. Sect. 39, 9. Their Liturgy new.
  • Sect. 40. Twelve instances of new Articles of the Papists Faith, which he durst not Answer.
  • S [...]ct. 42. The tenth Argument, he yieldeth the cause in sense.
  • S [...]ct. 43. Notable testimonies unanswered.
  • S [...]ct. 44. Papists differ de fide.
  • Sect. 47. What Hereticks are, or are not in the Church; fully opened: His shameful exclaiming against me for distinguishing.
  • Sect. 48. Fifty six of Philastrius Heresies, named, many being small matters, and many notorious certain truths.
  • Sect. 49. The woful work of Hereticating Councils.
  • Sect. 50. Councils hereticated Popes and one another: Almost all the Christian world hereticate one another.
  • Sect. 55. His reasons answered for unchurching all Hereticks.
  • Sect. 60. Their Doctrine of sufficient proposal fullier confuted, and their hereti­cating and unchurching themselves, evinced.

Mr. Iohnson's (alias Terret's) Explication of seven Terms of our Questions examined, and his con­fusion manifested.


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.

[Page 2] R. 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 [Page 3] charging 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 [Page 4] believe 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 [Page 5] N. 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. [Page 6] If 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 [Page 7] wholly 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 [Page 8] for 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 [Page 9] particulars 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, [Page 10] When 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 [Page 11] belief 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.

[Page 12] Ans. 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:

[Page 13] Ans. 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? [Page 14] Reader, 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 [Page 15] has 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.

[Page 16] 1. 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.

[Page 17] Reader, 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, [Page 18] while 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.

[Page 19] 5. 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 [Page 20] the 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.

[Page 21] I 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.

CHAP. II. Of their sense of the Word HERESIE.

W. J. HERESIE is an obstinate intellectual opposition against Divine Authority revealed, when it is sufficiently propounded.

R. B. Q. 1. Is the obstinacy that maketh Heresie, in the Intellect or the will? W. J. In the Will, by an imperate act restraining the understanding to that.

R. B. Still your descriptions signifie just nothing; you describe it to be an Intellectual Obstinate opposition, and now say that it is in the will.

He replieth, that the error is in the Understanding, but the obstinacy in the Will.

Ans. Indeed the obstinacy is in both, but radically in the Will; but did Intellectual oppo­sition notifie this?

R. B. And you contradict your self by saying that it is an imperate act. For no imperate act is in the will, but of or from the Will. The imperant act is in the Will; but the imperate (as Intelligere) in the commanded faculty.

To this he replieth, That 1. he meant not the act was in the Will, though he said it was an act of the Will. 2. That all Philosophers are against me, and say that the Will may command Charity and other acts in it self.

Ans. 1. Who could conjecture that by an act of the Will, you meant not an act in the Will, but from it? 2. It's true that Volo velle is a proper speech, and one act of the Will may be the object of another; and a good man willeth nothing more here than to will better; and if you will call this commanding, I will not contend about the word: But certainly all these Voli­tions are such acts as they call elicite, which they usually distinguish from imperate; and thus you confound them. Otherwise every act of the will which is willed by a former act should be called imperate, and so none but the first should be elicite? And who knoweth when that first act was in being, seeing the will doth still will its own future action?

R. B. 2. I hence noted, that if wilful obstinacy be essential to Heresie, their Church can­not Sect. 2. know a Heretick (while they burn them): For they know not the heart; and many that they burn, would take their oaths that they are not willing to err: He answereth,

W. J. We enter not into mens hearts, that we leave to God: only the Church presumes such to be Hereticks as have Catholick truths sufficiently propounded to them, and yet contradict and oppose them; let such be ready to swear what they will.

R. B. 1. Note here that they burn men for Hereticks, and yet profess that Heresie is an obstinacy of the will, which they know not, but leave to God; and only presume that men are Hereticks though they know it not. And so a presuming Clergy are masters of the Crowns of Kings, and the lives of all men. How excellently would this power have fitted the turn of Abab and Iezebel, and the murderers of Christ? they need not have got false witness to condemn them as Blasphemers: A presuming Clergy might have served: For the very act which the Papists judg men for, is internal in the intellect and will, as Blasphemie is external. To condemn men for Blasphemy hath some reason of justice, because it may be proved; but Intellectual obstinate opposition cannot.

2. He tells us now that Heresie is a contradicting Catholick Truths, but never tells what those Catholick Truths are; Whether any one, or only some of the greater sort: and how we may know them. But it is sufficient that the presumers know. It is a Catholick Truth with them for which Bellarmine citeth many Councils, See them answered by Ioh. Rossens. (Bishop Bucke­ [...]idge.) That the Pope may excommunicate and depose Kings and Rulers: To oppose this now is Heresie: A Heretick must be burnt! O happy Kings that have such a King over them, and such a presuming Clergy!

3. But this Catholick Truth must be sufficiently proposed: That sufficiently is a doubtful dan­gerous Sect. 3. word: who would think how much lieth on Grammatical learning! The Pope and [Page 23] his Clergy are Masters of Kingdoms, and all mens estates and lives, by being the only judges of the meaning of this one word, SUFFICIENTLY; either it is called sufficiently pro­posed, with respect to the proposer, (as a Law is sufficiently promulgate) when he hath done as much as he was bound to do: And then a lazie or a proud Priest will think that two words is sufficient to oblige mankind to renounce all their senses (e. g. for Transubstantiation.) And one that hath a Parish ten times greater than he can speak to, will think that he hath done his duty to all, when he hath spoken to as many as he could: yea indeed the Decree of a General Council Printed goeth for sufficient proposal to millions that cannot read, nor ever heard those Councils read. Or else it is called Sufficient with respect to the effect on the un­derstanding of the hearer sufficient to convince him; and it is supposed that it is not effectual: and what mortal man is able to judg of the sufficiency of proposal, respectively to all mens understandings? some men have great natural dullness and slowness of conception, next to Ideots; some by long disuse of such cogitations, hear all spiritual Doctrine as if it were spoken in an unknown tongue; some cannot easily see the connexion of verities: And some of weak heads or memories cannot endure to think long enough of such matters, as to over­come the difficulties: And some think that they perceive such clear evidence for the contrary opinion, that it is not in their power to take it to be false. There is as great variety of receptive capacities, as there is of persons in the world. And the Priest knoweth not the internal case of another man: And therefore is here no sitter a judg of sufficiency to all other, than he is of their thoughts: They are like a man that had a writing in a Table-book to obliterate, and another to write in it in the dark, and would so judg that it was sufficiently done.

And what is Sufficiency? they will say, that which maketh conviction possible; and so poor men that might but possibly have been convinced, must be burnt because it is not done.

Is not this a notable way to save Parish-priests much labour? If they have told thousands the truth once or so oft as might possibly have convinced them: burn them then to save him the labour of any longer preaching to them; but who then shall pay him his Tythes? There is remedy in that case, most, rather than be burned, will say what the Priest bids them, whe­ther they understand him, or believe him or not, and then they are safe.

But they will say perhaps, That that proposal is sufficient to convince men which were sufficient if they were not possessed with a blind zeal for their opinions, (for that's it that W. I. here lays it on.

Ans. But is there any man that hath no error? and must a man have no zeal for that which he judgeth truth: The sense of this is, that Proposal is sufficient to cure a man, which supposeth him to have no disease: If his mind and will have no sin in them to resist the truth, but a pure receptivity of any revealed truth, as Christ in his childhood, and Adam in inno­cency, then this proposal is sufficient; But if he be not as white paper that hath nothing to be obliterated, but have any sinful opinion to resist the truth, than burn him for an Heretick: And are not the Papists merciful men that will burn none but sinners?

4. But, Reader, if this definition of Heresie be not recanted, the number of Hereticks is very great. For by this all the Heathens and Infidels, Iews and Mahometans in the world are Hereticks, that believe not when the Gospel is sufficiently proposed to them. For here is no distinction nor exception: surely that Christ is the Son of God is a Catholick truth; and so obstinate intellectual opposition to it is Heresie: But the old Doctors never said so, nor do the Papists ordinarily say so: nor do they burn all Infidels that will not turn Christians: whe­ther it be because such are unwilling to be burned, and ten men can scarce burn ten thousand against their wills, I know not.

But I suppose W. I. forgot here to put Baptized persons into his definition. And if he had, if all the Ianizaries be but baptized before the Turks take them from their parents, then they are Hereticks, and to be burnt it seems, or else not.

But perhaps Apostates also should have been excepted. But there is no end of conjecturing at unexpressed meanings, or of amending other mens words.

R. B. Q. 2. Must it needs be the formal object of faith? Is he no Nere [...]ick that denieth the matter revealed, without opposing obstinately the authority revealing? (For he defined it to be an Sect. 4. opposition to Divine auth [...]ity.

[Page 24] W. J. Yes: nor is he a formal, but only a material heretick, who opposeth a revealed truth, which is not sufficiently propounded to him to be a Divine revelation.

R. B. To this I answer, 1. His definition and his answer here are contradictory. 2. His addition solveth it not; sufficient propounding it to be a Divine revelation, doth not infer that he taketh God for a lyar, but only that he culpably denieth this to be the Word of God.

I answered therefore, That all men that believe a God, believe him to be true, and no lyar; and so W. I. maketh none but Atheists to be Hereticks. To this he answereth:

W. J. There is a twofold denying of God, one formal and direct, the other virtual and indirect: Atheists are guilty of the first, Hereticks of the second.—This I oblige my self to prove,—Whosoever obstinately contradicts any truth revealed from God, as all Hereticks do some or other of them, they sinfully and wilfully affirm that what God hath revealed is not true, and consequently that God is a lyar, and by that destroy as much as in them lieth the very essence of God.

R. B. Here is little but novelty and deceit. 1. It is deceit to call that a denying of God, in a controversie of such moment (whatever you might do rhetorically in an Oration) which you confess your self is not a denying him: For you say that it is not a formal but a virtual denying him; and that is truly no actual denying him; for forma dat nomen & esse, Boys will deride you if you deny this.

If you object Paul's words, Tit. 1. They confess him in words, but in their works they deny him, I answer, that they denied him formally by their works. For those works signified that their minds did not formally believe God to be God indeed, according to his Essentialities.

2. It is novelty and deceit to affirm (and stoutly undertake to prove) that the denying of one of the Propositions from which the Conclusion must arise, is virtually a denying of both. e. g. Whatever is Gods word is true; but the story of Bell and the Dragon, and of the Angel in Tobit, saying he was the Son of Ananias of the Tribe of Naphthali; and that the intrals of a Fish would drive away all Devils, that they should never return, &c. are the word of God. May not a man firmly believe the Major, that taketh the Minor for a lie? And suppose that the Roman Church say that I am obstinate: my reasons are, 1. Angels be not born of man. 2. Christ saith, This kind goeth not out but by fasting and prayer, &c. so that I must take Christ for a lyar, if I take not Tobit to be false: may not I be obstinate in this, and yet not deny that all the Word of God is true. If the Manichees tell me that the Gospel of Nicodemus, and of Saint Thomas is the word of God, and the Papists, that the Apostolical Canons and Constitutions, and the Itinerary of Peter, were written by Clemens, is obstinate unbelief of this, a denying that God is true. Your sufficient proposal is that of your Church. A General Council is your highest proposer (with the Pope). I find that the Council at Constance, and Basil, and Pisa, say one thing and that at Lateran and Florence say the contrary; and I obstinately refuse to believe them both, may I not yet firmly believe that God is true? you are not God; And verily I have more reason to suspect you than God. The Country-man that never read Coun­cils, nor travelled to Rome, knoweth nothing of your matters, but by his Parish-priest. If he know this Priest to be a common whoremonger and lyar, may he not suspect him without denying God?

But if you can prove what you undertake, it is the sadder with you, that can triumph in sentencing your selves as Hereticks to Hell. e. g. Whatever is Gods word is true, but it is Gods word that the Lords Supper should be administred in both kinds (bread and wine) (This do in remem­brance of me), and that it is bread after the consecration, 1 Cor. 11. and that it is better to pray in a known tongue than in an unknown, 1 Cor. 14. and that they know not what manner of spirit they are of, who would have the resisters of Christs Apostles, and of Christ himself consumed with fire; and that the Clergy must not Lord it over Gods heritage, but as servants to all, rule them willingly, and not by constraint, &c. Ergo, this is all true.

And whoever denieth this truth of God, indirectly denieth Gods essence, and maketh him a lyar: But the Church of Rome denieth all these: Doth it follow that the Church of Rome are Hereticks, blasphemers and lyars? And all this is sufficiently revealed, for it is plainly written in the Word of God.

[Page 25] 3. Note Reader, that such a contradiction of any truth revealed by God, doth make a man an Heretick; O then what abundance of Hereticks be in the world? What one man can say, that he doth not contradict some truth revealed by God, by nature or Scrip­ture, or both? Every mans mind and will is depraved, and being so, hath some degree of obstinacy in resisting some truth of God; and so all men in the world (as well as the obstinately erroneous Papists) are Hereticks. Not only Papists that will believe nei­ther the Scripture, Tradition. Reason, nor all mens senses, that there is bread after Consecrations; but any one that doth not believe who was the Father of Arphaxad, e. g. or any point of Genealogy, or of Chronology, or differing Numbers in Kings and Chro­nicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Mat. 1. and Luk. 3, &c. Or that doth not believe that every word in Iudith, Tobit, &c. are Gods word, are all Hereticks and deniers of Gods Essence.

Nor doth he except any age of persons; so that if a School-boy should but obstinate­ly deny to believe his Master about a tradition, or a Scripture-name or number, he were a Heretick.

The Council of Basil revealeth the sinless conception of the Virgin Mary, and yet the Papists that deny it are not accounted Hereticks: And what shew is there of this con­sequence, the Council of Ephesus 2. of Arminum, of Lateran, of Nice 2, of Florence, of Constance, Basil, Trent, may lie: Ergo, God is a lyar. Hereticks should be softer in defining Heresie.

I next instanced, What if a man deny that there is a Heaven, Hell, Resurrection, and also the Sect. 5. revelation of these, and yet deny not the veracity of God (no nor of the Church) is this no Heretick?

He answereth, No, if not sufficiently propounded to him as revealed from God.—But that Proposition must be made by the Church; and as long as he believeth the infallible veracity of the Church propounding, he cannot disbelieve what it propoundeth sufficiently, &c.

R. B. 1. But a man that doth not believe the Infallibility of the Church, may be­lieve Gods Veracity, and yet be an Heretick.

2. A Papist that holdeth your Church infallible, may disbelieve what General Coun­cils deliver as de fide, for so you do. So that this word Sufficient is as unintelligible among your selves, as meer non-sense: For even General Councils proposals are not accounted sufficient when you are against them, and yet every Priest is, when your turn requireth it.

3. And many a man may take the Churches proposal to be certain, and yet think that the Roman Church is but an erroneous faction, and scarce a (corrupt) third part of the Church.

I next told him that the Jesuit Turnbull against Rob. Baronius, maintaineth that Revela­tion Sect. 6. is no part of the formal object of faith, and therefore to deny it, is not to deny the formal object. 2. And that forma dat nomen, and he is no Heretick that is none formally.

To the latter he giveth no answer; and to the first as bad as none, viz. that the Heretick denieth also the material object (and what's that to the case in hand?) and that which he is obliged by sufficient reason to believe to be revealed of God; and therefore virtually denieth God to be true.

Ans. But I again reply, 1. Virtual is not actual. 2. It is no virtual denial that God is true, but only that the proposer is true. To be obliged to believe a thing to be Gods word, only pro­veth that I break that obligation if I believe it not to be his word; but not at all that I be­lieve God to be a lyar, whose word I believe it not to be. Again, this maketh all Christians to be Hereticks, past dispute: For all Christians receive not something or other (small or great) which they were obliged to belie [...]e to be Gods word. Do you err in any thing that is reveal­ed by Scripture or Tradition, or not? If you say no, and so that your understanding hath no sin, you deceive your self, and the truth is not in you: If yea, then were you not obliged to believe the contrary to be Gods word; if not obliged, then your error [Page 26] is no sin: so that you make every sinful error to be Heresie, and proudly deny that you have any sinful error, lest you should be a Heretick.

I added, that their Church is constituted of men that sinfully neglect some point of truth or other sufficiently proposed: Ergo is it constituted of Hereticks. Sect. 7.

To this he answers, That whatever their neglect be to know what is propounded, yet so long as they believe explicitely what is necessary to be so believed necessitate medii, and implicitely the rest, they can be no Hereitcks: for it is not the ignorance though culpable, but contradiction to what is known So all that take not eve­ry Priest for a lawful superi­or, & to con­tradict him, though about a word, must be burned & damned. to them to be propounded by those that have power to oblige them as being their lawful superiors, which makes an heretick.

R. B. 1. But still you agree not, nor tell us what is explicitely to be believed necessarily. 2. By this we are all absolved from heresie; for we believe all explicitely that is necssary ne­cessitate medii, and all the rest implicitely by a double implicite faith; 1. In God and our Redeemer. 2. In the inspired Apostles and Prophets; we believe all to be true which God hath revealed, and which his Apostles have delivered as Gods word. 3. Yea, and all that we know to be propounded by any obliging superiors; for we know not the Pope, nor your con­tradictory Councils to be such.

My next Qu. 2. was, What mean you by sufficient proposal? Sect. 8.

W. I. Such as is sufficient among men in humanis, to oblige one to take notice, that a King hath exacted such and such Laws, &c. that is, a publick testimony that such things are revealed by the infallible authority of those who are the highest tribunal of Gods Church, or by notorious and universal tr [...]dition.

R. B. 1. Here the Reader may see, that he taketh sufficiency respectively to the Promulgator, viz. as much as he was obliged to do: for a King is not bound to publish his Laws in every parish, or county, but only to make such a publication of them in the chief places of his king­dom, as that men may take notice of them. Kings send not Schoolmasters to teach every man how to prove that his Laws are not counterfeit, and what they are, and what is the meaning of them. For the enacting of them being a late matter of fact, and easily notified, as near un­to them, and no other knowledg or belief of them being required but such as is necessary to that part of the obedience of them which belongeth to every man in his place, this is not ne­cessary. And if such a publication of Gods Laws be sufficient, millions that never heard a word of the Bible, or what Christ is, have such a sufficient publication: for the Gospel is pub­lished in many parts of the world, and perhaps in many places of the Kingdoms where they dwell, though they never heard it.

2. But when men have the publick testimony that such statutes are made, and such a Book sent from God, this doth not acquaint men what those Statutesor that Book contains: sothat by this rule it should be sufficient to know that God made the Bible, without knowing what is in it; or else he that is but told that there is such a book, is bound by that much to know all that is in it.

3. But note the Popish difficulty of faith; W. I. tells us (after the rest) that we must know these things revealed by the infallible authority of those who are the highest tribunal of Gods Church, &c. And is it possible for one that knoweth nothing of Christ or the Scripture, or that Christ hath a Church, to know yet, 1. That he hath a Church. 2. And that he hath authorized some men to be the highest Tribunal to judg that Church through all the world. And 3. That he hath particularly authorized them to judg which is and is not his revelation. 4. And to know who be the men that are this highest Tribunal to all the world, viz. for those of Abas­sia, that had not so much History as to tell them that there was such a City as Rome, or such a man as the Pope in the world, till Oviedo was sent (who told it but to few), could yet know that this Pope and his Council are their Judges, and from them they must receive the Gospel. 5. And to know that this Universal Tribunal is infallible, before they believe in Christ him­self, who is supposed to give them their Infallibility? Alas! must every poor Infidel know all this, before he can believe in Christ, when we that live among them, and read their laws and doctrines, cannot easily believe the Infallibility of those Popes, who by General Councils [Page 27] are charged not only with Murder, Adultery, Simony, Perjury, &c. but with Heresie also, or Infidelity? Nor the Infallibility of those General Councils, who are accused by Popes and by other Councils of Error, Heresie or Schism?

4. But he addeth another way, Or by notorious and universal Tradition. And 1. If this will Sect. 9. serve, then I hope we may have true faith that believe no humane infallible Tribunal over all the world, much less that the Pope and his Council are such a Tribunal; for we have no­torious Universal Tradition, delivering us all our Religion.

2. But yet these are hard terms for every poor Heathen to come to Christ by: Alas, how shall the millions of people through the world, who know nothing that is many days journey from their houses, know what is the notorious Tradition of all the Christian world? I that search after it in all the books that I can get, can scarce give a good account of the Tradition of much of the greater part of Christians. Nay no Universal Tradition at all is notorious to most Christians, much less to all the Heathens and Infidels on earth. It is not notorious to most in England, what is the Tradition of the Abassians, Syrians, Armenians, Greeks, no nor of the Italians, French, Spaniards, Germans, &c. That is notorious to Scholars, which is not so to the unlearned; and to Antiquaries, which is not so to other Scholars.

Here W. I. answereth two things, 1. That to know some Laws of the Commonwealth, is of im­portance Sect. 10. to salvation. 2. That God should have made a visible Government imprudently, whose Go­vernors could not be known but by revelation.

R. B. 1. And how comes importing to be put instead of necessity to salvation? This is but fraud.

2. It were worth our diligent enquiry, could we prevail with these men to open to us this mystery, How it is that the Pope and his Council may be known to be the supreme Governors of the world, without revelation? I will abate my Antagonists the answering of all the rest, if they will but be intreated to answer me this one question. It seems that it is by no promise of Christ, no word of God, no nor by any revelation of the Spirit, or Miracles, that we must know them to be our Governors. I confess I can know without revelation, that they claim such authority as any Traytor or Usurper may do; but that they have such authority, it is past my reach to conjecture which way it is to be proved without revelation.

But I intreat the Reader to remember this, in all our further disputes with them; That they confess that it is not by revelation (by Scripture, Spirit, Miracles, or Tradition, made known) that the Pope and his Council are the supreme Governors of the Universal Church.

And yet we must know this before we can believe in Christ, or believe the Scripture to be true: And we must know it of necessity to salvation.

And another difficulty here seemeth insuperable, viz. Seeing this is not a matter of Revela­tion, it can be no matter of Divine faith; and if so, how is all other faith resolved into it? and how is the belief of this (which is no belief) called our implicite belief of all the word of God? can no man be saved that cannot unriddle all these contradictions?

Next I further noted:

R. B. That if he lay the sufficiency on the respect to all mens various capacities of receiving Sect. 11. the notice, then they can never know who are Hereticks; but if they lay it on a general publi­cation, then all or almost all men are Hereticks, being unavoidably ignorant of many things so published.

To this he saith, That he Judgeth of no mans conscience.

Ans. But do not they judg of them, that burn them, and depose Princes for not exter­minating them?

He saith, It is sufficient, 1. that such as acknowledg themselves they know such points of faith to be propounded by the Roman Church (which I infallibly believe to be the true Church) and that notwithstanding reject them as errors, give me ground to presume them to be Hereticks.

Ans. 1. I perceive that it is not the Pope only that is infallible, but you also are infallible in believing his Church. But alas! how many are deceived and deceivers, that call themselves infallible?

[Page 28] 2. But if your belief in the Pope were infallible, must all others be hereticks, and be burnt, that have not attained to your degree of knowledg (or self-conceitedness)?

3. Just now you said the Governours of the Church need no revelation to make them known; and now it is an article of your belief, That the Roman Church is the true Church: so slippery is your foundation!

4. But what meaneth that hard word The true Church? Is it not enough if it were proved a true Church? Either you mean the universal Church, or a particular Church; if the former, why speak you so sneakingly, and did not speak out, that the Roman Church is all, the whole Church that Christ hath on earth? Which assertion we abhor, and despair of any thing like a proof of it. If the latter what is it to us whether Rome be a true Church, any more than whether Ephesus, Thessalonica, or such other be so?

5. But (to leave your parenthesis) what's all this to the most of the Christian world that do not acknowledg themselves that they know such points of faith to be propounded by the Church of Rome? There is not one of five hundred among us that ever read your Councils, nor knoweth one of many things propounded by you to be such. And are all these now absolved from he­resie? How long will that be their security, if the burning and exterminating Religion should prevail? And is it my hard fate to become a Heretick more than all the rest of my neighbours, because I have read your Councils when they have not? Then I would counsel all that love not to be burned, to take heed of medling with such Councils. I have oft read how danger­ous a thing you judg it for unlicensed men to read Gods word, and of many that have been burned for it, and its consequents, and how you account it the way to Heresie: But I have not oft before read how dangerous it is to read your Decrees, or to know all that the Church of Rome propoundeth; for he that knoweth them all, must have a very ready commandable faith, such as can believe in despight of Sense, Reason, Scripture, and Tradition, to escape the guilt of Heresie. But I pray you (were you not inexorable executioners) when it com­eth next to the burning of Dissenters, that you will spare all that confess not that they know what is propounded by your Church, yea though they take not their parish-priest that tells it them, to be infallible, especially if they know him to be a common lyar, or one that holds that lying for mens good, is a venial sin, or none.

W. I. 2. Such as oppose what all visible Churches have most notoriously practised and believed as Divine truths, while they were so universally taught and practised, I may safely presume to be Here­ticks. Sect. 12.

R. B. 1. No O [...]dipus can tell whether (while) here, refer to (believed) or to (oppose). If to the latter, then neither Abassines, Armenians, Greeks, or Protestants, are Hereticks; for they oppose not such points while they were so universally taught and practised (whatever their fore­fathers did); for they have themselves so many partners, as derogates from the pretended Universality of the Adversaries. But if by all the visible Church, you mean all except them­selves; or if the word (while) relate to (believe), then the Church of Rome are characteri­zed by you for certain Hereticks: for I defie impudence it self, in challenging it to deny, that the Universal Church did notoriously believe and practice the administration of the Lords Supper in both kinds (the Cup as well as the Bread) and the celebration of publike wor­ship in a known tongue, and the reading and hearing of the Scripture in a known tongue by the people, and others such like.

But yet I will not take you at your word, nor call you Hereticks meerly on the account: as­serted by you; for I know that your rule is false. And if a man had known that the Univer­sal Church had held some opinion of Chronology, or Genealogy, or Cosmography, (as a­bout Cainan, or the age of Sem, or that there were no Artipodes) especially in the dismal Ninth Century; and if he had thought that they took this point for a Divine Revelation, be­lieving the Septuagint or some other mis-translation (which was commonly received before Ieromes time) this man so thinking that the whole Church then erred in so small a point, was no Heretick for so thinking; for I would know of your self, whether the Popes and all their followers be not Hereticks? For the Septuagint was long taken by the Universal [Page 29] Church for the Word of God, and so was the Vulgar Latin long after by your Uni­versal Roman Church; and consequently that those Texts were Gods Word which yet afterward you altered: Many hundred or thousand alterations in the one were made by Sixtus 5, and Clement 8, all which were so many judgments that the Church had erred that before took the other readings for the Word of God (unless you can make one thing Gods word to day, and the contrary to morrow.)

5. But by this rule also we are acquit from Heresie, if it was not notorious to us that the Universal Church believed and practised contrary to us, which sure is noto­rious to very few at most. And indeed we differ from the Roman Church the more, because we dare not with them differ from the belief and practice of the far greatest part of the Church of Christ in this and in former ages.

R. B. Is not the Bible a publick testimony and record, and being universally received is an universal tradition? and yet abundance of truths in it, are not actually known or believed by most of your own Church.

W. J. It is only a Tradition, that whatever is there delivered is the word of God; but it is no tradition that such a determinate sense and no other is the word of God in every sentence Sect. 13. contained in it, when according to the analogy of faith the words are capable of many senses.

R. B. Worse and worse still! 1. Tradition tells us that this Bible is Gods Word: This Word of God is significant and intelligible, or else it is worse and more defe­ctive than the common words of men: This intelligible Bible or Word therefore deli­vereth to us its own sense: If not, then Councils do not deliver us the sense of Gods Word, or their own: For God could speak as well as they, and their words are no more plain than his. Yet a multitude of plain intelligible Texts are not understood by many of your Church, whom you call not Hereticks; yea your learned Commentators differ and fight about their sense.

2. Therefore when you talk of every sentence, you do but fly and hide your fraud. If your meaning be that no sentences of Scripture are Divine revelations as they are in Gods own words, but as expounded by your Church, all Christian ears should abhor your blasphemy. If you mean only that there are some Texts so difficult as that most Christians cannnot understand them, or that are capable of various senses, we grant it: But what are those to all the rest? Is every man a Heretick that erreth about the sense of any one plain Text of Scripture, or not?

And it is perverse that you say, of divers senses according to the analogy of faith: For a Text may be expounded contrary to the plain words and context, which yet is not expounded contrary to the analogy of faith, if by that word you mean as is usual, contrary to the harmony of Christian necessary Truths, yea or contrary to any other truth whatever, save that Text it self.

And now, Reader, I leave it to thy reason whether this man have given us any re­gardable notice at all, what is Heresie? or what they mean by it, or have not trifled and said nothing.

But what Heresie is, I will briefly tell you: The word signifying Election, was used in the beginning sometime for any Sect or Party divided from the common body of the Sect. 14. Church: And Christians were called a Heresie by the Iews. By the Christians the name signified any party of men that professing to differ in some necessary thing from the common body of Christians, and the Doctrine of the Apostles; did separate from them as unmeet for their Communion, and gather themselves into divided Societies. So that differing from the Apostolical Doctrine and Churches; and making different Sects or Societies therefore which separated from and opposed the Churches, was called He­resie by the Apostles; and it was the same thing with the grossest sort of Schism. And the commonest sense of the word. Schism, then was lower, signifying either the conten­tious making of divisions within a Church without separating from it, or else the brea­king [Page 30] of one Church into many, without separating from other Churches, or the gene­rality of Christians. And so long after the word Heresie was sometime used for such Schism only (and hence Lucifer Calaritanus, and the Novatians, and many others were called Hereticks). And sometimes used more cautelously in a narrower sense, for those only that denied some essential article of faith or practice. And sometimes in a yet narrower sense, for those only that upon such a denial of some essential point, did ga­ther into a separated Society to maintain their error, and oppugn the truth.

And according to these various senses of the word Horesie, and Heretick, we must conclude that a Heretick may or may not be saved, and is, or is not within the Univer­sal Church; which W. I. doth deceitfully confound.

Of which I have said more in the End, and shewed you by an instance of Philastrius, how mischievous it is to abuse the name of Heresie against every different opinion of true Christians, and so to make Hereticks of all Believers in the world.

CHAP. III. What mean you by the Word POPE?

W. J. By POPE I mean St. Peter, or any of his lawful successors in the See of Sect. 1. Rome, having authority by the institution of Christ, to govern all particular Chur­ches next under Christ.

R. B. I am never the nearer knowing the Pope by this, till I know how St. Peters Successors may be known to me.

Q. 1. What personal qualification is necessary ad esse?

W. J. Such as are necessary ad esse of other Bishops, which I suppose you know.

R. B. If so, then all those were no Popes that were Hereticks, or denied essential points of faith.

W. J. 'Tis true, they were no Popes while formal Hereticks, if any such were.

R. B. As Iohn 22, 23, Eugenius 4th, &c.

W. J. Prove that.

R. B. The Articles brought against them, and the judgments thereupon, are a proof, if any thing may be called a proof; viz. in the Council at Rome against Iohn, in the Councils of Constance against divers, at Basil against Eugenius, and others much elder against Honorius, &c. Is a General Council no proof?

I added that so they were no Christians: and he answers, Prove that Yet he maintaineth himself that Hereticks are no Christians but equivo­cally. Baronius, Binnius, Bellar­mine, Gene­brard, your greatest flat­terers confess it, and much more. Who that ever read the Councils and Church­history doub­ted of it? see then the im­pudency of men preten­ding to lay their cause on tradition, and history.. To which I say, General Councils are your Catholick Church representative, and those charge these Popes with Heresie and Infidelity: If you are so frontless as to deny it, I will not therefore tire the Reader with transcribing Councils as oft as you can say, Prove it.

I added, And all those that wanted the necessary abilities to the essentials of their works. He saith, Prove that there were such Popes? I answer, That you have had children Popes, and some that were illiterate and ignorant, I have oft proved by the express testimonies of your own Historians. How oft must I repeat them?

I added, That therefore their Church hath oft been headless, and the Succession interrupted; Councils having thus censured many Popes.

W. J. When you have proved the precedents, prove that.

R. B. Reader, is not the cause of the Papacy in a desperate case, if Arms upheld it not, when their Champion hath no more to say for the very successive being of the Popes, but to bid me prove that which all men that read them know is commonly and copiously asserted by their Councils and Historians? How oft have I cited their [Page 31] Platina, Werverus, yea Baro [...]us, Binnius, Genebrard their greatest flatterers, telling us that some were Children, and some illiterate, and fifty together were not Apostolical, but Apostatical, &c.

W. I. Prove that they were lawful Councils which so censured any Popes, which we ad­mit as true and lawful.

R. B. Alas, poor men▪ are you driven to that? 1. If you have the face to deny those to be lawful Councils that censured Honorius, the two Iohns, Eugenius, &c. we may as well and a little better use the same liberty, and question whether that of Trent, Florence, Lateran, &c. were lawful?

2. May not the world see now what is the foundation of your faith, and the vali­dity of your Authority and Tradition? even your own wills? General Councils tell you the sense of the Church, and the Tradition of your fore-fathers, if you like them. But if the Pope dislike them, they are no lawful Councils, and their testimony null. The sum is, whatever Councils say, the Pope shall never be proved a Heretick or Infidel till he will say that he is one himself, and will subscribe as Marcellinus did to his own condemnation, or with Liberius confess his fault.

3. And have not these men a notable advantage to proselyte Ladies and illiterate persons, when if General Councils damn their Popes, it is but bidding them, Prove those to have been lawful Councils. And though I can prove to them that even their own Popes have affirmed them lawful, yet few women are so far skilled in History, and so they must yield to every impudent deceiver: And when I have proved all, it is but as Bellarmine's fetching a denial out of the word Conciliariter, against the approbation of Martin 5.

4. But is this enough for you? what if none were lawful Councils that displease the Pope? Are they therefore no competent witnesses of a matter of fact? In the I said that the charge of Si­mony made many of them uncapable; to which he gi­veth no an­swer, for their most flatter­ing Historians assert it, and lament it. mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. And are not so many hundred Bishops and other Clerks as were at the Councils of Basil, Constance, Pisa, &c. competent Witnesses, that the Pope was a Heretick, Simonest, Murderer, &c. had the Pope but consented these Councils had been the Catholick Church and infalli­ble? And may they not be credible Witnesses against him till he consent? How shall we believe them, when they tell us what was held and done in all the Christian World a thousand or fourteen hundred years ago, if after examination of Witnesses we may not believe them concerning one man, one publick sinner, in their own time, and known to many of themselves? What then would the testimony of a Historian or an hundred Historians signifie, if the testimony of many hundred Bishops congregate and deliberate­ly examining, consulting and sentencing, be false?

R. B. I next asked, Q. 2. Where and how must this Institution of Christ (of the Papacy) Sect. 2. be found?

W. J. In the revealed Word of God, written or unwritten.

R. B. 1. Remember, Reader, that even now he told us that the Church-Governours are known without Revelation, else God had made an imprudent Government. He could not mean that they are known to be men, but Governours, distinct from Usurpers, or else he had spoke non-sense or impertinently. And yet now it is in the revealed word of God.

2. I answered, That they never gave the world assurance how to know the measure of their unwritten word, nor where to find it, so as to know what it is.

W. J. We say we have.

R. B. Just as now you do to me: If that Word of God be still unwritten, and neither to be found in your Councils, nor any of your Books, I challenge all the rea­son in the world, to tell us where we may certainly come to know what it is, and when we have all; especially when so great Councils as Ariminum, Ephes. 2, Constance and Basil may be deceived in your very Fundamentals of Authority, in matter of fact so near at hand?

[Page 32] R. B. Till you prove Christs institution, which you have nev [...] done, you free us from be­lieving in the Pope.

W. J. All are free from believing in the Pope; we believe in God, but not in the Pope: who of us ever charged you to do so?

R. B. Even they that charge us to trust our very Salvation upon his Infallibility, Veracity or Authority, as from which only with his Council we must know what is Gods Word, and what the meaning of it, what is it to believe in, but to believe his Au­thority and Veracity, and trust upon it? But we thank you for discharging us from belie­ving in the Pope: But I doubt when we are in your power, you will call us to an after­reckoning, and burn us for not believing on him, when you acquit us from believing in him; so much of your faith doth lie on a Letter.

R. B. Quest. 3. Will any ones Election prove him to be Pope? or who must elect him Sect. 3. ad esse?

W. J. Such as by approved custom are esteemed by those to whom it belongs, fit for that charge, and with whose election the Church is satisfied.

R. B. Now we come to their desperation! never were men put to more open con­fusion in the very essence of their cause. Something must be said, but they know not what. I noted here, that if no Election, or any ones Election will serve turn, the Scho­lars may elect a Schoolmaster Pope, and any man may be Pope, or an hundred may be Popes: But if not, then it must be known who it is that hath the power of Electi­on, and that it was done by them. The people of Barnet or Brainford have no authority to elect a Lord Mayor of London; nor would one of their choice be any better than a Play-house Lord. Our Question is, Who must choose the Governour of all the world? In reason all the world should meet by themselves, or their just Delegates to choose him. But the man that claimeth this Divine Soveraignty hath been sometime chosen at Rome by a meeting of Lay-citizens; and sometimes by neighbour-Bishops, and sometimes (at the best) by Citizens and Presbyters together, Bishops approving it, and sometimes by the Emperors of Rome, of Constantinople, or of Germany, and sometime by a sort of things called Cardinals. Now if none of these have more right to choose him than the rest, then either any body hath right that can carry it out, and get possession, or else no body hath right, or none can tell who hath it. Accordingly for above forty years together, the Emperour and his party chose one Pope, and the King of France and his party chose another; one reigned at Rome, and another at Avignion in France. Part of Europe chose or owned one, and part another; and at once, saith Wernerus, there were six alive that were then Popes, or had been Popes (of whom one honester than the rest, because he could not read himself, chose another Pope to be his partner to read the Mass, which he could not do, and to help him in the rest).

Here in the answer of W. J. 1. He durst not tell us who have the power of Electi­on. 2. But he saith it must be those that are fit for the charge. If I should ask who must choose the Lord Mayor of London, and you should so answer me, Those that are fit for the charge, would not any sensible Reader judg by your answer that you were un­fit for an honest disputation.

3. He saith, that the Electors must be so esteemed (fit for the charge) by those to whom it doth belong, To whom what doth belong? why, to esteem the Electors fit. But how should a man know to whom it doth belong to judg who is fit to be an Elector? Doth it belong to the World or to Rome? To the people, Presbyters, Bishops, Emperours or Cardinals? Here we have more difficulties than we thought of; we must know who is fit to be Pope, and who is fit to elect him, and to whom it belongs to judg who are fit to be Ele­ctors; that is, to elect Electors; and when shall we come to know all this? If he say that it is the people that must choose the Choosers, what people be they? they of Rome? or they of all Italy? or they of Germany? or of France? or of all Europe? or of all the World?

[Page 33] 3. He saith that the choosers must be such as by custom are esteemed fit by these; But what custom doth the man mean? when there have been four or five ways or sorts of Election, had not every one of them a beginning? and at their beginning could they plead custom? O that your sword were no stronger than your reasons!

4. Yea, he saith, It must be approved customs. But not a word who must be the ap­provers of all these new customs.

5. And when all is done, no more is needful, but that the unknown persons to whom it belongs do esteem the Electors fit, and so be they fit or unfit their estimation car­rieth it.

6. But yet the hardest part remaineth, The Church must be satisfied with the Election. But, 1. Either the Election is valid or invalid before: If valid, will the Churches dis­satisfaction invalidate it? If invalid, will the Churches satisfaction make it valid, or make him Pope that was none before? Who would have thought that a Pope had been a wight so utterly unintelligible?

2. And what way must the Churches satisfaction be notified to me? Is it by some note of approbation, or by silence? It's in vain for men to contradict that have no power. But what if I believed in my conscience that most of the Church is unsatisfied in the Election? Must I take that man to be no Pope? Then I am necessitated to be­lieve that when Whores and Murderers, and such like, brought in the fifty that Baro­nius and Genebrard called Apostatical, &c. there was an interruption of the Succession by the dissatisfaction of the Church. Good Sir, was the Church satisfied with such men? Was it satisfied with those that the foresaid Council condemned as Heretical, wicked, and one of them a Devil incarnate? Did those Councils signifie no dissatisfaction of the Church?

3. And must I suspend my reception of the Pope till the Abassines, Armenians, Greeks, yea or Mexicans, and the Antipodes signifie their satisfaction?

4. But what is the Church that must be satisfied? when half Europe was for one, and the rest for another for forty years and more, with which of them was the Church satisfied? Was France or Germany the Church?

5. Lastly, by this we are acquit from acknowledging your Pope at all, while we know that three fourth parts, or at least two third parts of Christs Church on Earth is unsatisfied with your Pope and Papacy it self. To all this he answers:

W. J. 1. Tour exceptions are fallacies, à sensu conjuncto ad sensum divisum.

R. B. See, Reader, what the Papacy is come to, if it had not the sword, or ignor­ance to uphold it? when he puts together so many things as necessary ad esse to the Election of a Pope, (and yet makes nothing but a meer name to deceive the ignorant of any one of them) is it fallacious of me to expect that all those things be found in the Election? Or is it not fallacious in him that can shew us never a one of them?

Next W. I. saith, If the Church did really acquiesce in such an elected person as Pope, it was satisfied according to the substance of the Election, though not in the circumstances.

R. B. 1. Reader, is this any answer to any of the foresaid Objections? what satis­faction? what Church? when part of the Church was divided, and the greater part ab­hor'd them all? And was he Pope or no before this acquiescing? If so, what made him so? And, 2. What doth he but cheat us by his distinction of the substance and circum­stances of Election? Doth he not obstinately (but necessarily) refuse to tell what is the substance of Election? Have those that were brought in by Whores, Poyson and Murders, the substance? Had those that were chosen by people, Presbyters, Bishops, Emperours, and Cardinals, all the substance? If so, why may not twenty have the substance at once, or four or five at least? what is it that is the substance? Alas, we ask in vain that which cannot be told us!

Next he saith, If the Church never accepted them as Popes, they are not to be accounted Legal Popes.

[Page 34] Ans. Farewel the Papacy then: and yet must we be burnt for not being their Subjects: 1. Then it seems that Election and Consecration made them not Popes at all before the Sect. 4. Churches acceptance: And sure that never made them such afterward. 2. Then we have no Popes; now most of the Church (Abassines, Copties, Armenians, Syrians, Greeks, Moscovites, Protestants, &c. there are two to one) are against the Papacy. 3. And then Eugenius the 4th, and others disowned and damned by General Councils (your own Churches Representatives) were no Popes.

Next he saith, That the abuses of Election came from mingling Lay-authority with Church-Go­vernment, Sect. 5. which is out of their Sphere. Now this abuse is much consonant with the Doctrine of Protestants; so that those for the most part who conform their practice according to the Protestants Principles, introduced this abuse into th [...] Popes Election.

Ans. Reader, what doth this man deserve for thus murdering the Papal cause? 1. Our question was not who it was long of th [...] they had no true lawful Popes for a long time, but whether it be not true, and their succession interrupted?

2. And is he worthy to be accounted a man that ever read Church-History that know­eth not, that before there were any Christian Emperours, the Laity with the Presbyters chose the Bishop of Rome, and all other Bishops? so then, if this was the abuse, the first and ancient way was the abuse, which their innovation rectified; and who knoweth not what power the Emperours used from 320 till 1000 years, in disposing of all the Patriarchal seats? And seeing Cardinals are the newest way of Election, is not the newest likest to be the abuse?

3. But I desire the Reader specially to note, that this man confesseth that Popes, were for­merly chosen according to Protestant principles; and that their present way is a Reforma­tion of the Protestant way as abusive; and who then are the Innovators, and the culpable Reformers? even Hildebrand Greg. 7. after bloody Wars against the Emperours, and the per­jury that he had involved a great part of the Clergy in. And yet they would perswade men that it is our Principles and Reformation that are new, and theirs is the old way.

4. We are not ashamed to own that the Protestant principles do assert the power of Chri­stian Princes in matters of Religion so far as the sword is therein to interpose (which Bishop Bilson of Chris. Subjection hath well opened) and the power of the people in consenting to their Pastors; and that we abhor their forcing Princes to be their executioners.

R. B. Is consecration necessary, and by whom ad esse? Sect. 6.

W. J. It is not absolutely necessary ad esse.

R. B. If Consecration be not necessary to Papacy, then it is not necessary that this or that man consecrate him more than another; and then it is not necessary to a Bishop, and then the want of it makes no interruption in any Church, any more than in yours.

W. J. Neither Papal nor Episcopal Iurisdiction (as all the Learned know) depends of Episcopal or Papal ordination, nor was there ever interruption in successions in Episcopal Iurisdiction in any See Sect. 7. for want of that alone, that is necessary for consecrating others validly, and not for jurisdiction over them.

R. B. What multiplied self-destroying answers are you driven to? 1. See here, Reader, how short a solution you have from themselves, of all their old objections about the Bishops Ordination at the Nags. head-Tayern in Cheapside, and the interruption of our Succession, and nullity of our Priesthood; now you see that jurisdiction depends not on Ordination, but may be without it. Their Pope and Bishops may have all their Ecclesiastical Government, though they be Lay-men. And may not Parish-priests have so also over the people? These Papists are more kind to the Protestant-Churches that have not Episcopal Ordination, than some called Protestants in this age are; want of Ordination nulleth not their Government. But for my part I would the Church had never known any such Jurisdiction, as is neither the Ma­gistrates by the sword, nor given by Ordinaion to the Pastors, called the power of the Keys: At least I thought that it had been necessary to Popes and Prelates that they be Priests. If some as seniors among Presbyters, may be the Governours of the rest, (as an Abbot among Monks) yet sure he must be a Presbyter (or Monk) himself. I take the Priestly Office or Mini­stry [Page 35] to be essentiated by a Subordination to Christ in the participation of the three parts of his Office ministerially, viz. to be Sub-teachers, Sub-rectors, and Sub-priests to guide the peo­ple in Gods worship.

If Ordination be not necessary to Iurisdiction (a presumptuous word for Clergy-men) then either such unordained Bishops may ordain or not. If not, they are no Bishops. What is their Jurisdiction? If yea, then they may give that which they never had, and Lay-men may or­dain. And may not ordained Presbyters ordain much more? One would think that the reading of Voetius against Iansenius, De desperata causa Papatus, had driven this man to these desperate answers: But he was aware that some Popes having been unordained men, he had no other shift.

Join to this what Dr. Stillingfleet after others hath fully proved, that the Orders given by Schismaticks and Hereticks are valid in the opinion of their Doctors, and you will see that their talk against the English Ministry is such, as the men do not believe themselves.

R. B. Q. 3. What notice or proof is necessary to the Subjects? Sect. 8.

W. J. So much as is necessary to oblige subjects to accept of other elected Princes to be their Soveraigns.

R. B. 1. But what that is, you would not tell us.

2. But if this be so, it must be so much as sufficeth to the subjects to distinguish him from Usurpers; or else Kings and Usurpers must be equally obeyed; and if so, then 1. The grea­test part of the Christian world (Abassines and the rest before named) have no such notice of your Pope; it was many ages before the Abassines heard of him. 2. And Greeks and Prote­stants have no such notice; nay you tell no man which way he should have it, when neither any one way of election, nor any Consecration is necessary to the Office. 3. And then what no­tice had men in the long Schisms, which was the true Pope?

But note, Reader, that a Kingdome is so narrow a space, that notice may be given to all the subjects who is their true King. But the Earth is so great, and so much of it unknown, and so few ever sailed about it since the Creation, and those few saw so few of the inhabitant, that verily it is a hard matter to satisfie all the world who is the true Pope, and that he is truly elected, and is no Usurper. And on these terms it is but little of the world that is obliged to be subject to the Pope.

And now, Reader, if this man hath taught thee to understand what a Pope is, and what makes him so, and who is he, thou art far more teachable than I am; for he leaveth me more at a loss than he found me.

CHAP. IV. What mean you by the word Bishop?

W. J. I mean by Bishop such a Christian Pastor as hath power and jurisdiction to govern the Sect. 1▪ inferior Pastors, Clergy and people within his Diocess, and to confirm and give holy Orders to such as are subject to him.

R. B. Here I desired to know of him, whether he meant a power given by God or by men? and if by God, whether mediately or immediately? But this he was not willing to answer. Saying:

W. J. The definition abstracts from particulars, and subsists without determining that question.

R. B. But sure equivocals make no good definitions; and power or Episcopacy given by God, and given by man, cannot be ejusdem speciei, and therefore the word as to them is equivocal. Here therefore I asked:

[Page 36] Q. 1. Whether, seeing they seem to make the Pope himself but a humane creature (or jure hu­mano) Sect. 2. they set not the Bishop above him, if the Bishop be jure divino. And if not, whether they make not all their Churches humane things; (or however the Roman Church to be humane, and so its form not necessary to Salvation, if the Pope be humane.)

W. J. Where said I that Election was jure humano? that there be an election of him, is jure divino, (by competent Electors): the determination who hic & nunc are competent, is jus Eccle­siasticum.—Know you not that neither the Electors nor Consecrators of him, give him Papal ju­risdiction, but Christ?

R. B. 1. You say that there is no need of Revelation to know the Church-Governours: therefore they are not of Gods making, unless it be jure naturali; which none pretend. For God no way giveth right but by natural evidence of this will, or by Revelation, (either natu­ral in the constitution of the Creatures, or natural by Providential alterations, or by Superna­tural notice.) 2. If God have not annexed the power to any one sort of Electors choice, or have given no power to any determinate persons to choose a Pope, nor to any to choose the Choosers, then either God giveth no power to the Pope, or else he giveth Papal power to every one that shall be chosen by whomsoever: The later you abhor, for then any man might be Pope at his pleasure, and there might be a thousand at once. The former conse­quence is plain, because if God make not every man a Pope, but one man in the world; the Donation of God must by God be some way applied to that person rather than to others: Now if God hath neither impowred any determinate (or specified) persons to elect him rather than others, nor any to elect Electors, nor yet made the Consecrators the determining appli­ers, there is no way by which God applieth it more to that man than to others. You neither do nor can name any other way. Now you confess that God hath not given the power of Ele­ction to any determinate persons, but that the Electors may be sometimes people, sometime Presbyters, or both; sometime Princes, sometime Bishops sometime Cardinals. All that God saith you hold, is that they be competent. But this determineth of none. And you neither do, nor can tell us to whom God hath given the power to judg antecedently of the Electors competency, and to choose the choosing persons, without which it will never be any mans work, unless all that think themselves competent may choose Popes. You dare not under­take to tell us, whether it be all the Christian world, or only the City of Rome, Princes, Prelates, Presbyters people, or who, that God hath made choosers of the choosers So that you cannot say that God giveth the Pope his power by your way.

3. But on the by I desire those that say that their Electors or Ordainers give Ministers their power, to learn here this truth from you, that God giveth the power by his Donative word, and men do but determine of the person that shall from God receive it. But yet a de­termination there must be, and that of Gods appointment.

R. B. I told him that R. Smith, called Bishop of Calcedon, Governour of the English Pa­pists, ubi supra, confesseth it to be no part of their faith that the Pope is St. Peters successor jure divino. He answereth:

W. J. You should have done well to cite the place; for I have no time to seek whole books over.

R. B. Note what trust is due to this sort of men: I had to him in the same book cited the words in pag. 289. of my book, and R. Calcedons book, cap. 5. the words are: To us it suffereth that the Bishop of Rome is St. Peter's successor, and this all the Fathers testifie, and all the Catho­lick Church believeth; but whether it be jure divino, or humano, is no point of faith. Now when he came to the words where I cited them, he wisely takes no notice of them. And now when I refer him to the citation which was a few leaves before, the weary wary man instead of an answer, saith, I should have done well to cite the place, for he hath not time to seek whole books. But what good will well-doing do to such a one as you, where the better it is, the worse you like it? Is not this a false intimation, that I did not cite them?

R. B. Qu. 4. I asked, How shall we know who hath this Episcopal power? What election or consecration is necessary to it? If I know not who hath it, I am never the better. He answereth: Sect. 4.

[Page 37] W. J. As you know who hath temporal power, by an universal or most common consent of the people: The Election is different according to different times, places, and other circumstances; Episco­pal Consecration is not absolutely necessary to true Episcopal Iurisdiction.

R. B. More hard things still! 1. I know who is King in temporal power in our hereditary Kingdom, by the constitution of the Monarchy confest by all men to be hereditary, and so at­tested by Law and History; and by most credible testimony, and uncontrouled fame, that CHARLES the Second is the true Heir: And in Elective Kingdoms, as Poland, it is known by publick undenied testimony. But do Bishops become such by their birthright and hereditary Title? who hath asserted that? If it be by Election, the Electors must have just power to elect?

2. But what mean you by common consent of the people? No man can tell whether you join those words to know, or to hath, If you mean that I must know it by the peoples consent, as notify­ing it to me, it's nothing to our question now; nor is it always true: The greater part of the people may mistake the Prince's right, and suppose it to be in a Usurper, and yet the Prince doth not lose his right by that, nor must I believe them. And I think in your Schisms, no man could say that the common consent of the people, was always for him that carried it at last as right. But if you mean, as you seem, that the universal or common consent of the people, is the determining cause that must qualifie the person for the power, Then either you mean an ante­cedent or a consequent consent. If antecedent, that is election, which you say may vary. If con­sequent, it could not cause that which was caused before. And it is not true that the consequent consent of the most of the people, depriveth the King of his Power, or proveth it to be in a Usurper.

3. But seeing you here also say, that Consecration is not absolutely necessary, nor Election by any one sort or way, but may be varied as times vary, you have made either any man a Bishop, that any men will chuse; or you have made no man a Bishop, for want of a determining appli­cation; or no man can know himself, or be known to be a Bishop. If the question were, Who is the true Husband of such a woman? and you should say, That her own antecedent consent or ele­ction is not necessary, but without it sometimes the Kings election, sometimes the Ministers, sometimes the Parents may serve; and Matrimonial celebration is not necessary; it would follow that the woman may have a Husband against her will, and before she consent; and she may have many, or can never know which is he, for the King may chuse her one, and the Priest another, and the Parents a third. So here.

4. And if his Consecration be not necessary to Episcopacy, how will you prove Ordination necessary to the Priesthood? Here I noted,

R. B. that he resolveth the mysteries of their succession and mission, into popular consent. Sect. 5.

To this W. I. saith, that he meaneth it only as the means of knowing it.

Ans. But I enquired of the causes or evidences by which a Bishop may be known from a U­surper, what it is that maketh him a Bishop? as I would know a man from a brute; a Judg, a Phy­sician, a Merchant, from other men. But he durst not come to this, because guilt makes them conscious of their own defect.

But W. I. saith, p. 50, It is sufficient that some generalities of Election be determined jure divino. Ans. Let them be such that I may know a Bishop from a Usurper by, and it is e­nough.

W. J. As that it he done by Christians, by such as are capable to know who is a fit person for the Sect. 6. Office, chusing freely occording to the Laws of God; the further determinations are left to the Church, &c.

R. B. Worse still! 1. If the men of York chuse a Bishop of London, or several parties chuse ten Bishops here, they are all chosen by Christians. But that is not enough. What if ten parties chuse ten Popes, ten Kings, ten Bishops, the Christianity of the chusers will not prove them all authorized.

2. Nor will the choosers capacity of knowing the capable prove it. Three or four very wise men may best know who is capable to be a Judg, a Bishop, a Husband, a Tutor, a Physici­an [Page 38] &c. and yet if they should choose all the Judges, Bishops, Husbands, &c. in the land, the persons chosen by them would be never the more such, than the unchosen.

3. But being conscious that you had said nothing, you put in these words, according to the Sect. 7. Laws of God. But the question is, How shall I know what makes a true Bishop according to the Laws of God? and you skilfully tell me, he must be chosen by knowing Christians according to the Laws of God. He that is not satisfied by you with such talk, let him be unsatisfied.

R. B. I here noted again that by his way none of our Churches are disabled from the plea of a continued succession for want of Episcopal Consecration (Ordination) or due Election. 2. But that we cannot know their Bishops to be true Bishops, because we cannot know that they have common con­sent. He answereth:

W. J. No man argues you of the want of succession in your respective Sees because you want Episcopal Consecrations, but because you want Episcopal Election, Confirmation, Vocation, Mission, Sect. 8. Iurisdiction. For your first Bishops in Queen Elizabeths time (and the same is of your Ministers of Parishes) were intruded by secular power,—the Capitula had the present power of electing the Bishops,—vid. caet.

R. B. 1. It's well we are now quite rid of the old cavil of the Nags-head Consecration: Why was not this confest sooner? Did you well to abuse the people so long?

2. I thought we had nothing to have proved but due Qualifications, due election (or con­sent) and due Ordination (or Consecration). But here now comes in I know not what and how much more, Confirmation, Vocation, Mission, Iurisdiction. All hard words: Had I put him but to have told us the meaning of these also, what work should I have made him?

1. What is Confirmation without which Qualifications, Election and Ordination make not a true Minister or Bishop? O that we knew it. 2. What is Vocation besides the three aforesaid, and which is necessary ad esse? 3. And what is Mission besides those three, which is also so necessary? 4. And what meaneth he by Iurisdiction that was wanting? was it the Iurisdicti­on of the Collator, or of the Receiver; not the former, for we never knew that God gave any Jurisdiction to the Clergy, but the Pastoral power of guiding the Churches by the Word and Keys; which is the work of their own office; and the office of the Ordainer is [...]o ordain; and if he have power to Ordain (or Consecrate) he hath that Jurisdiction which con­sisteth of that power. If it be the Receivers Jurisdiction that he meaneth, that is the same contradiction. For to ordain one to the Pastoral office, is to give him all the jurisdiction which is part of that office. And for any other jurisdiction we wish Princes would keep it both from the ordainers and the ordained.

But he saith that our Bishops wanted Episcopal Election. Is it come to that, and yet the way of Election all this while made so indifferent? What is Episcop [...]l Election? not an Election by Bishops, that you affirm not: Not an election to be Bishops; that you deny them not. It is therefore such an Election as is necessary to the being of a Bishop. And what is that? why all that we have been able to extort from you is, That it be done by Christians capable to know fit persons, choosing freely according to the word of God. But what it is that is according to the Word of God, and what measure of consonancy to the Word, and in what points is neces­sary ad esse, you durst never tell us: And we say that our Bishops were chosen by Christians capable of knowing fit persons. I confess that it is my own judgment that they should have the choice or consent of the people whom they are to oversee (and of the Presbyters where there are any under them) and so thought your own Bishops for above 600 years, even when Gre­gory 1st. wrote his Epistles: But if you had asserted that, it would do more to unpope and unbishop your Church, than to disprove ours.

But he saith that the Capitula had the power of electing Bishops, and of constituting Parish-Priests in such places as wanted them,

Ans. 1. Suppose they had: you say no particular Electors act is necessary ad esse; and why theirs? 2. But quo jure, by what right could one Dean and Chapter of a City elect an Over­seer of many hundred Parish-priests, and many score or hundred thousand souls, without their consent? You dare not say that God gave them that power; and if man did it, what [Page 39] men were they? If you say that they were men that had more power in England than the King. Parliament, and the consenting people, you must prove it. If you lay it on any foreign power, Pope and Council, we will deny their power here and herein. What man doth, man may undo. 3. But indeed your meer Capitular Election is null and contrary to Gods Word, and the ancient custom of the Churches. By Gods Word, the consent of the Flock, and of the ordainers and of the ordained, made a Pastor, Bishop or Presbyter. By the customs of the Chur­ches in the Empire, sometime the greatest neighbour-Bishops assumed the power, and some­times Councils overtopt them all, and undid what they did, and sometimes the Emperours put in and out as pleased them (as Solomon put out Abiathar.) But always the peoples election or acceptance was necessary. For instance; when Gregory Nazianzene had confuted the Ma­cedonians and Arrians, and encreased the Church at Constantinople, though the Arrian Bishop since Valens time kept the great Church, Gregory had a little one, and was chosen their Bishop by the Orthodox people alone. This was his first title. After that, Peter Bishop of Alexandria made him Bishop quantum in se, or confirmed him; this was his additional title. After this, the same Peter bribed by money, without recalling his former grant, made Maximus (a right seeker of a Bishoprick, as the world hath since gone) bishop in his stead: the people refused the change, and retained Gregory. Afterward Maximus got both Peter and the Egyptian bishops to make him bishop of Constantinople (where was the Pope all this while?) the people still kept close to Gregory. Afterward Theodosius the Emperor (returning from the West) puts Gregory in possession of the great Church, and turneth out the Arrians, and confirmeth him bishop. After this Miletius of Antioch, and a Council at Constantinople, make Gregory bi­shop. After this more bishops coming in to the Council, got the major vote, and he discern­ing that they were resolved to depose him, departed, requesting the Emperors leave, as see­ing the doleful divisions and contentiousness of the bishops, not otherwise to be quieted; en­treating the Emperor to keep them in some unity and peace, lest it should disgrace and ruin the newly reformed Church. And the Council Or rather the Emperour: For some Bishops put in several names, and the Emperour chose Nectarius an unbaptized man and so no Chri­stian in the Churches judg­ment. made Nectarius bishop (the Pope in all this never minded). By this one instance you may see how bishops were then made in the greater places; though in lesser, the election of the people and Presbyters, and the ordination of three neighbour-bishops did suffice, according to the ancient rule and custom.

But he saith, That the old bishops were living, and not legally deposed.

Ans. 1. Sub judicelis est; we say they were. 2. Some deserted. 3. An illegal removal of the former, doth not ever nullisie the title of the latter, viz. when the flock consenteth to the change, &c. else what seat is there that hath not had their succession interrupted and cor­rupted? but none more than Rome, and Constantinople, and Alexandria; What poysonings, fightings, unjust depositions and schisms, have made way for successions? Is your Papacy therefore null?

But methinks it is a strange novelty that he makes the Capitula to have had the right of chu­sing (not only the bishops, but) all the Parish-priests: to say nothing of the Patrons or the Sect. 9. Princes power (which I think is as good as the Chapter.) who knoweth not that the bishops and the people did always chuse the Presbyters, and not the Chapters?

But he saith that they were intruded by Seculor Power. Ans. And were not your Popes so ordinarily, till Hildebrand got the better of the Emperor? But we had more than this.

R. B. Your Popes have not the consent of the most of the Christians in the world; nor (for ought you or any man knows) of most in Europe. Sect. 10.

W. J. Of what Christians? such as you and your associates are? We regard that no more than did the ancient holy Popes, not to have bad the consent of the Nestorians, Eutychians, Pelagians, Donatists, Arrians, &c.

R. B. Contempt of most of the body of Christ, is one of the great proofs that you are all the Church: And did not the Donatists say the same before you? And what but the sword doth make your cause to be better than theirs? How easie is it for any Sect to say, We are the only Church of Christ; and though most of the Christian world be against us, we regard them not?

[Page 40] Reader, mark the truth and c [...]ndor of these men! When we tell them that the Greeks, Ar­menians, Syrians, Iacobites, Georgians, Copties, Abassines, are of the same Church with us (be­cause they have the same Head, and the same essential faith), the Papists (in their talk and writings) tell us, that they are more of their mind than of ours; and that indeed they are not Hereticks, but well-meaning-men. But when we tell them then how two or three parts of the Church is against their Popes pretended universal power, they number all these then with Hereticks, as not to be regarded.

But abundance of their own Writers, yea such as have lived among them at Ierusalem and other parts, do vindicate the generality of these foreign Christians from the charge of Heresie.

2. But doth not the world know, that a man is supposed to be rightful Pope as soon as the Cardinals (an upstart sort of things) have chosen him, before ever any of the people of Eu­rope, even Papists, do consent? But perhaps hee'l say, that the people consent that these shall be the chusers; sure they did not so till Hildebrands days; nor since any otherwise than by silence or non-resistance, where they have no places to speak, nor power to resist, even as the Countrey-men consent to the conquering Armies that oppress them.

R. B. It's few of your own people that know who is Pope (much less are called to consent) till af­ter Sect. 11. he is setled in possession.

W. J. What then? Is not the same in all elective Princes, where the extent of their Dominions is exceeding large?

R. B. 1. I confess when we have an Elective King of all the world, I had rather Cardinals chuse him at Rome, than all the world should meet to chuse him. And if Christ had made us a King or Bishop of all the world, he would have told us who must chuse him, to save the men at the Antipodes their journey.

2. But why pretend you then the peoples consent, when you plead it unnecessary? In Po­land, that their Diets chuse their Kings, is from a known reason; it is the Constitution of their Kingdom, which the people agreed to, and chuse many of the chusers. But when did the U­niversal Church constitute your Cardinals to be the Electors? Or which of the Cardinals are chosen by the Universal Church, or any other than the Pope himself? God made Bishopricks like Corporations, where all may chuse the Mayor: Who made them like great Kingdoms, or set one over all the world (where the people cannot chuse, nor God made any chusers), is the question?

R. B. 4. According to this rule your successions have been frequently interrupted, when against the will of General Councils, and of the far greatest part of Christians, your Popes have kept the seats Sect. 12. by force.

W. J. These are generalities: What Popes? What Councils in particular? Name and prove, if you will he answered.

R. B. What disgraceful ignorance are you forced to pretend? What need I go over your Schisms? What need I name any more than Eugenius the 4th deposed by a great General Council, and two or three parts of the Church disowning your Pope at this day?

R. B. I told him how his instance even about Civil Power failed, seeing the consent of a peo­ple Sect. 13. pre-engaged to their Prince, giveth not right to a Usurper.

W. J. The people cannot be supposed to consent freely and lawfully to an usurper, &c.

R. B. Lawfully indeed they cannot, and that's the same thing that I affirmed: you confute me by granting what I say. When the Bishop of Rome hath a lawful election to be Bishop of all the world, we will obey him; and so we will any Prelate or Priest that hath a known law­ful election.

R. B. Will any Diocess suffice ad esse? What if it be but in particulor Assemblies?

W. J. It must be more than a Parish, or than one single Congregation, which hath not different in­ferior Sect. 14. Pastors, and one who is their Superior, &c.

R. B. 1. How ambiguously and fraudulently do you answer? No man can tell by this whe­ther you unbishop all that had but one Parish or Congregation; or only all that had not Pres­byters [Page 41] under them? Which ever you mean, it is notoriously false, and a nullifying of the anci­ent Episcopacy. Ignatim tells you, that in hi [...] days one Church was known by one Altar, and one Bishop, with the Presbyters and Deacons. And though I think not as Dr. Hamond, that all the first. Bishops in Scripture-times were setled as the sole Pastors of single Congregations, with­out any Presbyters under them; yet when you consider with whom he agreeth in this, viz. Dionysius Petavius, and what St. Clara saith for it, fathering it on Scotus, we think you should not so far differ from your own Doctors, as to deny all those to be true Bishops of the Scrip [...]re-times, who they think were the only Bishops. You have a custom of calling the A­postles Bishops, even Peter Bishop of Antioch and Rome; Did not those first Bishops then make all the Presbyters that were under them? Qu. Whether they were no Bishops till they had made those Presbyters? If no, then those first Presbyters had not Episcopal ordina­tion: If yea, then habetur quaesitum.

The truth is, all the ancientest Bishops were the Pastors of single Churches, not near so big as many of our Parishes: I have elsewhere proved this at large. I instanced to him only in Gregory Neoc [...]sariensis, who was Bishop only of Seventeen souls, when he came thither first. He answereth:

W. J. How know you that there were no more in the Countrey adjacent? 2. Know you not that he was sent to multiply Christians, and make himself a competent Diocess?

R. B. I know the first by the consent of History; that telleth us of the Seventeen in the City over whom he was set, and speaketh of no more in such circumstances as would have oc­casioned it. 2. And I believe your second: but do not you see that you desert your Cause? and contradict your self? 1. Speak out: Was he the bishop of the Infidels? Were they his Church? Or was he only to convert and gather them to the Church? 2. Was he not a Bi­shop there (before he had converted any one) to those seventeen alone? You dare deny none of this. Therefore he was a Bishop before he had more Congregations than one, and before he had any Presbyters to govern.

And here you may see how the changes that Popes and their Prelates have made in the Church, constraineth them to defend them by subverting their own foundation. For if those were no Bishops who had but one Congregation, yea and those that had no subject-Presby­ters, then the first ages (if not also the second, except in Rome and Alexandria) had no true Bishops, or at least the founders were not such; and their Episcopacy, as they describe it, hath no succession from the Apostles. Truth and Error will never make a close coalition.

CHAP. V. Q. What mean you by TRADITION?

W. I. I Understand by Tradition the visible delivery from hand to hand in all cases, of the revealed Sect. 1 [...] will of God either written or unwritten.

R. B. I suppose by visible from hand to hand, you mean principally of the unwritten (au­dible from ear to ear by speech). But all the doubt is, by whom it must be delivered, by the Pa­stors or people, or both? by the Pope, or Councils, or Bishops disjunct? by the major part of the Church, Bishops or Presbyters? or by how many?

W. J. By such and so many proportionably as suffice in a Kingdom to certifie the people which are the ancient universal received customs in that Kingdom, which is to be morally considered.

R. B. O wary Disputant! that taketh heed lest you should answer while you seem to an­swer! Reader, a Kingdom is not so big as all the world! The Customs of a Kingdom may be known by the constant consent of the people of that Kingdom; and if they differ about it, Re­cords [Page 42] and Law-booke decide it expositorily, and judges by the decision of particular mens ca­ses by such rules. But can customs be known as well over all the world? Yea, and can mat­ter of faith and doctrine be as easily known as practised customs? Can we know as easily what are the Traditions of Abassia, Armenia, Syria, Egypt, &c. as of England? Can they of Abas­sia tell what are the true Traditions of all the Christian world, that have Traditions in their own Countrey so different from ours? They have many books as sacred among them by tradi­tion, which we receive not. They have annual Baptism, and other ceremonies by Tradition, which we account to be unlawful.

Here I told W. I. 1. How certainly Tradition is against them, when most of the Christian world deny the Popes Soveraignty, and that as by tradition. And how lame their tradition is which is car­ried but by their private affirmation, and is but the unproved saying of a Sect.

To this he saith:

W. J. That this belongs to our Controversie, and not to the explication of our terms. And so I must pass it by.

R. B. Q. 2. What proof or notice must satisfie as in particulars, what is true tradition? Sect. 2.

W. J. Such as with proportion is a sufficient proof or notice of the Laws and Customs of tempo­ral Kingdoms.

R. B. But you durst not tell us what that is that is proportionable. This was answered be­fore. I added, Is it necessary for every Christian to be able to weigh the credit of contradicting-parties? When one half of the world say one thing, and the other another thing, what op­portunity have ordinary Christians to compare them, and discern the moral advantages on each side? As in the case of the Popes Soveraignty, when two or three parts are against it, and the rest for it: Doth salvation lye on this?

W. J. As much as they have to know which books are, and which are not Canonical Scripture among those that are in controversie.

R. B. That these books were sent to the Churches from the Apostles, 1. Is a matter of fact. 2. And an assertion easily remembred. 3. And all the Churches are agreed of all that we take as Ca­ [...]cal. 4. And yet men that practically believe but the Creed and Summaries of Religion, shall certainly be saved, though they erroneously doubted of some of the uncontroverted books (as Chronicles, Esther, Canticles, &c.) much more that receive not the controverted Apocrypha.

But 1. Your Traditions in question are many particulars, hard for to be remembred. 2. And that of matter of faith and fact, where a word forgotten or altered, changeth the thing. 3. And most Christians in the world are against it. 4. And you would lay the peoples salvation on it; yea, and make it one of your cheating quibbles, to prove your religion safer than ours, be­cause some Protestants say a Papist may be saved, but you say that Protestants cannot be saved (that is, because you have less sincerity and charity). Is not here difference enough?

If you hold that all they are damned that believed not that all the Apocryphal books were Canonical, peruse Bishop Cousins Catalogue of Councils and Fathers that received them not, and see whether you damn not almost all the Church. But if you confess that there is no more necessity to salvation for men to be the subjects of your Pope, than there is that they try all the Apocrypha whether it be Canonical, and know it; why then do you found your belief that Christ is the Son of God, upon your forebelieving that the Pope is his Vicar, or your Church his Church? And why do you make such a stir in the world to affright poor people to believe and be subject to your Pope?

I here asked him. Must all the people here take the words of their present Teacher? And he Sect. 3. This se [...]ms to confess that your people have no [...]ivine faith for our belief of a Priest, saying, This book is ca­nonical, is but humane. durst not answer yea or nay, but as much as they do for the determination of Canonical Scriptures.

Ans. If it be no more, it giveth them no certainty: but by the belief of one man as a Tea­cher, they are broug [...] [...]o [...]cern themselves those notifying evidences by which the Teacher himself [...] books are [...]. And if they attain no higher than to believe fide D [...] the [...] Doctrines, the doubting or ignorance of some texts or books, will not [...] in the Scripture that impress of Divine authority, which to a prepared hea [...] o [...] reader will [...] convince him that they are of God, though not r [...]e him of every particular Text and Book.

[Page 43] R. B. Then most of the world must believe against you, because most of the teachers are against Sect. 4. you. Tradition quite [...]eth P [...]er).

W. J. There is no Congregation of Christians united in the same profession of faith, external Com­munion and dependance of Pastors, which is contrary in belief [...]o [...], any way to be parallel with us in extent and multitude. Prove there is, and name it. All our adversaries together are a patcht body of a thousand different professions, and as much adversaries one to another as they are to us; the one justify­ing us in that, wherein the other condemn us; so that no beed is to be taken to their testimonies; non sunt convenientia.

R B. They agree not with your interest: But if the Testimonies and Tradition of two or three parts of the Christian world, be not to be heeded. I doubt the testimony of your third or fourth part will prove much less regardable. Let us try the case, for here you are utterly confounded, 1 Indeed none that our ordinary language calleth a Congregation, that is, men that meet locally together, are so big as all your party: But a Church far better united than you are, is far greater than yours. Those that have all the Essentials of the one Church of Christ, are that one Church of Christ: But the Reformed Churches, the Greeks, Armenians, Abassines, Sy­rians, Iacobites, Georgians, Copties, &c. have all the Essentials of the one Church of Christ▪ Therefore they are that one Church of Christ. The Major is undeniable. The Minor is thus proved, They that hold the same Head of the Church, believing in the same God the Father, Son and [...]ly G [...]st, and are devoted to him in the same Baptismal Covenant, and believe all the Articles of faith, desire and practice essential to Christianity, in the Creed, Lords-prayer and Decalogue, and re­cei [...]e all the [...]re as Gods [...]ord, which i [...] [...]y here received by us as Canonical, these have all the [...]ls of the one Church of Christ (and much more) But such are all the forementioned Christians: Ergo, &c.

The Head and the Body are the constitutive parts of the Church: The Head is Christ, the Body are Christians 1. They are united in the same profession of faith; viz. the same Bap­tism [...]reed and Scriptures. 2. They are united in the same external communion, if you mean external worship of God in all the Essentials of it, and much more. They have the same Scriptures read and [...] they preach the same Gospel; they use the same Sacraments of the Cove­nant of Grace, viz. Baptism and the Lords Supper; yea they are commonly for some Con­firmation, Ordination [...] of penitence and absolution of P [...]nitents, Matrimony, &c. though they agree not whether the name of Sacraments be fit for them all, much less Sacraments of the Cove [...] Grace; they observe the same Lords day for publick worship; they pray, confess sin, give thanks and praises to God; and hold the communion of Saints, and communicati­on to each other in want. This is their external communion. 3. They have the same depen­ [...] of the people on their Pastors, as the Ministers of Christ, authorized to [...] and guide the Churches, and to go before them in the publick worshipping of God. But if you mean that they have not the same ext [...] communion of Pastors in dependance on one as the [...] Pastor or Governour of all the rest; indeed there is none such but you. For it is in that that they differ from you.

Reader is not here an excellent Disputer? I affirm that the judgment of most of the Chri­stian world is against the Papists▪ in the point of an Universal Head or Governour of all Sect. 5. Churches. He saith that no one party which is for an Universal Governour, and yet is against an Universal Governour, is so big as their party. I grant it. Had they all dependance on one as an Universal Governour, they were not against on Universal Governour. The Abassines have one Abuna, but he claimeth no Universal Government. The Armenians have their Catholick Bishop but he claimeth no Universal power. The Greeks have their Patriarch at Constantino­ple, but he pretendeth not to govern all the World. We are all against any Head of the whole Church on Earth but Christ, and therefore are united under no other.

You say that [...] [...] patcht body of a thousand different professions, &c.

Ans Reproach not the Body of Christ▪ they are far more united than your Church as Papal. Are not the se [...]en points of [...] mentioned by Paul [...] [...], 4, 5, 6, 7▪ as good as yours▪ 1. They have one [...]ead that never [...]arieth, and whom all receive▪ you have a Head rejected by most [Page 44] Christians, and oft turn'd into two or three Heads, one saying I am the Head, and another I am the Head, and setting the world in blood and contention to try it out which of them shall get the better, as your forty years Schisms shewed. 2. Therefore this Church which you reproach as patcht, is but one: But yours is really many and not one, specifically, as well as oft numerically; when there were two or three Popes, you had two or three Churches. For it is the pars imperans that individuateth the Society. And de specie, you are still three Churches, as holding three several heads: one holdeth the Pope to be the Head, another a Council, and a third the Pope and Council agreeing: And these Heads have oft condemned and deposed one another, Councils namned Popes as Hereticks, Infidels, Simonists, Murderers, Adulterers; and Popes accused Councils of schism and rebellion at least. And to this day there is no certainty which were true Popes, nor which were true Councils, some being called by you Reprobate, be­cause they pleased not the Popes, and some approved. But our Head of the Church is not thus divided, nor schismatical. 3 Our common faith is still the same, and its rule the same; but yours is mutable by new additions, as long Councils will make new Decrees, and no man can tell when you have all and your faith is come to its full stature: Nay, and your Decrees which are your rule of faith are so many and obscure, that you are not agreed your selves in the number or the meaning of them. 4. It is a notorious truth that all these Churches which you say have a thousand professions (as they all agree in one Christian profession, so) do less differ among themselves, than your seemingly united Church doth with it self; whether you respect the number or the weight of differences.

1. For the Number, sint libri judices; all the Christian World besides hath not so many (nor I think half so many) Volumes of Controversies, as your Writers have written against one another, (as far as is come to the notice of this part of the World.)

2. And for the Weight, 1. I have shewed that you are divided in your very Fundamentals, the Supremacy; you confess here that your Church is not at all agreed what the Christian faith is, or who is a Christian: some say, he that believeth the Church, and that God is a re­warder; others say, a Christian must believe in Christ, &c. 2. Your Commentators differ a­bout the sense of hundreds or thousands of Texts of Gods own word 3. Your Disputers a­bout Grace and Free-will, accuse one the other of making God the cause of Sin, and of deny­ing the Grace of God. 4. Your Moralists differ about many instances of Excommunicating Kings, and then killing them, and of the Popes power to depose them; and of perjury, lying, murder, adultery, fornication, false witness, yea about loving God himself, whether it be ne­cessary to love him once a year, or whether attrition, that is repentance from bare fear, with penance, may not serve turn to Salvation, with abundance such. And we confess that other Christians have their differences! And what wonder while they are so imperfect in knowledg, and all grace? And now if Concord or Discord must tell us whose Tradition or Judgment is most regardable, let the Impartial judg whether the mo [...] [...]egardable Tradition of the far greatest part of the Church be not against you? and whether your reproaching them for dis­cord, condemn not your selves much more than them. If a subject should stile himself the Kings Vicegerent, and claim much of his Prerogative without his Commission and a third part of the Kingdom should unite in receiving and obeying him, and have otherwise a thousand contentions among them; Qu. Whether these or the rest of the Kingdom were the more and better united?

When I next questioned, Whether the vulgar that know not Councils, resolve not their Sect. 6. faith into the belief of the Parish-priest? he saith no. And saith, That the Priest is but the means by whom we come to believe, and tells us that else we know not whether there were any Chri­stians 500 years ago, &c.

Ans. But if they will be content with Ministerial teaching, and Historical proof of things past, we would not differ from them; we do not only assert these as well as they, but we say that as we have sounder teaching, so we have far better Historical Tradition of our faith, than that which dependeth on a pretended fan [...]tick Infallibility, or authority of their Pope and Sect; even the Historical Tradition of the whole Christian World, and of many of the enemies themselves.

CHAP. VI. What mean you by a GENERAL COUNCIL?

W. I. A General Council I take to be an Assembly of Bishops, and other chief Prelates, called, Sect. 1. convened, confirmed, by those who have sufficient spiritual authority to call, convene and confirm it.

R. B. Here is nothing still but flying and hiding: his cause is such that he dare not answer. Note that, 1. Here is no mention of what extent it must be at all, whether these Prelates must be sent from all the Christian world? or whence? The least Provincial Council that ever was called, may be a General Council by this description.

2. He tells us of other chief Prelates, and yet never tells what sort of things he meaneth by chief Prelates, that are no Bishops. And when he hath told us, doubtless he will never prove (nor I hope affirm) that any such Prelates are of Christs institution. And if the matter of Gene­ral Councils be not of Divine right, whether such Councils can be of Divine right, I leave to censure. A Council of humane Officers, is but a humane Council; and yet he leaveth out, yea excludeth Presbyters who are of Gods institution.

3. He tells us not who it is that must call, convene and confirm them. And he had reason for it: lest he reprobate all those that were otherwise called. Here therefore I first asked:

Q. 1. Who is it (ad esse) that must call, convene and confirm it? Till I know that, I am never the Sect. 2. nearer knowing what a Council is, and which is one indeed.

W. J. Definitions abstract from inferior Subdivisions: For your satisfaction I affirm, it belongs to the Bishop of Rome.

R. B. This you must needs say for your cause sake: But he justifieth his definition as ha­ving a sufficient Genus [An Assembly] and [Differentia] [Bishops and chief Prelates convened, &c.]

Ans. You do ill to refuse all disputes but what are exactly Logical, (which is your custom for advantage to amuse the women) if your Logick be no better, should not a Relative As­sembly be defined by its subject, fundamentum & terminus? 1. Your Genus is too general; it should have been a nearer Genus. 2. Your subject is partly false (as taking in besides Bishops, other chief Prelates, and excluding Presbyters), and partly ambiguous, what [other chief Pre­lates] you mean? and specially too narrow, not at all differencing this Council from any in­ferior Synod. 3. Here is no end or terminus expressed, and so no difference put between a Coun­cil, and an Assembly of Prelates called, for any common civil use, as if it were but to choose or attend a Prince. 4. Here is no just notice of the fundamentum, or the ratio fundandi; the true fundamentum is totally omitted, which is the mutual consent, 1. of the Churches chusing and sending their Bishops or Delegates; 2. of the Bishops to go in that Relation; 3. of all the Bishops to convene and agitate conciliar business for the proper ends. And a fundamentum is mentioned, which is, 1. Insufficient and as nothing; being but a Genus [called by those that have sufficient authority,] instead of a species in your own opinion, who think that the Authority is only in the Pope. 2. And when you so explain your self, it is false, as shall he shewed. 5. Yea the very formal Relation is not mentioned; which is the relation which the assembled mem­bers have to the Churches which they represent, and to each other, and to the intended end and work. So that here is a definition that is no definition, nor hath any thing like a definiti­on, yet defended by this great disputer: Nor can any man tell what a General Council is by it. And how can we dispute intelligibly, when you can no better explain your terms?

Here I urged, from his making the Popes call, convening and confirmation, necessary ad esse, that this nullifieth the chief Councils called General; this he denieth to be true. To which instead of transcribing long Histories, I only say, that whoever readeth the true Histories of the call­ing and convening of the Councils at Nice, Constantinople, (divers) at Ephesus, the first and se­cond, yea that at Calcedon, though Leo desired it of the Emperour, and many others in those [Page 46] ages, and yet will not confess that most of them were called by the Emperours special com­mand, sometime requiring the Bishop of Alexandria to call them, sometime the Bishop of Con­stantinople, and sometime writing or sending to all the Patriarchs, or most, to come and send their Bishops, and usually also to his Civil and Military Officers to concur, and to be Judges; I shall not think that man fit to be disputed with about such matters, who hath the face to con­tradict such consent of History and Records.

R. B. Q. 2. Must it not represent all the Catholick Church? Doth not your definition agree to a Provincial or the smallest Council?

W. J. My definition speaks specifically of Bishops and those Prelates, as contradistinct from the Sect. 4. inferior Pastors and Clergy, and thereby comprized all the Priests contained in the species, and conse­quently makes a distinction from the National or particular Councils, where some Bishops are only con­ven'd, no [...] all; that being only some part, and not the whole speci [...], or specifical notion applied to Bishops of every age: and yet I said not all Bishops, but Bishops and chief Prelates; because though all are to be called, yet it is not necessary that all should come.

R. B. O what a disadvantage is an ill Cause! The man is so confounded, that the further he goeth, the worse he makes it.

1. He must needs intimate that it is all the Church that must be represented, and yet he durst not speak that out.

2. He intimateth, that his speaking specifically of Bishops and Prelates, is equivalent to all Bi­shops and Prelates.

3. He intimateth, that naming Bishops as contradistinct from inferior Pastors and Clergy, was necessary to difference a General Council from a National or other; as if a National or Provincial one might not consist of Bishops only; or as if the inferior Clergy might not be of a General one, as they oft have been.

4. He makes the difference here to be, that some bishops are convened, not all; when yet he af­ter saith, that all come not to General Councils.

5. Our question being, What constitut [...] a General Council? He saith, It is All the Bishops, and [...] All are not there, though [...]alled. As if those that come not, were any part of the Council.

6. He would perswade us, that yet he well left out the word ALL, though it must be all that are [...]alled because they come not:

To this I further answered him, That then you have had no General Councils, much less can you Sect. 5. have any more: for you have none to represent the greatest part of the Church, unless by a mock re­presentation. [...]. If all must be called, your Councils were not General, a great part of the Church being [...]t called.

W. J. We are [...]ow bu [...] explicating terms——that all were not called, is denied.

R. B. Then let never modesty forbid you to deny any thing. I have elsewhere proved against Mr. Hutch [...]son, that your Councils were generali, but as to the Roman Empire; and seldom, if ever, so much as that. 1. Had the Emperors (who certainly called them) any power to call any of other Princes Dominions? 2. Doth any History mention that ever the Emperors did so? 3. Did the Pope of Rome call to the Councils at Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, Calcedon▪ &c. all the Bishops of all the extra-Imperial Churches? 4. Were the businesses there agitated, any of theirs? 5. Were any Concilia [...] Decrees executed on them? Any extra-Imperial Bishops put in or out, or suspended by them? 6. Were all the bishops of the Greek Churches, of the Armenians, and all other Southern and Eastern Nations, called to the Councils at Trent, Late­ran, &c.? What is it that some will not pretend?

7. Were it not an impudent thing for any man to call together all the Bishops in the world? Sect. 6. If it be not desired that they come, why are they called? Ludicrous hypocrisies beseem not matters of this moment. If it be desired only that they ch [...]e some few among the rest, it is the chusing of those few only that should be required. But if all be intended, the Devil could scarce make a more [...] motion. What! for all the Bishops on Earth, 1. To forsake their charges, most of them for many years. 2. To lose so many years time in Travel and Session. 3. To lose the lives of so, many as are never like to endure Voyages and journies by [Page 47] Sea and Land so long, with strange air and other difficulties, &c. But why should I stay to shame such madness? when though W. I. be fain to vent it, their Sect never intended nor attempted any such thing [...]. But suppose it were but some delegate Bishops that he pleaded for to make an Universal Council, I have shewed in the 2d part of my Book called, A Key for Catholicks, how impossible and wicked the design of a true Universal Council is. For, 1. They must be so many from all parts of the world as may make it an equal Representative, and not two or three from the remotest part, and 200 from Italy and other nearer parts, or else it is a putid mockery. 2. Some Churches have a 100 Bishops over so many Christians, as in other Countries are under one only. Most report that in all Abassia there is but one Abuna; which though it be not now so big as it hath been, or as Alvarez saith, yet is like to be as big as Brierwood con­cludeth, viz. as France, Spain, Italy and Germany. And should that one Abuna leave his Country to have no more vote than Pate or Ola [...] Magnus had at Trent. 3. Most of the Christian world have not half so many able Teachers as they need, especially the remotest parts: and it would be cruelty to the peoples souls to call away from them proportionable representatives. 4 None are so fit men for the great business of Councils, as the ablest, boliest, experienced Bishops; and these are most of them aged, sickly and weak, and unfit for so long travels. 5. Abassia [...] not Sea-ports, and the Armenians and other Nations are out of the reach of such necessary converse, as must duly warn all of the time and place. 6. The Bishops are under Princes of such various Religions, minds and interests, as they could never agree to a true Council Would the Turk that is an enemy to Christianity, give leave to the Greek Bishops proportionably to come? Would the Countries that are in War with those that send them, give them a free pas­sage? 7. The time would be so long in passing from Abassia, Armenia, St. Thomas, Mexico▪ the Antipodes, and staying at the Council and returning, that few were like to come home alive; and so the Bishops are murdered, and the Countries receive not any just account of their trans­actions. 8. When they come together, the number would be so great, as that they could not hear what was said by one another. 9. And many would understand and speak no one com­mon language with the rest, and so be uncapable of that right understanding and communica­tion as is necessary to the end. 10. And their judgments and interests would be so cross, as would render the Council too like a pitcht field; and when they had wearied themselves to go home to the further parts of the world with no better an account, but that they were over-vo­ted by a greater number of Europeans, who living near and under the Pope were awed by his power, or by assed by interest, what good would this do the Countries that sent them. And all this wicked and impossible design ariseth from the idle brains of men, without any true useful­ness or need, or any ground of Gods word or reason; only because in one Empire there were oft such things as General Councils, which yet were like to fields of War, and had torn the Imperial Churches all to pieces, had not some Emperours done much to keep the peace: so that Pighius saith, That General Councils themselves were but a new devise of Constantine, and not of Gods institution, nor of necessity.

R. B. I next asked of him, If all must be called, and but some come, whether th [...]se that never come there (through distance, age, prohibition of Princes, poverty, &c▪) be any parts of the Council? and so Sect. 7. whether it be General, because those should come that do not? If that will serve, what if none come when all are called? He answereth:

W. J. As it is a true Parliament if a competent number come, when all are called— [...]o here.

R. B. 1. The validity of a few mens acts, cometh from the fundamental Constitution, which is as the Law to them. But who made such a Law for all the world? If God did, shew it to us▪ if man, who? and by what power? Whether all be right and valid that is done in a Parliament, or not, when few are there, yet it is certain the rest are absent. Parliaments meet and act under Laws; but Councils meet as Equals upon meer and voluntary consent. The Law may oblige all the Land by that which a few men do: but if there be a meeting, e. g. as now at N [...]mengen, of the Agents of free Princes, who can oblige ten by the acts of two without their consent? How­ever, if only Europeans be at the Council, it's certain that Africans, Asians, and Americans are absent: and if absent, their judgment and consent is not there signified: and therefore if your [Page 48] question be only de nomine, whether forty bishops may be called a General Council, while the rest are far off? Or if it be whether the Laws or Canons of a small or Provincial Council, may oblige some men, though it were not general? These are nothing to our present business.

2. Moreover, were all the world under the Popes or any other mens Laws, yet they could not be bound to wickedness, self-murder, neglect of their flocks, and to impossibilities: There­fore if (e. g) there were forty bishops, or forty two at Trent in the beginning, and 200 after, and perhaps 20000 absent that were never obliged to be there, the question is both whether this was an universal meeting, and whether the 20000 were obliged by the Acts of the 40 or 200

3. And if they were obliged, what's that to notifie the, Tradition of all the absent Churches? Can you know their minds and customs, by saying that they were obliged by the Decrees?

R. B. Q. 4. May none but Bishops and chief Prelates be members (as you say?) Sect. 8.

W. J. No other, unless such Inferiors as are sent to supply their places, and as Deputies of those Bishops or Prelates, &c.

R. B. Note here, 1. He determineth no others, but never tells us quâ lege, and who it is that made that Law to all the world. And it's known that the Apostles, Elders and Brethren were [...]senters at Ierusalem, Act 15.

2. Inferiors may come as Deputies of the Bishops; for he knew that the Bishop of Rome had oft sent such to Councils so far off as his gravity would not suffer him to go to. But are these Priests capable persons or not? If not, how can a Bishops deputation make them capa­ble? what if a Priest depute a Lay-man to consecrate the Eucharist? or a Bishop depute a Priest or Deacon only to ordain? will the deputation make them capable? but if they are capable, why may they not be there by their own right? If the business of Councils be as much as our modern Papists tell us, to transmit the Traditions which the several Countries have re­ceived from their Ancestors, why may not ten learned grave Priests as truly and credibly tell what are the Traditions of their Country, as one unlearned (or learned) Bishop.

3. Note here how the highest acts of a Pope or Prelate with them may be done per alios, by Deputies that are no Bishops. To preside in General Councils was of old in the Empire the top of the Popes prerogative, and yet he may do that by a Presbyter; and a Bishop may vote and do all his part in a General Council by a Presbyter. And is that an office properly Ecclesiastical and Sacred, which may be exercised by others not of that office? why then may not a Lay-man be deputed to preach, baptize, pray, consecrate and administer the Eucharist, ex­communicate, absolve, &c. if deputed? And if so, what is proper to the office?

I told him of the Council of Basil, where were a multitude of Priests: And he answereth:

W. J. Basil in many things is not allowed of by us; name those others received as General Councils Sect. 9. by us that had simple Priests with power of giving Votes as such.

R. B. See Reader, when they have talkt of Councils and Traditions of all the Church, &c. all signifieth but what please the Pope, and his dislike can make Councils and their judgments null at a word. Basil was one of the greatest Councils that ever was; but they condemned and deposed the Pope, and no wonder then if the Pope dislike them; and now that's an answer to all such authority, Basil is not allowed by us. Nor is any thing allowed by you that is against you.

But if any of them would see where Priests have had Votes in Councils, let them read Blondel in the end of his Def. Sent. Hieron. and he shall have proof enough. For I will not tire the Reader with vain citations, done by many long ago. Only I note, 1. If Abbots that are no Bishops have Votes in Councils, why not Priests? saving the Popes will, what makes the difference? (2d) If Presbyters may have Votes in National and Provincial Councils, why not in General ones? the will of the Pope makes and unmakes all. Thus we have no satisfa­ction what a General Council is.

CHAP. VII. What mean you by [SCHISME.]

W. J. I understand by Schism, a wilful separation, or division of ones self from the whole vi­sible Sect. 1. Church of Christ.

R. B. If this only be Schism it's comfortable news to many a thousand and million that some call Schismaticks. I hope then there are no Schismaticks in England, of those that are called Presbyterians, Erastians, Independents, Separatists, or Anabaptists: For I know not one of these that separateth from the whole visible Church of Christ. But I doubt with these Judges the Church of Rome goes for the whole visible Church of Christ. I asked here.

Q. 1. Is it no Schism to separate from a particular Church, unless from the whole? Sect. 2.

W. J. No; it is no Schism, as Schism is taken in the Holy Fathers, for that great and Ca­pital Crime, so severely censured by them, in which sense only I take it here.

R. B. 1. He first defineth without distinguishing, and then tells us that he means only one sort of Schism.

2. Let the Reader but peruse all the Texts of Scriptures which mention Schism, and see whether he will not find, that every Text, or almost every one, do use the Word only of Divisions made in the Church, rather than of dividing, or separating from the Church; and whether such separating from the whole Church, be not there called Heresie rather than Schism.

But seeing it is only this Capital Schism that he calleth by that name, I have no mind to draw him now to more censoriousness, and therefore I noted how by this he absolveth the Protestants from the guilt of Schism.

W. J. Did not your first Protestants in Germany separate as much from the Armenians, Ethio­pians, Sect. 3. Greeks, as they did from the Romans? If they did not, shew the Communion they had with them.

R. B. Very willingly, Sir: They had the same God, the same Saviour, the same Spirit, the same Faith, Baptism and Hope, and so were of the same Body of Christ, which is all the Union predicated by St. Paul, Eph. 4. 3, 4, 5, 6. They had also the same Scriptures, the same Rule of Prayer and Practice, (the Lord's Prayer. and the Decalogue and Precepts of Christ, as well as the same Creed) the same Love, the same Sacrament of the Eucharist, Prays­es of God, the Lords day for Holy Communion, Pastors of the same Order, and had no other Diversities in such things than St. Paul tells us are in the Body of Christ, 1 Cor. 12. Is this no Communion?

W. J. Did your Ministers first take either Mission or Iurisdiction to preach, from any of their Sect. 4. Bishops or Patriarchs? Did they take the prescription of their Liturgies, Discipline or Hierarchy from them? Did they upon occasion joyn in Prayer, Sacraments or Sacrifice with them?

R. B. 1. Do we hold Communion with none that we take not Mission and Iurisdiction from? What Absurdities do you thrust upon us? Did the Churches of Ephesus, Corinth, Galatia, Philippi, Colosse, &c. hold no Communion in Scripture-times, unless they had Mis­sion and Iurisdiction from each other? Must the Greeks and Armenians have Mission, &c, from us? If not, why must we have it from them? Your Church receiveth no Mission or Jurisdiction from others. Have you therefore no Communion with them? Your Language favoureth of so much Tyranny and Pride, as would tempt Men indeed to take you for Anti-christian: As if Subjection to you, and Communion with you, were all one; or you would have Communion with no Christians in the World, b [...]n the relation of Servants or Sub­jects to you.

2. When we have Qualification, Election, and (where it may be had) due Ordination, we know of no other Mission necessary, besides Gods own Word which chargeth Christ's Mini­sters to preach the Gospel, in season and out of season, &c. God's charging all Ministers [Page 58] to preach, is their Mission when they are Ministers: Princes leave, and Peoples consent, do give them their opportunity; and for Jurisdiction, we need and desire none but a Mini­sterial Power of guiding Souls towards Heaven by God's Word, preached and applyed: And he that ordaineth a Minister, thereby giveth him all the Jurisdiction which is necessary to his Office. If a Man be licensed a Physitian, must he have also Mission and Iurisdiction given him after, before he may practice?

3. How could we take Ordination, Mission and Jurisdiction, from Men on the other side of the World? What need we go so far for it when the Gospel is near us, which telleth us how God would have Ministers more easily called than so?

4. And as for the prescript of our Liturgy, Discipline and Hierarchy, that is one of the differences between us and you: Must you needs have a Liturgy, Discipline and Hierar­chy of Man's forming? so you have: But we can live in Christian Communion with so much as Christ and his Apostles by his Spirit have prescribed us. Is there no Communion to be had with any Church, but that which hath arrived at that heighth of Pride as to make Liturgies, Discipline, and Hierarchy for all the Chrstian World; and to suffer none to speak publickly to God, in any words but those which they write down for them to read to God? We make no such Laws to any other Church in the World, nor do we receive any such Laws from any; and yet we have Communion with them, fraternal and not subjective Communion. There is one Law-giver who is able to save and to destroy; who are you that make Laws for another's Servants and judge them? Had the Churches no Communion for the first 400 years when no Liturgies were imposed? or when the first Law made hereabout was, but that no one should use a Form of Prayer till he had shewed it to the Synod? No nor when Gregory's and Ambrose's Liturgies were striving for pre-eminence? Had the Church at Neocesaria no Communion with that at Caesarea, because they had so different Liturgies, as their quarrel against Basil intimateth? And when every Bishop used what Liturgy he pleased in his own Congregation, Was there then no Communion between the Churches? We re­fuse not any meet Liturgy that is found needful to our Concord: But truly for Hierarchy and Species or Forms of Churches, and the substantials of Discipline, we earnestly wish that no Church had any but what God hath himself prescribed to them.

5. But how should we joyn with Men many hundred or thousand miles off us in Word and Sacraments, otherwise than by useing those of the same species? We do not locally hold such Communion with the next Parishes to us, nor with many in the World; for we cannot be in many places at once, much less can we be every Lords day in every Assembly in Ethio­pia and Armenia.

As for [Sacrifice] we know of none acceptable but the Commemmoration of Christ's Sacrifice, once offered for Sin, and the offering of our selves and our Thanksgivings, praise, and other duties to God: And why you distinguish the first from Sacraments I know not.

W. J. A [...]d did they profess the same Faith in all points of Faith, and those the very same Sect. 5. wherein they dissented from the Church of Rome?

R. B. 1. Ad hominem, it might suffice to say to you, that explicitely or implicitely they did. 2. But I better answer you, We profess the same Faith in all points essential to Christia­nity, and in abundance more: I have told you before that we agree in all the Old Creeds, and in the truth of the Canonical Scriptures. 3. But do you Papists agree in all points of Faith? no not by a thousand: For all is of Faith which God hath intelligibly revealed in the Holy Scriptures to be believed: But there is above a thousand intelligible Texts of Scripture about the sence of which your Commentators differ. If all Christians agree in all that is de fide, then all Christians fully understand every intelligible Word in the Scripture: And then every Woman and Rustick is as wise in Divinity as the greatest Doctors; (yea far are the Doctors from such Wisdom.)

W. J. If so, they may as well be said not to have separated fom the external Communion of Sect. 6. the Roman Church.

R. B. Some will tell you that we did not separate from you, but you from us; but I must say, that the Roman Church is considered either materially as Christians, and a part of the Church of Christ, and so we neither did nor do separate from you; or else formally as P [...]pal; and so we renounce you, and all Communion with you, as being no Church of [Page 59] Christ, but a Sect that treasonably usurpeth his Prerogative: The pars imperans specifieth or informeth the society: Christ only is the Universal Head of all Christians as such, and of all the Churches with which we profess Concord and Communion: In this Head Greeks, Armenians, Ethiopians, and Protestants unite. But the Pope, falsly pretending to be Christ's Vicar-General, is taken for the Universal Head by the Papists: and, in renouncing this Head, we renounce no other Church but yours.

R. B. Not from you as Christians, but scandalous Offenders, whom we are commanded to a­void; we separate not from any but as they separate from Christ.

W. J. 1. No, sure, for if you did you must be Iews, Turks, or Infidels. 2. Was there Sect. 7. no more in it? Did not the Primitive Persons, who begun your breach and party, owe sub­jection to their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors, Diocesans and Pastors?

R. B. No, none at all as they were Papal, that is, the subordinate Ministers of the usurping Universal Bishop.

W. J. And is it lawful for a Subject to subtract himself from the obedience of a lawful Pa­stor because he is a scandalous Offender?

R. B. Yes, if his Offence be a ceasing to be a lawful Pastor, and taking on him a false Of­fice by usurpation: Or if he remained lawful, quoad hoc, as Christian, and adde a trea­sonable addition, we must have no Communion with him, at least in that unlawful part.

W. J. If you say he remaineth not in his former Power you contradict our Saviour, command­ing Sect. 8. obedience to the scandalous Pharisees, &c.

R. B. 1. The Pharisees set not up a new usurped Office of Head-ship constitutive (pretended­ly) to the Universal Visible Church; but only abused a lawful Office that God had made. 2. Yet Christ requireth obedience to them no farther than as they sate in Moses's Chair and delivered the Law; but warned men to renounce them as Corrupters, and to take heed of their Doctrine. 3. And this much was but till they shewed themselves uncurable, and he set up new Officers over his Church, and then all men were to forsake the Pharisees Govern­ment.

W. J. You destroy all Ecclesiastical Government, and open a way to tread under foot all tempo­ral Authority: If you hold these Offences deprive him of all Ecclesiastical Power, why not so of Sect. 9. Kings, and Magistrates, and Parents, and then you have spun a fair Thread, &c.

R. B. Confusion may help to deceive the ignorant. 1. Your Popes, as Universal Bishops, had never true Power over us. 2. Nor any Bishops as their Ministers as such. 3. For this treasonable Usurpation we were bound to avoid them as scandalous Invaders of Christ's Prero­gative, which some call Antichristian. 4. Our English Bishops, and other Pastors, when they came to see that such an Usurper had no right to govern them, forsook him, but forsook no Governour. 5. Those Bishops that adhered to him the People justly forsook as Usurpers un­der him. 6. Those that forsook him they obeyed as their true Pastors. And now will it fol­low, if I be obliged to renounce a Usurping Vice-King and Traytor, as having no power over me as such, and that I partake not of his Treason, that I must therefore forsake the King for his personal faults? If the Deputy of Ireland should say, I am Vice-King of all the Kings Dominions, and I challenge Obedience from all the Subjects, and the King forbid us to obey him as such, I may obey him in Ireland till the King depose him, and I must re­nounce him in England, and yet I must not tell the King; Sir, why must we not then for your faults also renounce you? The scandal of Treasonable Usurpation differeth from a meer immorality or miscarriage.

R. B. Qu. 2. Is it no Schism unless wilful? Sect. 10.

W. J. No.

R. B. Again, you further justifie us from Schism: If it be wilful it must be against know­ledge; But we are so far from separating wilfully from the whole Church, that we abhor the thought of it, as impious and damnable.

W. J. Abhor is as much as you please, (for your own particular (I know not what may be pleaded for you) I am certain that your first beginners did it, and that knowingly and wilfully; and you, still maintaining what they began, must by all considering Christians, be judged guilty of the same Crime: for still you remain separate from all these Christians from which they departed, that is, from all the visible Churches existent immediately before they sprung up and in their time, and still continue through the whole World.

[Page 60] R. B. A naked, bold, and shameless assertion without one word of proof. Our Reformers knew no Head of the Church but Christ; and they neither renounced him nor any one Member of his Church as such, but only a Trayterous Usurper and his Sect; indeed while he claimed but as Patriarch some Government of them jure humano by the Will of Princes, they gave him answerable obedience, and in their ignorance most gave him too much, and many perceived not his Usurpation: But when the Empire was down that set him up, or had no power here, and their own Princes no longer obliged them hereto, he had not so much as such a humane Authority. And when they that renounced him as a Traytor to Christ, protested to hold Communion with all Christs Church on Earth according to their distant Capacities, and to abhor all separation from them; would not a man have expected that this Dispute should have given us some proof, that to forsake this false Head was to separate from all the visible Churches on Earth? I proved our Union with them before: Yea he presumes to say, That he is certain that they did it knowingly and wilfully: As if he knew all the hearts of thou­sands whose Faces he never saw; when they that should know them better thought that they were certain that they separated from no Christians, but an Usurper and his Adherents, as such. And this we have great reason to continue, as much as Subjects have to separate from Rebels.

R. B. Qu. 3. It is no Schism if men make a division in the Church, and not from the Church?

W. J. Not as we are here to understand it, and as the Fathers treat it: For the Church of Christ, being perfectly one, cannot admit of any proper Schism within it self; for that would Sect. 11. divide it into two, which cannot be.

R. B. 1. If there be other Schisms besides separating from the whole Church, why should you not here understand it? unless understanding things as they are will hurt your Cause?

2. What a stranger doth this Disputer make himself to the Fathers, if he know not that they frequently use the word Schism in another sense than his? I will not be so vain as to trouble my self or the Reader with Citations: The Indexes of the Fathers and Councils will satisfie those that will but search them: Was it a separation from the whole Church which Clemens Romanus, the eldest of them all, doth write his Epistle to the Corinthians against, or rather a particular Schism between the people and some few eminent men? Read it, and see what credit these men deserve when they talk of the Eathers Judgments.

3. But his reason is most unreasonable: That [the Church of Christ is so perfectly one, that it cannot admit of any proper Schism within it self.] Can the Unity be perfect while all our uniting Graces are imperfect? When every Member is imperfect in Knowledge, Faith, Love, (Holiness) Obedience, Iustice, Patience, &c. how can the Union be perfect?

4. Reader, do but read their Councils, Church-Histories, (Baronius, Genebrard, Plati­ [...], Wernerus, to whom I may add above one hundred,) and if thou dost not find them, (and also their polemical and practical Divines) commonly mentioning [Schisms in the Church of Rome it self,] then believe these deceivers and call me the deceiver. Do they not lament their Schisms? Were not the Councils of Constance, Basil, Pisa, &c. called to heal them? Do they not number the Schisms that fell out in 40 or 50 years time and continued? Dare any man deny it?

Were these then Proper Schisms or not? No, it's like this man would say that none of these Writers speak properly when they call it Schism. I would he would tell in the next what proper word to use.

But either these Schisms were within the Church or without it. (Reader, see whither falshood will run at last) If they were within the Church, then W. I. doth but abuse you by his falshoods, If without the Church then one half the Roman Church was Unchurched for 40 or 50 years when they followed one Pope, while the other half followed another. And who knoweth which of these parts was the Church? It seems whoever adhered to the wrong Pope was none of the Church. But, saith Wernerus and other Historians, sometimes the wisest were at their Wits end, and knew not which was the true Pope, nor is it known to this day. Nay the matter is yet worse: A great General Council deposed Euginius the Fourth as no Pope, but an uncapable wicked Heretick, and yet he kept in, and became the only Head of their Church, whom the rest succeed. And so all that Church by this rule was un­churched. Sure necessity must make you recant, and say, that yet both Parties in your [Page 61] long and odious Schisms were within the Church, or else what a Wound will ye inflict on it? But an ill Cause will admit of no defence: If you come to this, mark what will follow: Even that millions are in the Church that are no Subjects of the Pope, but do reject him. If there were two real Popes, there were two real Churches, and therefore neither of them was Universal; and consequently neither of the two were Popes, because not Universal Bi­shops, so ill do such Forgeries cohere: But if only one of them was a true Pope, then all that followed the other, rejected the Pope. Either these were saved or damned. If saved, then men that reject the Pope may be saved: And then why ask you us where was a Church that rejected the Pope before Luther? when you tell us where, at home. If damned, what a happiness befell one Kingdom, and what a misery the other, by the Title or No-Title of the Popes? Was it all France and that Party, or Germany and that Party that were damn­ed all those times? Hell had a great Harvest by it, which soever it was: and it's pity that one Man should be able to damn so many Nations by pretending that he was the true Pope: And methinks such a division as this should be called a proper Schism; unless he will be so jocular as to say, that it was a proper division and rent, but no proper Schism.

I add this note, Reader; if there be any Sect in the world that are true Schismaticks ac­cording Sect. 12. to W. I.'s own definition, judge whether it be not the Papal Sect? For it is they that condemn all the World, save themselves, and say that none else are Churches of Christ, and consequently separate from the whole Church of Christ, except themselves (who are but a third or fourth part of the whole:) I never knew any of all our Sectaries do so; no not the Quakers themselves who come nearest it, (unless perhaps the Seekers, that say the Church is lost) but the Papists do so: Indeed they separate not always from themselves, though they do from all others; no more do any other Sect.

R. B. Though I am sure St. Paul calls it Schism when men make divisions in the Church, though not from it, not making two Churches, but dislocating some Members, and abating Charity, and causing Contentions where there should be Peace; yet I accept your continued justi­fication of us, who, if we should be tempted to be dividers in the Church, should yet hate to be dividers from it; as believing that he that is separated from the whole Body is also separate from the Head.

W. J. I am glad you accept of something at the last up-shot: If it be for your advantage God give you good on't. I speak not of Schism taken in a large sense, but of that only which is treated by the Fathers, and reckoned up among the most horrid Sins which a Christian can commit, and that separateth from the whole Church▪ See Dr. Ham. of Schism. c. 1. 2, 3.

R. B. This is already answered. I again intreat you then to consider what a horrid sin it is in the Papal Sect to separate from all the Churches in the World, and then to divert their Consciences by crying out of Schism against all that will not joyn with them in so dangerous a Schism.

2. And I humbly admonish those Protestants that cry out Schism, Schism, against all that will not do as they do, even in a thing which they call indifferent, and others account a hey­nous Sect. 13. sin, to remember, that even these Papists are so moderate, as not to condemn other men as Schismaticks, unless they separate from the whole Church of Christ. And I hope to refuse the Tridentiu [...] Symbolical Oath, or any other false or sinful Covenant or Profession, is not to separate from the whole Church of Christ; for false Oaths, Covenants, or other Sins, are not essential to Christ's Church.

R. B. Sir, urgent and unavoidable business constrained me to delay my return to your soluti­ons Sect. 14. or Explications of your definitions till this June 29. 1660. When you desire me to answer a­ny such questions, or explain any doubtful passages of mine, I shall willingly do it: In the mean time you may see while your Terms are unexplained; and your explications or definitions so insig­nificant, how fit we are to proceed any further, till we better understand each other as to our Terms and Subject; which when you have done your part to, I shall gladly, if God enable me, go on with you till we come (if it may be) to our desired issue: But still crave the performance of the double task you are engaged in. Richard Baxter.

W. I. Sir, I have thus far endeavoured to satisfie your Expectation; and to acquit my self of all obligations: wherein I have sought, as I strongly hope, first Gods eternal Glory, and in the next place, your Eternal good, with his for whom I under take this labour, and of all these who at­tentively and impartially peruse this Treatise. William Johnson.

[Page 62] R. B. Your intentions I leave to your self; of your performance and my answer I desire such judges as you describe, even attentive and impartial re [...]ders: But O how rare is imparti­ality, even in them that think they ha [...] it.

In the end I added an Appendix in answer to this objection of theirs, that [We can have no true Chūrch without Pastors; no Pastors without Ordinations and no Ordination but from the Church of Rome: Therefore when we broke off from the Church of Rome, we interrupted our succession which cannot be repaired but by a return to them.] To this I gave a full answer, of which W. I. taketh no notice.

Lastly, I concluded with an address to himself, in which I gave him the reasons why I pub­lished our Writings, and also proved that the Church of Rome hath not successively been the same from the Apostles (much less received no corruptions) which I proved, first, because it hath since received a new essential part, even a pretended Vice-Christ or head of the Universal Church.

2. Because it hath had frequent and long intercisions in that essential head.

3. Because it hath had new essential Articles of Faith and Religion. To all this he giveth no answer.

Richard Baxter's Vindication of the CONTINUED VISIBILITY of the CHURCH, of which the Protestants are Members: In answer to Wil­liam Johnson, alias Terret's Reply, called by him, Novelty represt.


I Have great reason to suppose, that if I should make this Book as long as it must be, if I repeated and answered all the words of W. I. it would frustrate my writing it, by dis­couraging Sect. 1. most Readers, whose Leisure and Patience are as short as mine: Therefore I pur­pose to cull out all which I take to seem his real strength, and of any importance to the un­derstanding Reader, and to omit the Vagaries: And particularly where he and I differ about the words or sense of any Fathers, or Councils; what need I more than to leave that Matter to the perusal of the Reader, who cannot rationally rest in my Yea, or W. I's Nay: For how will either of those tell him what any Book in question doth contain? It is the pe­rusal of the Book it self that must satisfie him. But about the Weight, or Consequence of any such Citations, we may help his satisfaction.

The Churches alas have not been so innocent since Lording was its way of Govern­ment, as that all that we can find written or done by any great Patriarchs (Prelates) yea or Sect. 2. Council, should pass with us for proof that it was well said or done: nor can we take one Prelate for all Christs Church, no nor a synod o [...] the Clergie in the Roman Empire. Nor can we be so void of understanding as to read over the ancient Writers and the Councils, and not to know how much the Major Vote of the Clergie still followed the Emperours Wills, and the Byas of Interest. We cannot lye, or believe evident Lyes, on pretence of honouring them. He that readeth the Stories, and doth not find how much the Will of Constantine pre­vailed in one Council, and the contrary Will of Constantius in many: What the Will of Va­lens did with most in the E [...]st, and the Will of Iovian, Valentinian, and other good Prin­ces did against it: How far the Will of Theodosius went while he Reigued, against the Arri­ans, [Page 63] to heal what Valens had done: And how much the Will of Theodosius junior did for the Eutythians, (and yet against the Nestorians:) And how far the Will of Martian prevailed against the said Eutychians when he was dead: How much even the Usurper Basiliscus in a year or two could do to strengthen the Arrians and Eutyohians: And how quickly Zeno's Prevalency turned the Scales: I say, he that doth read on such Histories to the end, and yet will think that the Clergie have been still one unanimous Body, of the same Mind and Opinion in all things, and not turned up and down by Princes Power, and their own Interest and fears; I leave such a Reader as desperate, and as one that will be deceived in despight of the clearest Evidence of Truth.

He that doth read these Stories, and doth not perceive the great Corruption of the Cler­gie, when once their places had a Bait of Wealth and Honour and Dominion, suitable to a Sect. 3. proud, worldly, carnal mind; and what a continual War there was among the Clergie, be­tween a holy spiritual, and a worldly proud domineering unconscionable Party; and how ordinarily, or oft, the carnal worldly Clergie had the major Vote: how the same (e g.) Bi­shops at the Council of Ephes. 2. could yield to Theodosius and Dioscorus, and condemn the just; and at Calcedon go the contrary way, and cry out omnes peccavimus, and we did it for fear! How the same Council at Constantine, that confirmed Greg. Naz. when some more were added, and got the major Vote, resolved to depose him, and caused him to depart: How the same Peter of Alexandria, (Athanasius's Successour) that first made him Bishop of Con­stantinople, Vid. Liber. Breviar. for a sum of Money put in Maximus in his place, without once hearing him, or giving any Reason, or re-calling his first Letters; and how the bribed Egyptian Bishops did concur: How Theophilus carryed it with the Egyptian Monks, and against Origen, and Chrysostome, and between Theodosius and Eugenius the Usurper; and how the Synod carried it against Chrysostome; and how Cyril first made himself a Magistrate to use the Sword at Alexandria; and what past between Theodoret, Iohan. Antioch. and him; and how the Bi­shops and their Synods in Ithacius time carryed it against St. Martin, and against the Pri­scillianists; and how all this while Rome and Constantinople set and kept the Empire in a Flame, by striving which should be the greatest; and how the Pope on such putid accounts did molest the African Churches, in the days of Augustine himself; and their Writers charge them with Schism to this day: I say, he that can read abundance of such stuff as this, and yet think that any one Citation of the words of a Prelate, Pope, or Council, [...]is as valid as if it were the word of God, let him go his own way, for he is not for my Company.

Nay if they could prove as much of the Popes Universal Episcopacy within the Empire Sect. 4. under the Christian Emperours, as Salm [...]sius (I think too liberally) granteth them, (de Eccles. suburbicar. circa finem) it is no more with me than to prove the Power of the Bishop of Alexandria or of An [...]och in their assigned Patriarchates, which altered at the Pleasure of the Emperours and Synods, (as the division made after between the Bishops of Antioch, Ierusalem, and Cesarea sheweth, and that which was given to Constantinople from Heraclea, Pontus, and Asia.)

Christianity was not unknown till Councils, or altered as often as they made new decrees: Sect. 5. And it is a great mistake of them that think that there was little of Christianity, save in the Roman Empire: The Apostles preached else-where, and they preached not in vain. There were Churches in Ethiopia, the Indies, Persia, Parthia, the outer Armenia, Scythia, Britain, and other parts that were without the Empire; but we have no large or particular Histories of them, partly because that they were not so much literate and given to writing as the Romans and the Greeks were; and partly because they were in Warrs with the Empire, or did not communicate by Correspondence with them; and partly because their Books were not in any Language which the Greeks or Romans understood. How long was it ere the Empire had much acquaintance with the Syriack or Samaritane, Persian, Arabick, or Ethiopick Versi­ons (or Books) after they were extant; and how few of the many Books that by Travellers are said to be in Abassia, Armenia, or Syria, are known to us to this day? How little know we of the old Christians, of St. Thomas, and those parts? And how full and satisfactory a Te­stimony doth Alvarez profess, that he saw himself (even a large Stone with memorial In­scriptions of it digged up) that the Christian Religion had been in China, when otherwise he could not hear of one word by Tradition or History that could notifie such a thing. How little know we now of the case of Nubia and Tend [...] while they were great Christian King­doms? [Page 64] How little know we at this day of the state of the Armenians, Georgians, Mengr [...] ­tians, Circassians, &c. How little was known of the great Empire of Abassia till the Portu­gals opened the way for Oviedo and his Companions the other day. Iacobus de Vitriaco tells us of more Christians in those parts of the World than all the Greeks or Latines; when he was at Ierusalem, where he had notice of them. Brocardus that lived there, also tells us as of their great numbers, so of their great piety, being better men than the very Religious of the Church of Rome: and yet how little notice was there then of their Writings or them? He saith they were free from the Heresies of Nestorianism and Eutychianism which we charge them with in Europe, and yet the Papists so charge them still, that they may seem to have reason for condemn­ing them, fearing that their non-subjection to the Pope will not seem enough with impartial men.

And as to the great Confidence that they seem to place in their succession to St. Peter, Sect. 6. and Christs words to him [on this Rock I will build my Church] and to thee I give the Keys, &c.] and [feed my sheep.] I have oft answered it more fully than is fit again to recite; but these few hints I would commend to the Reader.

1. That we affirm that Peter was among them as a fore-man of a Jury and no more; and so Christ spake to the rest in speaking to him; and the same power is given to the rest: The Church is said to be built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ be­ing the head Corner-stone] Is not this as much as is said of St. Peter? Christ gave them all the power of Holy Ghost and the remitting and retaining sins, binding and loosing, which is the Keys which he gave to Peter. And they are all sent forth to feed Christs Sheep: Now the Fathers give as high Titles oft to others as to the Pope, yea and to Peter; see what I have cited in my Key for Catholicks, pag. 175. 176. and what Gataker hath cited out of Dionysius, Ter­tullian, Basil, Ierome, Augustine, Theodoret, Gildas, Nicephorus, &c. Cin. 395. 396.

2. Peter never exercised any authority over any of the rest of the Apostles: He called them not; governed them not; There is mention of Paul's reproving him, Gal. 2. but none of his reproving them. Schismes being among them and greatly lamented, they are never directed to unite in Peter as the way to Concord, nor to have recourse to him to end them. Nay, when the over-valuers of Peter made one party in the Schism among the Corinthians, Paul seeks to take them off that way, and set Peter in the same rank with himself and A­pollos, as Ministers only by whom they believed, calling them Carnal for saying, I am of Cephas, never calling them to unite in him as the Head of all: And had this been necessary, what had this been but to betray the Churches?

3. The Apostles were never properly Bishops, but of a higher rank: Bishops were the fixed Over-seers of particular Churches, and no one had many: But Apostles only planted them, and governed them for their Confirmation, and so passed on from one to another, and had care of many such at once. If any one Church might pretend superiority by vertue of succession it would be Ierusalem, and next that Ephesus, where it is said that Iohn the Be­loved Disciple was as Bishop, and which hath continued to this day.

4. The Apostles as such had no Successors, nor as Bishops in any distinct Seats: The same Christ that called Peter called the rest, and called especially the Beloved Disciple, to whom, on the Cross, he commended his Mother, when Peter had denyed him; and he promised to be with them to the end of the World: But no Bishops on Earth ever pretended to superiority over any other Churches, as the Successors of the other eleven Apostles. Where are those Seats, or where ever were they? If the Apostles Successors must rule the Churches as such, tell us which be the other eleven, and which be their Diocesses, and of what extent? Nay, it is And in Rev. 21. the new Jerusalem was built on the twelve A­postles as twelve precious stones. considerable, that even in the times of domination, there were but five Patriarchates ever set up, and not twelve, and not one of those claimed Power by vertue of succession from any Apostle. Constantinople never pretended to it: Alexandria claimed the honour of succession only from St. Mark, who was no Apostle: And Ierusalem from Iames, (whom Dr. Ham­mond laboureth to prove to have been none of the Apostles, but a Kinsman of Jesus:) Only Antioch and Rome claimed succession from Peter, and Antioch as his first Seat; but they did on that single account claim Power then over other Churches. And seeing the Church is built on the Foundation of Apostles and Prophets, and that all the Apostles, 1 Cor. 12. are men­tioned equally as the noblest Foundation, Members or Pillars, and the People chidden sharply by Paul for making Cephas a Head; What reason have we to believe that Peter only hath [Page 65] perpetual Successors fixed to a certain City, and that no other of all the Apostles have any such: What word of God will prove that Peter hath left his Power at Rome, and no other Apostles, no not one hath left theirs to any Place or Person on Earth? yea and that he left it more to Rome than to Antioch, when Antioch claimeth the first succession from him, and Rome but the second; and when Nilus and others have said so much to make it probable, that Peter never was at Rome; and when it is certain that Paul was there, and those old Fathers, that from some word of one of Eusebius his doubtful Authors, do say, that Peter was at Rome, and Bishop there, do also say that it was the Episcopal Seat of Paul; and when it is certain that no Apostle was any-where a Bishop, formaliter but only eminen­ter, as being not fixed, nor fixing their Power to any Seat. And Dr. Hammond giveth very considerable conjectures, That if Peter and Paul were both at Rome, they had divers Chur­ches there, Paul being the Bishop of the Uncircumcision, and Peter of the Circumcision only, (from whence we may see that the Spirit of God in his Apostles judged that there might be more Churches and Bishops in one City than one, (much more over a thousand Parishes) though as the contrary Spirit prevaileth, the contrary Interest and Opinion pre­vailed with it.

These things premised, the Reader must know, that the state of the Controversie be­tween Sect. 7. Mr. Terret, alias Mr. Iohnson, and me is this. Finding the Church of Rome in possessi­on of abundance of Errours and Vanities, he would not only perswade us that they are of God, and have ever been the same, because it is so with them now, but also concludeth, that these Carbuncles are essential to Christianity and the Church, and that we cannot prove that we are a Church and Christians, unless we prove that we have had from the Apostles a continued succession of their Errours: As if a man could not prove himself to be a man, unless all his Ancestors from Adam had the French-pox or the Leprosie.

On the contrary I maintain that the Church of Christ (which is his Body) is essentiated by true consent to the Baptismal Covenant (which is our Christening) and integrated by all the additional degrees, that this Covenant is expounded in the Creed, Lord's Prayer, and Christian Decalogue. (The Lord's Supper is but the same Covenant celebrated by other signs not for Essence but Confirmation) That all that consent to the (celebrated) Baptismal Co­venant heartily, are Members of the invisible Church; and all that profess consent (in Sincerity or Hypocrisie) are visible Members (coram Ecclesia) That the true Church of Christ hath no other Head than Christ himself; no Vicarious Universal Head, Pope nor Coun­cil; That the Protestants profess themselves Members of no other Universal Church but that of which Christ only is the Head, and all Christians (at least not cast out) are Mem­bers; that this Christian Church hath been visible to God by real consent, and visible to man by professed consent from the first being of it to this day: And when they ask us, Where was your Church before Luther, we say, where there were Christians before Luther. Our Re­ligion is nothing but simple Christianity: We are o [...] no Catholick Church but the Universa­lity of Christians; We know no other, but lament that the pride of the Clergy growing up from Parochial to Diocesan, and from Diocesan to Metropolitical, and Patriarchal, and thence to Papal, hath invented any other; and that the Serpent that tempted Eve hath drawn them from the Christian simplicity. They deny not the successive visibility of Chri­stianity and the Christian Church: We desire no more; we own we know no other Religion and no other Church.

But the Roman Artifice here comes in, and when their HUMANE UNIVERSAL HEAD hath made the grand Schism of the Christian World; hence they have learnt to Sect. 8. make Christians of no Christians, and no Christians of Christians, as Pride and Igno­rance serving this usurping interest please. Their Doctors are not agreed whether any more be necessary explicitely to be believed to Salvation, than that there is a God, and that our works shall be rewarded, without believing a word of Christ or the Gospel; and whether they that believe not in Christ are Christians; or whether being no Christians, yet they are Members of the Christian Church: And the greater part are here on the wider Latitudina­rian side; (as you may see in Fr. S. Clara's Problemes, Deus, Nat. Grat. and in the words of this W. I. before answered.)

And yet these charitable men conclude that two or three parts of the true Christian world (Abassines, Copties, Syrians, Iacobites, Georgians, Armenians, Greeks, Moscovites, [Page 66] Protestants) are all out of the Church of Christ, though their own Fryars that have lived among some of them in the East, profess that they are no Hereticks, and are better Men than the Papists are, and none worse of Life than the Roman Party. And whence is this strange difference? Why, it is because that these are none of them subject to the Pope; which it is supposed that those are that believe only that there is a God and a Reward. (But how is this their only explicite Faith, if they must also believe that the Pope is the Vice-Christ.) And some of them tell you further, that he that should so far believe his Ghostly Father, the Priest, Vid. S. Clar. ubi sup. as to hold that he is not bound to love God, because the Priest tells him so, is not only ex­cusable, but he meriteth by it: So much more necessary to Salvation is it, to love the Priest, than to love God.

And yet after all this, their own Leaders confess, that it is no Article of their Faith, that the Pope is Peter's Successour, and that it is not by Revelation that the Church-Governours Sect. 9. must be known; (as I have shewed out of Ri. Smyth, Bishop of Calcedon, and of England; and in the fore-confuted Writings of W. I▪)

The things that I maintain are, I. That the Protestants Religion, and Church, being on­ly the Christian as such, had an uninterrupted succession as such, (which the Papists Sect. 10. deny not.) II. That the Papal Church as such, cannot prove its constant visibility and succession. Nay, (though it be their part to prove it) we are ready to prove; 1. That it is a Novelty. 2. That it hath been often, and notoriously interrupted; and their Papacy hath not had any continued succession of Men truly Popes by their own Laws and Rules, and in their own Account.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Page 67] 2. The Administring the Lord's Supper in both kinds (Bread and Wine) hath been ever in the Church, and of Christ's own Institution: Is this essential to the Church? Perhaps some will have the impudence to say, that it is not now in it, because the Pope hath cast it out: but it is now in all the rest of the Church. And we might as well say, the Papacie is not now in, because other Churches do reject it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Page 73] 4. If holding that [People must obey their Lawful Pastors] will serve, then we are all right▪ [...] if this be an implicite belief of the Papacy, we are all Papists; yea, perhaps Mahometans and He [...]thens are Papists too, by such a belief.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.]

[Page 76] 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 [Page 77] 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 [Page 78] 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 [Page 79] 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 [Page 80] 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 [Page 81] 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 [Page 82] 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 [...] Deipara, but [...] 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, [Page 83] 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.

The Answer to W. J's third Chapter.

He begins that which he calls his third Chapter, pap. 88, 89. with again repeating his Sect. 1. Question thus; [Were they all united in the profession of one and the same Faith, and Unity of external Communion; without those two it's impossible to be united in Christ.]

Answ. I am afraid these Repetitions will tire the Reader, I have proved them united in one Faith, even the Christian Faith; and in one External Communion in much more of it than is essential to Christianity, viz. in one Baptism, the Lord's Supper, prayer, praise, thanksgiu­ing, confession of sins, preaching and reading the Word of God, observation of the Lord's Day, &c. without differing in any thing inconsistent with the Unity of the Body of Christ: But if by the ambiguous word of [Unity of External Communion] you should mean either that [Page 84] they must meet all in one place, or be all under one Pastor, these you before disowned: And if you mean that they must all have one Book of Liturgie, you know that so had not your Roman Church of above 600 years at least, nor yet the Eastern Churches, nor any consi­derable number of them; every Bishop making his Lyturgie, or Prayers, as he saw meet.

If you mean that they must have no differences in any Word, or Ceremony; and that all are of several Churches, (or half of no Church,) who differ about Meats, Drinks, Days, &c. I shall not believe you while I believe the Scripture, (Rom. 14. and 15. 1 Cor. 8. Iam. 3. &c.) nor till I renounce Humanity, or believe that Men of several Complexions, Statures, or Languages, may not yet be all truly Men! They that bring it to that, that I am no Christian if I eat not Fish in Lent rather than Flesh, may Unchristian me next if I eat not my Bread without Cheese, or my Cheese without Bread; or if I take not the Pope for my Apothecary, or Physitian. Lay by the Sword, and Racks, and Fires, and the World will soon laugh down your arrogant Tyranny.

I demanded his Proof that ever there was a Papist, or almost, one Church of Papists in the World for 400 years after Christ? And he tells me, that [the Oration of Pope Celestine's Sect. 2. Legates in the Council at Ephesus proveth it; and though that Council was celebrated 430, yet in a moral consideration that passeth for 400, &c.]

Answ. What cannot the Iesuits Morals make good? By them 430 years is within the 400. And by them a Speech of the Pope's Legates goeth for proof of the Judgment of the Coun­cil: But what was that Speech it self? First, Note that the Council was called by Theodosius the Emperour, and not by Celestine, sending his Literae Augustales to all the Metropolitans, commanding them to appear at Ephesus. 2. That Cyril, and not Celestine, was sent to at first for help, from the Church at Constantinople. 3. That Cyril presided: And whereas the Papists feign that he did it as the Pope's Substitute, the Councils Letters to the Emperour expresses, that the Pope's three Legates were the Men that represented his Person, (Bin. p. 756.) And that they commended to Theodosius the Judgment of the Pope, but as the signifi­cation of common consent. 4. And when all is done, these words of Philip, a Roman Pres­byter, is all that this great boast is of, [Thanking them for so receiving the Pope's Letters,]—[Non enim ignara est vestra beatitudo totius fidei caeterorum (que) omnium Apostolorum caput b [...]atum Apostolum Petrum extitisse. And after that Peter, the Foundation and Head, had the Keys, and liveth and judgeth in his Successors: But he denyeth not that the other Apostles also had the Keys, and that the Church was built on the Foundation of the Apostles: And these high words spoken to keep up the Pope's greatness in the Empire, were but to maintain his place in Councils; and never spoken to the Churches without the Empire, nor such Power over them claimed by him: And the Councils Decrees were past before these Legates came, by whose consent Cyril was glad to strengthen his Party, having been condemned by Ioh. Antioch. Ne­storius, &c. And doth not Hesichius say as much of Andrew, (cited by me elsewhere?) and many a Protestant that taketh Peter to have been among the Apostles, as the Fore-man of a Ju­ry to the rest, would say the same words: But he intimateth that the Pope is Peter's Successor. True, he so supposed him as a Bishop, but not as an Apostle, and therefore not in equality of Power: And common reas [...]n will interpret him in the common sense of all the Councils and those times, viz. as having the first place in the Imperial Councils, and being the chief of the Patriarchs in the Empire; but not as being the Bishop of all the World. There is no probability that this one Man extended his Power further than the Empire, and so that he was a Papist; and yet you have not proved one in 400 years and more.

But he saith, had not the Council of Ephesus consented, they would have contradicted one imposing a Superiour and a Iudge.

Answ. 1. They never took him for a Judge, any further than as the first Patriarch had the first Seat and Vote. 2. Cyril was there the first; the Legates coming after the Decrees past. 3. Cyril was glad of the consent of the West, it being become too much of the cause of the day; Whether Nestorius or he was the wiser Speaker, and should prevail. 4. What's this to the Government of all the World? Shew us when that Council subjected any without the Empire, to the Pope, or to themselves. 5. Yea in the Empire, he is blind that seeth not that Councils were above Popes; and when the major Vote carried it, they condemned Popes as well as others, (as they did Honorius, and many since.)

Pag. 90. You have another Instance of his, saying and unsaying. When I named the Sect. 3. [Page 85] Churches of Ethiopia, India, the outer Armenia, &c. that were not under the Popes juris­diction, he faith, I must mean that they were never under it; for if they were under him in any Age, and for any time since Christ, you can never make them an instance of those who were perpetually in all Ages a visible Congregation of Christians not acknowledging the Popes Supre­macy.

Ans. And yet this same man said before, that he did not put me to prove that in all Ages they did not own the Pope, but that they that own him not now had been a Church any o­ther way truly united: who can answer him that saith and unsaith, and changeth his Cause as the occasion tempteth him? I have oft told him, 1. I prove that the extra-imperial Chur­ches never were subject to the Pope, unless when any of them by conquest fell under the Empire, or on such an odd accident in some singular instance which I have enumerated in my Naked Popery. 2. And that no Church in the whole World owned him as the Bishop of all the World for above 400, if not above 600 years. 3. And that those that owned him not (as Britain) at the first, and owned him after and disowned him again, were still Christian Churches united in Christ.

But the man is loth to understand, and pag. 91. saith [You mean all other extra-imperial Nations or some: If all I find the quite contrary; for the Gothes, successively Inhabitants of Spain, never acknowledged themselves Subjects of the Empire, who yet are now subject to the Roman Bishop, and consequently were and are sometime under him.

Ans. I have oft and plain enough told you my meaning: This is very cautelously written: 1. If the Gothes in Spain were not subject to the Empire, the old Inhabitants were before the Gothes conquered them, and the Gothes themselves, when by Theodosius's leave they dwelt in Thrace and near it. And though the Gothes became their Masters, they did not exterminate all the Inhabitants, who had been used to some subjection to the Pope. 2. Yet how little Spain then depended on the Pope is known even by the current of all the Gothick Councils, the Toletane, Hispalense, &c. where their Kings called them, and were oft present, and made certain parts of their Canons, and were over and over magnified, and Canons made for their honour and security, and the due election of Successors, when there was not a word of subjection to the Pope. 3. And you do well in affirming no more but that Spain is now and therefore sometime under the Pope; that they are now so indeed, their Inquisition witnesseth, nor was it ever in my thoughts to deny it. But what of that?

[...] He addeth, [And the Swedes and Danes, though now they reject all obedience to him, yet in the year 1500 they acknowledged him, &c.]

Ans. Very true; and what of all this! no doubt but long before 1500 the Pope got possession of the Western Churches; we doubt not of it.

But he tells me that to maintain my Cause, I must shew that all the extra-imperial Churches were from under the Pope.

Ans. My Caus [...] is not of your stating but my own. I maintain, 1. That the Pope was never made the Bishop of all the World. 2. And that the Primacy so much mentioned in the ancient Canons was only over, or in the Imperial Churches, and was a humane in­stitution; and that the Councils and Emperours never pretended to give or acknowledge any more. Nor did the Councils themselves, and all the Patriarchs, pretend to any more, nor dream of Governing all the World. 3. That the Churches that were from the beginning without the Empire, were none of them subject to the Pope for above 400 if not 500 or 600 years. 4. That the Empire of Abassia, and all the Eastern and Southern extra-imperial Churches (Persia, India, &c.) were never under the Pope to this day, save that the Por­tug [...]ls and Spaniards have lately got some Footing in part of the Indies. 5. That the whole Greek Church, the Armenians, Georgians, Syrians, Egyptians, &c. never were under the Pope as Pope, that is, as the Universal Bishop of all the World, but only as the primate of the Empire. 6. That even in that relation he was not properly the Governour of any of the Diocesses of the other Patriarchs, nor the other distinct as Diocesses (Carthage, Iustinian [...], &c.) but the prime Patriarch that had the first Seat in Councils, which put in and out Bishops at their pleasure (with the Emperours will) even Patriarchs and all. 7. That those that were un­der him for some time (as Britain) were divers of them from under him before and after.

And yet that the Reader may not mis-understand the matter and this mans importunity, I must repeat the exceptions laid down in my Naked Popery pag. 106. 107. and tell him what I grant him.

[Page 86] 1. Some Cities that were near to Scythia and Persi [...] had Bishops to whom some Neigh­bour Scythians and Persians might be voluntary Subjects.

2. Some Cities and Countries were sometime under the Roman Power, and sometimes under the Enemies: (Persians, Parthians, Armenians, Gothes, Vandales, (as Africa, &c.) when they were of the Empire their Bishops came to Councils; and when they were under Heathen or Arrian Princes they took it for their calamity, and were glad of any Communion with the Imperial Churches, and the Honour and countenance of their Relation; and it's like would come among them if they could.

3. Some Bishops that lived in Heathen or persecuted Countries, in distress were glad to seek Countenance and help from the Roman power; as the Britains did from France, and a Basil and the Eastern Bishops did from the West in Valens his persecution, while yet they took them not for Governours. And some weak Princes that lived near the Roman Empire were glad of their Friendship and afraid of their Enmity, and were willing to hold a communion with them in Religion, in which their Clergy should have some dependance on Rome, which was the case of the Saxons in and after Gregory the first's days.

4. Some Western Countries that were converted from infidelity by some Preachers subject to the Pope became themselves subjects to that Seat as their Converters, and in obedience to them that first prevailed with them, which was partly the case of the Saxons, and of some Countries of Germany, and Sweden, Denmark, Poland, &c.

5. Lastly, when the Eastern Empire and Churches forsook the Church of Rome, the Pope received a great diminution in the extent of his Primacy (the East that forsook him being about twice as big as those that remained under him) but withal a great Intensive in­crease of his power; for shortly after he claimed the Government of all the World as Uni­versal Bishop, not only of the Empire, but the Earth. And after that many that were his Subjects owned him in that relation: And since then, I deny not but that many Prin­ces, without the Empire, have been his Subjects: yea he purposely broke Germany and Italy into many small Principalities, and free Cities, that they might not be strong enough to resist his claim.

If all these Concessions will do them any good, let them make their best of them. I must intreat the Reader to remember hence-forward what is our difference, and not to expect that I repeat this over and over again when his words invite me to it.

Pag. 91. he saith [The Indians were not always extra-imperial, for in the year 163. they Sect. 6. subjected themselves to Antonius Pius. And so the Armenians 572. being greivously per­secuted for the Christian Faith by the Persians, they rendered themselves Subjects to the Roman Empire. And 1145 they and the Indian Christians subjected themselves to the Pope, and again 1439, and so remain at the present.]

Ans. 1. This maketh against you rather than for you: If your Kingdom extended not so far as the Empire. But indeed these are impertinent words. As it was but a small part of the Indies that ever was under the Heathen Romans, so it is not their Empire that I speak of, but the Christians: for before Consta [...]ine's day, the Patriarchs made no pretence to govern all within the Empire, much less all without. Pighius tells you, That General Councils were the device of Constantine. I would you had told us, 1. What Indian or Armenian Bishops were at any General Council before Constantine's days, and where that Council was and when? 2. And what Indian, or Armenian, or Persian Bishops were imposed or deposed by the Pope of Rome? This undertaking would have tryed your strength: but you were wiser.

7. And it was but the nearer Armenia that you say yielded to the Roman Emperour; and I confess that the part that was under hi [...] had Bishops at some few Councils, and are not the men of whom I speak; though even they were soon separated from Rome, and were no longer under the Roman Papacy.

3. But your Fable of the Armenians and Indians subjecting themselves to the Pope, and so remaining to this day, may be meet to abuse Women with, that know not your Cheats by a tale of a counterfeit Patriarch; but neither Merchants, nor any acquainted with History that know the World, will believe you, any more than that the Greeks are your Subjects, who at Flor [...]ce, compelled by necessity, made far more shew of it than ever the other did. In sum, I heartily wish that all the World were as much the Popes Subjects as the Armenians and Abassines are, on condition that none were any more your Subjects.

[Page 87] And whereas you say, pag. 92. No one of th [...]se hath been in all Ages a visible Congregation besides that of Rome. 1. A repeated contempt is answer enough to a repeated false Histo­rical Assertion. 2. Again, I tell you, that is no question; but whether those that now are none of your Subjects were in all Ages Christians. 3. You have not yet proved that there was one Papist in the World for 400 years.

You add, [For each of them at one time or other became the same Congregation to that, by sub­jecting and conforming themselves to the Bishop of Rome.

Ans. As true as the Turk is subject to you: If some little of the Indian, were subject to a Heathen Antonius, doth that prove that they and all the Christians there were subject to Constantine, or to the Pope, when they revolted? And when was Ethiopia and Persia subject to you? And why do you not blush to say that the. Armenians are now subject to you? You are like to be good Deliverers of Traditions to us, and Infallible Decreers, and Deciders of Controversies, that stick not at such notorious fictions? If you had said that England, Scotland, Sweden, Denmark, are your Subjects, the falshood had some more pretence, because you have some among them all.

I next noted, That these Churches profess it to be their Tradition that the Pope was never their Sect. 7. Governour. This he denyeth and calleth for proof.

Ans. I give you proof. 1. See the words of your own Writers, e. g. Godignu [...] de rebu [...] Aba [...]inorum reciting the conference of the Emperours Mother and the Iesuite, wherein she professeth it, and the answer of the Iesuite confessing it, and Godignus confirming it, that they were Christians from the time of the Eunuch Act. 8. or St. Matthew, and the Pope had nothing to do with them. 2. When the same Countries do at once profess these two things. 1. That in Religion they follow the Tradition of their Fathers from the Apostles. 2. And that the Pope is none of their Governour: set these two together and you must con­clude that they suppose their Tradition to be against the Papacy, or that they are Sots; and that these two are their Principles, all the Historical notice that we have of those Countreys by Travellers, Merchants, and Writers, Papists, Greeks, and Protestants assure us; deny it as impudently as you will, I will not tire the Reader with needless History.

I next added, that [No History or Authority of the least regard is brought by your own Sect. 8. Writers to prove these under the Pope.]

He replyeth, Yes, those that say, All were under him.

Ans. That is none but Pope Leo himself and a few of the Empire, who speak of no All, but the Orbis Romanus, the whole Empire.

I added [‘No credible witnesses mention your Acts of Jurisdiction over them, or their Sect. 9. Acts of Subjection; which Church-History must needs have contained, if it had been true that they were your Subjects.’

He replyeth, [‘Is not Genebrard a Witness that Pope Eugenius wrote to the Emperour of Ethiopia 1437 to send Legates to the Council of Ferrara as the Greek Emperour had decreed to do, to whose Letters and Legates David their Emperour sent a respectful an­swer, and accordingly sent some of his Church to that Council, as appears by the Acts of the Council, and that 1524 the said David and Helena his Empress promised obedience to the Bishop of Rome Pope Clem. 7.]’

Ans. I had rather you had called Father Parsons, or Campion, or Garnet, your credible Witness than Genebrard, a late railing Falsifier. Such Tales as these be meet for the Ears of none but such as would believe you if you swore that all the Iews and Turks are Christians. Do you think that your obtruding such abominable Forgeries, commonly known by the Learned to be such, and confessed by your own Writers, will not increase our alienation from you? Did you ever read the subscriptions of that Council when you say that the Acts declare that some of the Ethiopian Church were there? Why did you not name them? Do we not know how long a Journey it is to Abassia, and how much more time the Pope must have had to have sent a message to the Emperour there and received an answer, than the sud­den calling of the Council at Ferrar [...] (to break another that had deposed the Pope as a [...] and wicked man) could consist with? and that Council sitting a while at Ferrara, removed (by the plague) to Florence, was wholly taken up with the Greek [...], and no mention of any Abassian there: We have (by Dr. Creightons Edition) a better History of that Coun­cil than Binni [...], &c. gives us; but nothing of this. Indeed Binnius reports the now known [Page 88] Fable of an Armenian coming too late after the subscriptions: but we have oft enough heard of your scenical Patriarchs and Bishops and feigned Nuncios: You can make a Patriarcch or Bishop of any part of the World at Rome when you will, and then say that those Churches have submitted to you. These Forgeries are part of your foundation, as Dr. Willet hath shewed in his Trerastylo [...]s Papismi. Why have you no Bishops no Regiment in Abassia and Armenia? Had it been true that David and Helena had promised obedience to the Pope, (as Iohan. Paleologus, the Greek Emperour partly did, and forced some of his Bishops to do in his necessity, hoping for help to have kept out the Turk, till they were come home, and then renounced the Act;) What had that been to the Question? One Man and Woman is not the Church; but he that will read but your own Godignus, will see the utter falshood of your pretences to any thing in Abassia.

Next he nameth, besides Genebrard, six others, (Platina, Nauclerus, &c.) that he saith be­sides Sect. 10. the Acts of the Florentine Council, that say that the Armenians and Indians acknowledge the Soveraignty of the Roman Bishop through the Whole World.

Answ. 1. Though he names but his own late Partners, yet he citeth not a word, page, or book of any one of them. If any one of them have so gross a Fiction, it is no more honour to them than to himself: But the Council of Florence, (in whose Acts I should as soon look to find a Fiction as in any, being a packt Anti-Council of a villainous deposed Pope,) hath no such word in any of my Books, but only that which I cited of a forged too late coming of an Armenian. And even their own Fiction talks not of his (much less the Indians) acknow­ledgment of the Pope's Soveraignty over the whole World.

He next addeth, [And as to more ancient times gives not the Arabick Translation of the first Sect. 11. Council of Nice a clear Witness, that the Ethiopians were to be under the Iurisdiction of the Patriarch of Alexandria, and he under that of Rome?]

Answ. I do not wonder that you use to lead the ignorant in your Disputes into a Wilder­ness, or Wood of History, under the Name of Antiquity and Tradition, when you know your own Refuges. Reader, the famous Council of Nice hath been predicated, and appealed to, and gloried in by almost all Parties save the Arrians, for many hundred years after it was cele­brated; and the Affrican Bishops (of whom Austin was one) had a long Contest with di­vers Popes (for about twenty years) about the true Copy of the Canons: And now the other day comes one Alph. Pisanus, and tells us that he hath found a Copy of them in Ara­bick; and this tells you of the Ethiopians being under Alexandria, by Canon, and forty things more that were not in the Canons which the Church had for above a thousand years: and this is very good Authority with a Papist. And so they can yet determine what shall be in any ancient Council, or Father; as if they had the doing of all themselves. It is but say­ing, we have found an old Paper that saith so. Why then do you not receive Eutychius Alex­andrinus's Reports of that Council, (published by Selden,) which tells us other improbable things of it, but hath far more appearance of Antiquity than your new-found Canons?

Next I noted that [Their absence from General Councils, and no invitation of them thereto, (that was ever proved,) is sufficient Evidence.] Sect. 12.

To this he saith, [I intend to make a particular Tract to prove this, and to evidence the falsity of your Allegation, from undenyable Testimonies of classic Authors, and from the ancient Sub­scriptions of the Councils themselves.]

Answ. A fine put-off; I do not believe you dare attempt it, for fear of awakening the World to the consideration of this notorious Evidence against you: It is now above sixteen years since our writing, and yet I hear not of your Book. But the Reader need not stay for it; let him but peruse the Subscriptions in your own Volumes of the Councils, Crab, Surius, Binius, Nicolinus, and judge whether all the Christian World without the Empire were ever summoned to General Councils, were present at them, or judged by them; any Bishops put in, or out by them; and judge as you see proof.

Next I noted that [Their ancient Lyturgies have no Footsteps of any subjection to the Pope, though the Papists have corrupted them; which in a Digression I shewed out of Usher de succes. Sect. 13. Eccles. in that instead of Hic panis est Corpus meum in the Ethiopick Canon Universalis, they have put Hoc est corpus meum.]

To this he replyeth, pag. 96. No more doth the Roman Missal, nor that of France, o Spain witness their subjection to the Pope.

[Page 89] Answ. That's strange that you have suffered so much of the old form unchanged. Grego­ry that denyed the Title of Universal Bishop was the chief Author, and the claim of the Monarchy of all the Earth was then but in the Egg, (even after 600 years,) and came not into the open World till about the time that Mahomet came; else undoubtedly your Lytur­gick Commemorations and Prayers would have had some mention of the Universal Bishop, as well as our Prayers mention the King and Bishops; (especially when it was then the Custom to record and commemorate all the Patriarchs, and greatest Prelates;) and the Imposition would have come forth as by his Authority, as the Trent symbolical Oath doth; and as our Lyturgie doth by Authority of the King, and Parliament, and Convocation. Surely this is much against you.

Because he knew not the Scholiastes mentioned by Usher, he questioneth his Citations about the change of the Ethiopick Lyturgie.

I next added that [Constantin's Letters of Request to the King of Persia for the Churches there, (mentioned by Eusebius in Vit. Const.) do intimate that then the Roman Bishop Ruled not Sect. 4. there.]

To this he saith, [Why so? The Pope might command, and the Emperour intreat.]

Answ. 1. This sheweth that the Emperours who used to call Councils, called none out of Persia; for they had no Power there. 2. And withal, Why is there not a Syllable in any Church-History, or credible Author, (that we have heard of,) that mentioneth that ever the Pope sent one Command into Persia; or that ever he corrected, suspended, or deposed any Bishop there, or excommunicated any there; (though indeed that had been no sign of Governing Power, seeing an equal may renounce Communion with an equal Heretical So­ciety, or Person.) Why is there no mention that ever any General Council did any of this? No, nor ever took any such exterior Churches into their care, any otherwise than as Neigh­bours to help them; nor never made any one Governing Canon for them? And I pray you, How would the Persian King that must be intreated by Constantine, have taken it to have the Religion of his Kingdom under the Command of one of Constantine's Subjects? But you have the affirmative, let us see your proof that ever the Pope Governed the Persian Churches.

Next I noted that [Even at home here the Scots and Britains obeyed not the Pope, even in the days of Gregory, (above 600) but resisted his changes, and refused Communion with his Ministers.]

To this he replyeth, [That, 1. This was their errour, as our disobedience now is; and Beda so chargeth it on them, that it followeth not that they had never been under the Pope. 2. That they also held that which was condemned as a Heresie, at Nice; yet it followeth not that they were not under that Council's Authority. 3. They also refused Communion with the English Con­verts.]

Answ. These words signifie what you would have us believe; but let us try what more: 1. Seeing you can bring no word of proof that ever they had been subject to the Pope before: And, 2. Seeing they were found utterly Aliens to his subjection: And, 3. Seeing they were found in possession of Opinions, and Customs quite contrary to the Pope's: 4. And seeing they pleaded Tradition for this: 5. And seeing they renounced Communion with those that came to subjugate them: And, 6. Seeing the Pope's Ministers never pretended to any an­cient possession in pleading with them, (as you may see in Beda:) 7. And seeing we read in Beda, Gildas, and others, that they had heretofore made use of the assistance of the French Church (by Germanus and Lupus) as more Neighbours, without any mention of subjection to Rome: Let the Reader that careth what he believeth, now judge whether ever the Scots and Britains were before subject [...]o the Pope.

2. It is false that the Council of Nice condemned their Easter-practice as a Heresie, though they united on a contrary resolution. And as it is certain that that Council had no authority out of the Empire, and so not over Britain when it was out of the Empire; so this British Custome plainly intimateth that Britain had not received the decrees of that Council.

3. That they refused the Communion of the English as half-Papists, it is no great won­der: And yet I remember no proof of that at all in Beda, but only that taking the English for Pagan-Tyrants that conquered and opprest them, they refused to join with Augustine the Monki in preaching to them: It's like taking it for a hopeless attempt in them that were odi­ous to them, and open Enemies, and not to be trusted.

[Page 90] Next I recite the words of their Reinerius Cont. Waidens. Catal. Bibl. Pat. To. 4. p. 773. Sect. 16. [‘The Churches of the A [...]enians, Ethiopians, and Indians, and the rest which the Apostles, converted are not under the Church of Rome: One would think, plain words.]’

He replyeth, [‘No more are you; what then; our question is not of what is done de facto for the [...]present, but what de jure ought to be done, or hath been done: The Author saith not, These Nations were never under the Church of Rome, but are not now.]’

Aus. It's no wonder that you desire to be the expositors of the Scriptures (and all other Books;) for that is the only device to make them speak what you would have them. If Gre­gory the Seventh be the Expositor of St. Paul, no doubt but St. Paul shall be for the power of Popes to depose Kings and Emperours: If Innocent the Third be his Expositor, no doubt but by [Bread] 1 Cor. 11. he meaneth [no Bread] and by [this Cup] [no Wine.] And I con­fess there is greater reason that you should be the infallible Expositors of Reynerius than of Christ or Paul; for he was more your own and under your Government. But this Rey­nerius was an unhappy speaker, and if he were here I would ask him, 1. Why do you speak in such a manner as any ordinary Reader would think that you speak de jure & de facto, and yet mean de facto only? 2. Why speak you so as an ordinary Reader would think that you spake d [...] statu statuto, when you mean but de praeente & statu inordinato? 3. Why speak you of so great a sin as Rebellion against the Vice-Christ, and Schism from the Universal Church, without any note of reprehension? 4. Why name you the old extra imperial Churches only, and not those that since renounced Rome, (as all the Greek Church,) if you meant but what you charge the Greek Church with? Had you not more easily fastened a charge of Rebellion on all those Eustern Churches that sometimes acknowledged some primacy of Rome, than on those that the World knoweth were never under him? 5. And why do you say also in general, [and the rest which the Apostles converted are not under the Church of Rome,] if there were not some special reason for it? We took your meaning to be [Though those in the Empire, and many without it that were turned from Infidelity by the Popes Subjects, be under the Church of Rome, the first by the Laws of the Empire and Councils, and the latter by voluntary sub­jection; yet so are not the Churches which the rest of the Apostles planted without the Empire, a [...] those Apostles were not subject to St. Peter.] 6. And why do you so arrogantly accuse such vast Churches as Arm [...]nia, Ethiopia, India, and all the rest of the Apostles planted, (besides Peter and Paul) and take them all for Rebels and Schismaticks, and yet bring no word of proof for your Accusations? But the truth is Reynerius (though he revolted from the [...] of his times) was an honester man than the Pope that shall thus be his Expositor; and yet W. I, is not the Pope, and therefore I question his partial expo­sition.

Next I mentioned the Canon of the Council of Calcedon which saith, that the Fathers (in Council) gave Rome the preheminence, &c. He replyeth, that 1. [‘The Greek word is Sect. 17. not [...], but it is [...], exhibited or deferred to Rome, as ever before due to it by the right of the Apostolick See of St. Peter established there.]’

Ans. You are hard put to it when you have no better shift than so useless a Criticism. 1. You know I suppose that [...] may have a signification as remote from [do [...]ation] as [...], and that your own common Translation is tribuere; and I desire no more. 2. Is here ever a word in the Canon that saith [It was ever before due;] not a word. 3. Is not the same word used of the giving of equal priviledges to Constantinople, as [...]is of giving or deferring it to Rome? the same word. And did they mean that this belonged ever to Constantinople, and that of Divine Right? You dare not say so. 4. Did they not say that [by the same reason] they judged that Constantinople should have equal priviledges, because it was the Royal City. And was this famous Council (of which you boast as obeying Leo's Epistle) so sottish and absurd as to argue thus [‘because old Rome had the first Seat assigned to it on this account, because it was the imperial Seat, and that was because it was ever before its due, as St Peter's Chair, therefore we judge, that by the same reason Constantinople should have equal priviledges because it is now new Rome, the imperial Seat, though it was never due to it before as the Seat of any Apostle.]’ O what cannot some men believe or seem to believe! And how much doth it conern your Church to be the Expositor and [Page 91] Judge of the sense of all Councils, as well as of God's Word.

He addeth that [‘the Canon saith not that this was the sole reason.]’

Ans. 1: But the Canon saith, This was the reason, and assigneth no other. 2. And if it made not it the great reason which the Church was to take for the fundamentum juris, they would never have laid the Right of Constantinople on the same Foundation as by parity of reason.

The plain truth is, (but interest and partiality cannot endure plain truth) he that will not be deceived by cited By-words of the Ancients, must distinguish between the Tit [...]lus or fundamentum juris, and the Ratio or Motives of the Statute or Constitution. The first was the Law of Emperours and Councils. This only giveth the Right. The second was prevailingly and principally, that which the Canon here assigneth, that Rome was the great City and the imperial Seat; but, as a honorary Tittle adding to the Motive, they say some­times that it was the Seat of Peter, and sometimes of Peter and Paul, and sometime they mention Paul alone; and cry, (as at Ephesus) Magno Paul [...] Cyrillo! Magne Paulo Celesti­no—But note that they give often the same reason for the Patriarchal honour of An­tioch, (that it was Sedes Petri,) and therefore never took this to be either the Foundation of the Right, or the chief determining Motive of the Constitution.

He addeth that, [‘else it had been a contradiction when the Fathers say that Dioscorus had extended his Felony against him, to whom our Saviour had committed the charge and care of his Vineyard] that is, of the whole Catholick Church.’

Ans. 1. No doubt but they acknowledged that Christ committed the care of his Vineyard to Peter, and every one of the Apostles, and to all Bishops as their Successors, though not in Apostleship; and they acknowledged Rome the primate in the Empire: and when Dioscor us undertook to excommunicate Leo, they supposed that he transgressed the Laws of the impe­rial Church; and therefore Anatolius in the Council, when the Indices said that Dioscor us condemned Flavian for saying Christ had two Natures, answered, That Dioscorus was not con­demned propter fidem, but for excommunicating Leo, and for not appearing when he was sent for. 2. Is here any word that saith that the Pope was Soveraign of all the Earth? Doth not the Council in that very Letter to Leo, say that the Emperour had called the Council, not as­cribing it to any Authority of the Pope. And also that the saying, Mat. 28, Go, teach all Nations, &c. was delivered to them (which is the care of the vineyard) and not only to the Pope, Quam nobis olim ipse salvator tradidit ad salutem.

But saith W. I. [The true reason why this Canon mentioneth rather the Imperial Authority of that City, than the right from St. Peter, was because it suited better with the pretensions of Ana­tolius Sect. 1 [...]. Bishop of Constantinople and his Complices for the elevaton of that Sea than any other, for they had no other, &c.

Ans. It's true: But did Anatolias and his Complices, that is, the Council, speak sincere­ly and truly here, or falsly? If truly, that's all that I cite them for; If falsly, as worldly, unconscionable men that were setting up themselves, why hoast we of General Councils? e­ven of this, and of their words to Leo? How can we tell when to trust them? and whether they that subscribed against Flavian at Ephes. 2. and after cryed omnes peccavimus, at Calcedon, when they were under a Martian, and not Theodosius, would not have acquit Dioscorus, and condemn­ed Leo and Elavian again, if another Theodosius had come. But if they were credible believe them.

But he tells us that a Law of Theodosius and Valentine put both reasons together, &c.

Ans. I told you in what sense even now, even as they put the name of Peters Seat as a reason Sect. 1 [...]. of the honour of Antioch, a honorary motive to their Law. And he here confesseth himself, That Alexander and Antioch had the second and third places, because they were the second and third great Cities of the Empire.

But he saith, that [‘St. Peter thought it convenient that the highest spiritual Authority should be placed in that City which had the highest temporal power.]’

Ans. Say you so? 1. Where is that Canon of St. Peter's to be found and proved? 2. If so, then why is not this Canon produced for the regulating of all other Churches? Why doth Canterbury take place of London, contrary to St. Peter's Judgment? 3. And if so, then you are gone many hundred years ago. Why do you, contrary to St. Peter's mind, pretend to the highest Ecclesiastical Authority, since Rome ceased to have the highest Civil [Page 92] Power? Should not Constantinople, and Vienna, and Paris, be preferred before Rome? You cannot make both your ends meet.

I added, [‘That these Councils gave not the Pope any Authority over the extra-imperial Nations.]’

He replyeth [‘If they had it before, and by Christs institution, they ne [...]ded not.]’

I answer, So if Constantinople had it before by Christs institution, they need not have given it equal priviledges; but did they that proceeded by Parity of reason, believe that either of them had any such Title?

I added some further proof. 1. ‘Those extra-imperial Nations being not called to the Councils, were not bound to stand to such decrees had they been made.’

He replyeth somewhat that is instead of the Book which he promised before; and calleth to me to remember to answer him; and nothing that he hath said is more worthy of an answer; viz. [‘How came the Bishops of Persia, of both the Armenia's, and Gothia (which were all out of the Empire) to subscribe to the first Council of Nice? How came Phaebam­non, Bishop of the Copti, to subscribe to the first Council of Ephesus? How came the Circular Letter written by Eusebius Caesar Palest. in the name of the Council, to be di­rected to all Bishops, and in particular to the Churches throughout all Persia, and the great India? Lastly, if those Bishops were not called to Councils why do Theodoret, Marianus, Victor, Eusebius, Socrates, all of them affirm, that to the Council of Nice were called Bishops from all the Churches of Europe, Africa, and Asia, [and he citeth the places in the Margin.]’

Ans. 1. Here is but two Councils named in which such invited Bishops are pretend­ed to have been; the subscriptions to the rest for many hundred years afforded him no such pretence, no not as to one Country in the World.

2. To the Council of Nice there subscribed (unless you will believe Eutychius Alexandrinus, the Presbyterians Friend, that tells you of strange numbers) but 318, as full Testimony con­firmeth. And 3. I desire the Reader to note that these subscriptions have no certainty at all. The Copies of Crab, Binnius, Pisanus, &c. disagree one from another. And Crab giveth the Reader this note upon them p. 259. that [‘the Collector must be pardoned if he erre in the assignation or conscription of Bishops or Bishopricks, especially beyond Europe, for [...]hough they were four old Copies that he used, yet they were every one so depraved, that the Collector was wearied with the foolish and manifold variations; for never a one of them agreed with the rest.]’ This is our notice of the subscriptions; and as I said Euty­chus A [...]x. quite differeth from all.

And 1. whereas he tells us here of the Bishops of Persia, there is no mention of any man but one Iohannes Persidis, and he is said to be Provinciae Persidis; and the Romans named not extra-imperial Countries by the name of Provinces; therefore there is little doubt but this was some one that verged on the Kingdom of Persia, in some City which was under the Romans then, and sometimes had been part of Persia. I have oft mentioned Theodoret's plain Testimony saying, that James Bishop of Nisibis, (sometimes under the Persian) was at the Nicene Council, for Nisibis was then under the Roman Emperour.

2. As to the Bish [...]ps of both the Armenians, the Copies disagree even of the number; of those of Armenia minor they name two Bishops, of Arm. major, one hath four, another five, another six; and part of the Armenia's being in the Roman Power, it is most probable that these Bishops were Subjects to the Empire; or if any at the Borders desired for the honour of Christianity to be at the first famous General Council, it signifieth not that any had power to summon them, or did so. The Emperour had not, and that the Pope did it, none pretend that hath any modesty; and they are called in the subscriptions, The Provinces of Ar­menia.

3. And as for Gothia, the Books name one Man, Theophy [...]s Gothiae Metropolis, which no Man well knoweth what to make of; for the Nation of Gothes were not then Christians. Socrates saith that it was in the days of Valens that some of them turned Christians, and that was the reason that they were Arrians, and that Wulphilus then translated for them the Scrip­ture. But if they had a Bishop at the Nicene Council, it is evident that he was in the Em­pire; for the Gothes then dwelt in Walachia, Moldovia, and Poland, and were no other than the Sauromatae, that Eusebius, tells us Constantine had Conquered, and tells us how; [Page 93] even by helping the Masters whom the Servants by an advantage of the War had dispossest so that your Instance of Theophilus Gothiae, as without the Empire, is your errour. Myraeus calls part of France, Gothia. Saith Marcellinus, Comes eodem anno, (of Thodos. 1. after the Council Const. 1.) Universa gens Gothorum Athanaricho Rege defuncto Romano sese imperio dedit: This was a great addition. But here Pisanus helps us out, and saith, Hunc Eusebius Pamphylus Scytam dixit in vita Constantini; & Metaphrastes addeth Wulphilu [...]'s success: Eusebius indeed tells us that there were 250 Bishops (that differs for the common account, and he was one of them,) and that the Bishop of Persia was present, (Vit. Const. l. 3. c. 7.) And that there were learned Men from other Countries, Scythia being one, (and the Bishop of Tomys was called the Scythian Bishop:) And that Constantine was the Caller of the Coun­cil; (not the Pope:) And that he wrote Letters to the Bishops, to summon them to ap­pear at the Council: And who will believe that he wrote his Summons to the Subjects of other Kings? Or if he had, What's that to the Pope? If Ioh. Persidis were not a Roman Subject, that word [he was present] seemeth to distinguish his voluntary presence from the Summons of others. But saith Euseb. 16. cap. 6. Writs of Summons were sent into every Pro­vince: And the Persian and Armenian Provinces are here named with the Bishops. Those that have leisure to search into the Roman History may find what Skirt of Persia, and what Part of Armenia were in the Empire in those times; and it's notable, that when these Bor­dering Parts were lost, these Bishops were never more at any General Council; neither at Ephesus, Constantinople, Nice 2. &c.

And Eusebius there tells us, as the reason why some came came from the remotest Coun­tries, viz. some did it out of a desire to see the (famous first Christian) Emperour, and some out of a conceit, that a Universal Peace should be established: And so Ioh. Persidis might come with the rest.

And though I find not Pisanus's words of Theophilus in Eusebius, I find ibid. l. 4. c. 5. That it was no wonder that even a Scythian Bishop should be at this, and other Councils: For though Rome had formerly been so far from conquering the Scythians that they paid them Tribute, yet Constantine disdaining to pay them Tribute, Conquered Scythia, and after that Sauromatia also: The Indians, Blemayans, Ethiopians, and Persians, sent honourable Em­bassies and Presents to Constantinople, (c. 7.) as Neighbours; but he was far from summon­ing their Subjects to his Council, but wrote his Letter to the King of Persia only to favor them at home.

Judge now whether here be a word of summoning any one Bishop out of the Empire? or a word of the Pope's summoning them, but the contrary? or any certainty that any [...]ut of the Empire were there? And if any were, how inconsiderable their number was, [...]nd on what occasion it was like that they were voluntarily there? Nay, it is most probable that there was not one there, by the Circumstances mentioned.

His second Instance is of Phebamnon at the Council of Ephesus.

Answ. 1. Mark what kind of proof this Man pretendeth to, when he nameth, 1. But one Council after Nice. 2. And but one Man, and no Summons; much less that a Pope summoned all the Christian World.

2. But what is that he meaneth? The Copties are the Egyptian Christians: Egypt was known to be in the Empire. If he mean that the Abassines are here called the Coptie, and their Bishop here, he is very shameless, and few Men of understanding will believe him. It's plain by the manner and place, in the Subscriptions, that [Coptie] there, signifieth a City; being put in the Genitive Case singular, as the others are: It's not [Phebammone Episcopo Coptorum.] but Phaebammone Copti;] and is put in the midst of the Imperial Bishops, by Binnius: (But Crab hath no Subscriptions at all:) But was there any City of that Name? Yes, and amongst those Bishops that were most frequent at the Eastern Councils: Ferrarius out of Strabo, Plutarch, Ptolomy, and others, saith, [Coptos Cana, teste Rhamusio, Urbs & Emporium Aegypti sive Thebaidis ad Nilum, que merces ex India per s [...]um Arabicum advectae terra jumentis deferebantur a Thebis 44. mill. pas. in B. 8. Babylonem versus, a Berenice urb [...] ad sinum Arabicum 258. ab Alexandria vero supra 300. ubi smaragdi inveniuntur. Meminit illius Staius, l. 1. Theb. [Coptos & erisoni▪ lugentia flumina Nili.]

[Page 94] You see now with what Ignorances and cheats the unskilful are deceived by these Disputes, and the Pope pretendeth to the Monarchy of the World.

His last proof is out of Theodoret, Mar. Victor, Eusebius and Secrates, That to the Council of Sect. 23. Ni [...]e were called Bishops from all the Churches of Europe, Affrica, and Asia.

Answ. Would any Man, not blinded by prejudice, understand this of any other, than all the Bishops of Europe, Africa, and Asia, which were in the Empire; when he knoweth, 1. How much of these three parts of the World were in the Empire. 2. That the Emperour wrote a Letter to the Bishops to summon them. 3. That he had no power out of the Em­pire. 4. How ill it would have been taken to have summoned, or called the Subjects, be­fore he had requested their Princes to send them? Certainly Constantine would have writ­ten to their several Princes, and not first to them. 5. His Letters to the King of Persia for the Churches there, shew this, in which yet he never presumed so far as to desire that they might come to his Councils. 6. No History mentioneth any such thing, as any summons to any one extra-imperial Bishop. 7. And to end all doubts, the Subscriptions shew that they were not there; shall we not believe your own Books, and our own Eyes?

He citeth Theodor. l. 1. c. 7. I suppose he meaneth his Eccles. Hist. for in that he mention­eth the calling of the Council; but hath not a word of what this Man doth cite him for: But cap. 25. he saith that [Europae totius, & Africae, quin etiam maximae partis Asiae imperio potitus est Constantinus:] Yet this is too largely spoken. Socrates hath no such words besides his Recitation of the words of Eusebius: Eusebius indeed saith, That the Bishops were cal­led out of all these Provinces, and who ever questioned it! Not a Syllable in any of his ci­ted Authors of any Call, or Summons, to any one Man out of the Empire. These are the Foundations of the Roman Monarchy.

But I had almost over-past his mention of Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine's Circular Letter, writ in the Name of the Council, to be directed to all Bishops; and in particular, Sect. 24. to the Churches through all Persia, and the Great India.

Answ. 1. If it had been the Pope's Letter, it would with these Men have proved his So­veraignty of the Earth: But alas, it was Eusebius's Letter.

2. It's strange, if Eusebius were as great an Arrian as you commonly suppose him, that the Council should chuse him to write the circular Letter, and that you had not feigned that he did it as the Pope's Vicat.

3. If writing a Letter would prove a Governing Power, I would write a Letter to Rome presently, that I might be the Governour of the Pope; and then I would command him to lay by his Ambition, and recall his rebellious and bloody Decrees, and to let the Christian World have peace.

4. But the man tells me not by one word, where to find any such Epistle of Eusebius; In Eusebius there is none such; nor in Socrates; nor in Theodoret, nor in the common Histories of the Councils: whence is it that W. I. fished it out? At last I found in Pisanus, his new-invented History of that Council, the Title of Circularis Epistola Scripta ab Eusebio. But not a word that it was written to the Churches of Persia or India, nor any other by name, much less without the Empire; nor a word that it was written by him in the name of the Council. All these are W I's forgeries. But the words and Margin open all the matter▪ Socrates and others tells us that Eusebius having staggered in the beginning of the Council (and being as you commonly say an Arrian) when he saw how things would go, subscribed to the Council, and lest his own Flocks should censure him or differ from him, he wrote in his own name a Letter only to his own flock, giving them the reason and sence of his subscription; and indeed he seemeth therein to prevaricate, and to give an Arrian sence of the word] [...] [saying] ‘To be of one substance with the Father, signifieth no other thing, than that the Son of God was in nothing like the rest of the Creatures, but altogether like to the Fa­ther alone that begat him, nor begotten of any other than of the Fathers substance and essence; to which thus set forth right and reason required that we should condescend.]’ This preva­ricating Letter to Caesarea the Author of Pisanus Story, calleth [a Circular Letter] ignorant­ly, and W. I. added the rest; and thus these men prove what they list; and this is their proof of Universal Tradition and the Papal Soveraignty of the World.

He concludeth [ [...]ou will not forget to answer these questions in your next.] And I think [Page 95] I have not forgotten it, nor failed to evince his worse than forgetfulness; and that the Councils then extended but to the Roman Empire, and consequently the Papal and Patriarchal preten­sion [...], to no more (and even of the Popes Western Diocesses, the number of Bishops at those Eastern great Councils were not considerable, nor yet any Agency of the Pope in and about them.)

W. J's Fourth Chapter answered.

I next added (for he begins his Chapter in the middle of a Section,) 2. That the Empe­rours Sect. 1. called and enforced the Councils who had no power out of the Empire.]

To this he saith [‘Called they them alone? had they not the Authority of the Roman Bishop joyned with them, or rather presupposed to theirs? prove that the Emperours called them.]’

Ans. Shall I prove it to those that have read the Histories of the Councils, or to them that have not? If to them that have not, I cannot prove it or any such matters, but by desiring them to read it: If you tell a Woman that it is ten thousand years since the World was created, and I tell her it is not 600, neither of us proveth to her what we say, but she will believe him that she liketh best: But to him that hath read, or will read, the History, I disdain the Task: Must I write Books to prove that there were such men as Constan­tine or Theodosius in the World? I will be none of that mans Teacher that hath read the full hi­story of the Councils of Nice, First and Second, of Ephes. First and Second; of Constantinople First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, &c. of Sirmium, Armenium, and many such, as cannot see that the Emperours called them without any previous Call or Authority of the Pope; some (as Nice) the Emperour called immediately by his own Letters without a word of the Popes interposing Authority or Call: Most of the Emperours wrote to the Patriarchs and Metro­politanes to call the Bishops under them: Sometimes to the Patriarch of Alexandria first (if not only) to call the rest; sometimes to him of Constantinople; and sometimes to all the five; and if the Pope did at any time send a Bishop or two and a Priest thither, you thence pretend that the Pope called the Council.

He addeth [‘Had not the Emperours power to signifie to those extra-imperials that a Council was to be celebrated, and to invite them at least?]’

Ans. Yes, sure, even at the Antipodes; but when the History tells us that he command­ed and oft threatned them if they came not, and that he wrote to them, and the men are named, what signifieth your question?

W. I. [‘Could not the Bishop of Rome, or other under whose Jurisdiction they were re­spectively, notifie to them the celebration of the Council, and require their presence in it? you cannot but see this.]’

Ans. I cannot but see your shame when you open it. 1. Could not an Angel from Hea­ven have called them? yes no doubt: but no History saith that they were so called, but tells us how in another manner.

2. The word [Jurisdiction] signifieth so much of your Errour and interest, that you are resolved at least to keep up the name and supposition; and when you do but adde [over all the World] it maketh me remember Christs temptation [All this will I give thee;] but it is too strong a temptation for the Pope to over-come. But you would have gratified me much if you had told me what Patriarch's Jurisdiction in those times, the Churches in Persia and India, and the rest that were extra-imperial, did belong to? or where I may find any notice of the Summons that the Pope or any Patriarch sent them to any of those ancient Coun­cils.

3. I told him that [‘the Diocesses which these Bishops were related to are described and expresly confined within the verge of the Empire; vid. Blondel. de primatu.] Sect. 2.

To this, 1. He taketh it for a Fob to be referred to Bloudel. Answ. Look then in your own Cosmographers, and even in Aub [...]rtus Myraeus his Notitia Episcopatuum, (abating his Fiction of the submission of the Abassine Emperours, and such-like in him; and his Con­fession that his Book had next to nothing of the Patriarchate of Alexandria:) He tells you that the Armenia major and minor were in the Province of Pontus, Scythia in the Province [Page 96] of Thracia, &c. And that you may know who it was that gave these Jurisdictions, he tells you how Iustinian gave his Name to a City of Bulgaria, subjecting many Bishops of Dacia, Dardania, Mysia, Pannonia, &c. to that Arch-Bishop; with this addition, sed & ille ab ipsis consecretur, & eadem jura super eos habeat, quae Papa Romanus habet super Episcopos sibi subditos. (Was that all the World then?) Novel. 119. 508.

He next citeth Pisanus's Nicene Canons, giving the Pope Universal Power, and the Bishop of Alex. and Antioch extra-imperial Power; and he promiseth hereafter to justifie those Canons. But in the mean time, I shall as much regard his Citations out of Esop's Fables, or out of Genebrard, or Cochleus.

He saith, [The Council of Calcedon, c. 28. giveth to the Bishop ef Constantinople Authority over the barbarous Nations near those Parts; that is, such as were extra-imperial, such as that of Rus­sia, and Muscovia.]

Answ. Is not this a confident Man? 1. The Council saith only that the [Bishops of the fore-said Diocesses (naming only, Pontus, Asia, and Thracia,) which are among the barbarous, shall be ordained by the Throne of Const. And who knoweth not, that the word Diocess sig­nified then a part of the Empire? and that many of the barbareus, so called then, were with­in the Empire? such as were the Scythians, Gothes, (or Getae, or Sauromatae,) which Eu­sebius saith were Conquered by Constantine: But is here any mention of Russia, or Musco­vy? 2. And how long after this was it that all History tells us the Muscovites and Russians (that were not Gothes) were converted to Christianity?

So that here is not a Syllable in all that he hath said for Popery, except the Canons of Pisanus and Turrian, which they must better prove before we take them to be of any just regard: It is not the word of Baptista Romanus, or any late Iesuite that can suffice us.

I added lastly that Patriarchal Priviledges were ordinarily given by the Emperours, who added and altered, and sometimes set Rome highest and sometimes Constantinople. His many vain words against this I will not tire the Reader with reciting: Every man knoweth it that know­eth Church-History: Why else in the days of Mauricius and Phocas was one set highest at one time, and the other at another time? How else came the Bishop of Constantinople to pretend to Universal Primacy?

His marvel, that I translate Pontifex Pope, as if never man had so done, as if we had never read Bellarmine de Pontifice Romano, and others that so speak, &c. is a vain digression not worthy an answer, nor the rest.

I will here briefly recite some undeniable Reasons which I have given pag. 100, &c. of my Naked Popery, to prove what we have been all this while upon.

1. That the Papal Power was not held to be jure divino, but humano. 1. It stood by the same right as did the other Patriarchs; but it was jure humano.

2. The Africans, Aurelius, Augustine, &c. of the Carthage Council, enquired not of Gods Word, but of the Nicene Canons to be resolved of the Papal Power.

3. The whole Greek Church heretofore and to this day is of that Judgment; for they first equalled and after preferred Constantinople, which never pretended to a Divine Right; but they were not so blind as to equal or prefer a humane right before a Divine.

4. The fore-cited Ca. 28. of the Council of Calcedon expresly resolves it.

5. Their own Bishop Smith confesseth that it is not de fide that the Pope is St. Peters Successor jure divino.

II. The Roman Primacy was over but one Empire; besides all the Reasons fore-going I added, That the Bishop of Constantinople, when he stood for to be Universal Bishop, yet claimed no more; therefore no more was then in contest, but Power in the Empire.

III. That Councils then were called General in respect only to the Empire, I proved by ten Arguments, p. 104. 105. adding five exceptions.

Page 114. he had put a Verse under the name of Pope Leo, with a Testimony, &c. I shewed that there was no such; and he confesseth the Errour, but he supposeth a confident Friend of his put it into his Papers, and now saith the Verse was Prosper's, and some words to the like purpose are Leo's de Nat. Pet. Prosper (he saith) is somewhat ancienter than Leo, and less to be excepted against.

[Page 97] Ans. 1. He was Leo's Servant, even his Secretary, as Vossius and Rivet have shewed; and so his Words and Leo's are as one's. 2. It is in a Poem where li­berty of phrase is ordinarily taken. 3. No wonder if Caput Mundo be found in a Poet, either as it is spoken de Mundo Romano, or as Caput signifieth the most excellent, great and honourable: And so Rome it self is oft called by Histo­rians Caput Mundi, before and since Christianity entered it. And it may well be said that this was Pastoralis Honoris, though not ex Pastorali Regimine Universali; For one Bishop was a Caput or chief to others Pastorali Honore, that was not their Governour; as the chief Earl, or chief Judge among us, is to the inferiours. 3. And the Pope did Nihil possidere armis. 4. And Tenere and Re­gere be not all one. He may be said thus [Tenere] in that the Religion which he professed had possession of more than the Roman Empire, and he was the Chief Bishop in honour of that profession. The sense seemeth to be but this, [As great a honour as it is to be the Bishop of the Imperial City of a Con­quering Empire, it is a greater to be the Prime Bishop of that Christian Religion which extendeth further than the Roman Conquests.] He citeth a sentence as to the same sence out of Prosper de Vocat. Gent. l. 2. c. 6. viz. [That the Prin­cipality of the Apostolick Priesthood, hath made Rome greater through the Tribunal of Religion, than through that of the Empire.] Which I take to be the true sence of the Poet: but to be greater by Religion than Empire is no more to be Ruler of the World, than if I had said so of Melchizedeck, that he was greater as he was Priest of the most high God, than as he was King of Salem. But there is in the cited place of Prosper none of these words, nor any about any such matter at all; but there is somewhat like it in cap. 16. which indeed is expository. Ad cujus rei effectum credimus providentia Dei Romani regni latitudinem praeparatam, ut Nationes vocandae ad Unitatem Corporis Christi, prius jure unius consociarentur imperii; quamvis gratia Christiana non contenta sit eosdem limites habere quos Roma, multosque jam populos sceptro Crucis Christi illa subdiderit quos armis suis ista non domuit. Quae tamen per Apostolici sacerdotii principatum amplior facta est arce Religionis quam solio potestatis. All this we acknowledge that Prosper then said about 466 years after Christ, being Pope Leo's Secretary, and seeing the Church in its greatest outward Glory: The Unity of the Empire pre­pared for the greatness of the Church, and those that were Unit­ed in one Empire were United after in one Religion, and yet the Gospel went further than the Empire; and Rome it self became more honourable in being the seat of the most honourable Christian Bi­shop, whose Religion extended further than the Empire, than in being the Imperial Seat of Power.

The words which he citeth of Leo, I made the lightest of, be­cause he was a Pope himself, and pleaded his own cause more high­ly Sect. [...]. than any of his Predecessors, and lived so late; but yet the words [Page 98] do not serve the Papists turn; for he at large sheweth that his meaning was, that Rome which was domina mundi, before it wa [...] Christian, (and yet not the Ruler of the World) was prepared to be the Seat of Peter and Paul, that even the outer Nations, by their Neighbourhood to the Empire, might be capable of the Gospel; which is a certain Truth. Ut hujus inenarrabilis gratiae per totum mundum diffunderetur effectus, Ro­manum regnum divina providentia praeparavit; cujus ad eos limites incrementa perducta sunt, quibus cunctarum undi (que) gentium vicina & contigua esset uni­versitas. Disposito namq divinitatis operi maxime congruebat, ut multa regna uno conf [...]derarentur imperio, & cito pervios haberet populos praedicatio generalis, quos unius teneret regimen civitatis.—Nec mundi dominam times Romam, qui in Caiphae domo expaveras sacerdotis ancillam. And mentioning [...] [...] [...] at Rome. he saith▪ ut cos in [...], [...] caput est Christus, quasi geminum constituerit lumen oculorum, de quorum meritis atque vi [...]tutibus, que omnem loquendi superant facultatem, nihil diversum, nihil debemus sentire dis­cretum; quia illos & electio pares, & labor similes, & finis fecit aequales.

And in the next Sermon, expounding super hanc petram, thus saith, [su­per hanc, inquit, [...] [...]ternum extruam templum, & ecclesiae meae caelo in­serenda sublimitas, in hujus fidei firmitate consurget. Hanc confessionem portae Inferi non tenebunt, &c.]

And of Tibi dabo claves—[Transivit quid [...]m in Apostolos alios vis illius pote­statis; sed non frustra uni commendatur, quod omnibus intimetur: Petro enim sin­gulariter hoc creditur, quia cunctis ecclesiae rectoribus Petri forma proponitur: Manet ergo Petri privilegium ubicun (que) ex ipsius fertur aequitate judicium, nec ni­mia est vel severitas vel remissio.—

So Petrus Chrysologus expoundeth super hanc petram, Serm. 74. p. 69. 1. and many others.

But it is the way of these Men, to take some Sentence that soundeth, as they think, for sufficient Proof of their Foundations.

Leo in his Epistles to Anatolius, and to the Emperour Martian against him, Ep. 54. p. 131. layeth all the Priviledges of the Churches on the Council of Nice, [Privilegia ecclesiarum sanctorum Patrum Canonibus instituta, & Venerabilis Nicenae Synodi fixa decretis, nulla novitate mutari, &c. He saith, that no later Council, though of greater number, can alter any thing done in the Council of Nice;—and so none of their Rules for the Churche's Re­giment. And in many other Epistles (to Pulcheria, &c.) he over and over accuseth him as breaking the Statutes of the Fathers, and Councils, but not the Institution of Christ, or his Apostles.

[Page 99] Next he citeth Leo's Epist. 82. to Anastas. But it is in the 84th. and he Sect. 9. that will but read it will easily see, that it was but in the Empire that L [...]o claimed the final Decision and Appeals.

And once more I here appeal to any impartial Man that ever read over Sect. 10. all the true Epistles and Decretals of the Popes themselves, and findeth that none of them for 400, if not 500 years, were ever sent to any ex­traimperial Church, as any way exercising Authority over them; yea, and till after 600 (when Gregory sent into England) they wrote but to their own Missionaries, or but by way of Counsel, as any Man may do; whether he can believe they then arrogated the Government of all the World.

In the rest of this Chapter there is nothing worth the answering, but that he saith, (to prove Ethiopia under the Patriarchs of Alexandria,) That, 1. Some Learned Men think Ethiopia is included in Egypt. 2. That Dr. Heylin and Rosse did regard Pisanus his Nicene Canons; and their Authority is more than mine.

Answ. 1. You are a Learned Man, who take Thracia to have been with­out Sect. 11. the Empire; and must I therefore be of the same mind? If your Learn­ed Men cannot distinguish between Egypt, an imperial Province, and the vast and distant Kingdoms of Ethiopia; What's that to me? Is it enough to confute any evident truth, that there was found some Man that was against it? 2. Nor is the Name of Heylin and Rosse of any more Authori­ty to prove the Antiquity of a late-produced Script, against all the Te­stimony of the Fathers and Councils near those times, than your own na­ked Assertion would have been. Is not this a pitiful Proof, that Pisanus's Canons are authentick and ancient, because Dr. Heylin and Rosse regard them? If you had any better Proof, Why did you not produce it?

An Answer to W. J's fifth Chapter.

The thing that I asserted is, 1. That the Pope had never any Governing Sect. 1. Power over the whole Earth. 2. Nor anciently over any out of the Em­pire. 3. Nor a proper Government of the other Patriarchs, or exempt Provinces within the Empire: But that he was (principally for the honour of the Imperial Seat, and next as to honour, the Memorial of St. Peter) voluntarily by Councils and Emperours, made the prime Bishop of the [Page 100] Empire; Alexandria first, and Constantinople after, the second; Antioch the third, &c. And that not the Pope, but the Emperours, and General Councils were the chief Rulers of the Imperial Churches: But in these Councils the Bishop of Rome had the first Seat, and Alexandria the second: And that this Bishop of Rome had but one Voice ordinarily in Councils, but sometimes he claimed a Negative Voice; and sometimes Councils have condemned, excommunicated, and deposed him: And in his absence, the Bishop of Alexandria had the same Power as he, when present, had.

Now, W. I. here citeth some Testimonies truly, and some falsly, to prove that which I deny not; that sometimes the last Appeals were made to him, and other Priviledges allowed him, which belonged to the first Bishop of the Empire. I think it but an injury to the Reader to examine them any further. If he will read the Histories and Fathers themselves, he needs not my Testimony: If he will not, my Testimony is no notifying Evidence to him.

And upon the perusal of the rest, I find nothing in this Chapter needing, or worthy of any further Answer: And I am sensible that fruitless altercati­on Sect. 2. will be ungrateful to wise and sober Men.

An Answer to W. J's. Sixth CHAPTER.

§ 1. I Noted that under the Heathen Emperours, Church-Associations were but by Vo­luntary Consent; and yet then they called in none without the Empire.

To this he Replyeth: 1. Denying such Consent. 2. Saying, They could not call them that were Extraimperial to sit with them.

Answ. 1. I would he had told us how Provinces were distributed while Emperours were Heathens, if not by Consent: Doth he think that the Pope did it all himself? Did he make Alexandria, Antioch Patriarchates, and divide to all other Bishops their Seats and Provinces? If he say this, he will but make us the more wary of such a Disputant; for he will never prove it.

2. And if by Consent they could not call any without the Empire, then none were Called, which is the Truth.

§ 2. But he cometh to his grand Proof, That the four first Councils were Univer [...] as to all the World: 1. Because they are called General and Oecumenical Councils, by them­selves, by the Canons, by Histories, by the whole Christian World; by the Fathers, by Prote­stants, by our Statute-Books, by our thirty nine Articles, and by Orthodox Writers. To all which I Answer, Even in Scotland the Presbyterians have their General Assembly, which yet is somewhat less than all the World: And as for their Phrase of Totius Orbis, So it is said in the Gospel, that all the World was Taxed by Augustus. He is very easily perswaded, that af­ter all the Evidence which I have given, and in particular, after the sight of all the sub­scribed Names at Councils, which were within the Empire, can yet believe that they were the Bishops of all the World, because he readeth the name Oecumenical and Totius Orbis.

§ 3. But he argueth from the Reason of the thing. 1. Councils were gathered for the Common Peace of Christians.

Answ. The Peace of the Christian World is promoted by the Peace of the Empire. 1. As it was the most considerable part then of the whole Christian World. 2. As the welfare of every part conduceth to the welfare of the World. 3. As it is Exemplary and Counselling to all others, but not by Authoritative Command and Constraint.

§ 4. Secondly, He saith, Else any obstinate Hereticks might but have removed to the Extra-imperial Churches, and been free.

Answ. 1. He might, no doubt, have been free from force, unless his own Prince were Did not the Arrian Goths live out of the Empire in Power? of the same mind. 2. But he could not have forced the Imperial Churches to have owned him as Orthodox, nor to have forborn renouncing Communion with him. 3. And surely if it was Heresie which he was guilty of, it was so before it was declared so by the Coun­cil, and therefore might be so known by that Extraimperial Church to which he should re­move.

§ 5. Thirdly, The same Answer serveth to his third Reason: That If any Imperial Coun­try were won from the Empire, they would be free; not free from other Mens disowning or re­nouncing them. I told you before, the plain words of Theodoret, That James,: Bishop of Nisi­bis was at the Council of Nice, for Nisibis was then under the Roman Empire.

§ 6. Fourthly, The same Answer sufficeth to his fourth Reason: That a Nation Conquered would have been brought under the Council, and Faith would have depended on the Fortune of War.

Answ. True, If Faith were no Faith without a General Council's determination; and if there was no Faith in the World before there was a General Council, nor any Christian be­fore Constantine's time. What if only a Provincial Council had Condemned any Heresie? Consider how far the Extraimperialists had been Obliged by it. The Truth and Reason of the decision would have Obliged them.

§ 7. Fifthly, He saith, It would follow, that the Kingdoms that are now fallen from that Em­pire should have no Successive descending Obligation to the four first General Councils.

Answ. Not at all as Subjects to Men dead and gone, nor as if the Canons of those Coun­cils were a Law properly Divine, and so bound us as meer Subjects of God; nor yet as Subjects to the present Patriarchs of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, &c. whose Predecessours [Page 122] made those Canons. But 1. The Word of God which they declared, bound Men before, and bindeth them since in all Nations of the World. 2. And God Obligeth us to do all things in as much Love and Concord as we can. And when the greatest part of the Chri­stian World agree upon any thing Lawful and convenient, an Obligation for Concord may hence arise on others, without any Subjection to a Governing Authority. And in these two respects such Councils may Oblige us, but not as Subjects.

§ 8. Sixthly, His last Reason is, That those Extraimperial Christians who embraced the Here­sies Condemned in any one of those Councils, never alledged this Reason.

Answ. 1. Those Councils themselves had more Modesty than to say, This is a Heresie be­cause we have Iudged it so, for it was so before by the Judgment of Gods Word: It had been therefore a frivolous Defence of Heresie, to say, We are not Subject to the Council, unless they could have said, We are not Subject to the Law of God. 2. What Extraimperial Nations mean you, that owned Condemned Heresie? If the Arrian Goths, they Learned it from Va­lens and the General Councils of the Empire. If the Nestorians and Eutychians, prove that any Extraimperial Nations were such: If they were guilty of any Heresie, what Occasion had they to alledge such Reasons to Justifie themselves, to Men that never sent or urged the Authority of such Councils on them. Prove you first that ever any General Council for five hundred Years did Judge any Extraimperial Bishops, or Depose any one of them for Heresie. 3. But your Sect use to accuse the Abassines as Eutychians; and Godiguus and others will tell you that they deny that they were under the Pope.

§ 9. I told him that some Hereticks are not Christians univocally, and others so called were better Christians than the Papists: The former are not of the Christian Church, the latter are. It is not an Usurpers calling others Hereticks, that will blot their Names out of the Book of Life.

To this he saith, That I should have told him which of them I take for Univocal Christians, and that they had the Names given them long agoe.

Answ. 1. By what Authority can you require me, if you name Men by an hundred Nick-names, to tell you all over which of these I account Christians? Is it not enough that I tell you in General, that I account all those Christians that hold all the Essential parts of Christianity, and renounce none of them. 2. How long soever Men are Calumniated, that proveth not the Calumny Just. It is long since the General Council at Basil pronounced the Pope an Heretick, and that it is Heresie to deny that a General Council may Judge him; and yet the Papists believe not this Council.

§. 10. I told him that I had rather be in the case of many that have been burnt as Here­ticks, than of the Pope and others that burnt them.

His Answer to this is, He wisheth me better, and he bringeth many Accusations against the Albigenses; as if we had never disproved those Calumnies; which hath been so long and fully done, as among others by Bishop Usher, D [...] Statu & success. Ecclesiar. and Paul Perrin. It being a Company of Manichees only that were scattered among the Albigenses and walden­ses, that were guilty of the Heresies mentioned by him (as I have also shewed in my Con­futation of Mr. Danvers the Anabaptist.)

§. 11. I told him that All those that were true Christians, were of one Universal Church.

And he again canteth over the Nick-names of some, and would know which of them I mean. And I told him again, that I mean all that owned the Essentials of Christianity; Per­haps such a Monothelite as Pope Honorius, might be a Christian. I told you before that Ana­tolius in the Council openly said that Dioscorus was not condemned for Heresie; And I would most Papists were as good Christians as we have reason to think the Novatians were. The name of Luciferians, Quartodecimani, Iconoclasts, Waldens [...]s, Hugonotes, Lutheranes, Zuinglians, Calvinists, &c. unchristian none; no more than the name of Papists. And it is worth the noting, 1. How zealous Macedonius, Nestorius and Dioscorus were against Hereticks, and how hot in persecuting them, and stirring up the Emperours against them, and by this were carryed into those Errors for which they were condemned as Hereticks themselves. 2. And how long it was oft in doubt which party should be accounted Here­ticks, till the countenance of Emperors turned the Major Vote of the Bishops Right. In the dayes of Constantius and Valens the Orthodox went for Hereticks with the greater mum­ber: And under Valentinian and Theodosius they were Catholicks, under Theodosius junior [Page 123] the Eutychians went for Catholicks, and under Martian they were condemned. The same Bishops went one way at Sirmium and Ariminum, (with old Osius) who after repented and went the other way; And the same Bishops went one way at the Second Council of Ephe­sus, who recanted at the Council of Calcedon: and how long was the case of the Monothe­lites in doubt, and the Iconoclasts, much longer.

§. 12. When I told him that it is only our Relation to Christ the Head, that maketh all Christians one Church, he saith that Christ is but our Causal and not Formal Unity, and that Faith and Charity are not necessary to make us Members.

Answ. As the union of King and Subjects maketh one Kingdom, so the union of Christ and Christians maketh one Church; and we call none Christians that profess not true Faith and Charity (and their seed.)

But he saith, the Question is How a Heretick or Schismatick can be a true Christian.

Answ. Ambiguous words are the game of deceivers, and to open the ambiguity marreth their cause. The word Heretick I have told you signifieth either one that denyeth an Essenti­all part of Christianity, or one that only denyeth an Integral part; The former are no Christians; the latter may.

§. 13. But he will prove that no Heretick is a Christian, or hath true Faith, viz. [Who­ever hath true faith believeth the material object of faith, for the Divine authority of God re­vealing it. (That is certain) But so doth no Heretick.

That's very false of both sorts of Hereticks. 1. You call the Luciferians, the Novati­ans, &c. Hereticks; and who can see reason to doubt but they might believe that all that God saith is true?

2. Overdoing is undoing: As you are the greatest causes of Schisme by overdoing as against Schisme, so you would justifie almost all the Hereticks in the world by your blind overdoing, as against Hereticks; and while you would make most or much of Christs Church to be Hereticks, you would make men believe that there are none. All that be­lieve that there is a God, believe that he is Verax, no Lyar, but true. All that believe that God is no Lyar, but true of his word, believe all to be true which they judge to be his word. But saith W. I, no Heretick believeth any thing on the authority of God revealing, that is, because God that revealeth it is true: And so all those that believe that God is true, and that any thing is true because he revealeth it, are no Hereticks. And who knoweth other mens hearts better, You or They? You take me (it's like) for a Heretick, I say that I believe that God cannot Lye, and I believe in Christ because God the [...]evealer is true. You say, Then I am no Heretick. If an Arrian can but truly say, that he believeth all Gods word to be true, but he taketh not Christs Consubstantial eternal Deity to be Gods word; you will justifie him to be no Heretick: And yet the poor Iconoclasts, the Waldenses, the Berengarians can find no place in this mans Church, when yet he thus acquitteth al­most all Hereticks in the whole world. Nothing but humerous singularity can pretend any probable reason why an Arrian, a Nestorian, an Eutychian, a Monothelite, yea a Mahometan, or other Infidel, may not believe that God is no Lyar, but all that is indeed his word is true.

§. 14. But he will not be unreasonable without reason. His Argument is [Whosoever be­lieveth the material object of Faith, for the Divine Authority of God revealing it, must believe all things which are as sufficiently propounded to him to be revealed of God, as are the Articles which he believeth, protesteth to, and believe nothing as revealed, which is as sufficiently declared to him to be erroneous, and not revealed &c. But every Heretick—doth otherwise—If he believe some and refuse others equally propounded; it is not for Divine Authority.

Answ. If you believe this reasoning your self, you deserve little belief from others. 1. The word [sufficiently] propounded will never sufficiently be expounded by you, nor ever is like to be. Sometimes by sufficient [as in the Dominicans controversie of sufficient grace] is meant that which quo posito res fieri potest, & sine quo non potest: And so taken as necessarium or possible for the minimum tale, it hath no degrees. But usually we take sufficient in such a la­titude as that things may be in many degrees, one more sufficient than another, that is, more apt and powerfull to produce the effect.

And for the first, remember that if you judge so mercifully of Hereticks as that no one is such that hath not a proposal in the very first sense sufficient, you can call no Arrian, nor Photinian, or Gnostick a Heretick, till you know that the Proposal was to him sufficient. [Page 124] And how much less can you call the Nestorians or Eutychians, or the Abassines, Syrians, Ar­menians, &c. Hereticks, when you know them not, and know not the sufficiency of their proposals? And to know that a proposal was sufficient to Nestorius, Eutyches, or Dioscorus, doth not prove that there was such sufficient proposal to all others that go under such names either then or now. Who knoweth not that an unlearned man hath need of clearer and ofter teaching than the Learned; and one that by Education is prepossest with contrary conceptions hath need of more than the unprejudiced; and one that is corrupted by sensual lusts hath need of more than the temperate? And what man is well able to judge of the measures of sufficiency as to other then: much less to whole Nations whom we know not.

2. But as to your Minor; which by the word [as sufficiently] sheweth that you take suf­ficiency as it hath degrees, here you seem plainly to absolve all the Hereticks in the world, e. g. As if a Monothelite were no Heretick unless it be as sufficiently, in degree revealed that Christ hath two wills, as it is that he is the Christ and rose again; or, as if an Arrian were no Heretick, unless it be as sufficiently revealed that Christ is [...], of the same substance with the Father, as it is that he dyed.

3. And the supposition in your Minor is notoriously false, (that all Hereticks have as suf­ficient a proposal of all they deny, as of that which they believe.) For if the meaning of the words revealing be not equally plain and intelligible, then the proposal is not equally sufficient. But &c

Can any man not blinded by faction believe that God hath no more plainly told us that Christ dyed, rose and ascended, than that he hath two distinct wills, or that he hath but one person, or that his mother is to be called The parent of God, and one that did beget and bring forth God, and that God dyed, yea or that Christ is God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, and yet [...], not only from the same substance, but the same substance? Though these are equally true, they are not equally clear and evident. Do the Quartode­cimani, the Luciferians, the Iovinians deny Truthes as sufficiently proposed, as that there is a God, or a Christ?

If you say that though they be not equally proposed in Scripture, yet they are by Coun­cils or Traditions.

I Answer 1. Were they no points of Faith, nor the denyal Heresie, for 300 years be­fore the first General Council? 2. When they of Constance and Basil are for the Supre­macy of Councils as de fide, and they of Laterane and Florence against them, when the Council of Basil decreed the Immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, and yet you take it for a controversie, &c. are these as sufficiently proposed, as that there is a God or Christ? 3. When Petavius citeth the words of most of the Doctors or Fathers that wrote before the Council of Nice, and of Eusebius himself that was of the Council, and sub­scribed it, as being for Arrianisme, or dangerously favouring it, did all these Fathers think that the proposal of [...] was as sufficient as of a God or Christ.

§. 15. He taketh upon him to clear his Argument by two deluding instances, which sup­pose an equality in the revelation: But he that knoweth not, 1, that it was long before all the Canonical books were equally known to be Gods word. 2. And that yet it is not equally certain what Councils are true, and what Traditions. 3. And that there is great difference between one Text of Scripture and another in intelligible places (else why do their Expo­sitions so disagree) yea, of Councils too. 4. And that the Hereticks have still pleaded Scripture and Tradition, and Councils, as well as the Orthodox (as the Eutychians, &c. did the Council of Nice;) all equally professing to believe Scripture, Tradition, and true Coun­cils, but not equally understanding them: I say, he that knoweth not all this, knoweth not the matters of Fact which should be known in this Dispute.

But how he will excuse the Papists from Heresie by his Reasoning, I know not, e. g. Christ Instituting his. Supper, saith equally: 1. This is my Body, and This is the New Testament. 2. And equally saith, Take, Eat and Drink this. The Papists, 1. Do not believe that literally this Cup is the New Testament, though equally said. 2. Nor do they believe that they must Drink of it, though equally Commanded. Ergo, by W. I's Arguing, The Papists believe not that the Bread is literally Christs Body, or that it must be Eaten because of Christs Truth or Autho­rity that spake it, else they would have believed both.

§. 16. He addeth a Supposition like the rest, that a Calvinist is assured that the Pope is [Page 125] not the Antichrist, by the same Authority which he acknowledgeth to be the sufficient proposer of the Articles of his Faith. And yet here may lie one of his usual Equivocations: The Authority of the Author and prime Revealer of the Gospel is one; and the Authority of the prime Instrumental Revealers is another. The first is Gods, the second is the Prophets and Apostles: Tell us where either of these say that the Pope it not Antichrist. But the Autho­rity of a distant Messenger and Teacher is of a third rank.: A Drunken or Fornicating Priest may be such a Messenger or Teacher, and may give an Infidel those Reasons of the Faith, which by Gods Blessing may bring him to Believe. And it is possible such a Priest (and a Synod of such) may say that the Pope is not Antichrist, and another Synod may say he is.

§. 17. I came next to Answer a question of his own, Whether I take the Church of Rome and the Protestants to be one Church? I Answered, that They have two Heads, and We but one: As they are meer Christians united in Christ, they are one Church with us; as Papists united in the Pope they are not. And if any so hold the Papacy, as not really to hold Christianity, those are not of the Christian Church with us; otherwise they are; though a Corrupt, Diseased, Erroneous part.

To this he saith, who ever called a King and his Viceroy, a Captain and Lieutenant two Heads? The Pope is a dependent Officer.

Answ. 1. But if you distinguish between a Visible Head and an Invisible, and say, that the Pope only is the Visible Head of the Church as Visible, and that Christ is only the Invi­sible Head by Influx; and that it were a Monstrous Body if it had not such a Visible Head (as you do:) 2. And if this Visible Head be an Usurpation, never owned by Christ; then I have reason to distinguish the Policy which is of Gods making, from that which is an Usur­pation, and of Mens relations accordingly.

If any King should say, I am a Vice-God, or Gods Viceroy to Govern all the Earth, [...]nd that by Gods Appointment, and none can be saved that Obey me not; I would distin­guish between the World, or particular Persons, as Gods Subjects, and as this Vice-Gods Subjects.

§ 18. But he saith, Is it possible for two Persons to be Papists, and one to destroy his Christi­anity and the other not?

Answ. Yes, very possible and common: That is, one holdeth those Errors which by consequence subvert some Article of the Christian Faith, but as to the Words not understood, or not understanding the consequences; or only speculatively, and at the same time hold­eth the subverted Articles (not discerning the contradiction) fastly and practically; ano­ther doth the contrary. Even as a Monothelite, or a Nestorian, or Eutychian may either be one that only as to the Words, or superficially erreth, and in sence, or practically holds the Truth, or one that is contrary. This should seem no strange thing to you; for even a Man that professeth only Christianity may do it, but Nomine tenus, not understanding it; or superficially and not practically, and be no true Christian indeed.

§. 19. When I exprest my hope that even he and I as Christians are of one Church, he will not believe it, 1. Because I am of a Church by my self; neither of theirs nor any other part. 2. Because I have no Faith.

Answ. It seems then that meer Christianity is no Faith, and that there are none of the meer Christian Church but I. But who will believe the latter, and when will he prove either?

An Answer to W. J's Seventh CHAPTER.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He replyeth, True, and so do all H [...]reticks.

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

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

Answ. Away with such Hereticks as do so indeed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Answer to W. J's second Part of his Reply.

§. 1. IN this which he calls his Second Part there is so much of meer words, or altercation, and of his false interpretation of some particular histories and citations, that should I answer it fully, it would be a great snare to the Reader. 1. To weary him. 2. To lose the matter in controversie in a wood of words. 3. And to suppose us both to strive about circumstances, and so to cast it by, that I shall not lose so much of my time to so ill a pur­pose. All that I desire of the Reader that would have a particular answer, is, 1. That he remember the answer that is already given to much of it. 2. That he observe that almost all his citations signifie no more, than 1. That both the Romans and other Patriarchs were long striving who should be the greatest, and therefore intermeddling with as many busi­nesses as they could. 2. That the supream Church-power being then placed by consent and by the Emperors in Councils, the five Patriarchs ought to be at these Councils when they were Universal, as to the Empire. 3. That Rome had the first place in order of these Patriarchs or Seats. 4. That the eastern Bishop when opprest by Arrlans and persecutions, did fly for council and countenance to the Roman Emperors who held orthodox, and to the Roman Bishops as the first Patriarchs, and as having interest in the Emperors: he that was one of the greatest, might help the oppressed to some relief, having an orthodox Em­peror; by which means Constantius was constrained, and Athanasius restored; by the threatning of a war by the western Emperor, and not by the authority of the Pope. And the like aid was oft sought from Alexandria and Antioch. 5 That this man and the rest of them straineth all such words as sound any respect to the Bishop of Rome, any reverence of his place and judgment, any counsel that he giveth to any, any help that any sought of him, as signifying his Government of all the Empire. 6. That he feigneth all such interest or power in the Empire to be a Monarchical Government of all the world The Pragma­tic. Ferra­riensis saith, Im­peratores conferre­bant om­nia bene­ficia per universum orbem. Is it any doubt what the orbis uni­versus was?. 7. That he to these ends leadeth men into verbal quarrels about the sense of many passages in history and fathers, where he knoweth that the vulgar cannot judge, nor any that are not well versed in all those books, which most preachers themselves have not sufficient leisure for. 8. That contrary to the notorious evidence of histories, he maintaineth that no Councils were called without the authority of the Roman Bishop, when the Emperors ordinarily called them, by sending to each Patriarch to summon those of his circuit to such a place, and the Bishops of Alexandria and Constant. had more hand in calling them till 700 or 800 if not much longer than the Pope had. 9. If the Reader can trie all our passages here about, by the books themselves (not taking scraps, but the main drift of Church-history) and the particular authors, I will desire no more of him than to read them himself; if not, nei­ther to believe the report of W. I. or me, as certain to him: For how can he know which of us reports an author truly? but to keep to such evidences of Reason and Scripture as he is capable of judging of.

§. 2. When I said that the Emperor (Theódòsius 2d.) gave sufficient testimony, and those that adhere to Dioscorus how little in those days they believed the Popes infallibility or sovereign­ty, when they excommunicated him, (and the Emperor and [...]ivil Officers bare Dioscorus.) He doth over and over tell me how I defend Rebels against a Sovereign, and I have laid a Prin­ciple emboldening all Rebels to depos [...] Sovereigns, or prove that they have no authority over them. Answ. Alas poor Kings and Emperors, who are judged such subjects to the Priests, that he that pleadeth for your power, pleadeth for Rebels against your Sovereign Pope. And that are by these even judged so sheepish, as that by the name of Rebellion charged on your defenders, they look to draw your selves to take them for Rebels, who would make you know that you are Princes and not the subjects of forreigners or your subjects: but yet the instance which I give sheweth the sense of Theodosius and others, be it right or wrong.

[Page 136] §. 3. Had it not been that the Printer by three or four Errata's (as Sixtus fifth, &c.) made him some work, he had had little to say but what confutes it self.

§. 4. But cap. 4. p. 289 he would be thought to speak to the purpose, viz. That out of the Empire the Pope restored Bishops, (and did he depose any?) He was wiser than to name any; but saith, Such were all those Bishops who about the year 400 in Spain and France, and an. 475 in England, and 595 in Germany, 499 and other Western and Northern Kingdoms, who were taken from under the command of the Roman Emperor, or were never under it, and were re­stored by the Bishop of Romes authority, &c.

Answ. Meer deceit! he can name none deposed or restored by the Pope, but 1. Such as were in the Empire. 2. Or such as were in the same national Church with Rome, when the Barbarians claimed power both over Rome and the neighbour Countreys, (as Odoacer and others claimed power to have the choice of a Pope themselves, or that none should be Pope but by their consent.) 3. Or when the King of any revolted or conquered nation subjected himself, or his subjects voluntarily to the Pope, as they have done since the de­clining of the Empire. Or 4. when they that had been used in the Empire to the canoni­cal way, in Councils and under Patriarchs, desired when they were conquered to do as they had done, and were permitted. As the Patriarch of Constant. that layeth no claim as jure divino, yet under the Turk claimeth still superiority over all those Churches that were formerly by Councils put under him, what Princes soever they be under, supposing that those Councils authority is still valid, though the Empire be dissolved. 5. Or when the Pope was but a meer Intercessor or Arbitrator, and no Rector.

§. 5. But p. 410 &c. he cometh on again with repetitions and additions, to prove that Forreigners were at the four first General Councils.

Answ. If he prove that all the Churches in the world made up those Councils, he put hard to prove that indeed they were universal. But I have not yet found that he hath proved it of any one, unless in the fore-excepted cases.

Of the Emperor Arcadius acts for Gothes and Scy­thians. See Theo­doret. Hist. l. 5. [...]. 30. 31. And Ni­ [...]horus [...]ith li. [...]4. c. 56. Theodosii [...]unioris 19. an­num im­perantis permissu, in siniti­mâ Thra­ciae regio­ne habi­tarunt. per 50 annos. And li. 11. c. 48. when the Hunns drove the Gothes [...]ut of [...]heir Country, Valens [...]ave [...]em a place in [...]ract. I. His Theophilus Gothiae metropolis, I spake of before. He now saith, Bishop of Gothia in the farthest parts of the North beyond Germany.

Answ. But where's his Proof? The Country that he talks of was not long after converted to Christianity. He knew not that it was the Getae that were then called Gothes, saith Ferrarius Polouci teste Math. Michovicus. (Steph. Paul. Diac) populus Sarmatiae Europeae borea­le latus maris Euxini incolentes, prius Getae, teste D. Isidor. li. 9. De quibus Auson. Horum metropo­lis et urbs GOTHIA archiepis. antequam à Turcis occuparetur. Auson. ep. 3. Hinc possem victos inde referre Gothos: Regio Gothea, nunc Osia, inter Tyram et Borysthenem. This was then in the Empire.

§. 6. II. His second is Dominus (Domnus) Bosphori, a City of Thracia, Cimmeria, or India as Cosmographus declares the Bishop of Botra, a City of this name is found in Arabia and Sala, a Town also of great Phrygia, the higher Pannonia and Armenia is so called.

Answ. This pitiful stuffe may amase the ignorant, Domnus Bospori is the last subscriber. Bosphorus is said in the subscriptions to be Provinciae Bostrensis, in a Roman Province. There be divers straites of the sea called Bosphori, one between Constant and Calcedon; ano­ther the sretum Cimmerium, vel os Moeotidis, called of the Italians stretto de Cassa, and the straits between Taurica Chersonesus in Europe, and Sarmatia in Asia, There is the City Bosphorus, an Archiepiscopal seat, vulgo Vospero. Abest (inquit Ferrarius) à Thracio 500 mil. pass. ab ostio Tanais 375 in austrum. This was in the Empire, and he himself nameth it first a City of Thracia, and yet (the Learned Cosmographer) proveth that it was out of the Empire: are not these meet men to prove all the Earth to be in the Popes jurisdiction?

§. 7. III. His 3d. is Ioh. Persi lis, of whom enough already, he is said to be of the Pro­vince of Persia, which therefore was some skirt of Persia then in the Empire, and a Town in Syria was called Persa, what proof then is here of any one man out of the Empire? So much for Nice.

§. 8. IV. He next tells us of three Bishops of Scythia at the first Council at Constant.

Answ. And what of that? 1. Is it not said, that they were of the Province of Scythia? And 2. Doth not Euseb. in vit. Const. tell you when Scythia (that is part of it) was con­quered by Constantine? And Tomis was known to be in the Empire: It was a City of the Inferiour Mysia, where Ovid was Banished, and by Socrates made the sole Bishoprick of Scythia then.

[Page 137] Binnius desireth pardon if the Subscriptions be not true, so little certainty is here pre­tended. And what Crab saith, I before cited, the 4 or 5 Copies so greatly disagreeing.

§. 9. V. Saith W. I. And Etherius Anchialensis: now Anchialos, is a City in Thracia, not far from Apollonia.

Answ. 1. There's no mention in Crab or Binnius of Etherius Anchialensis, but of Aetherius Tersonitanus or Tonsonitanus; and of Sabastianus Anchialensis. 2. And if there were three from Scythia (which is not likely, because Socrates said they had none but of Tamis,) this was one of them. 3. And doth not this Man well prove the Pope and Councils Power to extend beyond the Empire, when he instanceth in such a City of Thracia, where Constan­tinople it self was? But whether it was the Bishop of Anchialos, an Arch-Bishoprick on the side of the Euxine Sea, called Kenkis by the Turks; or else Anchiale, a City of Cilicia, thought by Stephanus to be Tarsus, by Pliny to be near it (though the first is likeliest) it's known that both were in the Empire.

§. 10. VI. He next comes to Ephes. 1. Concil. And there we have again Phebaemon Cop­torum Episcopus.

Answ. Reader, pardon my repeated detection of his repeated Errors. 1. It is in Crab or Binnius, Copti; which I have told you was a City of the Province of Thebais: And those now called Copti are Egyptians; yea, Binnius, p. 741. reciting the very words of every Bishop at that Council, saith, Phaebaemon Coptorum Thebaidis Episcopus dixit. And was not Thebais in the Empire? The Copti's now are supposed so called from the City Coptos.

§. 11. VII. His next instance is, Theodulus Esulae, Episc. Anciently a City of Arabia.

Answ. There is no such Man as Theodulus in the first subscriptions in Crab or Binnius; nor no such place as Esula: But Binnius hath Ampela, aliàs Abdela Helusae; and after, p. 742. Theodulus Elusae: and p. 758. Helusae. In the recitation in Concil. Chalcedon, of the Ephesia [...] Subscriptions, it is Theodulus Ticeliae civitatis Ep. so little certainty is here.

2. Esulae is in Italy, and Esula is Isola, a City of Greece on the Borders of Calabria: See Ferrarius, that there were divers Eleusa's within the Empire.

§. 12. VIII. His next is, Theodorus Gadarorum, Episcopus: Of that Name is a City in Cava Syria.

O happy proof of the Popes Universal Monarchy and Councils! It is Chadarorum in Bin­nius: But Gadara or Gadora, is indeed a City of Coelosyria, where Christ gave the Devil power over the Swine: And did not this Learned Man know that the Gadarens were within the Empire?

§. 13. IX. Next he cometh to the Council of Chalcedon, and there begins with Antipa­ter Bostrorum Episc. which he saith, is in Arabia, ut suprá.

Answ. Ut suprà, what was said of it before? He dreamed of Bosphorus somewhere far off before, and now it's Bostrorum. But there is no such Man as I can find mentioned in Crab or Binnius: But there is Constantinus Episcopus Bostrorum, Subscribing for himself and thirteen Bishops under him: The first is the Bishop of Gerassa, a Town near the Lake of Genasaret, under this Arch-Bishop. And doth not this great Disputer know that the Arch-Bishop of Bostra was in the Empire, though it were in Arabia Petraea? And was the City where the Emperour Philip was Born, and called thence Philippopolis; and, as Ferrarius saith, was for­merly under the Patriarch of Antioch, but after under him of Ierusalem? Such is the Histo­rical proofs of the Roman Universality.

§. 14. X. The next cited, is Olympius Scythopoleos, which is a City of Scythia in Coelo­syria.

Answ. 1. There is no such Man that I can find in Binnius, who hath the largest Cata­logue: There be divers Olympii, but none Scythopoleos. But there is twice Olympius Sozo­poleos, which, it's like, was the Man, as being the nearest Name; of which Name there was one in Pisidia under Antioch; and another in Thrace under Adrianople.

2. Myraeus tells you the nine Bishops under Scythopo­lis, vulgo Bethsan, Urbs in Iudeae & Galileae confinibus, ad Iorda­nem fluvi­um, nobi­lis exsti­tit, saith he, p. 23. But the Bishop of Scythopolis may be found in some Councils: And where is that? In Palestine by the Lake Genasareth, but forty seven Miles from Ierusalem, and sixteen from Samaria, an Arch-Bishops Seat, under the Patriarch of Ierusalem. Here is another of his Proofs.

§. 15. XI. The next is, Eustathius Gentis Saracenorum, of Saraca: There is a City so called in Arabia faelix.

[Page 138] Answ. And what then? Must the word [Gen [...]s Sarra [...]orum] prove that he was out of the Empire, when part of Arabia Niceph. l. 16. c. 43. Arabes ser­vitutes conditio­nes à Ro­manis ac­cepisse. was in it? But saith Perrarius, Horuin [...]bs in consilio Gal­ [...] membratur; sed in Palestina idque ratione vio [...]nitatis, ob quam idem [...]pens diversis re­gionibus confinibus attribui consuevit. And was Palestine without the Empire? You see I cite none to shame your falshood, but your own Writers.

§. 16. XII. The next is, Constantinus Episcopus Bostrorum in Arabia Remem­ber that Histori­ans (So­crates, Zo­zomene, Niceph, &c tell us, that the Arabians had Bi­shops in the Villa­ges, and therefore great numbers. faelix.

Answ. Memoria faelix was greatly wanting to him, to forget so suddenly that he had just before cited a false named Bishop of the same City; and now he giveth us the true one as another Man: Sure a Papist doth not believe that one City had two Bishops at that Council. I shewed you before that Bostra See in Myraei Natiti. Epis. the nineteen Bishops under Bo­stra, pag. 26. was in the Empire.

§. 17. XIII. Yet there is one more, and that is, Subscribit quidam pro Giaco Gerassae Episcopo. Gerafa is a City of Coelosyria.

Answ. I mentioned him before I noted your instance. And is he therefore out of the Empire because in Coelosyria? An excellent collection. I told you out of Ferrarius, that it is by the Lake of Gennasareth, under this Arch-Bishop of Bostra: And surely that was as un­doubtedly in the Empire, as Ierusalem was.

§. 18. And now I have done with all his strange proofs, that Extraimperial Bishops were at the four first General Councils (or any long after) and consequently that the Pope is the Monarchical Bishop of all the World, and not a National Primate only. And if a Man can tell me where to find a cause so betrayed by the shameful failing of so great a Hector, I am yet to learn it. And this is the Man that before promised us a peculiar Treatise to prove this very thing; but instead of it, was fain shamefully to put us off with thirteen Names, without one proof, but gross Mistakes.

§. 19. But I will say more for him than he hath said for himself: When I read an odd E­pistle in Crab and Binnius of the Nestorians at the Ephesine Council to Callimones the King, as commanding them to meet at Ephesus, and as a very Christian Prince: I wondred who it was, having never read of any such King of Persia; and began to suspect that the King of Persia might send some Ioh. Persidis also thither. But I found neither Name, nor Character, nor History, nor the Cities of the Oriental Bishops named encouraged me to any such thoughts. But at last Binnius himself, and his Author helpt me out of my Ignorance; saying, per Cal­limorem Persidis Regem Persidis Regem is not in [...]rah. Theodosium designant. Appellant autem eum ob id hoc nomint, quod Per­sus debellassit, religionemque ibidem per tyrannidem extinctam, restituisset. And having thus done the main business, I think it needless to add to what I said before to his citations of contests in the Empire.

§. 20. Only about this one Council of Ephesus, which he mentioneth; I desire the Rea­der to note a few particulars. 1. That it is expresly said to be called by the Emperour Theodosius II. 2. That the Emperour Governed it, both by sending Officers to oversee them there, and by determining of the Effects. 3. That no Patriarch had so little to do in it as the Bishop of Rome. 4. That Cyril presided as Rome's Vicar, is an untrue pretence. 5. The Synod as such ruled the greatest Patriarchs, though Cyil's Interest, vehemency, and copious Speech did prevail. In the beginning in Crab, p. 587. you shall find such a Man­date as this: to Philip the Presbyter Pope, Coelestines Vicar (and therefore Cyril was not his Vicar) and to Arcadius, Iuvenal, Flavian, and other Bishops their Legates, to Constanti­n [...]le. Ante omnia sciat Sanctitas vestra quod cum Johanne Antiocheno & cum Apostarum Consilio communionem nullo modo habere debeatis (and after more Instructions) Permittimus vestrae Sanctitati his factis polliceri quidem ipsis communionem, &c. If the Bishop of Rome had but given such Mandates and Permissions to them, as they did to his Vicar and others, it would have been taken for a proof of his Government over them.

5. That it was to the Emperour that they sent Legates, and not to Rome, and that for the effectual Judgment which Party should prevail: The Orientals say, in their first Petition, Nostrae preces sunt [...] Iudicium [...] pitate accipiamus: And both sides sollicited him long hereto; but he kept both at Chalcedon, and would not let them so much as come long into the City, to avoid their contentions.

6. That what was done at last, as to decision and depositions, was done by the Empe­rour: He commanded the Deposition of the Leaders of both Parties at first, thinking that the way to Peace, viz. Nestorius, Cyril, and Memnon. In the second Petition of the Orientals, [Page 139] it's said, Advenit ru [...]us magnificentissimus magister Johannes, qui tunc comes omnium largitio­num, significantes quod à vestra majestate trium depositiones decretae sunt, tollend aque è medio sub­ [...]ta offendicula, solamque fidem in Nice [...] expositum à Sanctis & beatis patribus ab omnibus con­firmandam. And accordingly Iohan. Comes did put them all out, till the Emperours mind changed upon second thoughts, and rejected Nestorius alone.

7. That these Oriental Bishops were all his Subjects as they oft profess; as in their third Petition in [...]rab, pag. 592. Non illorum tantum sed & noster Rex [...]s: Non enim parva porti [...] Regni tui est Oriens in qua semper recta sides resulsit, & cum hâc etiam alia Provinciae & Dio­ceses è quibus Congregati fuimus.

8. This Iohan. Comes, in his Letters to the Emperour, giveth such an Account of the Fury and Contentiousness of some of the Bishops, especially of Cyrils Orthodox-party, and of their fierceness and fighting one with another, as should grieve the heart of a Christian to read it. And had not he and Candidianus kept the Peace, and Ruled them (more than the Pope did) the two Councils (for two they were) might have tryed who should pre­vail by Blood Cyril's Council Accused Nestorius for keeping Souldiers about him, and not Ap­pearing, Iohn's Council (which was for Nestorius) Accuse the Egyptian (meaning Cyril) for Heresie, Turbulency, setting the World together by the Ears, raising Seditions in the Church, and expending that Money which was the Poors in maintaining Souldiers to strength­en them, Petit. 3. Crab. p. 592.

§. 21. And that the Pope Governed not out of the Empire, nor any of the Patriarchs or Christian Prince then, is intimated in these words of the Orientals first Petition; having praised him for propagating Religion in Persia (by the Sword) You may not send two Religi­ons into Persia, O King; and while we are at Discord among our selves, our matters will not seem great (or be much esteemed) there being none among them to be the Iudges (or to Judge) nor will any Communicate in two sorts of words and Sacraments: So that the Persians were not Subject to the Imperial Church Judicatories, when it's said, There is none among them to Iudge (or determine) which of the two Faiths is right.

§. 22. And whereas he layeth so much on the Council of Chalcedons applauding Pope Leo's Letter, it is notorious that in all these Councils that were militating party against party, every side magnified them that were for them, and strengthened them; (as at Ephesus one cryeth up Cyril, and the other Iohn, &c.) Yet even those Bishops are sain to Apologize for Receiving his Letter; it being Objected, that his Epistle was an Innovation; saying, Let them not Accuse to us the Epistle of the Admirable Prelate of the City of Rome, as an Offence of Innovation; but if it be not agreeable to the Holy Scriptures, let them Reprove (or confute) it: If it be not the same with the Iudgment of the former Fathers, if it contain not an Accusation of the Impious; if it defend not the Nicene Faith, &c. So that they rested not on the Au­thority of the Author, but the Truth of the Matter, which was to be exposed to Tryal.

§. 23. Note also, That whereas the great Proof of the Papal Monarchy, is, that Rome is called oft, Caput Mundi, & omnium Ecclesiarum, & sedes Petri: That Nazianzene oft cal­leth Constantinople, Caput totius mundi; and it's usual for Councils to call Ierusalem, Mater omnium Ecclesiarum; as Constant. Consil. 2. Bin. p. 529. Aliarum omnium Mater. And Anti­och is ordinarily called, Sedes Petri, and the City Theopolis. Theodoret saith, That Iohn, chosen Bishop of Antioch, Ad primatum Apostolicum suffragiis delectus fuit. Hist. l. 3. c. 17.

§. 24. Note, That whereas W. I. maketh himself Ignorant, that ever any Council was called without the Pope; and they pretend that his Vicars presided in them, almost all the General Councils for six or seven hundred Years, are Witnesses against them: And of the first General Council at Const. Binnius Notes say (p. 515.) Damas [...]m Pontificem neque per se, neque per suos Legatos eidem praefuisse fatemur.

§. 25. But there is yet another part of our work behind: W. I. will next prove, That the Fathers of those General Councils, in all their Decrees, Constitutions, and Canons, intended to Oblige all Christians through the whole World, and thereby demonstrated themselves to have Iu­risdiction of the whole Church; and never so much as insinuated, that their Authority was limited within the Precincts of the Empire.

Answ. 1. I have proved the contrary at large already. 2. They might well commend their Decrees or Judgments to all Christians, on two accounts. 1. For Concord sake; it being desirable that all Christians should, as much as may be, be of one mind and way. 2. Ratione [Page 140] rei decret [...]: And so all Churches are bound to receive the same Truth that one is bound to, If the Bishop of the poorest City Excommunicate a Man justly for Heresie, all the Bi­shops in the World that know it, are bound to deny Communion to that Man; (and so Cyprian commended the Bishop of Rome for denying Communion to Felicissimus;) partly because they are bound to keep Concord with all Christians, and Order; and partly, because they are bound to avoid Hereticks: And yet such a Bishop is not Governour of all other Bishops; (nor Cyprian▪ of the Bishop of Rome.) But let us hear your Proofs.

§. 26. I. Thus (saith W. I.) the Council of Ephesus saith, Their Decrees were for the good of the whole world.

Answ. I do not mean to search so large a Volumn to find where, seeing you tell me not where. When as he is unworthy to be Disputed with that knoweth not, how commonly then the Roman Empire was called Totus Orbis; and even the Scripture saith, That all the World was Taxed by Augustus. How oft doth Nazianzene complain, that the Bishops and Councils had distracted and divided the whole World? And also, that all that is for the good of the whole World, is not an Act of Government of the whole World; e. g. The Works of Augustine, Chrysostome, &c.

§. 27. II. Saith he, Thus the Council of Chalcedon, Act. 7. declareth the Church of An­tioch to have under its Government Arabia.

Answ. But do you think that no part of Arabia was in the Empire? Look but in the Maps of the Empire, if you have no other notice. And you will be put hard to it, to prove that they meant the rest of Arabia.

§. 28. III. And act. 16. c. 28. (saith he) That the Bishop of Const. should have under him certain Churches in Barbarous Nations, which you must prove to have been under the Empire.

Answ. 1. I thought you must have proved, that it was out of the Empire; who undertook to prove it as you affirm it? 2. But seeing Papists lay Mens Salvation upon such skill in History, Cosmography, and Chronology, which this great Disputer had so little of him­self, we must study it better for the time come: And I did fully prove to you before, that the Sauromat [...], many of the Scythians and Goths were conquered, and in the Empire; and Barbarians were in the Empire.

And by the way Note, 1. That this [...]uncil of Chalcedon, even writing to Leo Bishop of Rome, tell him, That They were called by the Grace of God and Sanction of the most Pious Emperours, not mentioning any call of Leo's. 2. That the Emperour Martian, in his De­cree against Hereticks, and for this Council, saith, All Men must believe as Athanasius, Theo­phylus, and Cyril believed (not naming the Bishop of Rome;) and that Cyril, Praefuit Con­cilio Ephesino, not saying that the Bishop of Rome did it, or Cyril, as his Vicar: And that the Council-Bishops, contemptuously against the Romans, cryed out, They that gain-say, let them walk to Rome; and stood to their last Canon against the Popes dissent.

§. 29. IV. Next he saith, Nicephorus, l. 5. c. 16. saith, That Leo the Emperour Wrote to the Bishops of all Provinces together (Circularibus per Orbem literis ad Ecclesias missis, Leo haec sic ad omnes Episcopos misit) which he accounts were above a thousand, to have them sub­scribe to the Council of Chalcedon.

Answ. Some Men perceive not when they consute themselves. 1. I tell you, Totus Orbis was a common Title of the Empire. 2. Had Leo any power out of the Empire? His commands shew that they were his Subjects that he wrote to. 3. Were any called, or wrote to under the Name of Provinces, but the Roman Provinces? 4. Do you think that there were not more than a thousand Bishops in the Empire? Yea, many thousands (if poor Ireland had as many hundred as Ninius speaks of.) 5. But remember hence, that if all Bishops were written to, then the Bishop of Rome was written to, to Subscribe the 28 Canon of the Coun­cil of Chalcedon; which he refused▪ (as Papists say.)

But indeed the Epistle that Niceph. there mentioneth, c. 16. was but to enquire of all the Bishops, whether they stood to the Council of Chalcedon or no, and what Bishop of Alex­andria they were for, to save the calling of a new Council; and it is plain▪ he wrote only to his Subjects.

§. 30. V. Next he saith, The Bishops of the second Armenia, which seem to have been out of the Empire, wrote an Answer; and Adelphus, Bishop of Arabia, Subscribes, among▪ the rest, to this Epistle.

[Page 141] Answ. 1. He tells me [...]ot where to find any of this. In Nicephorus, there I find it not▪ 2. But if he know not that part of both the Armenias were Roman Provinces, he may see it in the Titles of the Nicene Council, and in the Maps and Histories of the Empire: And of Arabia I spake before.

§. 31. VI. He saith, The Bishop of the second Messia, which you must prove to have been then under the Empire, writ that the Council of Nice delivered the Faith, toti terrarum Orbi, and style the Bishop of Rome the Head of Bishops, and that the Council of Chalcedon was ga­thered by Pope Leo's Command.

Answ. Here is neither Matter nor Authority worthy an Answer. 1. He citeth no Author for what he saith. 2. Whether he meaneth Messua, or Messia, or Messina, they were all in the Empire: But what he meaneth I know not. Since I find in his Errat. [Messia r. Toti] But where, or what Toti meaneth, my Cosmographers tell me not: If it be Tottaium that he meaneth, it was a City of Bithynia under the Arch-Bishop of Nice.

But it seems he durst not say it was in the Empire, but instead of proving it in, I must prove it out, without knowing Place or Author. 2. He that yet understandeth not the Ro­mans Terrarum Orbem, and he that reading History, can believe that Pope Leo called the Council at Chalcedon, is not to be convinced by me, if he maintain that the Turks called it.

He tells us (out of no cited Author) of an Epistle subscribed by Dita, Bishop of Odyss [...] in Scythia, which I have nothing to do with, till I know the Epistle: But he should have known that Odyssus is a City of Mysia, near the Euxine Sea, within the Empire.

§. 32. VII. His last Instance is considerable, viz. Of the Bishops of Spain, France, and Germany. To which I say, 1. That none but Rome much medled in the Empire after their Conquest: Nor Rome much in comparison of Alexandria, Constantinople, and Antioch. 2. I easily confess, that those Churches within the Empire had been settled in their several powers by the Councils at Nice and Const. did plead the same Canonical Settlement to keep their possession when they were conquered. And that e. g. Rome under Theodorick and other Arrians, was willing to keep their Relation to the Orthodox Churches of the Em­pire, for their strength: And Neighbours that were under Heathens or Arrians, were glad of a little countenance from Councils of great Bishops in the Empire (as Basil and the Ea­sternes under Valens, were from the West, without Subjection to the Pope.)

§. 33. Pag. 116. After some trifling Quibbles, he Answereth my Charge, That their Church is not one, but two; having at times two Heads: The Pope to some, and a Coun­cil to others.

To this he saith, 1. That this belongs to them that take Councils to be above the Pope, and not to him, who is of a contrary Opinion.

Answ. It is to your Party in general: I did not say, that W. I. was two Churches; but that those called Papists are so.

2. He saith, That they also can answer me with a wet finger; for the Pope is in the Council, and not excluded.

Answ. Such wet-fingerd Answers serve to deceive the Ignorant. The Question is not of the Popes Natural Person, but of his Political: Two summa potestates make two Polities. The Pope in a General Council is not the summae potestas, if a Council be above him, and may Judge and Depose him. To be a Member of a Council that hath the Sovereignty, is not to have the Sovereignty: Did you not know this?

§. 34. I urged him as his proper work, to answer these Questions: Whether the Church, of which the Subjects of the Pope are Members, hath been Visible ever since Christ's days on Earth? And therein, 1. Whether the Papacy, that is, their Universal Papal Government over▪ all the Earth, hath so long continued? 2. Whether all the Catholick Church did still submit to it? 3. Whether those that did submit to it, took it to be necessary to the Being of the Church, and Mens Salvation, or only to the more Orderly and Better being.

But he would not be driven to touch at any of these, or prove the perpetual Visibility of [Page 142] the [...]. And [...] over my last [...] over many of his Im­ [...], [...] the [...] that I refer him but to the p [...]sing of the Histories which [...] co [...]th, with the General Answers which I have before given: And he will find, 1. That the Pope was but a National Primate. 2. And that by Humane Institution. 3. And under a General Council. 4. Striving upon every Advantage to be greater. 5. Under the power of Princes. 6. And when he lost his power over all the other four Patriarchs, the West falling from the Empire, he sought to bring the Western Princes under him, and claimed a Government over all the World.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘The body of Christians on Earth subjected to Christ their Head, hath been (in it's parts) visible ever since the dayes of Christ on Earth.’

‘But the body of Christians on Earth subjected to Christ their Head is the Church, of which the Protestants are members.’

‘Therefore the Church of which the Protestants are members hath been visible ever since th [...] daies of Christ on Earth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘§. 12. My next Argument was, Those that explicitely profess the belief of all that was con­tained in the Churches Creeds, for six hundred Years after Christ, (and much more Holy truth)’ and implicitely to believe all that is contained in the Holy Scriptures, and to be willing and diligent for the explicite knowledge of all the rest, with a resolution to Obey all the will of God, which they know, do profess the true Christian Religion in all its Essentials: But so do the Prote­stants, &c.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§. 20. II. My ad. Argument to prove the perpetual visibility of our Church, was this, [The Church whose Faith is contained in the Holy Scripture, as its rule in all points necessary to Salvation, hath been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on Earth.

But the Church whose Faith is contained in the Holy Scriptures as it's rule in all points necessa­ry to Salvation, is it of which the Protestants are members.

Therefore the Church of which the Protestants are members, hath been visible, &c.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All this W. I. passeth over.

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

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

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

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

But he saith, Arrians may say so too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Page 164] XVIII. The 54. thought, Earthquakes had a Natural cause.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.