Mr. Iohnsons first PAPER.
Proof.

Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ, acknow­ledges S. Peter and his lawful successors the Bishops of Rome, ever since the Ascen­sion of Christ to have been; and now to be by the Institution of Christ, their chief [Page] [...] [Page 1] [...] [Page 2] Head and Governour on earth in matters belonging to the soul next under Christ.

But there is no salvation to be had out of that Congregation of Christians, which is now the true Church of Christ.

Ergo, there is no salvation to be had out of that Congregation of Christians which acknowledges S. Peter and his lawful suc­cessors the Bishops of Rome ever to have been since the Ascension of Christ; and now to be by the Institution of Christ their chief Head and Governour on earth in matters belonging to the soul next under Christ.

The Minor is clear; For all Christians agree in this, that to be saved, it is necessary to be in the true Church of Christ; that only being his mystical Body, Spouse and Mother of the faithful, to which must be­long all those who ever have been, are, or shall be saved.

The Major I prove thus.

Whatsoever Congregation of Christians as now the true Church of Christ, hath been alwaies visible since the time of Christ, either under persecution, or in peace and flourishing.

But no Congregation of Christians hath been alwaies visible since the time of Christ, [Page 3] either under persecution or in peace and flourishing, save that only which acknow­ledges S. Peter and his lawful successors the Bishops of Rome, ever to have been since the Ascension of Christ; and now to be by Christs Institution, their chief Head and Governour on earth, in matters belonging to the soul next under Christ.

Ergo, whatsoever Congregation of Chri­stians is now the true Church of Christ, ac­knowledges St. Peter, and his lawful suc­cessors the Bishops of Rome, ever to have been since the Ascension of Christ; and now to be by Christs Institution their chief Head and Governour on earth, in matters belonging to the soul, next under Christ.

The Major is proved thus.

Whatsoever Congregation of Christians hath alwaies had visible Pastors and People united, hath alwaies been visible, either under persecution, or in peace and flourishing.

But whatsoever, Congregation of Chri­stians is now the true Church of Christ, hath alwaies had visible Pastors and People united.

Ergo, whatsoever Congregation of Chri­stians is now the true Church of Christ, hath alwaies been visible, either under per­secution, [Page 4] or in peace and flourishing.

The Major of this last Sylogism is evident, for seeing a visible Church is nothing but a visible Pastor and people united: where there have alwaies been visible Pastors and people united, there hath alwaies been a visible Church.

The Minor I prove from Ephesians, cap. 4. ver. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, &c.

Where S. Paul saies, that Christ had Instituted, that there should be Pastors and Teachers in the Church for the work of the Ministry, and preserving the people under their respective charges from being carried away with every wind of doctrine, &c. which evidently shews, those Pastors must be visible, seeing the work of the Ministry, which Preaching, and Administration of Sacraments, and Governing their flocks, are all external and visible actions. And this shews likewise, that those Pastors and People must be alwaies visible, because they are to continue from Christs Ascension, untill we all meet together in the unity of faith, &c. which cannot be before the day of judgement.

Neither can it be said (as some say) that this promise of Christ is only conditional, since to put it to be so without evident [Page 5] Reason, giveth scope to every one at his pleasure, to make every other promise of Christ to be conditional. And so we shall be certain of nothing that Christ hath pro­mised, neither that shall alwaies be a visible or invisible Church, nor any Church at all; no nor of Judgement, nor of Eternal life, or of the Resurrection of the dead, &c. for one may say with as much ground, as this is said, that some conditions were in­cluded in all those promises, which being not fulfilled, hinders the execution of them.

There remains only, to prove the Minor of the second Sylogism, viz. That no Con­gregation of Christians hath been alwaies visible, &c. save that which acknowledges S. Peter, and his lawful successors, &c. to be their chief Head and Governour, &c. next under Christ.

This Minor I prove, by obliging the an­swerers to nominate any Congregation of Christians, which alwaies till this present time, since Christ, hath been visible, either under persecution, or in peace and flourish­ing, save that only which acknowledges S. Peter, &c. ut supra.

The Answer to the first PAPER.

TO your Argument. 1. Your conclusion containeth not your Thesis, or Questi­on. And so you give up your cause the first step, and make a new one. It should have contained your Question in terms, and it doth not so much as contain it in the plain sense: so much difference is there between [Assemblies of Christians united, &c.] and [Congregation of Christians] and between [Salvation or the Church, never was in any other then those Assemblies] and [no Salvation out of that Congregation]; as I shall shew you: besides other differences which you may see.

Ad Majorem. Resp. 1. By [Congrega­tion] you mean, either the whole Catholike Church united in Christ, or some particular Congregation, which is but part of that whole. In the latter sense, your Subject hath a false supposition, viz. that a part is the whole, and your Minor will be false. [Page 9] And your [whatsoever Congregation of Christians] seems to distinguish that from some other excluded Congregation of Chri­stians that is not part of the Catholike Church, which is a supposing the chief part of the Question granted you, which we deny. We know no universal Congrega­tion of Christians but one, which contain­eth all particular Congregations and Chri­stians, the univocally deserve that name.

2. Either you mean that [this whole Congregation or true Church acknowledg­eth] the Popes Soveraignty, or else [that some part of it doth acknowledge it.] The former I deny, and challenge any man living to prove: If it be [part only] that you mean, then either [the greater part] or [the lesser]: that it is the greater, I as con­fidently almost deny: for it is against the common knowledge of men acquainted with the world, &c. If you mean [the lesser part] you shall see anon that it de­stroys your cause.

3. Either you speak de Ecclesia quae talis, or de Ecclesia qua talis: and mean that this [acknowledgement] is essential to it, or at least an inseparable property, or else that it is separable accident. The latter will do you no good: the former I deny. In [Page 10] summ: I grant that a small corrupt part of the Catholike Church doth now acknow­ledge the Pope to be Christs Vicar, (or the Vice-christ); but I deny, 1. That the whole doth so (which is your great cause.) 2. Or the major part. 3. Or any Con­gregation through all ages (though if they had, it would do you no good.) 4. Or that it is done by any upon just ground, but is their corruption.

Ad minorem. Resp. 1. If you mean any [part] of the Universal Church by [that Congregation which is now the true Church] I deny your Minor: If [the whole] I grant it. 2. You say [all Chri­stians agree] in it, &c. Resp. I think all Protestants, or near all, do: but Franciscus à sancta Clara hath copiously told us (in Artic. Anglic.) that most of your own Doctors are for the salvation of Infidels; and then either you take Infidels for your Church members, or your Doctors for no Christians, or you play not fair play to tell us so gross an untruth, that all Christians are agreed in it.

To your conclusion. Resp. 1. Either you mean that [there is no Salvation to be had out of that Universal Church, whose part (a minor corrupt part) acknowledgeth the [Page 11] Popes Soveraignty] or else [that there is no Salvation to be had out of that Univer­sal Church which wholly acknowledgeth it] or else [that there is no Salvation to be had out of that part of the Universal Church which acknowledgeth it.] In the first sense I grant your conclusion (if really you are part of the Church.) There is no Salvation to be had out of Christs Universal Church, of which you are small corrupted part. In the second sense I told you we deny the supposition in the subject. In the third sense I deny the sequel; non sequitur, be­cause your Major Proposition being false de Ecclesia universali, the conclusion must be false de parte ista, as excluding the rest.

But to the unskilful or unwary reader your conclusion seemeth to import, that [the being in such a Church which acknow­ledgeth the Popes Soveraignty, as it is such a Church, is necessary to Salvation] and so [that the persons acknowledgement is ne­cessary.] But it is a fallacia accidentis cun­ningly lapt up, that is the life of your im­ported cause. That part of the Universal Church doth hold to the Popes Soveraign­ty, is per accidens; and could you prove that the whole Church doth so (which you are unlike to do) I would say the like. And [Page 12] that your fallacy may the better appear; I give you some examples of such like sophisms.

[Whatsoever Nation is the true Kingdom of Spain is proud and cruel against Prote­stants: But there is no protection there due to any that are not of that Kingdom: therefore there is no protection due to any that are not proud and cruel.] Or [what­soever Nation is the true Kingdom of France acknowledgeth the Pope: but no protection is due from the Governours to any that are not of that Kingdom: there­fore no protection is due to any that ac­knowledge not the Pope.] Or [what ever Nation is the Kingdom of Ireland in the daies of Queen Elizabeth, was for the Earl of Tyrone: but there was no right of Inheritance for any that were not of that Nation: therefore there was no right of Inheritance for any that was not for the Earl of Tyrone.] Or suppose that you could have proved it of all the Church. If you had lived four hundred years after Christ, you might as well have argued thus. [Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ, is against kneeling in Adoration on the Lords daies. But there is no Salvation to be had out of [Page 13] that Congregation of Christians, which is now the true Church of Christ: therefore there is no Salvation to be had out of that Congregation which is against kneeling on the Lords day. &c.] But yet, 1. There was Salvation to be had in that Congrega­tion without being of that opinion. 2. And there is now Salvation to be had in a Con­gregation that is not of that opinion, as you will confess.

Or [whatsoever Congregation of Chri­stians is now the true Church of Christ, doth hold the Canticles and the Epistle to Phile­mon to be Canonical Scripture, (and so have done, &c.) But there is no Salvation to be had out of the true Church: there­fore there is no Salvation to be had out of that Congregation which holdeth the Canticles and Epistle to Philemon to be Canonical Scripture.] But yet, 1. Sal­vation is to be had in that Church without holding it. 2. and its possible hereafter a Church may deny those two books, and yet you will think Salvation not thereby over­thrown. This is but to shew your fallacy from a corrupt accident, and indeed but of a part of the Church, and a small part.

Now to your proof of the Major. Resp. ad Major. The present matter of the [Page 14] Church was not visible in the last Genera­tion, for we were not then born: but the same form of the Church was then existent in a visible Matter, and their Profession was visible or audible, though their faith it self was invisible. I will do more then you shall do, in maintaining the constant visibi­lity of the Chruch.

Ad minorem. 1. If you mean that no Congregation hath been alwaies visible [but that Universal Church whose lesser corrupt part acknowledges] the Popes Soveraignty, I grant it. For besides [the whole containing all Christians as the parts] there can be no other. If you mean [save that part which acknowledgeth] you contradict your self, because a part imply­eth other parts. If you mean [save that Universal Church, all whose members (or the most) acknowledge it], there is no such subject existent. 2. I distinguish of Visi­bility: Its one thing to be a visible Church, that is, visible in its essentials; and another thing to be visible quoad hoc, as to some se­parable accident. [The Universal Church was ever visible; because their Profession of Christianity was so, and the persons pro­fessing: But [the acknowledgement of the Vice-christ] was not alwaies visible, no not [Page 15] in any part, much less in the whole. And if it had, it was but a separable accident (if your disease be not incurable) that was visible: and therefore, 1. It was not ne­cessary to Salvation, nor a proper mark of the Church. 2. Nor can it be so for the time to come.

I need to say no more to your conclusion. Your Argument is no better then this, [whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ, hath been alwaies visible since the time of Christ: But no Congregation of Christians hath been so visible, save only that which con­demneth the Greeks, which hath a Colledge of Cardinals to choose the Popes, which denieth the cup to the laity, which forbid­deth the reading of Scripture in a known tongue without license, &c. Therefore whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ, hath all these]; 1. In a corrupt part it hath. 2. But it had not alwaies. 3. And may be cured hereafter.

To your proof of the Major: 1. I grant your Major.

2. Ad minorem. 1. Either you mean [Universal Pastors] each one, or someone having charge and Government of the [Page 16] [whole Church,] or you mean, [unfixed Pastors having an indefinite charge of Preaching and Guiding when they come and have particular calls and opportunities] or you mean [the fixed Pastors of particu­lar Churches] In the first sense your Minor is false, the Catholike Church was never so united to any Universal Head but Christ: no one of the Apostles governed the rest & the whole Church, much less any since their time. In the second sense, I grant that the Church hath ever had Pastors since the Ascension. In the third sense, I grant that some parts or other of the Catholike Church, have ever had fixed Pastors of Congregations since the first settling of such Pastors. But any one particular Con­gregation may cease to have such Pastors, and may cease it self: and Rome hath been long without any true Pastors; and there­fore was then no such visible Church.

2. If by [Congregation] you mean not the Universal Church, but [a part], or if you mean it of [all the parts of the Univer­sal Church] I deny your Minor: Commu­nities of Christians, and particular persons have been and may be without any Pastors, to whom they are united or subject. The Indians that died in the faith while Frumen­tius [Page 17] and Edesius were there preaching, before they had any Pastor, were yet Chri­stians and saved: If a Lay-man Convert one, or a thousand, (and you will say that he may baptize them) and they die before they can have a Pastor, or ever hear of any to whom they owe subjection, they are nevertheless saved, as members of the Church; And if all the Pastors in a Nation were murdered or banished, the people would not cease to be Christians and mem­bers of the Church. Much less if the Pope were dead or deposed, or a vacancy befell his seat, would all the Catholike Church be annihilated, or cease.

To your Confirmation of the Major [that a visible Church is nothing but a Visible Pastor, and people united] I an­swer: 1. Its true of the universal Church, as united in Christ, the great Pastor, but not as united in a Vice-Christ or humane head. 2. It is true of a particular Political or organized Church, as united to their proper Pastors 3. But it is not true of every Community of Christians who are a part of the Universal Church. A compa­ny converted to Christ, are members of the Universal Church, (though they ne­ver heard of a Pope at Rome) before [Page 18] they are United to Pastors of their own.

The Proof of the Minor from Eph. 4. I grant as aforesaid: The text proveth that Pastors the Church shall have: I dis­claim the vain objection [of Conditiona­lity in the promise] which you mention. But it proves not, 1. That the Church shall have an Universal Monarch or Vice-Christ, under Christ. 2. Nor that every member of the Universal Church, shall certainly be a member of a particular Church, or ever see the face of a Pastor, or be subject to him.

You say next [There remains only to prove the Minor of the second Syllogism, viz. that no Congregation of Christians hath been alwaies visible but that which ac­knowledges, &c.] This is the great point which all lyeth on: The rest hath been all nothing, but a cunning shooing horn to this. Prove this, and prove all: Prove not this, and you have lost your time.

You say [The Minor I prove, by obli­ging the answerers to nominate any Con­gregation of Christians which alwaies till this present time since Christ hath been vi­sible — save that only which acknow­ledges &c.] And have I waited all this [Page 19] while for this? You prove it by obliging me to prove the contrary. Ridiculous! sed quo jure? 1. Your undertaken form of arguing obligeth you to prove your Mi­nor: You cannot cast your Respondent upon proving and so arguing, and doing the Opponents part. 2. And in your Postscript you presently forbid it me; You require me to hold to a Concedo, Nego, Di­stingno, Omitto, Transeat; threatning that else you will take it for an Effugium. And I pray you tell me in your next, to which of these doth the nomination or proof of such a Church as you describe belong? Plainly, you first slip away when you should prove your Minor, and then oblige me to prove the Contrary, and then tell me, if I attempt it, you'l take it for an Effugium. A good cause needs not such dealing as this: which me thinks you should be loth a learned man should hear of. 3. Your interest also in the Matter (as well as your office as Oppo­nent) doth oblige you to the proof. For though you make a Negative of it, you may put it in other terms at your pleasure. It is your main work to prove [that All the members of the Universal Church have in all ages held the Popes Soveraignty or Uni­versal Head-ship.] Or [the whole Visible [Page 20] Church hath held it] Prove this, and I will be a Papist; you have my promise. You affirm, and you must prove. Prove a Catholike Church, at least that in the Ma­jor part was of that mind: (though that would be nothing to prove the condemna­tion of the rest.) If you are an impartial enquirer after truth, fly not when you come to the setting too. I give you this further evident reason why you cannot oblige me to what you here impose; 1. Because you require me to prove the Visibility of a Church which held not your point of Papacy; and so put an unreason­able task upon me, about a Negative: or else, I must prove that they held the con­trary, before your opinion was started: And it is the Catholike Church that we are disputing about; so that I must prove this Negative of the Catholike Church. 2. It is you that lay the great stress of Necessity on your Affirmative, more then we do on the Negative; you say that no man can be saved without your Affirmative [that the Pope is the universal Head and Governor] But we say not that no man can be saved that holdeth not our Negative, [that he is not the Vice-Christ] For one that hath the plague or leprosie may live. Therefore [Page 21] it is you that must prove that all the Catho­like Church was still of your mind. 3. And it is an Accident, and but an Accident of a small [...]r corrupted part of the Catholike Church that you would oblige me to prove the Negation of; and therefore it is utterly needless to my proof of a Visible Catho­like Church. For I will without it prove to you a successive Visibility of the Catho­like Church, from the Visibility of its Essen­tial or Constitutive parts (of which your Pope is none.) I will prove a successive visible Church that hath still professed faith in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and been united to the Universal Head, and had particular Pastors, some fixed, some unfixed, and held all essential to a Christian. And proving this, I have proved the Church of which I am a member. To prove that England hath been so long a Kingdom, requireth no more but to prove the two Essential parts, King and Subjects, to have so long continued united. It re­quireth not that I prove that if ever either h [...]d, or opposed a Vice-King. This is our plain case. If a man have a botch on one of his hands; it is not needful in order to my proving him a man heretofore, that I prove he was born and bred without it: so [Page 22] be it I prove that he was born a man, it suf­ficeth. Nor is it needfull that I prove the other hand alwaies to have been free, in order to prove it a member of the body: It sufficeth that I prove it to have been still a hand.

I do therefore desire you to perform your work, and prove that [no Congre­gation hath been still visible, but such as yours] or that [the whole Catholike Church hath ever since the ascention held a Humane Universal Governour un­der Christ,] or else I shall take it as a giving up your cause as indefensible. And observe, if you shall prove only that a part of the Catholike Church still held this (which you can never do) then, 1. You will make the Contrary opinion as Consi­stent with salvation as yours. For the rest of the Catholike Church is savable. 2. And then you will allow me to turn your Argu­ment against your self as much as it is against us (and so cast it away.) e. g. [what ever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ, hath been al­waies Visible: But no Congregation of Christians hath been alwaies Visible, but that which quoad partem denyeth the Popes universal Headship; therefore whatever [Page 23] Congregation of Christians is the true Church, denyeth the Popes universal Head­ship.

Well! but for all this (supposing you will do your part) I will fail you in no­thing that's reasonable, which I can per­form. A Catholike Church in all ages that was against the Pope, in every member of it, I hope I cannot shew you; because I hope that you are members, though corrupt. But you shall have more then a particular Congregation, or a hundred.

1. At this present, two or three parts of the Catholike Church is known to be against your Universal Monarchy. The Greeks, Armenians, Ethiopians, &c. besides the Protestants. 2. In the last age there were as many or more. 3. In the former ages till An. D. 1000. there were neer as many, or rather many more. For more be saln off the Tenduè, Nubia, and other parts then the Protestants that came in. 4. About the year 600. there were many more, incomparably; and I think then, but at least of 400. years after Christ I never yet saw valid proof of one Papist in all the world, that is, one that was for the Popes Universal Monarchy or Vice-Christ-ship. So that [Page 24] most of the Catholike Church (about three parts to one) hath been against you to this day; and all against you for many hundred years. Could I name but a Nati­on against you, I should think I had done nothing; much less if I cited a few men in an age. 5. And all those of Ethiopia, India, &c. that are without the verge and awe of the Ancient Roman Empire, never so much as gave the Pope that Primacy of dignity, which those within the Empire gave him, when he was chief, as the Earl of Arundel is of the Earls of England that governeth none of them, and as the Lord Chancellor may be the chief judge, that hath no power in alieno foro: or as the Eldest Justice is chief in the County and on the b [...]nch, that ruleth not the rest. Mistake not this Primacy for Monarchy, nor the Romane Empire for the world, and you can say nothing.

At present, ad hominem, I give you suffici­ent proof of this succession. As you use to say that the present Church best knew the Judgement of the former age, and so on to the he [...]d, and so Tradition beareth you out: I turn this unresistibly against you. The far greatest part of Christians in the world that now are in possession of [Page 25] the doctrine contrary to your Monarchy, tell us that they had it from their Fathers, and so on. And as in Councils, so with the Church Real, the Major part (three to one) is more to be credited then the Minor part; especially when it is a visible self-advancement that the Minor part in­sisteth on. 6. And were not this enough, I might add, that your western Church it self in its Representative Body at Constance and Basil, hath determined that not the Pope but a General Council is the chief Governor under Christ; and that this ha [...]h been still the judgement of the Church, and that its Heresie in whoever that hold the Contrary. 7. And no man can prove that one half or tenth part of your people ca [...]ed Papists are of your opinion: For they are not called to profess it by words: and their obedience is partly forced, and partly upon other principles; some obeying the Pope as their western Patriarch of chief dig­nity; and some and most doing all for their own peace and safety: Their outward acts will prove no more.

And now Sir, I have told you what Church of which we are members, hath been visible; yea and what part of it hath oppo­sed the Vice-Christ of Rome. This I delayed [Page 26] not an hour after I received yours, because you desired speed. Accordingly I crave your speedy return; and intreat you to advise with the most learned men (whe­ther Jesuites or others) of your party in London that think it worth their thoughts and time: not that I have any thoughts of being their Equal in learning, but partly because the case seemeth to me so exceed­ing palpable, that I think it will suffice me to supply all my defects against the ablest men on earth, or all of them together, of your way; and principally because I would see your strength, and know the most that can be said, that I may be rectified if Jerr (which I suspect not) or confirmed the more if you cannot evince it, and so may be true to Gods Truth and my own soul.

Mr. Iohnsons second PAPER.

The Reply to Mr. Johnsons second PAPER.

THE multitude and urgency of my employments gave me not leave till this day ( May 2.) so much as to read over all your Papers; But I shall be as loth to break off our Disputation, as you can be, though perhaps necessity may some­time cause some weeks delay. And again, I profess, my indignation against the Hypo­crital Jugling of this age, doth provoke me to welcome so ingenuous and candid a disputant as your self, with great content. But I must confess also, that I was the less hasty in sending you this Reply, because I desired you might have leisure to peruse a Book which I published since your last, (A Key for Catholikes;) seeing that I have there answered you already, and that more largely then I am like to do in this Reply. [Page 78] For the sharpness of that I must crave your patience; the persons and cause I thought required it.

Ad 1 ^m. What explications were made to your Friend of your Thesis, I could not take notice of, who had nothing but your writing to Answer.

2. If you will not be precise in Arguing, you had little reason to expect (much less so strictly to exact) a precise Answer; which cannot be made as you prescribed, to an Argument not precise.

3. I therefore expect accordingly that the unlearned be not made the Judges of a dispute which they are not fit to judge of; seeing you desire us to avoid their road.

4. Again I say, if you will not be precise in arguing, I can hardly be so in answering. And by [ a Congregation of Christians] you may mean [ Christians politically related to one Head,] whether Christ, or the Pope: But the word [ Assemblies] expresseth their actuall Assembling together, and so excludeth all Christians that are or were Members of no particular assemblies, from having Relation as Members of Christ (our Head) or the Pope (your Head,) and so from being of the Congregation, [Page 79] as you Call, The Church univer­sall.

5. I had great reason to avoid the snare of an equivocation, or ambiguity, of which you gave me cause of jealousie by your [ whatsoever] as I told you: as seeming to intimate a false supposition: To your Like, I answer, it is unlike, and still more intimates the false supposition. [ Whatso­ever Congregation of men is the Common­wealth of England] is a phrase that im­porteth that [ There is a Congregation of men which is not the Common-wealth of England.] Which is true, there being more men in the world. So [ whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church] doth seem to import, that you suppose [ there is a Congregation of Christi­ans (univocally so called) that are not the true Church] which you would distinguish from the other: Which I only let you know at the entrance, that I deny, that you may not think it granted.

Yet I must tell you that nothing is more ordinary then for the Body to be said to do that which a part of it only doth; As that [ the Church administreth Sacraments, Dis­cipline, Teatheth, &c. the Church is assem­bled in such a Council &c.] when yet it is [Page 80] but a small part of the Church that doth these things. And when Bellarmine, Gret­ser, &c. say [ the Church is the infallible judge of Controversies of faith,] they mean not [ the whole Church] which containeth every Christian, when they tell you that It is the Pope they mean. and therefore I had reason to enquire into your sense, unless I would willfully be over-reacht.

You now satisfie me that you mean it uni­versally, viz. [ [...]ll that Congregation (or Church) of Christians which is now the true Church of Christ, doth acknowledge, &c.] which I told you I deny.

6. To my following distinction you say [ that all the world knows that whatsoever is acknowledged to have been ever in the Church by Christs instiution, cannot be meant of any accidental thing, but of a necessary unchange­able and essentiall thing, in Christs true Church,] To which I Reply, Either you see the gross fallacy of this defence, or you do not: If you do not, then never more call for an exact Disputant, nor look to be delivered from your errors by argumenta­tion, though never so convincing. If you do, then you are not faithfull to the truth. In your Major proposition the words being many (as you say, you penetrated divers [Page 81] arguments together,) ambiguities were the easier hidden in the heap. That which I told you is Accidental to the Church (and that but to a corrupted part) was [the Acknowledging of the Papacy as of Christs Institution,] and therefore if it were granted that a thing [ of Christs Instituti­on] could not be Accidental, yet [the Acknowledgment] that is, the Opinion or asserting of it may. If the Church by mistake should think that to be Essential to it which is not, though it will not thence follow that its Essence is but an Accident, yet it will follow that both the false opinion, and the thing it self so falsly conceited to be essential, are but accidents, or not essential. You say [ It cannot be meant of any Acciden­tal thing] But 1. That Meaning it self of theirs may be an Accident. 2. And the question is not what they [ Mean, that is, Imagine or affirm] it to be; But what it is in deed and truth. That may be an Accident, which they think to be none.

2. But that which you say [ all the world knows] is a thing that [ all the world of Christians except your selves,] that ever I heard of, do know, or acknowledge to be false. What! doth all the world know that Christ hath instituted in his Church [Page 82] nothing but what is essential to it? I should hope that few in the Christian world would be so ignorant as ever to have such a thought, if they had the means of know­ledge that Protestants would have them have. There is no natural body but hath natural Accidents as well as Essence: Nor is there any other society under heaven (Community or Policy) that hath not its Accidents as well as Essence: And yet hath Christ instituted, a Church that hath nothing but Essence without Accidents? Do you build upon such foundations? What! upon the denyal of common prin­ciples and sence? But if you did, you should not have feigned all the world to do so too. Were your asseriton true, then every soul were cut off from the Church, and so from salvation, that wanted any thing of Christs Institution, yea for a moment. And then what would become of you. You give me an instance in [ the Eucha­rist] But 1. Will it follow that if the Eucharist be not Accidental or integral, but Essential, that therefore every thing In­stituted by Christ is Essentiall? surely no? 2. The Question being not whether the Being of the Eucharist in the Church be Essential to the Universal Church: But [Page 83] whether the Belief or Acknowledgment of it by All and every one of the mem­bers, be Essential to the Members? I would crave your answer but to this Que­stion (though it be nothing to my cause.) Was not a Baptized person in the primitive and ancient Churches a true Church-mem­ber, presently upon Baptism? And then tell me also, Did not the ancient Fathers and Churches unanimously hide from their Catechumens, even purposely hide, the my­sterie of the Eucharist, as proper to the Church of understand? and never opened it to the auditors, till they were Baptized? This is most undenyable in the concurrent vote of the ancients. I think therefore that it follows that in the Judgement of the an­cient Churches the Eucharist was but of the Integrity, and not the Essence of a member of the Church; and the acknow­ledgement of it by all the members, a thing that never was existent.

Where you say, your Major should have been granted or denyed without these distin­ctions: I Reply, 1. If you mean fairly, and not to abuse the truth by Confusion, such distinctions as you your self call [ Learn­ed and substantial] can do you no wrong. They do but secure our true understanding [Page 84] of one another: And a few lines in the be­ginning by way of distinction are not vain, that may prevent much vain altercation afterwards. When I once understand you, I have done: And I beseech you, take it not for an injury to be understood.

As to your conclusion, that you used no fallacy ex Accidente, and that my instances are not apposite; I Reply, thats the very life of the Controversie between us: And our main Question is not so to be begged. On the grounds I have shewed you, I still a­verr, that [ the holding of the Papacy is as Accidental to the universal Church, as a Cancer in the breast is to a woman;] And though you say, It is Essential, and of Christs Institution, that maketh it neither Essential, nor of Christs Institution; nor doth it make all his institutions to be essen­tialls.

Now of your second Syllogism. 1. I shall never question the successive Visibility of the Church.

Whereas I told you out of your Fransc. à S. Clara, that many or most of your own Schoolmen agree not to that which you say [ All Christians agree to,] you make no re­ply to it.

As to your Minor, I have given you the Rea­sons [Page 85] of the necessity and harmlesness of my distinctions: we need say no more to that [ a Congregation of Christians] and [ a Church] are Synonima: But the word [ true] was not added to your first term by you or me; and therefore your instance here is delusory. But to say [ whatsoever Congregation of Christi­ans, is now the true Church] is all one as to say whatsoever Church of Christians is now the true Church.] When I know your mean­ing I have my end.

Though my syllogism say not that [ the Church of Rome acknowledgeth those things alwaies done, and that by Christs institution] it nevertheless explicateth the weakness of yours, as to the fallacy accidentis: For 1. The holding it alwaies done, and that of Christs Institution, may be either an Accident, or but of the Integrity, and ad bene esse, yea possibly an errour. 2. And I might as easily have given you Instances of that kind.

To your 3. Syllogism I Reply. 1. When you say the Church [ had Pastors] as you must speak of what existed, (and Univer­salls exist not of themselves) so it is ne­cessary that I tell you, How far I grant your Minor, and how far I deny it.

My argument from the Indians and others, is not solved by you. For 1. You [Page 86] can never prove that the Pope was preach­ed to the Iberians by the Captive maid, nor to the Indians by Frumentius. 2. Thou­sands were made Christians and baptized by the Apostles, without any preaching or profession of a papacy, Act. 2. & passim. 3. The Indians now Converted in America by the English and Dutch, hear nothing of the Pope, nor thousands in Ethiopia. 4. Your own do or may baptize many without their owning the Pope, who yet would be Christians. And a Pastor not known, or believed, or owned, is actually no Pastor to them.

To your confirmation, I Reply: You misread my words: I talk not of [ Invi­sible.] I say it is true that the Universal Church is united to Christ as their univer­sall Head: and is Visible 1. In the mem­bers. 2. In the Profession. 3. Christ himself is visible in the Heavens, and as much seen of most of the Church as the Pope is, that is, not at all. As the Pope is not Invisible, though one of a million see him not, no more is Christ, who is seen by most of the Church, and by the best part, even by the glorified. You know my meaning: Whe­ther you will Call Christ visible or not, I leave to you: I think he is visible: But [Page 87] that which I affirm, is, that the univer­sal Church hath no other visible univer­sal Head or Pastor: But particular Chur­ches have their particular Pastors all under Christ.

Of Eph. 4. I easily grant that the whole Church may be said to have Pastors, in that all the particular Churches have Pastors. But I deny that the whole have any one u­niversal Pastor but Christ. Of that which is the point in controversie, you bring no proof. If you mean no more then I grant, that the whole Church hath Pastors both in that each particular Church hath Pa­stors, and in that unfixed Pastors are to preach to all as they have opportunity, then your Minor hath no denyall from me.

Instead of prosecuting your Argument, when you had cast the work of an Oppo­nent upon me, you here appeal [ to any true Logician or expert Lawyer] Content; I admit of your Appeal. But why then did you at all put on the face of an Oppo­nent? could you not without this lost labour at first have called me to prove the succes­sive visibility of our Church? But to your Appeal, Ho all you true Logicians, this Learned man and I refer it to your tribunal, [Page 88] whether it be the part of an Opponent, to con­trive his Argument so as that the Negative shall be [...]is, and then change places, and be­come Respondent, and make his adversary Opponent at his Pleasure.] We leave this cause at your bar, and expect your sen­tence.

But before we come to the Lawyers bar, I must have leave more plainly to state our case.

We are all agreed that Christianity is the true Religion, and Christ the Churches Universal Head; and the holy Scriptures the Word of God. Papists tell us of another Head and Rule; the Pope and Tradition, and judgement of the Church. Prote­stants deny these Additionals, and hold to Christianity and Scripture only; Our Religi­on, being nothing but Christianity, we have no Controversie about: Their Papall Re­ligion, superadded, is that which is Contro­verted: They affirm 1. the Right. 2. the Antiquity of it: We deny both: The Right we disprove from Scripture, though it belongs to them to prove it. The Anti­quity is it that is now to be referred. Pro­testancy being the Denyall of Popery, it is we that Really have the Negative, and the Papists that have the Affirmative. The [Page 89] Essence of our Church (which is Christian) is confessed to have been successively vi­sible: But we deny that theirs as Papal hath been so; and now they tell us, that it is Essential to ours to deny the succession of theirs, and therefore require us to prove a succession of ours, as one that still hath denyed theirs: Now we leave our case to the Lawyers, seeing to them you make your appeal, 1. Whether the substance of all our cause lie not in this Question, Whether the Papacy or universal Government by the Pope, be of heaven, or of men? and so whether it hath been from the beginning? which we deny, and therefore are called Protestants; and they affirm, and are therefore called Papists. 2. If they cannot first prove a successive visibility of their Papacy and Papal Church, then what Law can bind us to prove that it was denied, before it did arise in the world, or ever any pleaded for it? 3. And as to the point of Possession, I know not what can be pretended on your side. 1. The Possession of this or that particular Parish Church or Tythes, is not the thing in question; but the universal Headship is the thing: But if it were, yet it is I that am yet here in Possession; and Protestants before me for many ages suc­cessively: [Page 90] And when possessed you the Headship of the Ethiopian, Indian, and other extra-imperial Churches? never to this day. No nor of the Eastern Churches, though you had communion with them. 2. If the Question be, who hath Possession of the universal Church; we pretend not to it; but only to be a part, and the soundest safest part. 3. The case of Possession therefore is, whether we have not been longer in Possession of our Religion, which is bare Christianity, then you of your su­peradded Popery. Our Possession is not denied, of Christianity. Yours of Popery we deny: (and our denyal makes us called Protestants): Let therefore the reason of Logicians, Lawyers, or any rational sober man determine the case, whether it do not first and principally belong to you, to prove the visible succession of a Vice-Christ over the universal Church.

As to your contradictory impositions I Reply, 1. Your exception was not ex­prest, and your imposition was peremptory. 2. I told you I would be a Papist if you prove [ that the whole visible Church in all ages hath held the Popes universal headship] you say that you [ have proved it by this ar­gument, that either he hath that supremacy, [Page 91] or some other Church; denying that he hath alwaies had it, hath been alwaies visible,] and that Church you require should be named. I Reply, 1. Had not you de­spaired of making good your cause, you should have gone on by Argumentation, till you had forced me to contradict some common principle. 2. If you should shew these Papers to the world, and tell them that you have no better proof of the suc­cession of your Papacy, then that we prove not that it hath alwaies been denied by the visible Church, you would sure turn thou­sands from Popery, if there be so many ra­tional considering impartial men that would peruse them, and believe you. For any man may know that it could not be expected that the Churches should deny a Vice-Christ before he was sprung up. Why did not all the precedent Roman Bishops disclaim the title of universal Bishop or Pa­triarch, till Pelagius and Gregory? but because there was none in the world that gave occasion for it. How should any Heresie be opposed or condemned before it doth arise?

But you fairly yield me somewhat here, and say that you [oblige me not to prove a continued visible Church formally and ex­presly [Page 92] denying it; but that it was of such a constitution as was inconsistent with any such supremacy, or could and did subsist without it.] Reply, I confess your first part is very ingenuous and fair. Remember it here­after, that you have discharged me from proving [ a Church that denied the Papacy formally & expresly.] But as to what you yet demand. 1. I have here given it you, because you shall not say [...]'le sail you: I have answered your desire. But 2. It is not as a thing necessary, but ex abundanti, as an overplus. For you may now see plainly, that to prove that the Church was without an universal Pastor, (which you require) is to prove the Negative, viz. that then there was none such; whereas its you that must prove that there was such. I prove our Religion: do you prove yours: though I say to pleasure you, I'le disprove it, and have done it in two books already.

My reason from the stress of necessity, which you lay on your Affirmative and Additions, was but subservient to the fore­going Reasons, not first to prove you bound, but to prove you the more bound to the proof of your Affirmative. And therefore your instance of Mahumetans is imperti­nent. He that saith, you shall be damned [Page 93] if you believe not this or that, is more obliged to prove it, then he that affirmeth a point as of no such moment.

To what I say of an accident and a corrupt part, you say you have answered, and do but say so, having said nothing to it that is considerable.

Me thinks you that make Christ to be corporally present in every Church in the Eucharist, should not say, that the King of the Church is absent. But when you have proved, 1. That Christ is so absent from his Church, that there's need of a Deputy to essentiate his Kingdom, and 2. That the Pope is so Deputed; you will have done more then is yet done for your cause. And yet let me tell you, that in the absence of a King, it is only the King and Subjects that are essential to the Kingdom. The Deputy is but an officer, and not essen­tial.

Your naked assertion, that whatsoever Government Christ instituteth, of his Church, must be essential to his Church, is no proof, nor like the task of an Opponent. The Government of inferiour officers is not essential to the universal Church, no more then Judges and Justices to a Kingdom. And yet we must wait long before you will [Page 94] prove that Peter and the Pope of Rome are in Christs place, as Governours of the uni­versal Church.

Sir, I desire open dealing, as between men that believe these matters are of eternal consequence. I watch not for any advan­tage against you. Though it be your part to prove the Affirmative which our Ne­gative supposeth; yet I have begun the proof of our Negative; but it was on sup­position that you will equally now prove your Affirmative, better then you have here done. I have proved a visible Church successively that h [...]ld not the Popes univer­sal Government do you now prove [ that the universal Church in all ages did hold the Popes universal Government] which is your part; or I must say again, I shall think you do but run away, and give up your cause as unable to defend it: I have not failed you; do not you fail me.

You complain of a deficiency in quality, though you confess that I abound in num­ber. But where is the defect! you say, I must [assert both that these were one Congre­gation, and ever visible since Christs time] Reply, If by [ one Congregation] you meant [ one assembly met for personal Communion] [Page 95] which is the first sense of the word [ Con­gregation] it were ridiculous to feign the universal Church to be such. If you mean, One as united in one visible humane Head, thats it that we deny, and therefore may not be required to prove. But that these Churches are One as united in Christ the Head, we easily prove; In that from him the whole family is named; the body is Christs body, 1 Cor. 12.12, 13. and one in him, Eph. 4.4, 5, 6, &c. All that are true Christians are one Kingdom or Church of Christ; but these of whom I speak are true Christians; therefore they are one Kingdom or Church of Christ. And that they have been visible since Christs time till now, all history, even your own affirms: As in Iudaea, & from the Apostles times, in Ethiopia, Egypt and other parts, ( Rome was no Church in the time of Christs being on earth.) And to what purpose talk you of determinate Con­gregations? Do you mean individual assem­blies? those cease when the persons die; or do you mean assemblies meeting in the same place? so they have not done still at Rome. I told you, and tell you still, that we hold not that God hath secured the perpetual visibility of his Church in any one City or Country: but if it cease in one [Page 96] place, it is still in others. It may cease at Ephesus, at Philippi, Colosse, &c. in Tenduc, Nubia, &c. and yet remain in other parts. I never said that the Church must needs be visible still in one Town or Country. And yet it hath been so de facto, as in Asia, Ethi­opia, &c. But you say, I nominate none. Are you serious! must I nominate Christians of these Nations, to prove that there were such? you require not this of the Church Historians. It sufficeth that they tell you, that Ethiopia, Egypt, Armenia, Syria, &c. had Christians, without naming them. When all history tells you that these Coun­tries were Christians, or had Churches, I must tell you [ what and who they were]! must you have their names, sirnames, and Genealogies? I cannot name you one of a thousand in this small Nation, in the age I live in: How then should I name you the people of Armenia, Abassia, &c. so long ago? You can name but few of the Roman Church in each age: And had they wanted learning and records as much as the Abassins and Indians, and others, you might have been as much to seek for names as they. You ask [were they different Con­gregations?] Answ. As united in Christ they were one Church: but as assembling [Page 97] at one time, or in one place, or under the same guide, so they were not one, but divers Congregations.

That there were any Papists of 400. years after Christ, do you prove if you are able.

My conclusion, that all have been against you for many hundred years, must stand good, till you prove that some were for you: yet I have herewith proved that there were none, at least that could deserve the name of the Church.

Do you think to satisfie any reasonable man by calling for positive proof from Authors, of such Negatives? yet proof you shall not want, such as the nature of the point requireth, viz. That the said Churches; of Ethiopia, India, the outer Armenia, and other extra-imperial Nations, were not under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. 1. You find all these Churches, or most of them at this day (that remain) from under your jurisdiction: and you cannot tell us when or how they turned from you. If you could, it had been done. 2. These Nations profess it to be their Tradition, that the Pope was never their Governour. 3. No history or au­thority of the least regard, is brought by your own writers to prove these Churches [Page 98] under your jurisdiction: no not by Baro­nius himself, that is so copious, and so skil­ful in making much of nothing. No credi­ble witnesses mention your Acts of juris­diction over them, or their Acts of subje­ction, which Church history must needs have contained, if it had been true, that they were your subjects. 4. Their absence from general Councils, and no invitation of them thereunto, (that was ever proved, or is shewed by you) is sufficient evidence. 5. Their Liturgies, even the most ancient, bear no footsteps of any subjection to you. Though your forgeries have corrupted them: as I shall here (digressively) give one instance of: The Ethiopick Liturgy, because of a [ Hoc est corpus meum] which we also use, is urged to prove that they are for the corporal presence, or Transubstan­tiation: But saith Vsher, de success. Eccles. In Ethiopicarum Ecclesiarum universali Canone, descriptum habebatur [Hic panis est corpus meum]: In Latina translatione contra fidem Ethiopic. Exemplarium (ut in prima operis editione confirmat Pontificius ipse Scholiastes) expunctum est nomen [Panis.] 6. Constantines Letters of request to the King of Persia for the Churches there (which Euseb. in vit. Constant. mentioneth) [Page 99] do intimate that then the Roman Bishop ruled not there. 7. Even at home, the Scots and Brittains obeyed not the Pope, nor conformed about the Easter observation, even in the daies of Gregory; but resisted his changes, and refused communion with his Ministers. 8. I have already elsewhere given you the testimony of some of your own writers: as Reynerius contra Waldens. Catal. in Biblioth. Patr. Tom. 4. p. 773. saying [ The Churches of the Armenians, and Ethiopians, and Indians, and the rest which the Apostles converted, are not under the Church of Rome.] 9. I have proved from the Council of Chalcedon, that it was the Fathers, that is, the Councils that gave Rome its preheminence: But those Councils gave the Pope no preheminence over the extra-imperial Nations: For 1. Those Nations being not called to the Council, could not be bound by it. 2. The Emperours called and enforced the Councils, who had no power out of their Empire. 3. The Dio­cess are described and expresly confined within the verge of the Empire; see both the description, and full proof in Blondel de Primatu in Ecclesia. Gall. And 10. The Emperours themselves did sometime (give­ing power to the Councils Acts) make [Page 100] Rome the chief; and sometime (as the Councils did also) give Constantinople equal priviledge; and sometime set Constantino­ple highest, as I have shewed in my Key, p. 174, 175. But the Emperours had no power to do thus with respect to those without the Empire.

But what say you now to the contrary? Why 1. You ask, [ Were those Primitive Christians of another kind of Church order and Government then were those under the Roman Empire?] Answ. When the whole body of Church history satisfieth us that they were not subject to the Pope, which is the thing in question, is it any weakening of such evidence in a matter of such publick fact, to put such a question as this, Whether they were under another kind of Government? 1. We know that they were under Bishops or Pastors of their own: and so far their Government was of the same kind. 2. If any of them, or all, did suit their Church associations to the several Commonwealths in which they lived, and so held National Councils, and for order sake made one a­mong them the Bishop primae sedis, then was that Government of the same kind with that of the Imperial Churches, and not of another kind. The Roman Government [Page 401] was no other, but One, thus Ordered, in one Empire: And if there were also One, so ordered, in England, one in Scotland, one in Ethiopia, &c. this was of the same kind with the Roman. Every Church suited to the form of the Common-wealth, is even (as to that humane mode) of the same kind (if a humane mode must be called a Kind.) It may be of that same kind, and mode, without being part of the same Indivi­dual.

But 2. You say that [ How far from truth this is, appeareth from St. Leo in his Sermons de Natali suo, where he sayes, [Sedes Roma Perri; quicquid non possidet armis, Religione tenet.] Reply, If you take your Religion on trust, as you do your authori­ties that are made your ground of it, and bring others to it when you are deceived your selves, how will you look Christ in the the face when you must answer for such temerity? Leo hath no Sermons de Natali suo, but only one Sermon affixed to his Sermons, lately found in an oid book of Nicol. Fabers. And in that Sermon there is no such words as you here alledge. Nei­ther doth he Poetize in his Sermons, nor there hath any such words which might occasion your mistake: and therefore [Page 102] doubtless you believed some body for this that told you an untruth; and yet ven­tured to make it the ground of charging my words with untruth. Yet let me tell you, that I will take Pope Leo for no competent judge or witness, though you call him a Saint: as long as we know what past be­tween him and the Council of Chalcedon, and that he was one of the first tumified Bishops of Rome, he shall not be judge in his own cause.

3. But you add that [ The Abassines of Ethiopia were under the Patriarch of Alex­andria anciently, and he under the authority of the Roman Bishop.] Reply. 1. Your bare word without proof shall not perswade us that the Abassines were under the Patri­arch of Alexandria for above three hun­dred, if not four hundred years after Christ. Prove it, and then your words are regard­able. 2. At the Council of Nice the con­trary is manifest by the sixth Can. [ Mos antiquus perdurat in Aegypto, vel Lybia & Pentapoli, ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem, &c.] And the common descriptions of the Alexandrian Patriarchate in those times confine it to the Empire, and leave out Aethiopia ( Pisanus new inventions we regard not.) 3. I de­ny [Page 103] that the Patriarch of Alexandria was under the Government of the Bishop of Rome, any more then the Jury are under the Foremen, or the junior Justices on the bench are under the senior, or York is un­der London, or the other Earls of England are under the Earl of Arundel. 4. But if both these were proved, that Ethiopia was under Alexandria, and Alexandria under Rome, I deny the consequence, that Ethio­pia was under Rome: for Alexandria was under Rome but secundum quid, and so far as it was within the Empire, and therefore those without the Empire that were under Alexandria, were not therefore under Rome. 5. And if it could (as it never can) be proved of Abassia, what is that to all the other Churches in India, Persia, and the rest of the world? Sir, If you have impar­tially read the ancient Church history, and yet can believe that all these Churches were then under the Pope, despair not of bring­ing your self to believe any thing imagina­ble that you would have to be true.

3. Your next question is [ When the Ro­man Emperours were yet Heathens, had not the Bishops of Rome the supremacy over all other Bishops through the whole Church?] Answ. No: they had not; nor in the [Page 104] Empire neither. Prove it, I beseech you, better then by questioning. If you askt, Whether men rule not Angels? your Questi­on proves not the Affirmative.

4. But you ask again [Did those Heathen Emperours give it him?] Answ. 1. Power over all Churches none ever gave him, till titularly his own Parasites of late. 2. Pri­macy of meer degree in the Empire, for the dignity and many advantages of the Em­perial seat, the Bishops of the Empire gave him by consent ( Blondel de primatu, gives you the proof and reason at large:) yet so as that [ small regard was had to the Church of Rome before the Nicene Council] as saith your Aeneas Sylvius, Pope Pius the second.

5. [ Whether the Bishop of Rome had power over the Bishop of Arles by Heathen Emper­ours,] is a frivolous question. Arles was in the Roman Patriarchate, and not out of the Empire. The Churches in the Empire, might by consent dispose themselves into the Patriarchal orders, without the Em­perours, and yet not meddle out of the Empire. Yet indeed Cyprians words inti­mate no power Rome had over Arles, more then Arles had over Rome: that is, to reject communion with each other upon [Page 105] dissent. Nay it more confuteth you, that even under Heathen Emperours, when Church associations were by voluntary consent of Pastors only; and so if they had thought it necessary, they might have ex­tended them to other Principalities: yet de facto they did not do it, as all history of the Church declareth, mentioning their Coun­cils and associations, without these ta­ken in.

See now how little your objections are worth; and how groundlesly you bid me [ See now how little my allegations are to the purpose.]

As for the rabble of Hereticks which you reckon up, (as you esteem them,) some of them are no Christians univocally so called, and those cannot be of the Christian Church. Others of them were better Christians then the Romanists, and so were of the same Church with us: And it is not many reproachfull names put on them by malice that makes them no Christians, or of many Churches or Religions. If an arro­gant usurper will put nick-names on all that will not bow to him as the Vice-Christ, and call them Iconoclasts, Berengarians, Waldensians, Albigenses, Wicklefifts, Hus­sites, Lutherans, Calvinists (you may as well [Page 106] give them a thousand more names) this makes them not of various Religions, nor blots out their names from the book of life. I have in my most retired thoughts perused the History of those mens lives, and of the lives of many of your Popes, together with their severall doctrines; and with death and judgement in my eyes, as before the great God of Heaven. I humbly beg of him, that I may rather have my everlasting por­tion with those holy men whom you bur­ned, as Waldenses, Albigenses, Hussites, &c. then with the Popes that burned them, or those that follow them in that cruelty, un­less reconciling grace have given them re­pentance unto life. The Religion of all these men was one, and they were all of one universall Church.

Where you again call for One Congrega­tion, I tell you again that we know no Vnity essentiall, from whence the Church can be called one, but either Christ or the Vice-Christ: the former only is asserted by us, and the latter also by you, which we deny: And therefore we cannot call the universall Church One, in any other formal respects, but as it is Christian, and so One in Christ. Yet have I herewith satisfied your demand, but shewed you the unreasonableness of [Page 107] it, beyond all reasonable contradicti­on.

You next enquire whether [we account] Rome and us One Congregation of Christi­ans?] I answer, the Roman Church hath two Heads, and ours but one, and thats the difference. They are Christians, and so One Church as united in Christ, with us and all other true Christians. If any so hold their Papacy and other errours as effective­ly and practically to destroy their Christi­anity, those are not Christians, and so not of the same Church as we. But those that do not so, but are so Papists, as yet to be truly and practically Christians, are and shall be of the same Church with us, whe­ther they will or not: And your modest stile makes me hope that you and I are of one Church, though you never so much re­nounce it. As Papall, we are not of your Church; thats a new Church form; But as Christian, we are and will be of it, even when you are condemning, torturing and burning us (if such persecution can stand with your Christianity.)

But you aske [ Why did you then separate your selves, and remain still separate from the Communion of the Roman Church.] Answ. 1. We never separated from you as [Page 108] you are Christians; We still remain of that Church as Christian, and we know (or will know) no other form; because that Scripture and primitive Churches knew no other. Either you have by Popery sepa­rated from the Church as Christian, or not; If you have, its you that are the (damnable) Separatists. If you have not, then we are not separated from you, in respect of the form of the Christian Church. And for your other form (the Papacy) 1. Neither I, nor my Grand-father, or great grand-father did separate from it: because they never entertained it. 2. Those that did so, did but Repent of their sin, and thats no sin. We still remain separated from you as Papists, even as we are separate from such as we are commanded to avoid, for impenitency in some corrupting doctrine or scandalous sin; Whether such mens sins or their pro­fessed Christianity be most predominant at the heart, we know not: but till they shew Repentance we must avoid them; yet admonishing them as brethren, and not taking them as men of another Church, but as finding them unfit for our Commu­nion.

But O sir, what manner of dealing have we from you! must we be imprisoned, [Page 109] rackt, hang'd or burn'd, if we will not believe that bread & wine, are not bread and wine, contrary to our own and all mens senses; and if we will not worship them with Di­vine worship, and will not obey the Pope of Rome in all such matters contrary to our Consciences: and then must we be chidden for separating from you, if we [...] a while escape the strappado and the [...]? What! will you blame us for not believing that all mens senses are deceived, and the greater part of Christians and their Tradi­tions (against you) are false, when we read, and study, and suspect our selves, and pray for light, and are willing to hear any of your reasons, but cannot force our own un­derstandings to believe all such things that you believe, and meerly because the Pope commands it: and when we cannot thus force our own understandings, must we be burned, or else called Separatists? would you have the Communion of our Ashes, or else say, We forsake your Communion? In your Churches we cannot have leave to come, without lying against God and our consciences, and saying, We believe what our senses contradict; and without committing that which our consciences tell us are most heynous sins. We solemnly protest that [Page 110] we would do as you do, and say as you say, were it not for the love of truth and holi­ness, and for fear of the wrath of God, and the flames of hell: but we cannot, we dare not rush upon these errours, and sell our souls to please the Pope. And must we then either be murdered, or taken for un­cha [...]ble? will you say to so many poor souls, that are ready to enter into another world [ Either sin against your consciences, and so damn your souls, or else let us burn and murder you, or else you do not love us; you are uncharitable if you deny us leave to kill you, and you separate from the Communion of the Church.] We appeal from the Pope and all unreasonable men, to the great God of heaven and earth, to judge righ­teously between you and us concerning this dealing.

As for possessing our selves of your Bishopricks and Cures, if any particular person had personal injury in the change, being cast out without cause, they must answer for it that did it, and not I: though I never heard any thing to make me believe it. But must the Prince and people let alone delinquent Pastors for fear of being blamed for taking their Bishopricks? Mini­sters of the same Religion with us may be [Page 111] cast out for their crimes: Princes have power over Pastors as well as David, Solo­mon, and other Kings of Israel had. Guil. Barklay and some few of your own knew this. The Popes treasonable exemption of the Clergy from their Soveraigns judge­ment, will not warrant those Princes before God, that neglect to punish offe [...]ing Pastors. And I beseech you tell us, [...]hen our consciences (after the use of all means that we can use to be informed) cannot re­nounce all our sences, nor our reason, nor the judgement of the most of the Church, or of antiquity, or the Word of God, and yet we must do so, or be no members of your Church, what wrong is it to you if we choose us Pastors of our own, in the order that God hath appointed? Had not the people in all former ages the choice of their Pastors? we and our late forefathers here were never under your oversight: but we know not why we may not now choose our Pastors as well as formerly. We do it not by tumults: we kill not men, and tread not in their blood, while we choose our Pastors, as Pope Damasus was chosen. The tythes and other temporal mainte­nance we take from none, but the Magi­strate disposeth of it as he seeth meet for the [Page 112] Churches good. And the maintenance is for the cure or work: and therefore they that are justly cast out of the cure, are justly deprived of the maintenance. And surely when they are dead, none of you can with any shew of reason, stand up and say, These Bishopricks are yours: or these Parsonages your [...] It is the Incumbent personally that only [...]an claim title; saving the superemi­nent title of Christ, to whom they are de­voted. But the successive Popes cannot have title to all the tithes and Temples in the world; nor any of his Clergy that ne­ver were called to the charges. If this be disunion, it is you that are the Separatists and cause of all. If you will needs tell all the Christian world, that except they will be ruled by the Pope of Rome, and be burn­ed if they believe not as he bids them in de­spight of all their senses, he will call them Separatists, Schismaticks, and say they disunite and are uncharitable: again, we appeal to God and all wise men that are impartial, whether it be he or we that is the divider?

You ask me [Is not charity, subordination, and obedience to the same state and Govern­ment, required as well to make one Congre­gation of Christians, as it is required to make a [Page 113] Congregation of Commonwealths men?] Answ. Yes, it is: But as all the world is one Kingdom under God the universal King, but yet hath no universal Vice-King, but every Commonwealth only hath its own Soveraign; even so all the Christian world is one Church under Christ the uni­versal King of the Church, but ha [...] not one Vice-Christ, but every Church hath its own Pastors, as every School hath its own Schoolmaster. But all the anger is because we are loth to be ruled by a cruel usurper therefore we are uncharitable.

Your next reason against me, is, because [They cannot be parts of the Catholike Church, unless Arrians, and Pelagians, and Donatists be parts] and so Hereticks and Schismaticks be parts.] Reply 1. You know sure, that your own Divines are not agreed whether Hereticks and Schismaticks are parts of the Church. And if they were, yet it is not de fide with you, as not deter­mined by the Pope. If it be, then all yours are Hereticks that are for the affirmative ( Bellarmine nameth you some of them) If it be not, then how can you be sure its true, and so impose it on me, that they are no parts.

2. Arrians are no Christians, as denying [Page 114] that which is essential to Christ, and so to Christianity. Pelagianism is a thing that you are not agreed among your selves of the true nature of. Many of the Domini­cans and Jansenists think the Jesuits Pelagi­anize, or Semipelagianize at least. I hope you will not shut them out. Donatists were [...]chismaticks, because they divided in the Catholike Church, and not absolutely from it▪ and because they divided from the particular Churches about them that held the most universal external Communion. I think they were still members of the uni­versal Church: but I'le not contend with any that will plead for his uncharitable denyal. Its nothing to our case.

That the Aethiopians are Eutychian Here­ticks, I will see better proved before I will believe it. Rosses words I so little regard, that I will not so much as open his book to see whether he say so or not. I know that Heresie is a personal crime, and cannot be charged on Nations, unless you have evi­dence that the Nations consent to it: which here you have none: Some are called Hereticks for denying points essential to Christianity: these are no Christians, and so not in the Church: but many also are called Hereticks by you, and by the Fathers, [Page 115] for lesser errors consistent with Christi­anity: and these may be in the Church. The Abassines, and all the rest have not been yet tryed, and convicted before any competent Judge: and slanderers we re­gard not.

2. Many of your own writers acquit them of Heresie, and say, the difference is now found to be but in words, or little more.

To what you say of their disclaiming us, unless we take the Patriarch of Constantino­ple for the Vice-Christ; you many waies mistake. 1. If this were true, that they rejected us, it were no proof that we are not of one universal Church. 2. They do not claim to be Vice Christi, the univer­sal Governours of the Church: the title of universal Patriarch they extended but to the then Roman Empire; and that not to an universal Government, but Primacy. And many of them 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. 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 [Page 116] counterfeit Patriarch- Gabriels name); and wrote thus of the Pope in his Letters to Sigismund King of Poland An. 1600. [ Per­spiceret Majestas tua, nos cum majoribus nostris, non ignorare (quem precaris ut ag­noscamus) Pontificem scilicet Romanum veluti & Constantinopolitanum Pontificem, Pontificem Constant. Caeterosque Aposto­licarum sedium Pontifices. Qui non unus omnium, sed inter omnes & ipse unus. — Vnum universale Caput, quod sit D. N. Iesus Christus; alius esse non possit, nisi biceps aliquod sit corpus, aut potius monstrum corporis. Perspiceres, Rex serenissime, (ut interim de Concilio illo Florentino, veluti de re silentio digna taceam) non Nos, è Patria, tum Orientalium, tum Occidentalium dogma­tibus traditionibusque quae per septem univer­salia concilia nobis consignarunt atque obsig­narunt, egressos: Illos egressos, qui novita­tibus in dies delectantur.] in the same Let­ters he commendeth Cyril. And what can a Protestant say more against the Vice-Christship, and your novelties?

And for Ieremias his predecessor, whom you mention, though they that disputed with him by Letters ( Stephanus Gerlochius, & Martinus Crusius) did not agree in all things with him, yet he still professed his [Page 117] desire of unity and concord with us, and in the beginning of his second answer re­joyceth, that we agreed with them in so many things. And Iohan. Zygomalas in his Letters to Crusius 1576. May 15. saith, [ Perspicuum tibi & omnibus futurum est, quod in continuis, & causam fidei praecipue continentibus articulis, consentiamus: quae autem videntur consensum inter vos & nos impedire, talia sunt, si velit quis, ut facile ea corrigere possit. — Gaudium in caelo & super terram erit, si coibit in unitatem utraque Ecclesia, & idem sentiemus, & si­mul vivemus in omni concordia & pace secun­dum Deum & in sincerae charitatis vinculo.]

But as it is not the Patriarch that is the whole Greek Church, so it is not their errors in some lesser or tolerable points that prove us of two Churches or Religions.

Whereas you say, It is against all Anti­quity and Christianity to admit condemned Hereticks into the Church. I Reply, 1. I hate their condemnation, rather then reverence it, that (even being non judices) dare condemn whole Nations without hearing one man of them speak for himself, or hearing one witness that ever heard them defend Heresie; and this meerly be­cause some few Bishops have in the daies [Page 118] of old maintained Heresie, and perhaps some may do so still, or rather differ from you in words, while you misunderstand each other. Did I find such errors with them as with you, yet I durst charge them on no one man that I had not reason to hold guilty of them: I dare not accuse whole Nations of your errors. But of all these things (and of Sandys words which you cite) I have spoken already in two Books, and in the latter fully proved that you differ in many points of faith, and greater things then you call Heresies in others among your selves, even your Popes, Saints, and Councils, and yet neither part is judged by you to be out of the Church. See my Key, p. 124, 125, 127, 128, 129. p. 52. ad 62.

When you say so much to prove the Greeks guilty of manifest Heresie, and pre­tend that it is but some novel writers of ours that deny it, as forced by your arguments.] I must say, that you prove but your own uncharitableness instead of their Heresie: and you shew your self a stranger to your own writers, who frequently excuse the Greeks from Heresie, and say the difference at the Council of Florence was found to be more about words then faith. Thomas a [Page 119] Iesu de Convers. omn. gentium, lib. 6. cap. 8. p. 281. saith, [ His tamen non obstantibus alii opinantur Graecos tantum esse schismati­cos: Ita ex junioribus docet Pater Azorius 1. primae Institut. Moral. lib. 8. cap. 20. q. 10. Quare merito ab Ecclesia Catholica non haeretici, sed schismatici censentur & appellantur: Ita apert insinuat D. Bernar­dus (no Novel Protestant) in Epist. ad Eu­genium, lib. 3. [ Ego addo (inquit) de perti­nacia Graecorum qui nobiscum sunt, & non sunt: juncti fide, pace divisi; quanquam & in fide ipsa claudicaverint à rectis semitis.] Idem aperte tenet D. Thomas Opuscul. 2. ubi docet patres Graecos in Catholico sensu esse exponendos. Ratio hujus Opinionis est quo­niam ut praedictus author docet, in praedictis fidei articulis, de quibus Graeci accusantur ab aliquibus ut haeretici, potius Nomine, quam Re ab Ecclesia Romana dissident. Inpri­mis inficiantur illi Spiritum Sanctum à Patre Filioque procedere ut in Bulla Vnionis Euge­nii 4. dicitur, existimantes Latinos sentire à Patre Filioque procedere tanquam à duobus principiis; cum tamen Latina doceat Eccle­sia procedere à duabus personis tanquam ab uno principio & spiratore; quare Graeci ut unum principium significent, dicunt Spiritum Sanctum à Patre per Filium procedere ab omni aeternitate.]

[Page 120]Your Paulus Veridicus ( Paul Harris Dean of your Academy lately in Dublin) in his Confutation of Bishop Vshers Sermon, saith that the Greeks Doctrine about the Pro­cession of the Holy Ghost à Patre per Fili­um, and not à Patre Filioque, was such that [ When they had explicated it, they were found to believe very Orthodoxly and Catholikely in the same matter, and for such were ad­mitted] and that [ He findeth not any sub­stantial point that they differ from you in, but the Primacy] (So the Armenians were re­ceived in the same Council of Florence.) Many more I have read of your own writers that all vindicate the Greeks (and others that disown you) from Heresie, I think more then I have read of Protestants that do it. And do you think now that it is not a disgrace to your cause, that man of your learning, and one that I hear hath the con­fidence to draw others to your opinions, should yet be so unacquainted with the opinions of your own Divines, and upon this mistake so confidently feign that it is our Novel writers forced to it by your argu­ments that have been so charitable to these Churches against antiquity that knew better? If the Greeks and Latins tear the Church of Christ by their Condemna­tions [Page 121] of each other, they may both be schis­matical, as guilty of making divisions in the Church, though not as dividing from the Church. And if they pretend the denyal of the Christian faith against each other as the cause, you shall not draw us into the guilt of the uncharitableness, by telling us that they know better then we. If wise men fall out and fight, I will not justifie either side, because they are wise and therefore likelier then I to know the cause. But what need we more to open your strange mistake and unjust dealing, then the authority of your so much approved Council of Florence, that received both Greeks and Armenians; and the very words of the Popes Bull of the union, which declare that the Greeks and Latins were found to mean Orthodoxly both? the words are these [ Convenientes Latini & Graeci in hac sacrosancta Oecume­nica synodo magno studio invicem usi sunt, ut inter alia articulus etiam ille de Divina Spi­ritus Sancti processione summa cum diligentia & assidua inquisitione discuteretur. Pro­latis vero testimoniis ex Divinis Scripturis, plurimisque authoritatibus sanctorum docto­rum orientalium & occidentelium, aliquibus quidem ex Patre & Filio, quibusdam vero ex Patre per Filium procedere dicentibus Spiritū [Page 122] Sanctum, & ad eandem intelligentiam aspici­entibus omnibus sub diversis vocabulis: Graeci quidem asseruerunt quod id quod dicunt Spiri­tum Sanctum ex Patre procedere, non hac mente proferrent ut excludant Filiū, sed quia eis videbatur, ut aiunt, Latinos asserere spi­ritum Sanctum ex Patre Filioque procedere tanquam ex duobus principiis & duabus Spi­rationibus, ideo abstinuerunt à dicendo quod Spiritus Sanctus ex Patre procedat & Filio. Latini vero affirmaverunt non se hac mente dicere Spiritum Sanctum ex Filioque proce­dere ut excludant Patrem, quin sit fons ac principium totius Deitatis, Filii scilicet, & Spiritus Sancti, aut quod id quod Spiritus Sanctu procedat ex Filio, Filius à Patre non habeat, sive quod duo ponant esse principia, seu duas spirationes, sed ut unum tantum asserunt esse principium, unicamque spiratio­nem Spiritus Sancti, prout hactenus asserue­runt; & cum ex his omnibus unus & idem eliciatur veritatis sensus, tandem, &c.—]

I pray you now tell it to no more, that it is same Novel writers of ours, prest by force of argument, that have been the authors of this extenuation. May heart even trembleth to think that there should be a thing called Religion among you, that can so far extin­guish both Charity and Humanity, as to [Page 123] cause you to pass so direful a doom (with­out authority or tryal) on so great a part of the Christian world, for such a word as this, about so exceeding high a mysterie, when your Pope and Council have pro­nounced a union of meanings!

And what mean you in your Margin to refer me to Nilus, as if he asserted [ That the Greeks left the Communion of the Roman Church upon that difference alone.] Verily Sir, in the high matters of God, this dealing is scarce fair! (pardon this plainness: con­sider of it your self.) The substance of Nilus book is about the Primacy of the Pope: The very contents prefixed to the first book are these [ Oratio demonstrans non aliam, &c. An Oration demonstrating that there is no other cause of the dissension between the Latin and Greek Churches, then that the Pope refuseth to defer the cognisance and iudgement of that which is controverted to a general Council: but he will sit the sole Master and Iudge of the Controversie; and will have the rest as Disciples to be hearers of (or obey) his word, which is a thing aliene from the Laws and actions of the Apostles and Fathers.]

And he begins his Book (after a few words) thus, [ Causa itaque hujus dissidii, [Page 124] &c. The cause therefore of this difference, as I judge, 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 less is it the speech of the Scripture it self, which as being concise, doth pronounce nothing openly of that which is controverted. For to accuse the Scripture, is as much as to accuse God himself. But God is without all fault. But who the fault is in, any one may easily tell, that is well in his wits.] He next shews, that it is not for want of learned men on both sides, nor is it because the Greeks do claim the Pri­macy, and then concludeth it as before. He maintaineth that your Pope succeedeth Peter only as a Bishop ordained by him, as many other Bishops that originally were or­dained by him in like manner do succeed him; and that his Primacy is no Governing power, nor given him by Peter, but by Princes and Councils for order sale: and this he proves at large, and makes this the main difference. Bellarmines answering his so many Argu­ments might have told you this, if you had never read Nilus himself. If you say that, This point was the first cause, I deny it; but if it were true, yet was it not the only or [Page 125] chief cause afterward. The Munner of bringing in the [ filioque] by Papal authori­ty without a general Council, was it that greatly offended the Greeks from the be­ginning.

But you say that when I have made the best of these Greeks, Armenians, Ethio­pians, Protestants, I cannot deduce them successively in all ages till Christ as a differ­ent Congregation of Christians from that which holds the Popes supremacy, which was your proposition. Reply. I have oft told you we own no universal informing Head but Christ. In respect to him I have proved to you, that is not my interest or design to prove us or them [ a different Congregati­on from you as you are Christians.] Nor shall you tempt me to be so uncharitable, as to damn, or unchristen all Papists as far as you do others, incomparably safer and better then your selves. But as you are Papal, and set up a new informing head, I have proved that you differ from all the antient Churches, but yet that my cause requireth me not to make this proof, but to call you to prove your own universal succession.

You add your Reason, because these be­forenamed were at first involved in your Con­gregation, and then fell off as dead branches. [Page 126] Reply. This is but an untruth in a most pub­lick matter of fact. All the truth is this. 1. Those Indians, Ethiopians, Persians, &c. without the Empire, never fell from you, as to subjection, as never being your subjects. Prove that they were, and you have done a greater wonder then Baronius in all his Annals. 2 The Greeks, and all the rest within the Empire, without the Roman Patriarchate, are fallen from your Commu­nion (if renouncing it be a fall) but not from your subjection, having given you but a Primacy, as Nilus shews, and not a Governing pewer over them. The wither­ing therefore was in the Roman branches, if the corruptions of either part may be called a withering. You that are the lesser part of the Church may easily call your selves the Tree, and the greater part (two to one) the Branches; but these beggings do but proclaim your neces­sities.

In good time you come to give me here at last some proof of an ancient Papacy, as you think. But first, you quite forget (or worse) that it is not a man or two in the whole world in an age, but the universal [Page 127] Church, whose judgement (and form) we are now enquiring after. You are to prove [ That all the Church in every age was for the Papal universal Government] and so that none can be saved that is not.

2. But instead of this which you should prove, you prove not that those very single persons named by you, had any opinion of the Papal Soveraignty.

1. Your first Testimony is from Libera­tus, c. 16. [John Bishop of Antioch makes an appeal to Pope Simplicius.] Reply. 1. I see you are deceived by going upon trust: But its pitty so to deceive others. There was no such man as Iohn Bishop of Antioch in Simplicus raign. Iohn of Antioch was he that made the stirs and divisions for Nesto­rius, against Cyril, and called the Schisma­tical Council at Ephesus, and dyed, Anno 436. having raigned thirteen years, as Ba­ronius saith, and eighteen as Nicephorus: He dyed in Sixtus the fifths time. But its said indeed that John Bishop of Alexandria made some address to Simplicius: of which Baronius citeth Liberatus words (not c. 16. but c. 18.) ad An. D. 483. that John being expelled by the Emperour Zeno's command, went first to Calendion Bishop of Antioch, and so to Rome to Simplicius, (if Baronius [Page 128] were to be believed, as his judge) Liberatus saith, that he took from Calendion Bishop of Antioch Letters to Simplicius, to whom he appealed as Athanasius had done, and per­swaded him to write for him to Acacius Bishop of Constantinople; which Simplicius did: But Acacius upon the receipt of Simplicius Letters, writ flatly to him, that he knew no John Bishop of Alexandria, but had taken Petrus Mogus as Bishop of Alexandria, into his Communion, and that without Simplicius, for the Churches unity, at the Emperours command] Here you see how little regard Acacius made of your Pope: and that the appeal was but to procure his Letters to Acacius, which did him no good. 2. But do you in good earnest think that all such addresses, or appeals are ad superiorem ju­dicem? What more common then to ap­peal or make such addresses to any that have advantage of interest, for the relief of the oppressed? Young men appeal to the aged in Controversies: and the less learned to the more learned: and the poor to the rich, or to the favorites of such as can re­lieve them. Iohns going first to Antioch was no acknowledgement of superiority. 3. But of this I must refer you to a full an­swer of Blondel against Perron, de Primatu [Page 129] in Eccles. cap. 25. sect. 76. where you may be satisfied of the vanity of your instance. Whereas therefore you infer (or you say nothing) that because this Iohn thus ap­pealed to Rome, therefore he appealed thi­ther as to the Vniversal Ruler of the Church.] The story derideth your conse­quence. Much more that [ therefore the Vniversall Church held the Pope then to be the Vniversall Head or Governour.] Heres nothing of Government but intreaty, and that but within the Empire, and that but upon the seeking of one distressed man that would be apt to go to those of most interest that might relieve him, and all this rejected by Acacius and the Emperour. A fair proof!

2. Your 2. instance is, that Flavianus ap­peals to the Pope as to his Iudge. Epist. prae­ambul. Concil. Chalced.] Reply. I have perused all the Council of Chalcedon, as it is in Binnius, purposely to find the words you mention of Flavians appeal, and I find not any such words. In Flavianus own Epistle to Leo there are no such words, nor any other that I can find, but the word [ appeal] once in one of the Emperours Epistles (as I remember) but without men­tioning any Judge. I will not use to turn [Page 130] over Volumes thus in vain for your citati­ons, while I see you take them on trust, and do not tell me in any narrow compasse of cap. sect. or pag. where to find them. But had you found such words, 1. An appeal is oft made from a partiall to an impartiall Judge, though of equal power. 2. He might appeal to the Bishop of Rome as one of his Judges in the Council where he was to be tried, and not as alone. And it is evi­dent in the History, that it was not the Pope, but the Council that was his Iudge. 3. The greatnesse of Rome, and Primacy of Order (not of Jurisdiction) made that Bishop of speciall interest in the Empire: and distressed persecuted men will appeal to those that may any whit relieve them. But this proves no Governing power, nor so much as any Interest without the Em­pire.

It being the custome of the Churches in the Empire, to make the Votes of the Pa­triarchs necessary in their general Councils, no wonder if appellations be made from those Councils that wanted the Patriarchs consent to other Councils where they cons [...]nted; in which as they gave Constan­tin [...]ple the second place, without any pre­tence of a Divine Right, and frequent ap­peals [Page 131] were made to that Seat; so also they gave Rome the first Seat. Of this whole matter Perron is fully answered already by Blondell de primatu, cap. 25. sect. 63. to which I refer you, it being as easie to read it in Print as Writing. Adding this only, that as Flavian (in his necessity) seeking help from the Bishop of the prime Seat in the Empire, did acknowledge no more but his Primacy of Order by the Laws of the Em­pire and the Councils thereof, so the Em­pire was not all the world, nor Flavian all the Church, nor any more then one man, and therefore if he had held (as you will never prove he did) the Universall Govern­ment of the Pope, if you would thence argue that it was held by all the Church, your consequence must needs be marvelled at, by them that believe that One man is not the Catholick Church, no more then seeking of help was an acknowledging an Universal Headship or Governing power.

And it is undeniably evident, that the Church of Constantinople and all the Greek Churches did believe that Universal Prima­cy which in the Empire was set up, to be of humane right, and new, and changeable, as I prove not only by the expresse testimo­ny of the Council of Chalcedon, but by the [Page 132] stating of the Primacy at last in Gregories dayes on Constantinople it self, whose pre­tence neither was nor could be any other then a humane late institution. And if the Greek Churches judged so of it in Gregories daies, and at the Council of Chalcedon in Leo's daies, we have no reason to think that they ever judged otherwise; at least not in Fla­vians dayes, that were the same as Leo's, and the businesse done about 449. This Argu­ment I here set against all your instances at once; and it is unanswerable.

3. Your next instance is of Pope Leo's restoring Theodoret, upon an appeal to just judgement] Reply. 1. Every Bishop hath a power to discern who is fit for his own Communion; and so Leo and the Bishops of the West perceiving Theodoret to be Or­thodox, received him as a Catholick into their Communion; and so might the Bi­shop of Constantinople have done. But when this was done, the Council did not hereupon receive him, and restore him to his Bishoprick, no nor would hear him read the passages between Pope Leo and him, no nor make a Confession of his faith, but cried out against him as a Nestorian, till he had expresly Anathematized Nestorius and Eutiches before the Council, and then they [Page 133] received and restored him: so that the fi­nall judgement was not by Leo, but by the Council: But if in his distresse he appealed as you say, to a just judgement, from an un­just, or sought to make Leo his friend, no wonder; but this is no grant of an Univer­sall Soveraignty in Leo: and if it had granted it in the Empire, thats nothing to the Churches in other Empires: Or if he had granted it as to all the world, he was but one man of the world, and not the Ca­tholick Church. The Council expresly take on them the determination after Leo, and they slight the Legates of the Pope, and pronounce him a creature of the Fa­thers, and give Constantinople equall pri­viledges, though his Legates refuse to con­sent. But of the frivolousnesse of this your instance, see Dr. Field of the Church, lib. 5. cap. 35. pag. 537, 538. and more fully Blondell de primatu, ubi sup. cap. 25. sect. 63, 65.

4. Your next instance is of Cyprians de­sire that Stephen would depose Martian Bi­shop of Arles.] Reply 1. That Epistle can­not be proved to be Cyprians: for the Rea­sons I refer you to M. de Lanny on that subject, and Rivets Critica Sacra: only adding that there are eight copies of Cypri­an, [Page 134] ancient M. S. S. in the English Univer­sities, that have none of them this Epistle to Stephen (of which see Ierem. Stephens Edition of Cyprian de unitate Ecclesiae) 2. Could you prove this Epistle to be Cy­prians, it makes against you more then for you. Not for you: for the distance of Cy­prian, the nearnesse of Stephen might make it a matter more concerning him, and fitter for him to transact: And it was within his Patriarchate, and therefore no wonder if he were minded of it. And yet Cyprian only writes to him to write to the Bishops of France to restrain Martian: [§. 2. Qua­propter facere te oportet plenissimas literas ad coepiscopos nostros in Gallia constitutos, ne ul­tra Maertianum pervicacem & superbum, & divinae pietatis ac fraternae salutis inimicum, collegio nostro insultare patiantur.] Cypri­an did as much to Stephen, as he desired Stephen to do to the Bishops of France: This therefore is against you, if any thing to the purpose: Had you found but such words of a Pope to another Bishop as Cyprian useth to your Pope, you would have taken it as an evidence of his superiority. §. 3. Dirigantur in provinciam & plebem in Are­late c [...]xistentem à te literae, &c. [ Let thy Letters be directed to the Province and people [Page 135] at Arles, &c.] And its plainly an act of non-Communion common to all Bishops towards those unfit for their Communion, that Cyprian speaks of [§. 3. Idcirco enim, frater charissime, copiosum corpus est sacer­dotum concordiae mutuae glutino atque unita­tis vinculo copulatum, ut siquis ex collegio nostro haeresim facere, & gregem Christi la­cerare & vastare tentaverit, subveniant cae­teri, & quasi pastores utiles & misericordes oves dominicas in gregem colligant.] You see it is a common duty of brotherhood, and not an act of jurisdiction that Cyprian speaks of.

5. Your next instance is, that [ the Coun­cil of Sardis determined that no Bishop depo­sed by other neighbouring Bishops, pretending to be heard again, was to have any successor appointed till the case were defined by the Pope: Conc. Sard. cap. 4. cited by Athanas. Apol. 2. pag. 753.] Reply. It seems you are well acquainted with the Council, that know not of what place it was! It was the Council at Sardica, and not at Sardis, that you would mean. Sardis was a City of Lydia, apud Tmolum montem, olim Regio Craesi, inter Thiatiram & Philadelphiam. But this Sardica was a City of Thrace in the confines of the higher Mysia, inter Na­issum [Page 136] Myssiae & Philippopolim Thraciae. As to the instance, 1. This Council was by Augustine rejected as hereticall, though I defend not his opinion. 2. It was of so little note and authority, that it was not known to the Council of Carthage to have the next antecedent Canons (which you would not have omitted if you had read them, its like) in which your writers glory as their chiefest strength; and which Bellarmine thinks Pope Zosimus call'd, the Nicene Ca­non: or rather is it not suspicious that this Canon is but forged, when those Carthage Fathers plainly say, In nullo Patrum concilio decretum invenimus; mentioning that an­tecedent Canon proposed by Hosius, to which this mentioned by you proposed by Gaudentius is but an addition or supple­ment. And it is not like that all these Afri­cane Fathers could be ignorant of those Ca­nons of Sardica, when such abundance of Africane Bishops were at the Council, and that but about 50 years before: you may see in Binnius how hard a strait he is put to, to give any tolerable reason of this, and only saith, that its like some how the Canons were lost: sure Tradition was then grown untrusty. Your Cardinal Cusanus de Con­cord. Cath. l. 2. c. 25. makes a doubt whether [Page 137] the Canon of appeals be indeed a Canon of this Council. 3. But grant it be, yet take these observations, and you shall find small cause of confidence in that Canon.

1. It was made in a Case of the distresse of Athanasius and other Orthodox Orien­tall Bishops, meerly in that strait, to save them and the Churrhes from the Arrians. The Arrians withdrew from the Council being the minor part, and excommunicated Iulius with Athanasius, and other Occiden­tals; and the Occidental Bishops excom­municated the Oriental. Athanasius him­self was a chief man in the Council, and had before been rescued by the help of Iu­lius, and therefore no wonder if they de­sired this safety to their Churches. 2. Note, that this is a thing newly granted now by this Canon, and not any ancient thing. 3. Note, that therefore it was of Humane Right, and not of Divine. 4. Note, that yet this Canon was not received or practi­sed in the Church, but after this the con­trary maintained by Councils, and pra­ctised, as I shall anon prove. 5. That it is not any antecedent Governing Power that the Canon acknowledgeth in the Pope; but in honour of the Memory of S. Peter, as they say, (yet more for their present secu­rity) [Page 138] they give this much to Rome; it be­ing the vulgar opinion that Peter had been there Bishop. 6. That it is not a Power of judging alone that they give, but of causing the re-examination of Causes by the Coun­cil, and adding his assistants in the judge­ment, and so to have the putting of ano­ther into the place forborn till it be done. 7. And I hope still you will remember, that at this Council were no Bishops without the Empire, and that the Roman world was narrower then the Christian world: and therefore, if these Bishops in a part of the Empire had now given (not a Ruling, but) a saving Power to the Pope, so far as is there expressed, this had been far from proving that he had a Ruling Power, as the Vice-Christ over all the world, and that by Divine right: Blame me not to call on you to prove this consequence. 8. There is as much for Appeals to Constantinople, that never claimed a Vice-Christship as Iure di­vino.

6. Your sixth instance out of Basils 74. Epistle I imagine you would have suppres­sed, if ever you had read that Epistle, and had thought that any others would be in­duced by your words to read it. I have given you out of this and other Epistles of [Page 139] Basil, a sufficient proof of his enmity to Popery, in my Key, cap. 26. pag. 170, 171, 172. and cap. 27. pag. 177. that very Epi­stle of Basils was written to the Western Bishops, and not to the Bishop of Rome only, nor so much as naming him: The help that he desireth is either a Visit, or perswasive Letters, never mentioning the least Power that the Pope had more then other Bishops, but only the interest of Credit that the Western Bishops had more then Basil and his Companions: saith he [ For what we say is suspected by many, as if for certain private contentions, we would strike a fear and pusillanimity into their minds: But for you, the further you dwell from them, so much the more credit you have with the common people: to which this is added, that the grace of God is a help to you to care for the oppressed. And if many of you unanimously decree the same things, it is ma­nifest that the Multitude of you decreeing the same things, will cause an undoubted recepti­on of your opinion with all.] You see here upon what terms Liberius his Letters might bestead Eustathius: He having re­ceived him into his own Communion, and Eustathius being Orthodox in words, no wonder that the Synod of Tiana receive [Page 140] him upon an Orthodox confession, and their fellow-Bishops reception and Letters: No doubt but the Letters of many another Bishop might have perswaded them to his reception; though he had more advantages from Rome. Is it not now a fair Argument that you offer? Liberius (sometime an Ar­rian Pope of Rome) by his Letters prevailed with a Synod at Tyana to restore Eustathi­us (an Arrian) that dissembled an Ortho­dox confession: What then? Ergo the Pope of Rome is the Vice-Christ, or was then the Governour of all the Christian world. Soft and fair. 1. Basil gives you other reasons of his interest. 2. He never mentioneth his universall Government, when he had the greatest need to be helped by it, if he had known of such a thing. 3. The Empire is not all the world: If Ba­sil knew the Roman Soveraignty, I am cer­tain he was a wilfull Rebel against it.

7. Your seventh proof is from Chryso­stome, who, you say [ expresly desireth Pope Innocent not to punish his adversaries if they do repent: Chrys. Epist. 2. ad Innoc.] Re­ply. You much wrong your soul in taking your Religion thus on trust; some Book hath told you this untruth, and you believe it, and its like will perswade others of it [Page 141] as you would do me. There is no such word in the Epist. of Chrysostome to Innocent, nor any thing like it.

8. Your eighth proof is this [ The like is written to the Pope by the Council of Ephe­sus in the Case of Iohn of Antioch: Con­cil. Ephes. p. 2. Act. 5.] Reply. 1. The first Council at Ephesus (which no doubt you mean) is in Binnius enough to make a considerable Volume, and divided into six Tomes, and each of those into Chapters, and not into Acts: And if you expect that I should exactly read six Tomes in Folio be­fore I can answer your severall sentences or shreds, you will put me on a twelve-moneths work to answer a few sheets of Paper. If you mean by [p. 3.] [Tom. 2.] and by [Act. 5.] [Cap. 5.] then I must tell you there is not a word of that you say, nor like it. Only there is reference to Ce­lestines and Cyrils Epistles; and Celestine in his Epistle recited Tom. 1. cap. 17. threa­tens Nestorius, that if he repent not, he will excommunicate him, and they will have no more communion with him, which others did as well as he; but not a word of Iohn Bishop of Antioch there. Nor can I find any such thing in the 4. Tome, where Iohn's cause is handled. Indeed the Notes of your [Page 142] Historian divide the Council into Sessions: But in his fifth Session there is nothing of Iohn, but of Nestorius. And in the 4. Sess. Iohn and his Party excommunicate Cyril, Memnon, and theirs. And it was the Coun­cil that suspended first, and after excommu­nicated Iohn. And it is the Emperour to whom he appeals. Indeed your Annotator in Sess. 6. mentions some words of Iu­venals; that he should at least have re­garded the Roman Legates, it being the cu­stome that his Church be directed by that: But I see no proof he brings of those words; and it is known, that Cyril of Alexandria did preside, and subscribed be­fore the Roman Legates, even to the seve­rall Letters of the Synod, as you may see in Tom. 2. cap. 23. & passim.

2. But if your words were there to be found, what are they to your purpose? The Pope can punish the Bishop of An­tioch: But how? Why by excommunica­ting him. True, if he deserve it: that is, by pronouncing him unfit for Christian Communion, and requiring his flock, and exhorting all others to avoid him. And thus may another Bishop do: and thus did Iohn by Cyril of Alexandria, though he was himself of the inferiour Seat: and [Page 143] thus hath the Bishop of Constantinople done by the Bishop of Rome, and so may o­thers.

9. Your ninth proof is from the applica­tions that the Arrians and Athanasius made to Iulius: Ex Athan. ad solit. Epist. Iulius in Lit. ad Arian. apud Athan. Apol. 1. p. 753. Theodoret. lib. 2. c. 4. Athan. Apol. 2. Zo­zom. l. 3. c. 7.] Reply. I marvel you urge such rancid instances, to which you have been so fully and so often answered: I re­fer you to Blondell de Primatu cap. 25. sect. 14, 15. Whittaker de Roman. Pontif. p. 150. & passim. Dr. Field of the Ch. l. 5. c. 35, &c. Briefly, this may shew the vanity of your proof. 1. Sozomen in that place saith, that though he alone wrote for them, yet he wrote in the Name and by the consent of all the Bishops of the West. 2. The advantages of Rome by its reputa­tion and greatness, and the number and quality of the Western Bishops, made their Judgement and Communion valuable to others: Basil before cited tells you on what grounds when Churches disagree, those that are distant are supposed to be im­partiall, especially when numerous. To which is added, which Basil intimates, that some hope of help from the Secular [Page 144] powers, by the interposition of the We­stern Bishops, made them the more sought to. 3. And the Primacy of Rome (though it had no Soveraignty) made it seem irre­gular, that a Patriarch should be deposed without the knowledge and judgment of the Patriarchs of the precedent Seats. This was the custome that Iulius spoke of, and the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Ale­xandria might have said as much, if the Pa­triarch of Ierusalem or Antioch had been deposed without them. 4. Every Patri­arch might absolve the Innocent, and hold communion with them in his own Patriar­chate; and if any be against it, (as the Ar­rians here were, and sent false accusations against Athanasius to Iulius) he may re­quire them to prove their accusations, if they will have him moved by them. Our own Communion with men, is to be dire­cted by the judgment of our own well in­formed consciences. Iulius desired not any more then to be one with a Council that should decide the case. Councils then had the Rule, and Patriarchs were the most ho­nourable Members of those Councils, but no Rulers of them. 5. Yet Sozomen and others tell you, that Iulius, when he had done his best to befriend Athanasius and [Page 145] Paulus could do no good, nor prevail with the Bishops of the East, till the Emperors commands prevailed: yea the Eastern Bi­shops tell him that he should not meddle with their proceedings no more then they did with his, when he dealt with the Nova­tians; seeing the greatness of Cities maketh not the power of one Bishop greater then another: and so they took it ill that he interposed, though but to call the matter to a Synod, when a Patriarch was deposed. Any Bishop might have attempted to re­lieve the oppressed as far as Iulius did: especially if he had such advantages as aforesaid to encourage him. All your con­sequences here therefore are denied. 1. It is denied, that because Iulius made this at­tempt, that therefore he was Universal Ru­ler in the Empire. 2. It is denied that it will thence follow, if he were so, that it had been by Divine Right, any more then Con­stantinople had equall priviledges by Divine Right. 3. It is denied that it hence fol­loweth, that either by Divine or humane right, he had any Power to govern the rest of the world without the Empire. Had you all that you would rack these testimo­nies to speak, it is but that he was made by Councils and Emperours the chief Bi­shop [Page 146] or Patriarch in a Nationall Church (I mean, a Church in one Princes Domini­on) as the Archbishop of Canterbury was in England. But a Nationall or Imperiall Church is not the Universall. And with­all, oppressed men will seek relief from any that may help them.

In your Margin you adde that [ Concern­ing S. Athanasius being judged, and rightly, by P. Julius, Chamier acknowledgeth the matter of fact to be so: but against all anti­quity pretends that judgment to have been un­just.] Reply. Take it not ill Sir I beseech you, if I awake your conscience, to tell me, how you dare write so many untruths, which you knew, or might know, I could quickly manifest. Both parts of your say­ing of Chamier p. 497, are untrue. 1. The matter of fact is it that he denieth: He proveth to you from Sozomens words, that Athanasius did make no appeal to a Judge, but only fled for help to a friend: He shews you that Iulius did not play the Judge, but the helper of the spoiled, and that it was not an act of Judgement. 2. He therefore accuseth him not of wrong judge­ing, but only mentioneth his not hearing the accused, to shew that he did not play the part of a Judge, but a friend, as Chry­sostome [Page 147] did by some that fled to him. I pray answer his reasons.

And for what you say again in your Margin of Theodoret; I say again, that he appealeth to the Bishop of Rome for help; as a person who with the Western Bishops might sway much against his adversaries, but not as to an Universal Governour or Judge: no not as to the Universal Judge of the Church Imperiall; much less of all the Catholick Churches.

10. Your tenth proof is from Chryso­stomes Case, where you say some things un­true, and some impertinent. 1. That Chry­sostome appeals to Innocent from the Coun­cil of Constantinople is untrue, if you mean it of an Appeal to a superiour Court or Judge; much more if as to an Universal Judge: But indeed in his banishment, when all other help failed, he wrote to him to in­terpose and help him as far as he could. I need no other proof of the Negative then, 1. That there is no proof of the Affirma­tive, that ever he made any such appeal. 2. In his first Epistle to Innocent, he tells him over and over, that [ he appealed to a Synod, and required Iudgement] and that he was cast into a ship for banishment [ because he ap­pealed to a Synod and a righteous judgement] [Page 148] never mentioning a word of any such ap­peal to the Pope. Yea he urgeth the Pope to befriend and help him, by that argument, that he was still ready to stand to uncorrupt­ed Judges, never mentioning the Pope as Judge. By all which it appears it was but the assistance of his intercession that he re­quireth: and withall, perhaps the excom­municating of the wicked, which another Bishop might have done. Yea, and it seems it was not to Innocent only, but to others with him that he wrote; for he would scarce else have used the terms [ [...]] But what need we more then his own words to know his request: saith he [ Let those that are found to have done so wickedly, be subject to the penalty of the Ecclesiasticall Laws: but for us that are not convicted, nor found guilty, grant us to enjoy your Letters, and your charity, and all others whose society we did formerly enjoy.] The Ecclesiastical Laws enabled each Patriarch and Bishop to sen­tence in his own Diocess; though the per­son sentenced lived out of their Diocess, yet they might renounce all communion with him: Churches that have no power over one another, may have communion with one another; and that communion [Page 149] they may hold and renounce as there is cause. Now if a neighbour Patriarch with so many Bishops of the West had renounc'd Communion with Chrysostomes enemies, and also written their Letters on his behalf, and taken him still as in their Communion, this he hoped would much further his restaurati­on: which yet he doubted, as he had cause. For in his second Epistle he thanks him for doing his part, though it did no good, or did not avail.

And it is to be noted, that your Author Nicephorus tells you, lib. 13. cap. 31. that Chrysostomes Letters, and his fellow-Bishops also, and the Clergies of Constantinople, were all written both to the Emperour Ho­norius and to Innocent: And therefore you may see by that on what account it was, and what help they did expect. The Em­perour was not to excommunicate, but his Letters might do much.

Well, but you alledge Niceph. l. 13. c. 34. to prove 1. Chrysostomes appeal: But you have better or worse eyes then I, for I can find there no such thing, but a seeking for help as aforesaid. 2. You say [Innocen­tius nulls his condemnation, and declares him innocent.] Ans. So might another Bishop have declared him: But how far it should [Page 150] be regarded, was not in his power. 3. You say he excommunicates Atticus and Theopilus, and 4. Arcadius the Emperor also, and Eudoxia.] Reply. 1. If he did so and did well, another Bishop might as well have done it. Mennas excommunicated Vigilius of Rome. Excommunicating is not alwayes an act of Jurisdiction, but a re­nouncing of Communion, with a Ministe­riall binding, which any Pastor on a just occasion may exercise, even on those that are not of his Diocess; examples in Church-history are common. 2. But I would have you answer Dr. Whittakers Reasons, by which he proves that Nicephorus is a fabler in this relation, and that that Epistle is not Innocents which cap. 34. he reciteth, Lib. de pontif. Rom. Contr. 4. Qu. 4. pag. 454, 455. 1. Neither Socrates, Theodoret or Sozomen make any mention of this ex­communication, who yet write much of the Case of Chrysostome and Arcadius: And would these men that lived so near that time have all silenced so great and rare a thing, as the excommunication of the Emperour and Empress, which would have made so great a noise and stir, that yet mention Ambrose his censure of Theodosius? 2. This Bull of Innocents, (as Nicephorus would [Page 151] have us believe it) hath such falshoods, con­trary to more credible history, as bewray the forgery. For Socrates lib. 6. c. 19. writeth, that Eudoxia died the same year that Chry­sostome was banished, and that Chrysostome died the third year of his banishment: And Sozomen saith l. 8. c. 28. that Chrysostome was in banishment three years after the death of Eudoxia: But, if Nicephorus were to be believed, Eudoxia was alive and ex­communicated by Innocent after Chryso­stomes death. Nor can it be said that Inno­cent knew not of her death; for his Legats were sent to Constantinople in Atticus time, who succeeded Arsacius, who outlived Eu­doxia.] This is the summe of Dr. Whittakers confutation of Nicephorus. And withall, who knows not how full of fictions Nice­phorus is?

In your Margin you pretend to confute Chamier p. 498. as saying [ That other Bi­shops restored those wrongfully deposed as well as the Pope,] to which you say that [ never single Bishop restored any who were out of their respective Diocess, &c. whereas the Bishop of Rome by his sole and single au­thority, restored Bishops wrongfully deposed all the Church over.] Reply. 1. It seems you took Chamiers words on trust: peruse [Page 152] that page, and see his words. 2. Single Bi­shops have censured, and therefore might as well remit their own censures. Ambrose censured Theodosius, who was no fixed Member of his charge, and he remitted the Censure. Epiphanius presumed even at Constantinople to excommunicate Dioscorus and his Brethren, Socrat. lib. 6. c. 14. And many instances may be brought both of ex­communicating, and again receiving to com­munion by particular Bishops, even as to those that were not of their charge. And if the fact were not proved, yet the for­bearance proveth not the want of power. 3. I deny your unproved assertion, that the Bishop of Rome singly restored all the Church over: It is a meer fiction. How many restored he out of the Empire? Or in the Empire out of his Patriarchate, but suasorily or Synodically.

Your next instance of Theodosius his not permitting the Council at Ephesus to be assembled, and his reconciling himself to the Church, is meerly impertinent: We know that he and other Princes usually wrote to Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, &c. or spoke or sent to more then one of the Patriarchs before they called a Council. You cannot but know that Councils have [Page 153] been called without the Pope: and that neither this, nor an Emperours forsaking his errour, is a sign of the Popes Universal Government. That Emperour gave suffi­cient testimony, and so did the Bishops that adhered to Dioscorus, that in those dayes the Pope was taken for fallible and control­able, when they excommunicated him: But when you cite out of any Author the words that you build on, I shall take more parti­cular notice of them. Till then this is enough, with this addition, that the Em­perours subjection, if he had been subject (not to an Ambrose, or other Bishop, but) only to Rome, would have been no proof that any without the Empire were his sub­jects: No more then the King of Englands subjection to the Archbishop of Canterbu­ry, would have proved that the King of France was subject to him.

12. Your twelfth proof from the Coun­cil of Chalcedon, is from a witness alone sufficient to overthrow your cause, as I have proved to you. This Synod expresly deter­mineth, that your Primacy is a novel hu­mane invention; that it was given you by the Fathers, because Rome was the Imperial Seat. If you believe this Synod, the Con­troversie is at end: If you do not, why [Page 154] do you cite it? and why pretend you to be­lieve Generall Councils?

But what have you from this Council against this Council? Why, 1. You say Martian wrote to Leo, that by the Popes Au­thority a generall Council might be gathered, in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to choose.] Reply. 1. Whereas for this you cite Act. Concil. Chalcedon. 1. You tell me not in what Author, whether Crabbe, Binnius, Surius, Nicolinus, or where I must seek it. I have perused the Act. 1. in Binnius, which is 63 pages in Fo­lio (such tasks your citations set me) and find no such thing; and therefore take it to be your mistake. But in the preambul. E­pist. I find that Valentinian and Martian desire Leo's prayers, and contrary to your words, that they say [ Hoc ipsum nobis pro­priis liter is tua sanctitas manifestet, quatenus in omnem Orientem & in ipsam Thraciam & Illyricum sacrae nostrae literae dirigantur, ut ad quendam definitum locum qui nobis placu­erit, omnes sanctissimi Episcopi debeant con­venire.] It is not [ qui vobis placuerit] but [ qui nobis.] But what if you had spoke truth, doth it follow that Leo was Christs Vicar-general Governour of the world, because that the Soveraign of one Com­monwealth [Page 155] did give him leave to choose the place of a Council? Serious things should not be thus jested with.

2. You say Anatolius and the rest of the Eastern Bishops sent to Pope Leo the professi­ons of their faith by his order.] Reply. 1. And what then? therefore Pope Leo was both Governour of them and all the Chri­stian world. You should not provoke men to laughter about serious things, I tell you. Can you prove this Consequence? Confes­sions were ordinarily sent in order to Com­munion, or to satisfie the offended, without respect to superiority. 2. But I see not the proof of your impertinent words. Pul­cherius Epistle to Leo, expresseth that Leo had sent his Confession first to Anatolius, to which Anatolius consented. By your Rule then Leo was subject to Anatolius.

3. You say the Popes Legates sate first in Council.] Reply. What then? therefore the Pope was Governour of the Christian world, though not a man out of the Empire were of the Council. Are you still in jest? But if it must be so, then I can prove that others were the Universal Governours, be­cause at Nice, and other Councils they sate before the Legates of the Pope, and in many his Legats had no place. Is this ar­gument [Page 156] good think you? O unfaithful par­tiality in the matters of salvation!

4. You say, they prohibited Dioscorus to sit by his order] Reply. 1. What then? therefore he was Universal Governour of the Church. All alike. Any accuser in a Parliament or Synod may require that the Accused may not sit as judge, till he be tri­ed. 2. But did you not know that Leo's Legates were not obeyed; but that the Gloriosissimi judices & amplissimus senatus, required that the cause should be first made known: and that it was not done till Euse­bius Episcop. Dorylaei had read his bill of complaint? Binnius Act 1. pag. 5.

5. You say the Popes Legates pronoun­ced the Church of Rome to be Caput omni­um Ecclesiarum] Reply. 1. What then? therefore he was Governour of all the Chri­stian world? I deny the consequence. You do nothing but beg: not a word of proof. Caput was but membrum principale, the Pa­triarch primae sedes, and that but in the Em­pire. 2. The Popes Legates were not the Council, nor judges in their own cause, and not opposing, signifies not alwayes a con­sent. 3. But the Council do as I said, ex­presly define the point, both what your Pri­macy is, and of how long standing, and of [Page 157] whose institution, and that Constantinople on the same grounds had equall privi­ledges.

6. You say, all the Fathers acknowledged thtmselves Leo 's Children, and wrote to him as their Father.] Reply. Of this you give me not any proof, but leave me to read 190 pages in Folio, to see whether you say true or no. And what if you do, (as I believe you do) can a man of any reading be ignorant how ordinarily other Bishops were stiled Fathers, even by their fellow-Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome?

7. You add, that they humbly begged of him that the Patriarch of Constantinople might h [...]ve the first place next Rome, which notwithstanding the Council had consented to, as had also the third general Council at Ephe­sus before, yet they esteemed their grants of no sufficient force, till they were confirmed by the Pope.] Reply. So far were the Council from what you falsly say of them, that they put it into their Canons, that Constantinople should have the second place, yea and equal privi­ledges with Rome, and that they had this on the same grounds as Rome had its Primacy, even because it was the Imperial Seat: Vid. Bin. pag. 133, 124. col. 2. And not only Ephesus, but the second general Council at [Page 158] Constantinople, they tell you had decreed the same before. You see then (contrary to your fiction) that three general Councils (of the greatest, likened by Gregory to the 4 Evan­gelists) not only judged without the Pope, but by your own confession against him (for you say, he consented not) yea so much did they slight the Popes consent, that when his Legates dissented, they were not heard: See Bin. pag. 134, 136. They persisted in the Council to maintain their Canon 38. notwithstanding the contradiction of Lu­cretius and Paschasinus, and by the Judges it was accordingly pronounced, p 137. And unanimously the whole Synod consented, never stopping at the Roman dissent. Perga­mius Bishop of Antioch saith [ in omnibus sanctissimum Archiepiscopum Regiae civitatis novae Romae in honore & cura sicut Patrem praecipuum habere nos convenit.] No man contradicted this: And is not this as much or more, then you alledge as spoke to Leo? They call Leo (you say) Father: And the Bishop of Constantinople is pronounced the Chief Father in all things, in honour and Cure. And Eusebius Bishop of Doryl. the chief adversary of Dioscorus, witnessed that he himself, in the presence of the Clergy of Constantinople, did read this Canon to the [Page 159] Pope at Rome, and he received it. Upon which your Historian hath no better an ob­servation, then that [ either Eusebius lyed, or else at that hour he deceived Leo.] Its true that the Synod writ to him for his con­sent: but not as suspending any of their Decrees on it; but telling him over and over, that the things were by them defined and confirmed already, pag. 140. that which they desired of him was, what Synods ordi­narily did of Bishops of their Communion that were absent [ Haec, sicut propria, & amica, & ad decorem convenientissima, dig­nare complecti, sanctissime & beatissime pater.]

13. In your Margin you tell me that A­gapet in the time of Iustinian depo [...]ed An­thymius in Constantinople against the will of the Emperour & the Empress.] Reply. 1. And doth it follow, that because he did it, there­fore he did it justly, yea and as the Gover­nour of that Church? when Menna Bishop of Constantinople excommunicated Pope Vi­gilius, was he not even with him? and did that prove that Rome was subject to Con­stantinople? Niceph. l. 17. c. 26. When Dio­scorus excommunicated Leo, and an Eastern Synod excommunicated Iulius ( Sozom. l. 3. c. 11.) that proves not that they did it just­ly, [Page 160] or as his Governours. Honorius the Em­perour deposed Boniface 1. Othe with a Sy­nod deposed Iohan. 13. Iustinian deposed Sylverius and Vigilius: Will you confess it therefore justly done? 2. As to the hi­story I refer you to the full answer of Blondel to Perron. cap. 25. sect. 84, 85. 3. Usur­pation and deposing one another by rash sentences was then no rare thing, Eusebius of Nicomedia threatened the deposing of Alexander of Constantinople, who sure was not his subject, Socrat. lib. 1. c. 37. ( vel. 25.) Acacius of Caesarea and his party depose not only Eleusius, Basilius and many others, but with them also Macedonius Bishop of Constantinople: Socrat. lib. 2. c. 33. ( vel. 42.) Did this prove Acacius the Vice-Christ? What should I instance in Theophilus actions against Chrysostome, or Cyrils against Iohan. Antiochen. and many such like? 4. Still you suppose one Empire to be all the Christian world: We must grant you that in all your instances!

14. For what you alledge from Gregory, I shall give you enough of him anon for your satisfaction, if you will be indifferent. As to your citation what can I say? A years time were little enough to search after your citations, if you should thus write but [Page 161] many more sheets. (If a man had so much time and so little wit as to attend you) You turn me to Greg. cap. 7. ep. 63. but what Book, or what Indiction, you tell me not: But whatever it be, false it must needs be, there being no one Book of his Epistles (ac­cording to all the Editions that I have seen) where c. 7. and ep. 63. do agree or meet to­gether. But at last I found the words in lib. 7. c. 63. ep. 63. To which I say, that ei­ther your great Gregory by [subject] meant that the Bishop of Constantinople was of an inferiour Order, as the Patriarch of Ale­xandria and Antioch were to Constantinople, that yet had no Government of them; or else he could say and unsay: But I doubt not but this was all his sense. But if it had been otherwise, Constantinople and the Em­pire was not all the Christian world.

Your next citation is lib. 7. ep. 37. But its falsly cited: There is no such word; and you are in so much haste for an answer, that I will not read over all Gregories Epistles.

15. You say Cyril would not break off Communion with Nestorius till Celestine had condemned him; of this you give us no proof: But what if it be true? Did you think that it proved the Pope to be the Vice-Christ? Prudence might well make Cyril [Page 162] cautelous in excommunicating a Patriarch. And we still grant you, that the Order of the Empire had given the Roman Bishop the Primacy therein: and therefore no wonder if his consent were expected. But that Ne­storius was condemned by a Council needs no proof: And what if Celestine began and first condemned him? I she therefore the Universal Bishop? But it was not Celestine alone, but a Synod of the Western Bishops. And yet Cyril did not hereupon reject him without further warning: And what was it that he threatned, but to hold no Commu­nion with him? Vid. Concil. Ephes. 1. Tom. 1. cap. 14. And though Pride made ex­communication an Engine to advance one Bishop above others, I can easily prove that if I had then lived, it had been my duty to avoid Communion with a notorious Here­tick, though he had been Pope.

The long story that you next tell, is but to fill up Paper, that Cyril received the Popes Letters, that Nestorius repented not, that he accused Cyril, that Theodosius wrote to Ce­lestine about a Council; and many such im­pertinent words: But the proof is, that Cy­ril was the Popes chief Legate Ordinary! Forsooth because in his absence he was the chief Patriarch; therefore he is said Cele­stini [Page 163] locum tenere, which he desired. Well, let your Pope sit highest, seeing he so trou­bles all the world for it. Christ will shortly bid him come down lower, when he hum­bleth them that exalt themselves. That Cy­ril subscribed before Philip, you may see, Tom. 2. cap. 23. but where I may find that Philip subscribed first, you tell me not. But what if the Archbishop of Canterbury sate highest, and subscribed first in England? Doth it follow that he was Governour of all the world? no nor of York it self neither.

16. And here you tell us of Iuvenal, Act. 6. Repl. 1. The Council is not divided into Acts in Binnius, but many Tomes and Chapters: but your words are in the Notes added by your historian; but how to prove them Iuvenals words I know no [...], nor find in him or you. 2. But why were not the an­tecedent words of the Bishop of Antioch and his Clergy as valid to the contrary, as Iuvenals for this? 3. If these words were spoken, they only import a Iudgeing in Council as a chief member of it, and not of himself. And his apostolica ordinatione is ex­presly contrary to the [...]orecited Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, and therefore not to be believed. Yet some called things [Page 164] done Ordinatione apostolica, which were or­dained by the Seats which were held Apo­stolike. 4. But still you resolve to forget that Antioch or the Empire extended not to the Antipodes, nor contained all the Ca­tholick Church.

17. You next tell me of Valentinians words A. D. 445. Reply. It is the most plausible of all your testimonies, but worth nothing to your end. For 1. Though Theodosius name pro forma were at it, yet it was only Valentinians act, and done at Rome, where Leo prevailed with a raw unexperienced Prince to word the Epistle as he desired; so that it is rather Leo's, then the Emperours originally: And Leo was the first that at­tempted the excessive advancement of his Seat above the rest of the Patriarchs. 2. It is known that the Emperours sometime gave the Primacy to Rome, and sometime to Con­stantinople, as they were pleased or displea­sed by each of them. So did Iustinian, who A. D. 530. Lampadio & Oreste Coss. C. de Episcopis lib. 1. lege 24. saith [ Constanti­nopolitana Ecclesia omnium aliarum est Ca­put] [ The Church of Constantinople is the Head of all other.] 3. It is your fiction, and not the words of Valentinian (or Leo) that [ the succession from Peter was the foundation [Page 165] of Romes Primacy.] It was then believed that Antioch and other Churches had a suc­cession from Peter. It is the Merit of Peter, and the Dignity of the City of Rome, and the Authority of the Synod joyntly that he ascribeth it to. The Merit of Peter was no­thing but the Motive upon which Leo would have men believe the Synod gave the Prima­cy to Rome: And Hosius in the Council of Sardica indeed useth that as his motive, [Let us for the honour of Peter, &c.] They had a conceit that where Peter last preached, and was martyred and buried, and his relicts lay, there he should be most honoured. 4. Here is not the least intimation that this Primacy was by Gods appointment, or the Apostles, but the Synods: Nor that it had continued so from Peters dayes, but that joyntly for Peters Merits (and honour) and the Cities dignity, it was given by the Synod. 5. And it was but Leo's fraud to perswade the raw Emperour of the autho­rity of a Synod, which he would not name, because the Synod of Sardica was in little or no authority in those daies. The rest of the reasons were fraudulent also; which though they prevailed with this Emperour, yet they took not in the East. And Leo himself it seems durst not pretend to a Divine Right [Page 166] and Institution, nor to a succession of Pri­macy from the Apostles. 6. But nothing is more false then your assertion, that he ex­tendeth the power [ over the whole visible Church.] The word [ Vniversitas] is all that you translate in your comment, [ the whole visible Church] As if you knew not that there was a Roman Vniversality, & that Roman Councils were called Vniversall, when no Bishops out of that one Common­wealth were present; and that the Church in the Empire is oft called [ the whole Church.] Yea [ the Roman world] was not an unusuall phrase. And I pray you tell me, what power Valentinian had out of the Em­pire? who yet interpos [...]th his authority there, [ Nequid praeter authoritatem sedis istiusilli [...]itum, &c.] [ & ut p [...]x ubique servetur.] And in the end, it is All the Pro­vinces, that is, the Vniversity that he ex­tends his precepts to. 7. And for that an­nexed [ that without the Emperours Letters, his authority was to be of force through France; for what shall not be lawfull, &c.] I Ans. No wonder: [...]or France was part of his Patriarcha [...]e, and the Laws of the Em­pire had confirmed his Patriarchal power: and those Laws might seem, with the reve­rence of Synods, without new Letters, to do [Page 167] much: But yet it seems, that the rising pow­er needed this extraordinary secular help: Hilary it seems with his Bishops thought, that even to his Patriarch he owed no such obedience as Leo here by force exacteth. So that your highest witness ( Leo by the mouth of Valentinian) is for no more then a Primacy, with a swelled power in the Ro­man Universality; but they never medled with the rest of the Christian world: It seems by all their writings and attempts, this never came into their thoughts.

And its no credit to your cause, that this Hilary was (by Baronius confession) a man of extraordinary holiness and knowledge, and is Sainted among you, and hath his Day in your Calendar. And yet Valentinian had great provocation to interpose (if Leo told him no untruths, for his own advantage): For it was no less then laying siege to Cities, to force Bishops on them without their con­sent, that he is accused of; which shews to what odious pride and usurpation, prospe­rity even then had raised the Clergy: fitter to be lamented with floods of tears, then to be defended by any honest Christian: Leo himself may be the principal instance.

18. You next return to the Council of Chal­cedon, Act. 1. & seq. where 1. You refer me [Page 168] to that Act. 1. where is no such matter: but you add [ & seq.] that I may have an hun­dred and ninety pages in Folio to peruse, and then you call for a speedy answer: But the Epistle to Leo is in the end of Act. 16. pag. ( Bin.) 139. 2. And there you do but falsly thrust in the word [ thou governst us] and so you have made your self a witness, because you could find none: The words are [ Quibus tu quidem sicut membris caput prae­eras, in his qui tuum tenebant ordinem bene­volentiam praeferens: Imperatores vero ador­nandum decentissime praesidebant.] Now [ to go before] with you must be [ to Govern]: If so, then Aurelius at the Council of Car­thage, and others in Councils that presided, did govern them. It was but [ benevolenti­am praetulisse] that they acknowledged: And that the Magistrates not only presided indeed, but did the work of Judges and Governours, is express in the Acts; its after wrote in that Epistle [ Haec sunt, quae tecum, qui spiritu praesens eras, & complacere tan­quam fratribus deliberasti, & qui pene per tuorum vicariorum sapientiam videbaris, à nobis effecimus] And [ haec à tua sanctitate fuerint inchoata] and yet [ Qui enim locum vestrae sanctitatis obtinent, iis ita constitutis vehementer resistere tentaverunt.] From all [Page 169] which it appeareth, that he only is acknow­ledged to lead the way, and to please them as his brethren, and to help them by the wis­dome of his substitutes; and yet that the Council would not yield to their vehement resistance of one particular.

But I have told you oft enough that the Council shall be judge, not in a comple­mentall Epistle, but in Can. 28. where your Primacy is acknowledged; but 1. As a gift of the Fathers. 2. And therefore as new. 3. For the Cities dignity. 4. And it can be of no further extent then the Empire; the Givers and this Council being but the Mem­bers of that one Commonwealth: So that all is but a novel Imperial Primacy.

19. And for the words of Vincentius Li­rinensis, c. 9. what are they to your purpose? [ quantum loci authoritate] signifieth no more then we confess, viz. that in those times the greatness of Rome, and humane Ordination thereupon, had given them that precedency, by which their [ loci authoritas] had the advantage of any other Seat: Or else they had never swelled to their impi­ous Usurpation.

I have plainly proved to you in the End of my [ safe Religion] that Vincentius was no Papist.

[Page 170]But you draw an argument from the word [ sanxit]. As if you were ignorant that bigger words then that are applied to them that have no governing power; Quan­tum in se sanxit, he charged them that they should not innovate: And what? is it P. Ste­phen that is the Law-giver of the Law against unjust innovation? Did not Cyprian believe that this was a Law of Christ before Stephen medled in that business? What Stephens authority was in those dayes, we need no other witnesses then Firmilian, Cyprian, and a Council of Carthage, who slighted the Pope as much as I do.

I pray answer Cyprians testimony and ar­guments against Popery, cited by me in the Disp. 3. of my [ safe Religion.]

20. You say you will conclude with the saying of your priest Philip, and Arcadius at Ephesus: And 1. You take it for granted that all consented to what they contradicted not: But your word is all the proof of the consequence. Nothing more common, then in Senates and Synods to say nothing to many passages in speeches, not consented to. If no word not consented to in any mans speech must pass without contradicti­on, Senates and Synods would be no wiser Societies then Billingsgate affords; nor [Page 171] more harmonious then a Fair or vulgar rout: What confusion would contradicti­ons make among them?

2. You turn me to Tom. 2. pag. 327. Act. 1. I began to hope of some expedition here: But you tell me not at all what Au­thor you use: And in Binnius which I use, the Tomes are not divided into Acts, but Chapters, and p [...]g. 327. is long b [...]fore this Counc [...]l. So [...]hat I must believe you, or search paper enough for a weeks reading to disprove you: This once I will believe you, to save me that labour, and supposing all rightly cited, I reply: 1. Philip was not the Council. You bear witness to your selves, therefore your witness is not credi­ble. Yet I have given you instances in my [ Key] (which I would transcribe if I thought that you could not as well read Print as M. S.) of higher expressions then Caput and fundamentum, given to Andrew by Isychius, and equal expressions to others, as well as Rome and Peter. And who is igno­rant that knowe [...]h any thing of Church-history, that others were called successours of Peter as well as the Bishop of Rome? And that the Claves regni were given to him, is no proof that they were not given also to all the rest of the Apostles. And [Page 172] where you say [Arcadius condemneth Ne­storius for contemning the command of the Apostolick Sea.] (You tell me not where to find it.) I answer you still, that its long since your Sea begun to swell and rage, but if you must have us grant you all these con­sequences, [Celestine commanded, therefore he justly commanded, therefore another might not as well have commanded him: (as one Pastor may do another, though equall, in the name of Christ): and therefore he had power to command without the Empire, even over all the Catholick Church; and therefore the Council was of this mind: yea, therefore the universal Church was of this mind, that the Pope was its universal head.] You still are guilty of sporting about seri­ous things, and moving pity, instead of of­fering the least proof.

Yet fear you not to say [ that in the time of the holy Oecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, the universal consent of the whole Catholick Church was for you in this point.] The Lord keep our consciences from being the servants of our opinions or interests. 1. Was the Popes Legate the whole Catholick Church? 2. Was there one man at either of these Councils but within the Empire, yea a piece of the Em­pire? [Page 173] So that they were but such as we now call National Councils, that is, consisting on­ly of the subjects of one Republick. 3. Did the Council speak a word for your power without the Empire? 4. Do they not de­termine it so expresly to be of humane right, that Bellarmine hath nothing regard­able to say against it ( Can. 28. Conc. Chalced.) but that they spoke falsly? And yet your opinion or interest hath tempted you to ap­peal. viz. to the Sun that there is no such thing as light.

21. After the conclusion you have a su­pernumerary in your Margin, from Greg. lib. 10. Epist. 30. But there is no such word in that Epistle, nor is it of any such subject. But is the 31. Epistle its like that your leader meant. And there's no more but that a Bishop not named (person or place) having fallen into Schism voluntarily, swore never more to depart from the Unity of the Catholick Church, or the sea of Rome. But 1. So may a Bishop of the Roman Province do (or Patriarchate) without believing Rome to be the Universal Head. So might one in any other Province have done: And yet it follows not that he ought to do so, be­cause he did so. You see now what all your proofs are come to, and how shame­fully [Page 174] naked you have left your cause.

In summ, of all the testimonies produced, 1. You have not named one man that was a Papist (Pope Leo was the nearest of any man) nor one testimony that ever a Pope of Rome had the Government of all the Church without the verge of the Roman Empire; but only that he was to the Roman Church, as the Archbishop of Canterbury to the English Church: And as between Canterbury and York, so between Rome and Constantinople, there have been contentions for preheminency: But if I can prove Can­terbury to be before York, or Rome before Constantinople, that will prove neither of them to be Ruler at the Antipodes, or of all the Christian world. 2. Much less have you proved that ever any Church was of this opinion, that the Pope was by Divine Right the Governour of all the world, when you cannot prove one man of that opinion. 3. Much less have you proved a succession of such a Church from the Apostles, having said as much as nothing concerning the first 300 years. 4. And yet much less have you proved, that the whole Catholick Church was of this opinion. 5. And least of all have you proved, that the whole Church took this Primacy of Rome, to be of necessity [Page 175] to the very Being of the Church, and to our salvation; and not only ad melius esse, as a point of Order. So that you have left your Cause in shameful nakedness, as if you had con­fessed, that you can prove nothing.

In the end you return to terms. To what you say about the word [ Christians] I only say, that its but equivocally applied to any that profess not all the Essentialls of Chri­stianity, of which Popery is none, any more then Pride is.

About the word [ Monarch] in good sad­ness, do you deny the Pope to be [ an impe­rious sole Commander.] Which of these is it that you deny? not that he is [ a Com­mander] not that he is [ imperious] not that he is [ sole] in his Soveraignty! I would either you or we knew what you hold or deny. But perhaps the next words shew the difference [ as Temporal Kings.] But this saith not a word wherein they differ from [ Temporal Kings]: sure your fol­lowing words shew not the difference. 1. Kings may [ receive power from Christ.] 2. Kings must rule [ in meekness, charity and humility.] But I think the meekness, charity and humility of Popes, hath been far below even wicked Kings (if cruel murdering Chri­stians for Religion, and setting the world [Page 176] on fire may be witness) as your own Histo­ries assure us. 3. The Government of Kings also is for [ mens eternal good] how­ever Papists would make them but their ex­ecutioners in such things. 4. Brethren, as such, are no subjects: and therefore if the Pope Rule men but as Brethren, he rules them not by Governing authority at all. 5. Children to him we are not: You must mean it but Metaphorically! And what mean you then? Is it that he must do it in Love for their good? So also must Kings: So that you have yet exprest no difference at all.

But our Question is not new, nor in un­usuall terms: What Soveraignty you claim, you know or should know. Are you igno­rant that Bellarmine, Boverius, and ordina­rily your Writers labour to prove that the Government of the Church is Monarchi­call, and that the Pope is the Monarch? the supream Head and Ruler, which in English is the Soveraign. Are you ashamed of the very Cause or Title of it, which you will have necessary to our salvation?

Next you say, that you [very much dis­like the Title of Vice-Christ, as proud and in­solent, and utterly disclaim from it, neither was it ever given by any sufficient authority [Page 177] to your Popes, or did they ever accept of it.] Reply. Now blessed be God that makes sin a shame to it self, that the Patrons of it dare scarce own it without some paint or vi­zard.

1. Is not the very life of the Cause be­tween you and us, whether the Pope be the Universal Head of the Church, vice Christi. & vicarius Christi? Are not these the most common titles that Papists give them, and that they take unto themselves? Nay look back into your own papers here pag. 6. whe­ther you say not that they are [ Instituted Governours in Christs place of his whole Vi­sible Church.] 2. Doth not Bellarmine (as I have cited elsewhere) labour to prove, that it is not as an Apostle that the Pope succeeds Peter, but as a Head of the Church in Christs stead? Doth not Boverius (cited in my Key) labour to prove him the Vicar of Christ, and to be Vice Christi? And what fitter English have we for the Kings deputy in a distant Kingdom, who is Vice Regis, then the Vice-King? Or a Chancelors deputy, then [the Vicechancellor]: Vice Christi is your own common word, and Vicarius Christi; none more common scarce then the latter: And what English is there fitter for this, then the Vice-Christ, or Vicar of Christ? [Page 178] It is indeed the very term that expresseth properly as man can speak, the true point and life of the Controversie between us. And how could you suffer your pen to set down that the Popes did never accept of this, when it is their own common phrase [ Vice Christi, & Vicarius Christi?] But here again remember (and let it be a wit­ness against you) that you dislike and ut­terly disclaim the very name that signifieth the Papal Power, as Proud and Insolent. And if you abhor Popery while you tice men to it, let my soul abhor it, and let all that regard their souls abhor it. Blessed be that Light that hath brought it to be num­bred with the works of darkness.

Were it not more tedious then necessary, I would cite you the words [ Vice Christi & Vicarius Christi] out of Popes and multi­tudes of your Writers. But alas thats not the highest: The Vice-God is a Title that they have not thought insolent, or words of the same signification. Would you have my proof? Pardon it then for proving your pen so false and deceitfull (thats not my fault.)

Pope Iulius the second in his General Council at the Laterane, saith ( Cont. Prag­mat. sanct. monitor. Binnius Vol. 4. pag. 560.) [Page 179] [ Though the institutions of sacred Canons, holy fathers, and Popes of Rome—and their Decrees be judged immutable, as made by Divine inspiration; yet the Pope of Rome, who, though of unequal Merits, holdeth the place of the eternall King, and the Maker of all things, and all Laws on earth, may abro­gate these decrees when they are abused.] Here from your Judge of faith it self, you hear [ that the Pope holds the place of the eternal King, the Maker of all things and Laws.]

Pope Sixtus Quartus in passagio sive Bul­la contra Turcos, sent to Philip Palatine Elector 1481. in Breheri Tom. 2. pag. 162. Vol. 2. saith [ Vniversos Christianos Prin­cipes, ac omnes Christi fid [...]les requirere, eisque mandare Vice Dei, cujus loc [...]m, quamvi [...] immeriti tenemus in terris —] that is, we are constrained [ to require all Christian Princes, and all believers of Christ, and to command them, in the stead of God, whose place on earth we hold, though undeserving —] Here is a Vice-God, holding his place on earth, and commanding all Princes and Christians to a War against the Turks in Gods stead

I know to a particular people Gods Em­bassadours are said to speak in his name and stead, as if God did beseech men by us, [Page 180] 2 Cor. 5.19. But this is only as to a narrow and limited Embassage, not that they hold Gods place on earth, as Rulers over the Universal Church, &c.

The same Pope Sixtus 4▪ saith ibid. pag. 163. [ Sola superest Romana sedes: sedes uti­que immaculati agni: sedes Viventis in secu­la seculorum: Haec quippe praedictas Patri­archales genuit Ecclesias; quae quasi filiae in ejus gremio residebant, & in circuitu tan­quam famulae in ipsius adsistebant obsequio.] that is, [ Only the Roman seat remaineth: even the seat of the Immaculate Lambe: the seat of him that liveth for ever (my flesh trembleth to write these things): This did beget the foresaid Patriarchal Churches (no­torious falshood!) which rested as daughters in her bosome, and as servants stood about in her obedience.] Here you see from the Pope himself, that the other Patriarchs are his servants, and so to obey him; and that Rome begot them all (that were before it, except Constantinople) and neither made Christians nor Patriarchs by it, and that Rome is now become the seat of the Immaculate Lambe, and of him that liveth for ever.] Truly the reading of your own Historians, and the Popes Bulls, &c. hath more perswaded me, that the Pope is Antichrist, then the [Page 181] Apocalyps hath done (because I distrusted my understanding of it.)

Benedictus de Benedictis wrote a Book against Dr. Whittaker, to prove that its as false that the Pope is Antichrist, as that Christ is Antichrist, and dedicated it to Pope Paul. 5. with this inscription, Paul. 5. Vice Deo: To Paul 5. the Vice-God.] printed at Bononia 1608.

Caraffa's Theses printed at Naples 1609. had the same inscription [ Paulo 5. Vice Deo] to Paul 5. the Vice-God.

Alcazar in Apocal. in carmine ad Johan­nem Apostolum, saith of the same Pope Paul. 5. [Q [...]em numinis instar, Vera colit pietas.] [whom as a God true piety adores.]

Christopher Marcellus in his Oration be­fore Pope Iulius 2. in the approved Coun­cil at Laterane, Sess. 4. (and you take not contradicting to be consenting; and verily to such blasphemy in a Council, so it is) saith thus [ Quum tantae reipublicae unicus atque supremus Princeps fueris institutus, beatissime pontifex, cui summa data potestas, ad divi­num injunctum imperium, &c.] — & an­te [sub tuo imperio] & [Vnus princeps qui summam in terris habeat potestatem.] But these are small things [ Teque omnis aevi, omnium seculorum, omnium gentium Princi­pem [Page 182] & Caput appellant.] But yet [ the Prince and Head of all ages and Nations] is too low [ Cura Pater beatissime ut sponsae tuae forma decórque redeat.] But yet to make the Church [ his spouse] is nothing [ Cura denique ut salutem quam dedisti nobis, & vi­tam & spiritum non amittamus: Tu enim Pastor, tu medicus, tu gubernator, tu cultor, tu denique alter Deus in terris.] That is, [ See that we l [...]se not the health that thou hast given us, and the life and spirit. For thou art the P [...]stor, the Physician—to conclude, thou art another God on earth.]

If you say that the Pope accepteth not this; I answer it was in an oration spoken in a Generall Council, in his presence, with­out contradiction, yea by his own com­mand, as the Oratour professeth [Iussisti tu, Pater sancte, & parui] [you command­ed me, Holy Father, and I obeyed,] Binnius pag. 562, 563, 564. you may find all this.

In Gl [...]ss extrav. g. Ioan. 22. de Verb. sig­nific. c [...]p. Cum inter, in Gl [...]ssa: Credere Domi­num n [...]strum D [...]um Papam conditorem dictae decretalis & istius, non potuisse statuere prout statuit, haereti [...]um censeatur.] So that by your Law we must believe the power of your Lord God the Pope, or be hereticks. [Page 183] If you meet with any Impressions that leave out [ Deum] take Rivets note [ haberi in edi­tione formata jussu Greg. 12. [...] corectoribus Pontificiis, nec in censuris Gl [...]ssae j [...]ssu Pii 5. editis, quae in expurgatorio indice habintur, nomen Dei erasum fuisse.

Pope Nicolas 3. de El [...]ct. cap. fundamenta in 6. saith [ that Peter was [...]ssumed into the Society of the individuall Trinity.

Angelus Polit. in Orat. ad Alex. 6. Ponti­ficem ad Divinitatem ipsam subl [...]tum, asserit: He saith, the Pope was taken up to the God­head it self.

At the foresaid Council at Laterane, An­tonius Puccius in an Oration before Leo the tenth in the Council, and after published by his favour, said [Divinae tuae Majestatis conspectus, rutilante cujus fulgore imbecilles oculimei caligant.] His eyes were darkened with beholding the Popes Divine Majesty.] None contradicted this.

In the same Council, Simon B [...]gnius Mo­drusiensis Episcopus, in an O [...]acion S [...]ss. 6. calls Leo [ The Lion of the Tribe of Juda, the root of Jesse, him whom they had looked for as the Saviour.]

In the same Council, S [...]ss. 10 Stephanus Patracensis Archiop. saith [ Reges in compe­dibus magnitudinis magni Regis liga, & no­biles [Page 184] in manicis ferreis censurarum constringe, quoniam tibi data est omnis potestas in coelo & in terra —] and before [ qui totum dicit, nihil excludit.] So that all Power in heaven and earth is given to the Pope.

Paulus Aemilius de gestis Francorum, lib. 7. saith, that the Sicilian Embassadours lay prostrate at the Popes feet, and thrice re­peated, [Thou that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.]

And prove to me that ever any such man was reprehended for these things by the Popes of late.

August. Triumphus in Praefat. sum. ad Ioan. 22. saith [ That the Popes power is infinite: for great is the Lord, and great is his power, and of his greatness there is no end.

And qu. 36. ad 6. he saith that [ the Pope influenceth (or giveth) the Motion of directi­on, and the sense of cognition, into all the Members of the Church, for in him we live and move and have our being.]

And a little after he saith, [ The will of God, and consequently of the Pope, who is his Vicar, is the first and highest cause of all cor­poral and spiritual motions.]

Would you have any more witness of the falshood of your words: saith Zabarella I.C. [Page 185] lib. de schism. Innocent. 7. & Bened. pag. 20. [ For this long time past, and even to this day, those that would please the Popes, perswaded them that they could do all things: and so that they might do what they pleased, even things unlawfull, and so more than God.]

Antonius parte 3. tit. 21. cap. 5. §. 4. saith [ The Pope receiveth from the faith­full adorations, prostrations, and kisses of his feet, which Peter permitted not from Corne­lius, nor the Angel from John the Evan­gelist.]

Cardinalis Bertrandus Tract. de origin. jurisd. q. 4. num. 4. ( & in Glos. extrag. com. l. 1. fol. 12.) saith [ Because Iesus Christ the son of God while he was in this world, and even from eternity, was a Naturall Lord, and by Naturall right could pronounce the sentence of deposition on Emperours, or any others, and the sentence of damnation, and any other, as upon the Persons which he had created, and endowed with naturall and free gifts, and also did conserve; it is his will that on his account his Vicar may do the same things. For the Lord should not seem discreet (that I may speak with his reverence) unless he had left behind him one Vicar that can do all these things.]

Tell me now whether you said true in [Page 186] the Paragraph about the Title Vice-Christ? yea, whether it be not much more that hath been given and accepted?

But what name else is it that you agree on as proper to express the power which is con­troverted? I know no name so fitted to the reall controversie? And therefore in dis­claiming the Name, for ought I know, you disclaim your Cause, and confess the shame of Popery. If he that seeks to be King of England, should say he disclaimeth the Title of King as insolent and proud, doth he not allow me to conclude the like of the thing, which he concludeth of the proper name? The name [Papa] [Pope] you know (its like) was usually by the ancients given to other Bishops as well as to him of Rome; and therefore that cannot distinguish him from other men: The same I may say of the Titles [ Dominus, Pater sanctissimus, beatissimus, Dei amantissimus, and many such like] — And for [summus Pontifex] Ba­ronius tells you ( Martyrol. Rom. April. 9.) that [ it was the ancient custome of the Church to call all Bishops, not only Pontifices, Popes, but the Highest or Chief Popes] citing Hierom. Ep. 99. And for the word Head of the Church, or of all Bishops, it hath been given to Constantinople, that yet claimeth [Page 187] not (as Nilus tells you) neither a prece­dency to Rome, nor an Universall Govern­ment, much less as the Vice-Christ. And that the Bishop of Constantinople was called [ the Apostolick Vniversal Bishop] Baronius te­stifieth from an old Vaticane monument, which on the other side calls Agapetus [Episcopo­rum Princeps.] The Title [ Apostolick] was usually given to others. Hierusalem was called [ the mother of the Churches.] A Council gave Constantinople the Title of [ Vniversal Patriarch] which though Gre­gory pronounced so in pious and intolerable for any to use, yet the following Pop [...]s made an agreement with Constantinople, that their Patriarch should keep his Title of Vniver­sal Patriarch] and the Bishop of Rome be called [ the Vniversal Pope;] which can signifie nothing proper to him (the name Pope being common) more then [ Vniver­sal Patriarch] doth. The Foundations, and Pillars of the Church, and the Apostles suc­cessors, yea Peters successors, were Titles given to others as well as him: and more then these. It being therefore the point in controversie between us, whether the Bi­shop of Rome, be in the place of Christ or as his Vicar, the Head, Monarch, or Go­vernour of the Church universal; and the [Page 188] terms [ Vice Christi & Vicarius Christi] being those that Popes and Papists choose to signifie their claim, what other should I use?

As to what you say of the Council of Con­stance (which you must say also of Basil, and of the French Church, Venetians, &c.) you pretend the doubt to be only between Ordi­nary and extraordinary Governours. But 1. of old the Councils called Generall (in­deed but of one Principality) were more ordinary, then now the Pope hath brought them to be: (and I blame him not, if he will hold his greatness, to take heed of them.) 2. The way not to have been extraordina­ry, if the Council of Const [...]nce had been in­fallible, or of sufficient power, who de­creed that there should be one every ten years. 3. The Councils that continue so many years as that at Trent did, are then become an Ordinary Government. 4. What is given to the Church Representative, is by many of you given to the Church reall or essentiall (as you call it) which is ordinari­ly existent, only not capable of exerting the power it hath: The singulis major, at universis minor, is no rare doctrine with you. 5. But let it be as extraordinary as you please, if while these Councils sit, the [Page 189] Pope lose his Headship, your Church is then two Churches specifically distinct, and the form of it changeth when a Council sitteth: which is a two-headed, mutable Church, not like the Spouse of Jesus Christ. 6. As your Popes are said to live in their constitu­tions, and Laws, when the person dyeth; and your Church is not thought by you to die with them; so why may not Councils do? The Laws of Councils live when they sit not, and the French think that these Laws are above the Pope; though I shewed you even now that Iulius 2. in Conc. Later. concluded otherwise of Decrees, and the Council of the Popes power. 7. If a Na­tion be Governed by Trienniall (and so De­cenniall) Parliaments as the highest power, and Councils of State in the inter­valls, who shall be accountable to Parlia­ments; will you say that these Parliaments are extraordinary, and not the ordinary Soveraign? No doubt they are. And the Council of State is not the Soveraign, but the chief Officer or Magistrate for executi­on in the intervals.

Having begun this Reply May 2. I was again taken off it about May 5. or 6. And [Page 190] about May 11. I received a Letter from you, wherein you tell me of a quarter of a years expectation. Be patient good Sir! These matters concern Eternity: Believe it, I have somewhat else to do of greater hast and moment. Even some of your own friends find me more work. What if ten of you write to me at once, is it fair for each one of you to call for an answer as hastily as if I had but one in hand? This is not my case, but it is more then thus. Fear not lest I give you over, till you first prove the de­serter, and turn your back (if God enable me:) Only I must tell you, that I take it for a flight already, and a forsaking of your Cause, that you turn to these rambling im­pertinent citations and discourses, in stead of a Syllogisticall arguing the case, and that when you had spoken so much for it. I have here (that you may have no cause of exce­ption, nor pretence of cause) in this Paper replyed to your last; and in another proved the Visibility of our Church syllogistically; and (as overplus) also disproved yours, and proved it to be an upstart, the sprout of Pride, upon occasion of the greatness of the City of Rome, and of the forming the Church to the Civil State, in that one Em­pire. If now you will deny to do the like, I [Page 191] shall conclude you fly and forsake your Cause. Besides your Rejoinder to this Re­ply, I principally expect that you syllogisti­cally (in close and faithfull Arguing) do prove to us the Affirmative of these Questi­ons following.

Qu. [Whether the Church, of which the subjects of the Pope are Members, hath been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth.] In which these three Questions are involved, which you have to prove: 1. Whether the Papacy, that is, the Vniversal Monarchy, or Soveraign Government, or Vice-Christship of the Pope (take which term you like) hath continued from Christs dayes till now. 2 Whe­ther all the Catholick Church did still submit to it, and were subjects of the Pope. 3. Whe­ther those that did submit to it, did take it to be necessary to the Being of the Church, and the salvation of all believers, or only to the more peaceable and better being.] If you call for Catalogues, or proof of Visible succession, and pretend so high to it your selves, and yet will give us none when we importune you to it, you tell us that you seek not to reveal the truth and Church but to hide them. I urge you the harder (though it may seem immodest) because as the Cause doth lie upon your proof here, so I know [Page 192] you cannot do it: Pardon my confidence: I know you can do no more then Baronius, Bellarmine, Bullinger, &c. set together have done: and therefore I say, I know you can­not do it. I know your Vice-Christ (I doubt the Antichrist) is of humane introdu­ction, springing out of a Nationall (I mean Imperiall) Primacy, which also was of hu­mane invention. It was but one Civil Go­vernment or Commonwealth, in which your Bishop had his Primacy, and that long with­out a Governing power. And this National Primacy, because of the greatness of the Empire, was at last called Universal: And even this was long after the dayes of Christ (some hundreds of years) a stranger in the Church, unless as the Greatness of the Church of Rome, and advantages of the place, did give that Church such authority as ariseth from magnitude, splendour, ho­nour, and accidental advantages from the populousness, wealth, and glory of the City of Rome.

The carnall Church is led by the Vice-Christ, the earthly Prince of Pride, con­tending in the world for command and su­periority; and prosecuting his Cause with Strappados, fire, sword, and gunpowder, when Christ gave no Pastor a Coercive [Page 193] power, to touch mens bodies or estates. The true spirituall Church is Headed and commanded by Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace, and knoweth no other Universal Head, because no other hath either Capa­city or Authority. It obeyeth his Laws; and learneth of him to be charitable, patient, meek, and lowly; and wonders not at er­rours and divisions on earth, nor therefore accuseth the providence of God: but know­eth by faith, that the Universal Judge of Controversies is at the door, and that it is but a very little while, and we shall see that the Church had an Universal Head, that was alone sufficient for his work; for he that cometh will come, and will not tarry: Amen, Even so come Lord Jesus!

Sir, I desire you presently to send me word, whether you will by close Syllogisti­call arguing, prove the successive visibility of your Church as Papal, or not, that I may know what to expect?

And once more I pray you take the help of the ablest of your party, both that I may not be so troubled with wrong, or imperti­nent allegations, and that I may be sure that your insufficient arguings are not from any imperfection of the person, but of the Cause.

[Page 194]If you meet in these Papers with any pas­sages which you think too confident and earnest; I beseech you charge them not with uncharitableness or passion, for I hope it proceeded not from either; but I confess I am inclined to speak confidently where I am certain, and to speak seriously about the things of God, which are of everlasting consequence.

May 18. 1659.

For Mr. William Iohnson.

Qu. Whether the Church, of which the Protestants are Members, have been Visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth? Aff.

THe terms explained.

1. [ The Church] sometime signifieth a particular Congre­gation actually met, or associ­ated for such personal meet­ing, for Communion in Gods worship. 2. Sometime it signifieth an Association of Churches, and that either of sewer, or of more, as they have opportunity of Com­munion or correspondency by their Pastors; and also the Assemblies of the Pastors of the particular Churches so associated. Scri­pture useth it in the first sense, and Later custome (whether Scripture also I omit) in the later. 3. Both Scripture and Custome have used the word to signifie the Church Universal, of which all particular Churches are Members. This is [ the Church] that we speak of in the Question.

Defin. The Universal Church, of which [Page 198] the Protestants profess themselves Members, is, The Kingdome of Iesus Christ: or, The whole company of Believers (or true Chri­stians) upon earth, subjected to Iesus Christ their Head.] The constitutive parts, or the Relate and Correlate are, (as in every Po­litick Body) the Pars Imperans, and Pars sub­dita: which is Christ and Christians. The form consisteth in the mutuall Relation. The End is the common good of the Church, and the glory of the Head, and the accom­plishment of the will of God.

2. [The Protestants] Defin. [ Prote­stants are Christians protesting against, or disowning Popery.] The word [ Protestant] expresseth not the essence of our Religion. And therefore it must not denominate the Universal Church, of which we are Mem­bers: we are not to call it [A Protestant Universal Church.] Nor doth it signifie an inseparable proper accident. For when the Catholick Church had no Popery, there was none to protest against, and therefore there could be no Protestants. And Ethi­opia, India, and other Nations that never had Popery, or those Nations that never heard of it, have no occasion to protest against it. Nor doth it signifie any Positive part (directly) of our Religion: but only [Page 199] the Negation, or Rejection of Popery: Even as when a man is called [ Homo purga­tus, sanatus, liberatus, à leprâ, peste, tabe, &c.] a man purged, healed, freed from the leprosie, plague, consumption, &c. it is no positive part, nor inseparable proper acci­dent, much less any essential part of the man, that is signified by the word [ Healed, Purged, &c.] Nor is it necessary in order to the proving him [a man] or [a health­full man,] to prove that he was ever [a purged, or healed man.] We undertake not therefore to prove that there have been alwayes Protestants, that is, men Pro­testing against Popery: Nor have we any need, in order to the proof of our Thesis, to prove that the Catholick Church hath all been free from Popery in all ages, or in any age since the Apostles, no more then that it hath been free from Pride, Ambition, or Contention. (But yet we shall do it ex abundanti.) The Religion then of a Prote­stant is Christianity, and he knoweth and owneth no other. Which is called [the Pro­testant Religion] as cleansed from Po­pery.

[Members] that is, true integral parts.

[Of which—are—] By Profession. We profess our selves to be of no other Church. [Page 200] And before men, a man is to be taken to be of that Religion and Church of which he professeth himself to be, till he be proved false in that Profession. If a Papist affirm himself a member of the Roman Church, in disputing with him we will take it for grant­ed that he is so; every man being best ac­quainted with his own mind, and fittest to describe the Religion which he owns. So that two things I here include. 1. It is on­ly such a Catholick Church that hath been still visible, [that Protestants own.] 2. And only such that really they are of, their Pro­fession being valid.

Note also, that it is not directly the inex­istency by internal invisible faith, that is in question among us, or that I mean: but the inexistency by external Visible Profession. Bellarmine thinks the bare Professors that are wicked, are best termed [ Dead mem­bers] and [the true Professors, [Living members] we will not stick needlesly on words: We take the Living members only to be in strict propriety members; but Sin­cerity and Hypocrisie being known only to God and the possessors, we speak of Pro­fessors as Professors abstractively from their Sincerity or Hypocrisie.

[Hath been Visible.] 1. Not visible to [Page 201] man in its Internal faith; but in its external Profession.

2. Not Visible at once to any one man: for no man can see all the Christian world at once: But Visible in its parts, both in Con­gregations and individual persons.

3. Not Visible in the soundness of its pro­fessed faith unto Infidels and Hereticks: For they cannot see that faith to be sound, which they take to be fabulous and false: But Visible in the soundness of its professed faith to themselves, that know the soundness of faith.

4. Not Visible in the excellent degree of soundness in the better parts, unto the cor­rupter or infirmer parts: For though de facto they may know what Doctrine the better part do hold (as Infidels know what Doctrine the Church holdeth) yet they know it not to be true and sound in the points wherein they differ.

And note again, that it is not the [ Visi­bility] of every accident of the Church, nor of every Truth or duty that is but of the Integrity of Religion, and necessary only ad melius esse Ecclesiae, to the Better being of the Church, but it is the [ Visibility] of the Church that we speak of.

Lastly, it is the Body and not the Head, [Page 202] whose Visibility is in Question by us. Though the Head also is truly Visible in Heaven; and Visus, or seen to the most excellent Trium­phant part of his Body, who are fittest to be his Courtiers, and in his presence: (and as much seen on earth, as the Pope is to most of the Church, which is not at all.)

[ Ever since the dayes of Christ on earth.] 1. But not still in one and the same place on earth. It might be in one age much of it in Iudea, at Ephesus, Sardis, Laodicaea, Colosse, Philippi, and other parts of Asia; and in other ages removed thence, either wholly or for the most part: It might be in one age in Tendu [...], N [...]bia, and other great King­doms, where it shall af [...]er cease to be: But in some part or other of the earth it hath been still.

2. Not equally visible in all Times and Places of the earth. In some Times (as in the Arrians prevalency) it was so oppressed and obscured, that the world groaned to find it self turn'd Arrian, and the Arrians in Ge­neral Councils and number of Bishops (to whom the true Christians were very few) did seem to carry away the Name and glory of the Catholick Church; so that in their eyes, and in the eyes of slanders by that were of neither party, the most Visible Ca­tholick [Page 203] Church was theirs: who yet had no part in it, because they were not Christians (as denying that which is essentiall to Christ, the object of the Christian faith) and therefore none of the Church, and therefore though most visible and nume­rous, yet not the visible Church: And the Church, which to others was as wheat hid­den in this chaffe, or rather a few ears among so many rares, was yet Visible to it self in its Truth of faith, and visible to its Enemies in its Profession and assemblies, though in number far below them.

So also in some places it may be Latent through persecution & the paucity of belie­vers, when in other places it is more Patent.

And its Degrees of soundness being va­rious, are accordingly variously visible. One part may be really and visibly more strong, and another more weak in the faith: One part much more corrupt then others, and other parts retain their purity: And the same Countries increase or decrease in that purity, as is apparent in the case of the Churches of Galatia, Corinth, the seven Asian Churches, Rev. 2. and 3. &c.

Lastly note, that it is only that part of the Church which is on earth whose visibility we assert; though that in Heaven be [Page 204] also a true part of the Body of Christ.

Nor is it in the same Individuals that the Church continueth Visible, but in successive Matter. So much for explication of the terms.

Thes. The Church of which the Prote­stants are Members, hath been Visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth.

Arg. 1. The Body of Christians on earth subjected to Christ their Head, hath been (in its 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 the dayes of Christ on earth.

I have not sagacity enough to conjecture what any Papist can say against the Major proposition.

The Minor is proved by our own Profes­sions: As the profession of Popery, proveth a man a Papist, so the profession of Christi­anity as much proveth us to be Christians.

[α] Those that profess the true Christian Religion in all its essentials, are Members of that Church which is the Body of Christi­ans on earth subjected to Christ the Head.

[Page 205]But the Protestants profess the true Chri­stian Religion in all its essentialls: therefore the Protestants are Members of that Church which is the Body of Christians on earth subjected to Christ the Head.

The Major is undeniable. The Minor is thus proved. 1. Those that profess so much as God hath promised salvation upon in the Covenant of Grace, do profess the Christian Religion in all its Essentials. (For God promiseth salvation in that Covenant to none but Christians.) But the Protestants profess so much as God hath promised sal­vation upon, in the Covenant of Grace:

Therefore the Protestants do profess the Christian Religion in all its essentials.

The Minor is thus proved. All that profess faith in God the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, our Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier, and love to him, and ab­solute obedience to all his Laws of Na­ture and holy Scripture, with willingness and diligence to know the true meaning of all these Laws as far as they are able, and with Repentance for all known sin, do pro­fess so much as God hath promised salvation upon, Ioh. 3.16, 17. Mark 16.16. Heb. 5.9 Rom. 8.28. 1. Act 26.18. But so do the Protestants: Therefore the Protestants [Page 206] profess so much as God hath promised sal­vation on.

2. 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 Baptism did profess, do profess the true Christian Religion in all its essentials.

But so do the Protestants: Therefore, &c.

3. Those that explicitely profess the Be­lief of all that was contained in the Churches Symbols, or Creeds, for six hundred years after Christ (and much more holy truth) and implicitly 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. There­fore, &c.

Ad hominem, I confirm the Major (and most that went before) from the Testimo­nies of some most eminent Papists.

Bellarmine saith, de Verbo Dei, lib. 4. c. 11. In the Christian doctrine both of faith and manners, some things are simply necessary to salvation to all; as the knowledge of the Articles of the Apostles Creed, of the ten [Page 207] Commandments, and of some Sacraments: The rest are not so necessary that a man can­not be saved without the explicite know­ledge, belief, and profession of them— These things that are simply necessary, and are profitable to all, the Apostles preached to all — All things are written by the Apostles which are Necessary to all, and which they openly preacht to all —

Costerus Enchirid. c. 1. p. 49. [We deny not, that those chief heads of Belief, which are necessary to all Christians to be known to salvation, are perspicuously enough com­prehended in the writings of the Apostles.]

But all this the Protestants profess to believe.

[ [...]] If sincere Protestants are Members of the true Church, as intrinsecally inform­ed (or as Bellarmine speaks, Living Mem­bers) then professed Protestants are Mem­bers of the true Church as extrinsecally de­nominated (or as it is Visible, consisting of Professors.) But the Antecedent is true: Therefore so is the Consequent.

The Reason of the Consequence is, be­cause it is the same thing that is professed by all Professors, and existent in all true Be­lievers: and that as to Profession is neces­sary to Visibility of Membership; and as [Page 208] to sincere inexistence, is necessary to salva­tion.

The Antecedent or Minor I thus prove. All that by saith in Christ are brought to the unfeigned Love of God above all, and speciall Love to his servants, and unfeigned willingness to obey him, are Members of the true Church as intrinsecally informed. But such are all sincere Protestants: Therefore all sincere Protestants are Members of the true Church as intrinsecally informed.

The Major is granted by the Papists, who affirm charity to be the form of Grace, and all that have it to be justified. And the pro­mises of Scripture prove it to our Com­fort.

The Minor 1. Is proved to others by our Professions: If this be in our Profession, then the sincere are such indeed. But this is in our Profession: Therefore, &c.

2. Its certainly known to our selves by the inward knowledge and sense of our souls. I know that I Love God and his ser­vants, and am willing to obey him; There­fore all the Papists Sophisms shall never make me not know what I do know, and not feel what I do feel. They reason in vain with me, when they reason against the knowledge and experience of my soul. Your [Page 209] scope is to prove me in a state of damnati­on. You confess that if I have charity I am in a state of salvation. I know and feel that I have charity: Therefore I know that your Reasonings are deceit.

Arg. 2. The Church whose faith is con­tained in the holy Scriptures 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 its 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 ever since the dayes of Christ on earth.

That the Catholick Church which hath been Visible till now, hath received the Ho­ly Scriptures which we receive, is confessed by all Papists that ever I heard or read ma­king mention of it. And no wonder, for it cannot be denied.

That this Church hath taken these Scri­ptures for the Rule of faith in all points necessary to salvation (allowing Church-Governours to make Canons about the cir­cumstantials of Government and worship, which in the Universal Law are not deter­mined, [Page 219] but left to humane prudence to de­termine.) 1. I have proved in my third Dispute of the safe Religion already. 2. It is confessed by the Papists: the forecited passages of Bellarmine and Costerus are suf­ficient. But in the great Council at Basil, Orat. Ragus. Bin. p. 299. it is most plainly and with fuller authority asserted. [The holy Scripture in the Literal sense, sound­ly and well understood, is the infallible and Most sufficient Rule of faith.] See my vin­dication of this Testimony in my Catholick Key: and the like from Card. Richlieu.

Gerson saith, de exam. doctr. p. 2. cont. 1. Nihil audendum dicere de divinis, nisi quae nobis à sacra Scriptura tradita sunt.

Durandus in his Preface is wholly for the excellency and sufficiency of the Scriptures. Three wayes, he saith, God revealeth him­self and other things to man: The lowest way is by the book of the creatures (so heathens may know him.) The highest is by manifest Vision (as in heaven): and the middle way is in the Book of holy Scripture, without which there is no coming to the highest way.] And going on to extoll the Scripture, he citeth Ieromes words ad Pau­linum, [Let us learn on earth the know­ledge of those things which will abide with [Page 211] us in heaven:] But this is only (saith he) in the holy Scripture.] And after ex Hie­rom. ad Marcell. [If Reason be brought against the authority of the Scriptures, how acute soever it is, it cannot be true:] And after [We must speak of the mysterie of Christ, and universally of those things that meerly concern faith, conformably to what the holy Scripture delivereth: So Christ, Iohn 5. Search the Scriptures, It is they that testifie of me. If any observe not this, he speaks not of the mysterie of Christ, and of other things directly touching faith as he ought, but falls into that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 8. If any man think he knoweth any thing, he yet knoweth nothing as he ought to know. For the measure is not to exceed the measure of faith: of which the Apo­stle bids us, Rom. 12. Not to be wiser then we ought to be, but to be wise to sobriety, and as God hath divided to every man the measure of faith. Which Measure consisteth in two things; to wit, that we subtract not from faith that which is of faith, nor (N.B.) attribute that to faith which is not of faith: For by either of these wayes, the measure of faith is exceeded, and men deviate from the continence of the sacred Scripture, which expresseth the measure of faith.] [Page 212] (That is, from the full sufficiency of the Scripture measure:) [And this measure, by Gods assistance, we will hold, that we may write or teach nothing dissonant to the ho­ly Scripture. But if by ignorance or inad­vertency, we should write any thing disso­nant, let it be taken ipso facto as not written.] This is a confession of the Religion of the Protestants. And though he adjoyn a sub­mission to the Roman Church, because he was bred in it, it is only as to an interpreter of doubtfull Texts of Scripture: So that the sufficiency of our Rule and measure of faith is granted by him, and zealously asserted; and that without Bellarmine and Costerus limitation, to points necessary to the salva­tion of all; he extendeth it to all the faith.

Aquin. 22. q. 1. a. 10. ad 1. saith, [That in the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, the truth of the faith is sufficiently expli­cated:] even when he is pleading for the Popes power to make new Creeds to obviate errours.

And in his sum. de Verit. disp. de fide q. 10. ad 11. he saith, [That all the means by which the faith cometh to us are free from suspicion. The Prophets and Apostles we believe, for this reason, because God bore [Page 213] them witness by working Miracles: as Mar. 16. confirming their speech with following signs: But their successors we believe not, but so far as they declare to us those things which they have left us in the Scripture.] This is the Religion of the Protestants.

Scotus in Prolog. in sent. 1. makes it his second Question, Whether supernaturall knowledge necessary to us in the Way, be sufficiently delivered in the holy Sc [...]ipture, which he proveth (having first given ten ar­guments to prove the Truth of Scripture.) And first he shews it containeth the Do­ctrine of the End, and 2. of the things necessary to that end, and the sufficiency of them; summarily in the Decalogue, explained in the other Scriptures, as to mat­ter of faith, hope, and practice; and so concludes, that the holy Scripture sufficient­ly containeth the doctrine necessary viatori, to us in the way: And he answereth the ob­jection, of Difficulties in it, (without fly­ing to the Church) that [no science ex­plaineth all things to be known, but those things from which the rest may convenient­ly be gathered: and so many needfull truths are not expressed in Scripture; though they are virtually there contained, as conclusions in the Principles, about the in­vestigation [Page 214] whereof the labour of Expo­sitors and Doctors hath been profitable.] This is his doctrine out of Origen.

Gregor. Ariminensis in Prol. q. 1. act. 2. Resp. ad act. fol. 3. & 4. saith [A discourse properly Theologicall, is that which con­sisteth of words or propositions contained in the holy Scripture; or of those that are deduced from them; or at least from one of these: This is proved 1. by the foreal­ledged authority of Dionys. For he will have it, that there can be no leading of that man to Theologicall science, that assenteth not to the sayings of the holy Scripture.—It follows therefore that no discourse that pro­ceedeth not from the words of holy Scri­pture, or of that which is deduced from them, is Theologicall.]— [2. The same is proved from the common conception of all men: For all men judge that then only is any thing proved Theologically, when they prove it from the words of the holy Scripture.]

This is more then the former say: For to extend the sufficiency and necessity of Scripture to all thats Theologicall, is more then to extend it to matter of faith. No Protestant goeth higher then this that I know of. And note, that he makes this the [Page 215] very common conception and judgement of all men. See then where our Religion and Church was before Luther! even among all Christians.

Yet more fully he proceeds ( ibid.) [Hence it further appeareth, that Principles of Theo­logy thus taken, that is, which is acquired by Theologicall discourse, are the very Truths themselves of the holy Canon, because the ultimate Resolution of all Theologicall dis­course doth stand (or belong) to them; and all Theologicall conclusions are deduced first from them. But distinguishing the Conclu­sions Theologicall from the Principles, I say that all truths are not in themselves formal­ly contained in the holy Scripture: but of necessity following from those that are con­tained in them: and this whether they are Articles of faith, or not (N B); and whe­ther they are knowable or known by ano­ther science, or not: and whether they are determined by the Church or not. But of other Truths, to wit, not following from the words of the holy Scripture, I say there is no Theologicall conclusion: This is proved, &c.—]

When I read over the Schoolmen and Di­vines of all sorts, that wrote before the Re­formers fell so closely upon the Pope, and [Page 216] [find how generally even the Papists them­selves maintained the sufficiency of the holy Scripture, just as the Protestants now do, I am convinced 1. of the succession of the Protestants Religion in the Universal Visible Church; and 2. that it was the Reformers Arguments from Scripture, that forced the Papists to oppose this holy Rule, as to its sufficiency; and to invent the new doctrine of supplementall Tradition; (for conservative, Ministeriall Tradition of the holy Scriptures we are for as much, at least, as they.)

The words of Guil. Parisie [...]sis, too large to be recited, in extolling the fulness and perfection of the Scripture, even for all sorts of men, you may read, de Legibus, cap. 16. pag. 46.

Bellarmine de Verbo Dei. lib. 3. cap. 10. ad Arg. 15. saith [We must know that a Proposition of faith is concluded in such a syllogism: Whatsoever God hath revealed in Scripture is true: But this God hath re­vealed in Scripture: Therefore it is true.] (Though he require another word of God by the Pope, or Council, to prove that this is revealed in Scripture.) But if so, then Scripture containeth all thats true in points of faith.

[Page 217]2. And that all things that are revealed, and which we ought to believe, are not Es­sentiall to the Christian faith, and therefore that all are of the Church that hold these Essentialls, and that such a distinction must be maintained, the Papists have still confes­sed, till lately, that disputing hath encreased their novelties and errours.

Bellarmines and Costerus confession, I re­cited even now.

Guliel. Parisiensis in Operum pag. 9, 10, 11, 12. de fide, industriously proveth the ne­cessity of distinguishing the fundamen­talls or essentialls, from the rest of the points of faith: and it is they that consti­tute the Catholick faith, which he saith is therefore called Catholick or Universal, be­cause it is the common faith, or the com­mon foundation of Religion: And he proves that hence it is that the Catholick faith is but One, and found in all Catholicks, these fundamentalls being found in all.] By many arguments he proveth this.

And that there are some points, even these common Articles necessary to be known of all, necessitati medii, the School­men commonly grant: as Aquin. 22. q. 2. a. 5. c. Bannes in 22. q. 2. a. 8. &c. Of these saith Espencaeus (in 2. Ti. c. 3. dig. 17.) [Page 218] which are the objects of faith per se, and not the secondary objects, the adult must have an explicite faith, and the Colliers faith at this time decantate by the Catho­licks, will not serve the turn.]

And we have both the Scripture suffici­ency to all points of faith, even the lowest, and also the foresaid distinction given us to­gether, by Tho. Aquinas 22. q. art. 5. c. [We must say, that the object of faith per se, is that by which man is made blessed: But by accident and secondarily, all things are the object of faith which are contained in the holy Scripture.]

See the judgement of Occham, Canus, Tolet, and many more cited by Dr. Potter; and yet more for the sufficiency of the Sym­bole or Creed, as the test of Christianity, pag. 89, 90, 91, 92, 93. Where you have the sense of the Ancients upon the point, and p. 102, 103.

I conclude therefore with the Jesuite Azorius, par. 1. lib. 8. c. 6. [The substance of the Article in which we believe One, ho­ly, Catholick Church, is, that no man can be saved out of the Congregation of men professing the reception of the faith and Religion of Christ, and that salvation may be obtained within this same Congregation of godly and faithfull men.

[Page 219]And as to the Essence of the Christian faith and Church, we say with Tertullian of the Symbole [ Fides in Regula posita est: habes legem, & salutem ex observatione legis: exercitatio autem in curiositate consistit, ha­bens gloriam solam ex peritiae studio: Cedat curiositas fidei: Cedat gloria saluti. Corte aut non obstrepant, aut quiescant adversus re­gulam: Nihil ultra scire, est omnia scire.] That is, [Faith lieth in the Rule: Here you have the Law, and salvation in the ob­servation of that Law; but it is exercise that consisteth in curiosity, having only (a name or) glory by the study of skill; Let curiosity give place to faith: Let glory give place to salvation. Let them not prate, or let them be quiet, against the Rule. To know nothing further, is to know all things.] De Praescript. cap. 13, 14.

So cap. 8. Nobis curiositate opus non est post Christum Iesum, nec inquisitione post Evangelium. Cum credimus, nihil desidera­mus ultra credere; hoc enim prius credimus, non esse quod ultra credere debeamus.] That is, [As for us we need not curiosity after Jesus Christ, nor inquisition after the Go­spel: When we believe, we need to believe no further: For we first believe this, that there is nothing further that we ought to believe.]

[Page 220]And here (on the by) for the right un­derstanding of Tertullians Book de Prae­script. note, 1. That the Rule of Essenti­alls extracted from the whole Scripture, is the Churches ancient Creed. 2. That the compleat Rule of all points of faith is the whole Scripture. And that Tertullian had to do with Hereticks that denied the Essentials, and desired the whole Scripture to dispute their case from both, because they had questi­oned or rejected much of it; and because it was a larger field to exercise their wits in, and whence they might gather more matter of dispute to puzzle the weak: And there­fore Tertullian adviseth the ordinary Chri­stians of his time, instead of long puzzling disputes with them out of Scripture, to hold them to the Churches prescription, of the simple doctrine of the Creed. But now come in the Papists; and 3. will neither be con­tent with Creed nor Scripture, but must have a Church or faith partly made up of supplemental Traditions, of more then is in all the Scripture, and so run further from Tertullian and the ancient simplicity, then these Hereticks, and yet are not ashamed to glory in this Book of Tertullian as for them.

Of the Fathers judgement of the Scri­pture [Page 221] sufficiency, see the third part of my [ safe Religion] where I have produced Te­stimonies enough to prove the Antiquity of the Protestants Religion, and the Novelty of Popery. But nothing can be so plain and full, which pre-engaged men dare not deny. Let me instance but in one or two passages of Augustine, so plain as might put an end to the whole Controversie.

Aug. de Doctr. Christian. lib. 2. c. 9. [ In his omnibus libris timentes Deum & pietate mansueti, quaerunt voluntatem Dei. Cujus operis & laboris prima observatio est, ut dixi­mus, nosse istos libros, & si nondum ad intel­lectum legendo tamen vel mandare memoriae, (He was not against the Vulgars reading Scripture) vel omnino incognitos non habere. Deinde illa quae in eis aperte pofita sunt, vel praecepta vivendi vel regulae credendi, solertiùs diligentiúsque investiganda sunt: Quae tanto quisque plura invenit, quanto est intelligentia capacior: In iis enim quae apertè in Scriptu­ra posita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi, (N. B.) spem scilicet atque charitatem, de quibus li­bro superiore tractavimus. Tum vero facta quadam familiaritate cum ipsa lingua divi­narum scripturarum, in ea quae obscura sunt aperienda, & discutienda pergendum est, ut [Page 222] ad obscuriores locutiones illustrandas de mani­festationibus sumantur exempla, & quaedam certarum sententiarum testimonia, dubitatio­nem de incertis auferant.] You see here that the Scripture, as sufficient to faith and man­ners, to be read by all that fear God, and can read; and the harder places to be ex­pounded by the plainer, was the ancient Rule of faith and Religion: And this is the Religion of Protestants.

Aug. lib. 3. c. 6. contra lit. Petiliani, pag. 127. [ Proinde, sive de Christo sive de ejus Ecclesia, sive de quacunque alia re quae perti­net ad fidem vitamque nostram, non dicam Nos, nequaquam comparandi [...]i qui dixit [Li­cet si nos] sed omnino quod secutus adjecit, si Angelus de coelo vobis annunciaverit praeter­quam quod in Scripturis & Evangelicis acce­pistis, Anathema sit.] I must needs English this short passage, to the utter confusion of Popery. [And therefore whether it be of Christ, or whether it be of the Church, or whether it be of any other matter that per­taineth to our Faith or Life, I will not say [ if we] as being not worthy to be com­pared with him that said [ Though we] but (I will say) plainly what he added following: [If an Angel from heaven shall declare to you any thing besides that which you have [Page 223] received in the Legall and Evangelicall Scri­ptures, let him be Anathema, or accursed.] Was not the Church then purely Protestant in their Religion?

The Minor needs no proof but our own Profession. My profession is the best evi­dence of my own Religion to another: And I profess this to be my Religion; which is contained in the holy Scripture, as the Test, or Law, or Rule. And let no man contra­dict me, that knoweth not my Religion bet­ter then I do: The Articles of the Church of England profess this also to be the Re­ligion of the Composers. And the Prote­stants commonly uno ore do profess it. It is the great difference between us and the Pa­pists. The whole Universal Law of God that we know of, and own, is contained in Nature and Scripture conjunct. But the Papists take somewhat else to be another part. We allow by-Laws about mutable undetermined things (as aforesaid) to Go­vernours: But we know no Universal Law of faith and holiness, but Nature and Scri­pture: This is our Religion: And this Re­ligion contained in Nature and Scriptures hath been still received.

Obj. We confess Scripture is sufficient to them that have no further light: All that is [Page 224] necessary to the salvation of all, is in that perspicuously, as Costerus, Bellarmine, and others say: but more is necessary to salva­tion to some.

Ans. 1. Then at least it containeth all the Essentialls of Christianity, which suffi­ceth to our present end. 2. And what maketh more Necessary to me, or others here in England, if it be not necessary to all? Is it because that more is Revealed to us? But how and by whom; and with what Evidence? We are willing to see it, and can see no such thing: But if this be it, (if I may speak so plainly without offence) it seems it concerneth us to keep out Friars and Jesuites from the Land, as much (if we knew how) as to keep out the Devil. For they tell us, 1. That we must believe the Popes Soveraignty, against the Tradition and judgement of most of the Catholick Church. 2. And we must believe our selves to be void of Charity (because no Papists) contrary to our internall sense and know­ledge. 3. And we must believe that bread is not bread, and wine is not wine, contrary to the common senses of all sound men: and if we will not thus renounce the Churches Vote, Tradition, our Certain knowledge, Reason, and all our Senses, we must be [Page 225] damned: where as before this doctrine was brought us, we might have been saved, as having in the Scriptures all things necessary to the salvation of all.

But the Papists must needs have us shew them where our Church was, and name the persons. Answ. 1. It were not the Ca­tholike Church, if it were confined to any place that is but a part of the Christian territories. 2. Nor were it the Catholike Church if we could name half or a con­siderable part of the members: As Augu­stin oft tells the Donatists, it is the Church which begun at Ierusalem, and thence is spread throughout the world. Part of it may be in one Nation one year, which may forfeit and lose it before the next. God hath not tyed it to any place. 3. To tell you where the Catholike Church hath been in every age, and who were the Members or the Leaders, requireth much knowledge in History and Cosmography, which God hath not made necessary to salvation. 4. There are no known Histories that de­liver us the Catalogues of the Christians in every age of the world. Had any been so foolish as to write them, they would have been too chargeable to keep, and too long to read: yea were it but of the Pastors. [Page 226] 5. God hath nowhere commanded the Church to keep such Catalogues or Histo­ries, nor promised when they are written, that Papists shall not purposely corrupt and destroy them, not Turks (as at Buda) take the Christian Libraries, and burn them. 6. Papists cannot prove the successive ex­tent and habitations of the Catholike Church any more then we; and we can do it as well as they: for we have the same means. If they can tell us where it hath been in every age, they need not ask us: If they cannot, they have as much need to learn as we, and much more. They think it not necessary to their Laity, to the pro­ving of their faith, to be able to prove the habitations or names of the Members of the Catholike Church in all ages: and why is it more necessary to us then them? 7. But yet, to men acquainted with history, what can be more easie, then to tell you where great multitudes of Christians in all ages have inhabited, and where many parts of the Church have been, though no man can give you a Catalogue of the Church, any more then of the world?

Would you know then where our Church, that is, the Catholike Church hath been, in all ages? why it hath been in Asia, [Page 227] Africa and Europe. Is that too general? It hath been in Syria, in Mesopotamia, Par­thia, Media, Armenia, India, Persia, in Egypt, Habassia, Georgia, Cilicia, Circassia, Mengrelia, Natolia, Isauria, Thrace, and more other Countries, then I have any need to name to you, (to say nothing of Europe, and Brittain by name, as a thing most known). But no man well in his wits will deny a succession of the Christian Church which I have defined, from the first plantation of it until now. If Christianity had ever ceased in the world, how came it to be new planted, and revived?

That this before described is the only Catholike Church that hath been owned by the ancient Doctors, appeareth by their constant witnesses. To cite a few, and yet enough.

August. in Psal. 21. Vbicunque timetur Deus & laudatur, ibi est Ecclesia.

Id. Epist. 50. In Sanctis Libris ubi ma­nifestatur Dominus Christus, ibi & ejus Ecclesia declaratur (and therefore there it must be sought) Isti autem mirabili caeci­tate, cum ipsum Christum praeter Scripturas nesciant, ejus tamen▪ Ecclesiam non divina­rum authoritate cognoscunt, sed humanarum calumniarum vanitate confingunt. Christ [Page 228] is to be known in the Scripture, and there­fore so is the Church.

Ibid. In causa Caeciliani — se ab Ec­clesia Catholica, hoc est, ab unitate omnium gentium diviserunt. Its not the Catholick Church because Roman, but because ex­tended to all Nations. Sed tamen Ecclesiam, quae non litigiosis opinionibus fingitur, sed Di­vinis attestationibus comprobatur, propter quemlibet hominem relinquere non debe­mus.

Id. In Psal. 56. Corpus ejus est Ec­clesia: non autem ista aut illa, sed toto Orbe diffusa: Nec ea quae nunc est in hominibus qui praesentem vitam agunt, sed ad eam perti­nentibus, etiam his qui fuerunt ante nos, & his qui futuri sunt post nos, usque in finem se­culi. Tota enim Ecclesia constans ex omnibus fidelibus, quia fideles omnes membra sunt Christi, habet illud Caput positum in coelesti­bus quod gubernat corpus suum, etsi separa­tum est à visione, sed annectitur charitate.]

Id. Enchirid. ad Laurent. c. 56. Ecclesia tanquam habitatori domus sua, & Deo tem­plum suum, & conditori civitas sua: quae tota hic accipienda est, non solum ex parte quae pere­grinatur in terris, à solis ortu usque ad occa­sum laudans nomen domini.]

Id. contr. Petilian. cap. 2. Purposely [Page 229] opening the true nature of the Catholick Church for the stating of the Case, saith, [ Quaestio certè inter nos versatur, ubi sit Ecclesia? utrum apud nos, an apud illos? Quae utique Vna est, quam majores nostri Catholicam nominarunt, ut ex ipso nomine ostenderent, quia per totum est.— Haec au­tem Ecclesia Corpus Christi est: sicut Apo­stolus dicit, [pro corpore ejus, quae est Eccle­sia.] Vnde utique manifestum est, eum qui non est in membris Christi, Christianam sa­lutem habere non posse. Membra vero Christi per unitatis charitatem sibi copulantur, & per eandem capiti suo adhaerent quod est Chri­stus Iesus. — Quaestio est, ubi sit hoc corpus, i. e. ubi sit Ecclesia? Quid ergo facturi su­mus? in Verbis nostris eam quaesituri? an in Verbis capitis sui? Domini nostri Iesu Christi? Puto quod in illius potius verbis eam quaerere debemus, qui verit as est, & optime novit cor­pus suum — After he calls the Church over and over, Vniversum Orbem Christia­num—cap. 3. Quia nolo humanis docu­mentis, sed divinis oraculis sanctam Ecclesi­am demonstrari. Si sanctae Scriptura in Afri­ca solâ, &c. — Si autem Christi Ecclesia Canonicarum Scripturarum Divinis & cer­tissimis testimoniis in omnibus gentibus desig­nata est, quicquid attulerint (N. B.) & un­dicunque [Page 230] recitaverint, qui dicunt, [Ecce hic Christus, ecce illic] audiamus potius, si [...]ves ejus sumus, vocem pastoris nostri dicentis [No­lite credere.] — Cap. 4. Totus Christus Caput & Corpus est: Caput unigenitus Dei filius, & Corpus ejus Ecclesia, sponsus & sponsa; duo in carne una: Quicunque de ipso capite ab Scripturis sanctis dissentiunt, etiamsi in omnibus locis inveniantur in quibus Eccle­sia designata est, non sunt in Ecclesia: & [...]ursus quicunque de ipso capite Scripturis Sanctis consentiunt, & Vnitati Ecclesiae non communicant, (or as after) ab ejus corpore quod est Ecclesia ita dissentiunt, ut eorum communio non sit cum toto quacunque diffun­ditur, sed in aliqua parte separata inveniatur, manif stum est eos non esse in Catholica Ec­clesia.] (A sad conclusion to the Papists.)

It would be tedious to recite half that Austin there hath to this purpose. Through all his exquisite disputes with the Donatists, he still describeth the Church, 1. As being the Body of Christ, its Head. 2. As disper­sed through the world, and containing all the Members of Christ. 3. And that which begun at Ierusalem. 4. And is to be known by the word of God: Never mentioning the Headship of the Pope, nor the Mi­stris-ship of Rome: of which more anon.

[Page 231]So Optatus lib. 2. advers. Parmen. Vbi ergo erit propriet as Catholici nominis, cum inde dicta sit Catholica, quod sit rationabilis & ubique diffusa, &c.] And before ( p. 46.) Ergo Ecclesia una est, cujus sanctitas de sa­cramentis colligitur; non de superbia perso­narum ponderatur: He glorieth indeed in the chair of Peter, and the Roman Church and succession, as being on the Catholicks side; but never maketh them an Essentiall part of the Catholick Church, nor talks of a Unity caused by subjection to them, but Charity to all: And therefore calls the Schismaticks, lib. 3. p. 72. Charitatis deser­tores, not subjectionis desertores: Adding, gaud [...]t totus Orbis de Vnitate Catholica; but never de subjectione Romae. Yea he saith more of the seven Asian Churches, lib. 2. p 50. Extra septem Ecclesias quicquid foris est, [...]lienum est. Never more (i [...] [...]o much) can be found to be said to Rome: and now Rome it self is extra septem Ecclesias. So he supposeth God praising the Catholick, p 77. lib. 4. Dissentio & sehisma tibi displicuit; Concordasti cum fratre tuo, & cum una Ec­clesia, quae est in toto orbe terrarum: Com­municasti septem Ecclesiis & memoriis Apo­stolorum: amplexus es unitatem. So lib. 6. p. 95. he thus describeth the Catholick [Page 232] Communion. [ An quia voluntatem & jussi­onem Dei secuti sumus amando pacem, com­municando toti orbi terrarum; societati Orien­talibus, ubi secundum hominem suum natus est Christus; ubi ejus sancta sunt in pressa vestigia; ubi ambu [...]averunt adorandi pedes; ubi ab ipso factae sunt tot & tantae virtutes; ubi eum sunt tot Apostoli comitati; ubi est septiformis Ecclesia; à qua vos concisos esse, &c.]

Tertullian dealing with Hereticks indeed, that denyed the Fundamentals, thought it but a tiresome way to dispute with them out of Scripture, who wrested so many things in it to their destruction, but would have them convinced by Prescription: be­cause they lived near the Churches that were planted by the Apostles, and near their daies: And what doth he? appeal to Rome, as the Judge, or Church that the rest are subjected to? No: but 1. It is the common Creed or Symbole of the Church, that he would have made use of in stead of long disputes (and not any other doctrine.) 2. And it is all the Churches planted by the Apostles, that he will have to be the first witnesses. 3. And the present Churches, the immediate witnesses that they received this Creed (not any supernumeraries) [Page 233] from them, as the Apostles doctrine. So de praescript. c. 13. he reciteth the Symbole it self, and so cap. 20. he mentioneth the sending of the twelve to teach this faith, and plant Churches, which he describeth thus [ Statim igitur Apostoli— primo per Iudaeam contestata fide in Iesum Christum, & Ecclesiis institutis, dehinc in orbem profecti, eandem doctrinam ejusdem fidei nationibus promulgaverunt, & proinde Ecclesias apud unamquamque civitatem condiderunt, à qui­bus traducem fidei & semina doctrinae caeterae exinde Ecclesiae mutuatae sunt, & quotidie mutuantur ut Ecclesiae fiant. Ac per hoc & ipsea Apostolicae deputantur ut soboles Aposto­licarum Ecclesiarum. Omne genus ad Origi­nem suam censeatur, necesse est. Itaque tot ac tantae Ecclesiae una est illa ab Apostolis prima, ex qua omnes. (Are not those too gross deceivers that would perswade us that he here meaneth the Church of Rome by the [ una illa], when he plainly speaks of the Catholick Church of the Apostolick age from which all the rest did spring? If of a particular Church, it must be that of Ieru­salem. Did all the rest arise from Rome? Can they say [ex hac omnes?] Sic omnes primae, & omnes Apostolicae, dum unam omnes probant unitatem. Communicatio pacis, & [Page 234] appellatio fraternitatis, & contesseratio hospi­talitatis, quae jura non alia ratio regit, quam ejusdem sacramenti una traditio.]

Note here 1. That no Original Church is mentioned but those of Iudaea, with the rest of the Apostles planting. And 2. That the Churches planted by the Apostles them­selv [...]s, (without any mentioned difference of superiority) are that one Church which all the rest must try their faith by, as the wit­nesses 3. That they are equally made tra­duces fidei, and mother Churches to others propagated by them. 4. That per hoc, by this propagation (without subjection to the Church or Pope of Rome) all the rest are Apostolicall. 5. And the sufficient proof to any Church then that it was prima & A­postolica, was (not subjection to Rome but) that nuam omnes probant unitatem. That is, of the Apostolick faith, received from that one Apostolick Church. 6. Yea when he reciteth the external Characters of the Church, it is not subjection to Rome, that is any one of them, but, Communicatio pacis, appellatio fraternitatis, contesseratio hospita­litatis.] 7. Yea utterly to exclude the Ro­man subjection, he adds [ quae jura non alia ratio regit, quam ejusdem sacramenti una traditio.]

[Page 235]So he proceeds Si haec ita sunt, constat pro­inde omnem doctrinam, quae cum illis Ecclesiis Apostolicis matricibus & originalibus fidei conspiret, veritati deputandum id sine dubio tenentem, quod Ecclesiae ab Apostolis, Apostoli à Christo, Christus a Deo suscepit; reliquam verò omnem doctrinam de mendacio praejudi­candam, quae sapiat contra veritatem Eccle­si [...]rum, & Apostolorum, & Christi, & Dei. Superest ergo ut demonstremus, an haec nostra doctrina (the Creed; not the Popes additi­ons) cujus regulam supra edidimus, de Aposto­lorum traditione censeatur, & ex hoc ipso, an caeterae (that contradict the Creed) de men­dacio veniant. Communicamus cum Ecclesiis Apostolicis ( Rome is not made the standard) quod nulla doctrina diversa, hoc est testimoni­um veritatis.

And cap. 28. he doth not send us to the Roman Church as Head or Judge, but cal­ling the Holy Ghost only, Vicarius Christi, Christs Vicar, makes it incredible that he should so far neglect his office, as to let (not Rome, but) all the Churches to lose the Apostles doctrine; proving the certain succession of it, by the Unity, and not by Romes authority [ Ecquid verisimile est, ut tot ac tantae in unam fidem irraverint? Nullus inter multo seventus est unus exitus: Vari­asse [Page 236] debuerat error doctrinae Ecclesiarum. Caeterum quod apud multos unum invenitur, non est erratum, sed traditum. Audeat ergo aliquis dicere, illos errasse qui tradi­derunt?

So c. 32. when he calls them to the Apo­stolical Church, it is no more to Rome, then another. Aedant ergo origines Ecclesiarum suaerum — ut primus ille Episcopus aliquis ex Apostolis vel Apostolicis viris, qui tamen cum Apost lis perseveraverint, habuerit auctorem, & antecessorem. Hoc enim modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt: sicut Smyrneorum Ecclesia habens Polycar­pum ab Iohanne Collocatum refert; sicut Ro­manorum Clementem a Petro ordinatum edit: proinde utique & caeterae exhibent] Here you see he puts Smyrna before Rome, and Iohn before Peter, and refers them to Rome, but only as one of the Churches planted by the Apostles; and this is but to know their do­ctrine, delivered in that first age, which we appeal to.

And after he expresly saith [ Ad hanc it aque formam, provocabantur ab illis Eccle­siis, quae licet nullum ex Apostolis, vel Apo­st [...]licus auctorem suum proferant, ut multo posteriores, quae denique quotidie institutum; tamen in eadem fidem conspirantes, non minus [Page 237] Apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrinae:] The Apostles doctrine will prove an Apostolical Church, when ever planted.

And c. 38. he draws them from disputing from the Scripture, because they owned not the true Scripture, but corrupted it, and charged the Catholikes with corruption [ Sicut illis non potuit succedere corruptela doctrinae sine corruptela instrumentorum ejus: Ita & nobis integritaes doctrina non compe­tisset, sine integritate eorum (not by real tradition alone) per quae doctrina tractatur: Etenim quid contrarium nobis in nostris? quid de proprio intulimus, ut aliquid con­trarium ei & in Scripturis deprehensum, de­tractione vel adjectione vel transumtatione remediaremus? Quod sumus, hoc sunt. Ab initio suo ex illis sumus; antequam nihil aliter fuit, quam sumus.]

And cap. 36. He sends them by name to the particular Apostolical Churches, and begins with Corinth; then to Philippi, Thessalonica, Ephesus, and then to Rome, of whose Soveraignty he never speaks a syllable.

So more plainly l. 4. contr. Marcion. c. 5. because Marcion denied the true Scri­ptures, he sends them to the Apostolike [Page 238] Churches for the true Scriptures, first to the Corinthians, then to the Galatians, then to the Philippians, Thessalonians, Ephesians, and last of all to Rome.

But it would be tedious to cite the rest of the Ancients, that commonly describe the Church as we; and such as we all own as members of it.

Arg. 3. If the Roman Church (as Chri­stian, though not as Papal) hath been visible ever since the daies of the Apostles, then the Church of which the Protestants are members, hath been visible ever since the daies of the Apostles: But the Antecedent is their own; therefore they may not deny the consequent.

The consequence also is past denyal. 1. Because the Roman as Christian, is part of the universal Christian Church. 2. Be­cause they profess to believe the same holy Scriptures and Creed as we do. So that though they add more, and so make a new form to their Church, yet do they not deny our Church, which is the Christian Church as such, nor our Test and Rule of faith, nor any Article that we account Essential to our Religion. So that themselves are our sufficient witnesses.

Well! but this will not satisfie the Pa­pists, [Page 239] unless we shew a succession of our Church as Protestant.

1. This we need not, any more then a sound man lately cured of the Plague, doth need to prove, that he hath ever been, not only sanus but sanatus, a cured man (before he was sick.) How could there be a Church protesting against an universal Vicar of Christ, before any claimed that Vicarship? 2. And when the Vicarship was usurped, those millions, abroad, and even within the Roman territories, that let the pretended Vicar talk, and followed their own business, and never consented to his usurpation, were of the very same Religion with those that openly protested against him: And so were those that never heard of his usurpa­tion.

Object. But at least, (say they) you must prove a Church that hath been without the universal Vicar negatively, though not against him positively.

Answ. 1. In all reason, he that affirm­eth must prove: It is not incumbent on us to prove the negative, that the Church had not such a Roman head; but they must prove that it had.

Object. But they have possession, and therefore you that would dispossess them, must disprove their title.

[Page 240] Ans. 1. This is nothing to most of the Catholike Church where they have no possession: therefore with them they con­fess themselves obliged to the proof. 2. This is a meer fallacious diversion: for we are not now upon the question of their Title, but the matter of fact and history: we make good the negative, that they have no Title from the Laws of Christ himself: and so will not dispossess them without dis­proving their pretended Title. But when the question is de facto, whether they have ever had that possession from the Apostles daies, they that affirm must prove, when we have disabled their title from the Law.

2. But what must we prove? that all the Church hath been guiltless of the Papal usur­pation, or only some in every age? of all its no more necessary to us, then to prove that there have been no Heresies since the Apo­stles. If a piece of the Church may turn Hereticks, or but Schismaticks, as the No­vatians, and African Donatists, why may not another piece turn Papists?

3. What will you say to a man that knoweth not a Protestant, nor a Papist, or believeth only Christianity it self, and med­dleth not with the Pope, any further then to say, [I believe not in him, Jesus I know: [Page 241] and the Apostles, and Scripture, and Chri­stianity I know, but the Pope I know not:] and suppose he never subscribed to the Au­gustane, English, or any such confession, but only to the Scripture, and the Apostles, and Nicene, and other ancient Creeds; By what shew of Justice can you require this man to prove that there hath been no Pope in every age?

4. The foundation of all our contro­versie is doctrinal, whether the Papal Sove­raignty be Essential to the Church? or ne­cessary to our membership? we deny it; you affirm it. If it be not Essential, it is enough to us, to prove that which is Essen­tial, to have been successive: we be not bound in order to the proof of our Church it self, to prove the succession of every thing that maketh but to its better being.

Yet professing, that we do it not as ne­cessary to our main cause, we shall ex abun­danti prove the negative, that the Catholike Church hath not alwaies owned the Papal Soveraignty, and so that there have been men that were not only Christians, but as we, Christians without Popery, and against it: and so shall both prove our Thesis, and overthrow theirs.

Arg. 4. If there have been since the [Page 242] daies 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 its being, and its free­dom from Popery. But the Antecedent is true: therefore so is the consequent.

I shall prove the Antecedent, and therein the visibility of our Church, and the non­existence in those times of the Papacy.

Arg. 1. My first Argument shall be from the general Council of Chalcedon.

If the priviledges of the Roman Sea were given to it by the Bishops consequently because of the Empire of that City, and therefore equal priviledges after given to Constantinople on the same account; then had not Rome those priviledges from the Apostles (and consequently the whole Ca­tholike Church was without them). But the Antecedent is affirmed by that fourth great approved Council: In Act. 16. Bin. p. 134. [We everywhere following the definitions of the holy Fathers, and the Canon, and the things that have been now read, of the hundred and fifty Bishops most beloved to God, that were congregate under the Emperour Theodosius the great of [Page 243] pious memory, in the Royal City of Con­stantinople, new Rome, we also knowing them, have defined the same things concern­ing the priviledges of the same most holy Church of Constantinople, new Rome: For to the seat of old Rome, because of the Em­pire of that City, the Fathers consequently gave the priviledges. And the hundred and fifty Bishops, most beloved of God, being moved with the same intention, have given equal priviledges to the most holy seat of new Rome: reasonably judging, that the City adorned with the Empire and Senate, shall enjoy equal priviledges with old Regal Rome.]

Here we have the Testimony of one of the greatest general Councils, of the hu­mane original of Romes priviledges. Bellar­mine hath nothing to say, but that they spoke falsly, and that this clause was not confirmed by the Pope (which are fully an­swered by me elsewhere.) But this is no­thing to our present business: It is a matter of fact that I use their Testimony for. And if all the Bishops in two of the most ap­proved general Councils, (called the Re­presentative Catholike Church) were not competent witnesses in such a case, to tell us what was done, and what was not done [Page 244] in those times, then we have none. The Papists can pretend to no higher testimony on their part. The Church it self there­fore hath here decided the contro­versie.

And yet note, that even these priviledges of Rome were none of his pretended univer­sal Government.

Its in vain to talk of the Testimonies of particular Doctors, if the most renowned general Councils cannot be believed. Yet I will add an Argument from them as con­junct.

Arg. 2. Had the Roman universal Sove­raignty, as essential to the Catholike Church, been known in the daies of Ter­tullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, Nazianzen, Nyssen, Basil, Optatus, Augustine, and the other Doctors that confounded the Here­sies or Schisms of those times ( e. g. the Novatians, Donatists, Arrians, &c.) the said Doctors would have plainly and fre­quently insisted on it for the conviction of those Hereticks and Schismaticks: But this they do not: therefore it was not known in those times.

The consequence of the Major is evident hence: The Doctors of the Church were men at least of common wit and prudence in [Page 245] the matters which they did debate: there­fore they would have insisted on this argu­ment, if then it had been known. The rea­son of the consequence is, because it had been most obvious, easie, and potent to dispatch their controversies. 1. When the Arrians and many other Hereticks denied Christs eternal Godhead, had it not been the shortest expeditious course, to have cited them to the barr of the Judge of con­troversies, the infallible Soveraign Head of the Church; and convinced them that they were to stand to his judgement? 2. Had not this Argument been at hand, to have confounded all Heresies at once, [That which agreeth not with the Belief of the Roman Pope and Church is false: But such is your opinion: therefore]

2. So for the Donatists; when they dis­puted for so many years against the Catho­likes, which was the true Church, had it not been Augustins shortest, surest way to have argued thus: That only is the true Church that is subject to the Pope of Rome, and adhereth to him: But so do not you: there­fore.]

Either the Arrians, Donatists and such others did believe the Papal Soveraignty and Vicarship, or not: If they did, 1. How [Page 246] is it possible they should actually reject both the Doctrine and Communion of the Pope and Roman Church? 2. And why did not the Fathers rebuke them for sinning against conscience, and their own profession herein?

But if they did not believe the Papal So­veraignty, then 2. How came it to pass that the Fathers did labour no more to con­vince them of that (now supposed) fun­damentall Errour? when 1. It is supposed as hainous a sin as many of the rest. 2. And was the maintainer of the rest. Had they but first demonstrated to them, that the Pope was their Governour and Judge, and that his Headship being essentiall to the Church, it must needs be of his faith, all Heresies might have been confuted, the peo­ple satisfied, and the controversies dispatched in a few words.

3. Either Arrians, Donatists, Novatians, and such like, were before their defection acquainted with the Roman Soveraignty, or not. If they were not, then it is a sign it was not commonly then received in the Church, and that there were multitudes of Christians that were no Papists: If they were, then why did not the Fathers, 1. Urge them with this as a granted truth, till they [Page 247] had renounced it? 2. And then why did they not charge this defection from the Pope up­on them, among their hainous crimes? why did they not tell them, that they were sub­jected to him as soon as they were made Christians; and therefore they should not perfidiously revolt from him? How is it that we find not this point disputed by them on both sides, yea and as copiously as the rest, when it would have ended all?

And for the Minor, that the Fathers have not thus dealt with Hereticks, the whole Books of Tertullian, Nazianzen, Nyssen, Basil, Optatus, Hierom, Augustine, and others are open certain witnesses. They use no such Argument, but fill their Books with others; most imprudently and vainly, if they had known of this, and had believed it. Otherwise the Papists would never have been put to gather up a few impertinent scraps to make a shew with.

We see by experience here among us, that this point is Voluminously debated; and if we differ in other matters, the Papists call us to the Roman bar, and bring in this as the principall difference. And why would it not have been so then between the Fathers, and the Donatists, Arrians, and such like, if the Fathers had believed this? Its clear [Page 248] hence that the Papall Vicarship was then unknown to the Church of Christ.

Arg. 3. The Tradition witnessed by the greater part of the Universal Church saith, that the Papal Vicarship or Soveraignty is an innovation and usurpation, and that the Catholick Church was many hundred years without it: Therefore there was then no such Papal Church.

This is not a single testimony, nor of ten thousand, or ten millions, but of the Ma­jor Vote of the whole Church; and in Councils the Major Vote stands for the whole. If this witness therefore be refused, we cannot expect that the words of a few Doctors should be credited; Nor may they expect that we credit any witness of theirs, that is not more credible.

And that the Antecedent is true, is known to the world; as we know that the Turks believe in Mahomet, by the common consent of history and travellers. Part of the Churches anathematize the Romans, and part more modestly disown them, and the generality that subject not themselves do profess that Popery is an usurpation, and that in the ancient Church it was not so; and this they have by Tradition from gene­ration to generation. And if the Roman [Page 249] pretended Tradition be with them of value, the Tradition of the far greater part of the Church is with us to be of more. We must despair of satisfying them with witness, if most of the Christian world be rejected, and the Tradition of the greatest part of the Church be taken to be false in a matter of publick notorious fact.

Arg. 4. Many Churches without the verge of the Roman Empire, never sub­jected themselves to Rome, (and many not of many hundred years after Christ:) there­fore there were visible Christian Churches from the beginning, to this day, that were not for the Roman Vicarship.

That abundance of Churches were plan­ted by the Apostles, without the reach of the Roman Empire, is plentifully testified by the ancients, and the Papists commonly con­fess it. That these were under the Papal Government, all the Papists in the world cannot prove. The contrary is confessed by them, and proved by us. 1. They came not so much as to Generall Councils. 2. They had no Bishops ordained by the Pope, or any impowred by him. 3. They never appealed to him. 4. They never had any causes judged by him. 5. They per­formed no obedience to him, nor lived un­der [Page 250] his Laws; nor scarce had any commu­nion with him, more then the common communion that is held in Charity, and common faith and ordinances with all. Such were the Indians, the Persians, the further Armenia and Parthia, the Habassines and many more. And of long time the English and the Scots, that refused so much as to eat and drink in the same Inn with the Ro­man Legates: much less would obey him, so much as in the change of Easter day; we challenge them to shew us any appearance of subjection to the Pope in the generality of the Churches without the Empire.

But you say, that the Habassines were under the Patriarch of Alexandria, and he under the Pope.

Ans. 1. If that were true, yet whats that to all the rest? 2. Give us your proof that the Abassines were under the Patri­arch of Alexandria, before that Patriarch broke off his communion with Rome. The Canons of Pisanus, of yesterdayes inven­tion, we regard not: Surely the true Ca­nons of Nice ( Can. 6.) measure out no more to the Patriarch of Alexandria, but Aegypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis. There's no mention of Ethiopia: And its not like that the greatest part of his Province would [Page 251] have been left out. 3. If it had been so, yet we utterly deny that ever the Pope had the Government of the Alexandrian Patri­arch: Only for a little while he had a pre­cedency in honorary Title, and in Councils; as the City of London is preferred before York, but doth not Govern it at all.

Here therefore (without the Roman Em­pire) you may see those Churches that have successively been visible, and yet no Pa­pists. This your Raynerius confesseth contr. Waldens. Catalog. in Bibliothec. Patr. Tom. 4. pag. 773. saying [ Armeniorum Eccle­siae, & Aethiopum, & Indorum, & caeterae qua [...] Apostoli converterunt, non subsunt Romanae Ecclesiae.] See Godignus de Rebus Abassi­norum, of their Antiquity.

Arg. 5. The Eastern Churches within the Empire were never subjects of the Pope: therefore there have been and are Churches Visible, that neither were nor are his sub­jects.

The Antecedent I have proved in my Key for Catholicks, from the Council of Car­thage's Letters to Pope Coelestine, after their resistance of Zosimus; and divers testimo­nies from Basil and others. And they can give us themselves no plausible appearance of a proof of that subjection which they [Page 252] assert: no more then the younger Justices on the Bench are subject to the elder, or the Jury to the foreman, or a Master of Arts in a Colledge to a Batchelor in Divinity, or then the Mayor of Bristoll is to the Mayor of York.

1. The Pope never chose the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, &c. 2. It did not belong to him to ordain them: nor did he authorize any other to do it, nor did they receive or hold their power from him. 3. They receive no Laws of his to Rule by. 4. They were not commanded or Judged by him. 5. The Patriarch of Constantinople had equall Priviledges with him. So that here is nothing like to Soveraignty and sub­jection, nor any acknowledgement of an universal Vicar of Christ. Communion in­deed they held with Rome, as they did with one another, till pride divided them; but Communion is one thing, and Subjection is another. The Greek Church never gave them this.

Arg. 6. My next Argument to prove the Novelty of their Church as Papal, and con­sequently that the Universal Church was void of Popery, and therefore of the same Religion with Protestants, shall be from the testimony of their own most magnified Bi­shops.

[Page 253] Gregory 1. Epist. Regist. l. 4. c. 80. speak­ing against the Patriarch of Constantinople, for usurping the Title of Oecumenicall Pa­triarch, or Universal Bishop, saith ( fol. 181, 182. Edit. Paris. 1551.) [ Sicut enim veneranda vestra sanctitas novit, mihi per sanctam Chalcedonensem Synodum Pontifici sedis Apostolicae, cui Deo disponente deservio, hoc Vniversalitatis nomen oblatum est: sed Nullus unquam decessorum meorum hoc tam prophano vocabulo uti consensit. Quia viz, si Vnus Patriarcha Vniversalis dicitur, Pa­triarcharum nomen Caeteris derogatur. Sed absit hoc, absit à Christiana mente, id sibi vel­le quempiam arripere, unde fratrum suorum honorem imminuere ex quantulacunque parte videatur. Cum ergo nos hunc honorem nolu­mus oblatum suscipere; pensate quam ign [...]mi­niosum sit hunc sibi quempiam violenter usur­pare voluisse Propterea sunctitas vestra in suis Epist [...]lis neminem Universalem nominet, ne sibi debitum detrahat, cum alteri honorem offert indebitum.]

1. Here he affirmeth that the Title of Vniversal was never used by any of his pre­decessors nor received. 2. That it is a pro­phane Title. 3. That it is an injury to other Patriarchs. 4. That its unbeseeming a Christian mind to assume it. 5. That its [Page 254] undue. 6. He perswaded the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch to give it to no man whosoever.

Obj. But he saith that the Council of Chalcedon offered it him. Ans. 1. If he renounce it as undue and prophane, and say that de facto none of his predecessors took it, this is as much as we desire. 2. That at the Council of Chalcedon, near 150. years before this, two Deacons (that they say have no Votes) call'd Theodorus and Ischi­rion, did superscribe their Libels, to Leo Vniversal Archbishop, I find; but no more: And this is it that Gregory here brags of: And whats two Deacons to the Council?

Obj. But it is only the Name and not the Thing that he disclaims, and that is in mo­desty. Ans. 1. How then could he cen­sure the name as undue, injurious, prophane, and blasphemous, if he owned the Thing? seeing aptanda sunt verba rebus: words are to be fitted to Things. 2. But I shall con­fute this fully from his following words.

[ Ita ut Vniversa sibi tentet ascribere, & omnia quae soli uni capiti cohaerent, videlicet Christo, per elationem pompatici sermonis, ejusdem Christi sibi studeat membra subju­gare.]

Here it is plain 1. That it is the Thing as [Page 255] well as the Name that Gregory wrote against. 2. And that it is also a palpable fiction of the Papists (for want of a better) that Gregory opposeth only such an Univer­sal Episcopacy as taketh away all Episco­pacy from others. Ridiculous! They would make us believe, that Iohn of Constantinople would have had no Bishop in the world but himself; and that the Council that gave him the Title, intended all to degrade them­selves; and that there were no Bishops un­der him ever after; when other Councils confirmed his Title. On the contrary, you here see 1. That there is but one Head, even Christ. 2. And that Iohns sin in arro­gating the Title [ Vniversal] was, that he would subjugate, or subject all Christs Members to himself. And is not this now the very form of Popery, which Gre­gory makes so great a sin? even to subject all Christs Members to one, as an Universal Patriarch or Bishop? Yea much higher Titles do they arrogate, even to be [the Vi­car of Christ, and God, and in stead of Christ and God; and to be the Vice-Christ.]

He proceeds [ Nec mirum quod ille ten­tator, qui initium omnis peccati scit esse super­biam, &c.] Making the Devil the author of this Title.

[Page 256]He adds a weighty reason [ si enim hoc dici licenter permittitur, honor Patriarcha­rum omnium negatur. Et cum fortasse is in errore periit qui Vniversalis dicitur, nullus jam Episcopus remansisse in statu veritatis invenitur] or as more plainly before c. 76. fol. 180. in the Epist. to the Emperour Maurice [si igitur illud nomen in ea Eccle­sia sibi quisquam arripuit, quod apud bono­rum omnium judicium fuit: Vniversa ergo Ecclesia, quod absit, à statu suo corruit, quando is qui appellatur Vniversalis cadit] The reason is plain, because the Head of every political society is essential to it: and therefore if the Head of the Universal Church fall away to Heresie or Infidelity, the Church falls: as Bellarmine knew when he told us, that if the Pope should erre in determining, the Church would be bound to take evil for good, and vice for vertue.

He proceeds in the same Epist. ad Maur. Imperat. [ Sed absit à Cordibus Christiano­rum nomen istud blasphemiae, &c.] [Far be this name of blasphemy from the hearts of Christians, &c.]

And after again saith [ Sed nullus eorum unquam. hoc singularitatis vocabulum assumpsit, nec uti consensit] That none of [Page 257] the Roman Bishops did ever assume this name of singularity, nor consent to use it.]

And therefore he concludes to the Pa­triarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, c. 80. [ Oportet ergo ut constanter ac sine praejudicio servetis sicut accepistis Ecclesias, & nihil sibi in nobis haec tentatio diabolicae usurpationis ascribat. State sortes, state securi; Scripta cum Vniversalis nominis falsitate, nec dare unquam, nec recipere praesumatis] He charg­eth them never to give or take writing with the falshood of this name [ Vniversal] as being from the Devils tentation.

And in Ep. 38. c. 82. to Iohn Const. himself he calls it [ Nefandum elationis vo­cabulum] and the cause [ Nefandum & pro­phanum tumorem] and after he calls it [the usurping of a proud and foolish word.]

To all this Bellarmine miserably answer­eth de Pontif. Rom. l. 2. c. 31. that the title [Universal] as it signifieth a sole Bishop to whom all other are but Vicars, is indeed profane, sacrilegious and Anrichristian, and is it that Gregory speaks against, but not as it excludeth not particular Bishops,] To which I answer, 1. To be the Vicarius of a Superiour, is not an exclusion. The Pope saith he is the Vicar of Christ the chief [Page 258] Pastour and Bishop of souls: and all Pa­stours are to Preach the Word of recon­ciliation in his name and stead, 1 Cor. 5.19. and yet they are not thereby excluded from being Pastours. If to be Christs servants, may consist with Episcopacy; much more to be his Vicarii over their particular flocks. Rather this is too high an honour for us to assume. I do not think that all the Clergy under the Pope, do think themselves ho­noured so much as they should be if they were his Vicars. 2. Hath not that man sold his conscience to his cause, that will perswade the world that the Patriarch of Constantinople was about to unbishop all the Bishops in the world except himself? Let any man shew us by tolerable proof, that Iohn of Constant [...]nople did claim any higher a power over all others, or would bring other Bishops by his Universality to be lower, then the Pope of Rome doth by his Universality, and then I will confess that Papists only have eyes and reason, and all the world besides are blind, and mad, or beasts. Their cause is at a fair pass, when they must fly to such palpable falshoods, as makes them the wonder of their sober readers. 3. I proved before from the ex­press words of Gregory, that it is Superiority [Page 259] of Government, and making all other Bi­shops subject to him, that he condemned in the Patriarch of Constantinople. And no doubt he made not the least of his arrogan­cy: Nor do I believe that it can be proved that Iohn, or the Council that gave him the Title, did ever intend so much as a Univer­sal Government, which the Pope now usurpeth; but only a Primacy before all, which Popes were then striving for. For the Greeks to this day disclaim it, and they never strove to exercise it.

I will give you more of Gregories words to put the question past doubt, Cap. 82. Ep. 38. to Iohn, saith [ Humilitatem ergo frater charissime totis vis [...]eribus dilige, per quam cunctorum fratrum concordia & sanctae Vniversalis Ecclesiae unitas v [...]leat custo­diri: Certe Paulus Apost [...]lus cum audiret quosdam dicere, Ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego vero Cophae, hanc dilacerationem corporis Dominici, per quam membra ejus aliis quo­dammodo se capitibus sociabant, vehementissimè perhorrescens exclamavit, dicens: Nunquid Paulus pro vobis crucifixus est: aut in nomi­ne Pauli baptizati estis? Sic ergo ille mem­bra Dominici corporis certis extra Christum quasi capitibus, & ipsis quidem Apostolis subjici particulariter evitavit: Tu quid [Page 260] Christo Vniversalis scilicet Ecclesiae capiti, in extremi judicii es dicturus examine, qui cuncta ejus membra tibimet conaris Vniver­salis appellatione supponere!]

Here you see 1. That the unity and concord of the Church is not maintained by universal Headship, but by fraternal communion and humility. 2. That it wounded Paul, and should do us, to see the Church make men as it were their heads, though they were Apostles, and though Peter was one of them: and that extra Christum, beside Christ, none, no not Peter should be as a Head to Christs mem­bers. 3. Much more abominable is it for any man to pretend to be the universal Bishop or Head to all Christs members: 4. That the sin of this usurpation was against Christ the Churches Head, and that before him in Judgement the usurper of universal Episcopacy will be confounded for this very thing. 5. And that the crime of this title of universal Bishop was, that it endeavoured to put all Christs members under him that used it (tibimet supponere:) not to exclude all other Bishops, but to put under him all Christs members. These are the words of Gregory: and if men can make what their list of words so full and plain, [Page 261] and oft repeated in many Epistles, what hope have they that their Judge of Con­troversies should do any more to end their Controversies then Scripture hath done, which they cannot understand without such an unintelligible Judge?

He proceeds (ibid.) [ Quis ergo in hoc tam perverso vocabulo, nisi ille ad imitandum proponitur, qui despectis Angelorum legioni­bus, secum socialiter constitutis, ad culmen conatus est singularitatis erumpere, ut & nulli subesse, & solus omnibus praeesse videre­tur.] He maketh him the imitator of the Devil, that aspiring above the rest of the Angels, fell by pride.

But Bellarmine hath three Reasons to prove yet that Gregory after all this meant not the universal Headship or Episcopacy indeed. 1. Because the holy Council of Chalcedon offered it him. Ans. 1. A fair offer! because two or three Deacons in­scribed their Libels to him with the name of universal Archbishop: And we must be­lieve that the Council approved of this, though we cannot prove it. Or if they called him the Head, as the City of London is the Head City in England, and the Earle of Arundel the Head Earle, or the Lord Chancelour the Head Judge, that yet have [Page 262] no Government of the rest, what advan­tage were this to the Roman Vicarship? 2. If Gregory judge the name so blasphem­ous, when it signifieth an universal Gover­nour of the Church, surely he believed that the Council offered it not to him in that sence, but as he was the Episcopus primae sedis. 3. But again, I say the matter of fact is it that I am enquiring of: And I have the testimony of this Roman Bishop that none of his Predecessors would receive that name.

2. But saith Bellarmine, he saith that the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter, which is all one.] Ans. 1. But so it was committed also to the rest of the Apostles: Paul had on him the care of all the Churches, that claimed no Headship. 2. He expr [...]sly excludeth Peters Headship, both in the words before recited, and after, saying [ Certe Petrus Apostolus primum membrum (or rather as Dr. Iames Corrupt. of the Fathers Part. 2. p. 60 saith he found it in seven written Copies, [Apostolorum primus membrum] Sanctae & Vniversalis Ecclesiae est: Paulus, Andreas, Iohannes, quid [...]liud quam singularium sunt plebium capita? Et tamen sub uno capite omnes mem­bra sunt Ecclesiae] that is [ Peter the first [Page 263] of the Apostles, is a member of the holy and universal Church: Paul, Andrew, Iohn, what are they but the Heads of the singular flocks of the people? And yet all are mem­bers of the Church under one Head] (that is, Christ) so that Christ is the only Head: Peter is but a member, as the other Apostles are; but not a Head.

3. But saith Bellarmine, Gregory could not but know that the title of Episcopus Vniversalis Ecclesiae, which is all one, had been oft assumed by the Popes.] Ans. 1. Whether was Bellarmine or Gre­gory the wiser man? at least the fitter in­terpreter of those words: would Gregory have made them so blasphemous, foolish, prophane, and devilish, if he had thought them of the same importance with those which his Predecessors used? Or was he so silly as not to know that this might have been retorted on him? What a silly [...]or, what a wicked dissembling hypocrite, doth Bellarmine feign Pope Gregory to have been? 2. But verily did the Learned Jesuite believe himself that [ Vniversalis Episcopus Ecclesiae] & Episcopus Ecclesiae Vniversalis] are of the same signification? Every Bishop in the world, that adhered to the common Communion of Chr [...]ians [Page 264] and was a Catholike, was wont to be called [a Bishop of the Catholike Church,] and is indeed such; but he is not therefore [the universal Bishop of the Church.]

But Bellarmine will not charge Gregory of such horrid dissimulation without rea­son. His first reason is, [that Gregory did it for caution, to prevent abuse.] Ans. What! charge it with blasphemy, prophaness, devilism, wronging all the Church, and also to excommunicate men for it, and all this to prevent abuse, when he held it lawful! Did hell ever hatch worse hypocrisie then this that he fathers on his holiest Pope?

But 2. His other reason is worse then this; forsooth [because the question was only whether Iohn of Constantinople should have this title, and not whether the Bishop of Rome should have it: and therefore Gregory simply and absolutely pronounceth the name sacrilegious and prophane, that is, as given to Iohn, (but not to himself) yet he refused it himself, though due to him, that he might the better repress the pride of the Bishop of Constantinople.] Ans. The sum is then, that Gregory did meerly lye and dissemble for his own end. He labours to prove that blasphemous, sacrilegious, &c. [Page 265] which he desired; But we will not judge so odiously of the Pope as Papists do. Doth he charge the other Patriarchs and Bishops to give it no man? doth he blame them after in other Epistles that gave him that Title? and doth he profess that never any of his Predecessors received it, and make so hainous a matter of it, and yet all this while approve it as for himself? Who will believe a Saint to be so diabolical, that calls it an imitation of the Devil? You see now what the Ro­man Cause is come to, and whether their Church as Papal, that is, their Universal So­veraignty, be not sprung up since Gregories dayes.

Hear him a little further (ibid.) [Atque ut cuncta breviter cingalo locutionis adstrin­gam: sancti ante Legem, sancti sub Lege, sancti sub Gratia, omnes hi perficientes Corpus Domini in membris sunt Ecclesiae constituti, & nemo se unquam Vniversalem vocare vo­luit: Vestra autem sanctitas agnoscat quan­tum apud se tumeat, quae illo nomine vocari ap­petit, quo vocari nullus praesumpsit, qui vera­citer sanctus fuit.] That is, [And to bind up all in the girdle of speech, the Saints be­fore the Law, the Saints under the Law, the Saints under Grace, all these making up the Body of Christ, were placed among the [Page 266] Members of the Church, yet never man would be called Universal. Let your Holi­ness therefore consider how with your self you swell, that desire to be called by that name, by which no man hath presumed to be called that was truly Holy.]

Well! if this be not as p [...]in as Prote­stants speak against Popery, I will never hope to understand a Pope

I only add, that Gregory makes this usur­pation of the name of an Universal Bishop a forerunner of Antichrist: And that Pope Pelagius condemned it before him; which Gratian puts into their Decrees, or Canon Law.

And that he took the Churches authority to be greater then his own, when he tells Iohn, [Sed quoad in mea correptione despicior, restat ut Ecclesiam debeam adhibere.]

Lib. 7. Ep. 30. Dixi nec mihi vos, nec cui­quam alteri tale aliquid scribere debere: & ecce in praefatione epistolae quam ad meipsum qui prohibui direxistis, s [...]perbae appellationis verbum, Universalem me Papam dicentes, im­primere curastis. Quod peto dulcissima san­ctitas vestra, ultra non faciat: quia vobis sub­trahitur, quod alteri plusquam ratio exigit, praebetur.] See then whether it be not judged by him undue to himself as well as to others.

[Page 267]And what the weight of the matter seemed to him, judge more by these words, Ep. 83. l. 4. ad Arrian. In isto scelesto voca­bulo consentire, nihil est aliud quam fidem perdere.] [To consent in that wicked word, is nothing else but to lose (or destroy) the faith.] That is, apostasie.

And l. 6. c. 194. Mauric. Aug. Ego fi­denter dico, quia quisquis se universalem sa­cerdotem vocat, vel vocare desiderat, in ela­tione sua Antichristum praecurrit; quia su­perbiendo se caeteris praeponit, nec dispari su­perbia ad errorem ducitur.]

Arg. 7. 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 by their Testimony there have been visible Churches of such.

Aeneas Sylvius, after Pope Pius 2. saith, small regard was had to the Church of Rome before the Council of Nice. Bellarmine saith, This is partly true, by reason of the persecution of those ages, and partly false. Ans. But, if true, we prove the matter of fact, and leave Bellarmine better to prove his Reason. If it be false, then their own Histo­rians are not to be believed, [...]hough worthy to be Popes. And then w [...]at historicall testi­mony will they believe?

[Page 268]Voluminously do their Historians menti­on the Opposition of the Greeks on one side, and of the Emperours and Kings, and Divines, that were under the Popes Patriar­chal power; as Mich. Goldastus in abun­dance of Treatises hath manifested.

I gave before the testimony of Reynerius, that the Churches planted by the Apostles, were not under the Pope.

I shall once more recite the words of Melch. Canus, Loc. Theol. lib. 6. cap. 7. fol. 201. [Not only the Greeks, but almost all (N. B.) the rest of the Bishops of the whole world, have vehemently fought to destroy the Priviledge of the Church of Rome: and indeed they had on their side, both the Arms of Emperours, and the greater Num­ber of Churches; and yet they could never prevail to abrogate the Power of the One Pope of Rome.] By the Papists confession then most of the Churches, and almost all the Bishops of the whole world, and the Emperours & their Armies, have vehement­ly fought to abrogate the Popes power, and destroy the Priviledges of Rome.

Reynerius his testimony concerning the Antiquity of the Waldenses, as from Pope Sylvesters dayes, if not the Apostles, hath been oft cited: Had they been but from [Page 269] Gregories dayes, it had been enough, when we have his own Testimony, that no Bishop of Rome would own (to that time) that wicked, prophane, sacrilegious, foolish, blasphemous, dividing name of Vniversal Patriarch or Bishop, which who ever holds to, destroys the faith.

Arg. 8. The next Argument should have been from the Historical Testimony of the Ancients, that the Papal Soveraignty was then no part of the Churches faith, nor owned by them. But here to produce the Testimonies of all ages, would be to write a Volume in Folio, on this one Argument alone: For how can the History of all Ages be so particularly delivered out of such a Multitude of Books, but in a multitude of words?

And it is done already so fully, that I provoke the Papists to answer the Cata­logues and historicall Evidence given in, if they can. If you ask where, I will now only tell you of, 1. Blondell against Perron d [...] Primatu in Ecclesia (in French) that shews you the torrent of Antiquity against the Papal Soveraignty. 2. Molinaeus (in French) de Novitate Papismi against the same Per­ron. 3. Bishop Vsher, de statu & successione Ecclesiarum, and his Answer to the [...]esuites [Page 270] challenge. 4. Dr. Field of the Church, who lib. 5. answereth Bellarmines allega­tions from all sort of Antiquity, which are their strength. I pass by many others, some of which I have named in the foresaid 3. Dis­pute of the safe Religion: where also I have produced more of this evidence then they can answer. At least much more then you have returned me in your last Paper for the contrary, to which I desire your answer: For its in vain to write one thing so oft.

I shall only instance in the currant Testi­mony of their own Historians, of the Be­ginning of their Universal Headship. Saith Regino Chron. l. 1. An. 808. p. 13. [ Bonifa­cius obtinuit apud Phocam Principem, ut se­des Romana Caput esset omnium Ecclesiarum: quia Ecclesia Constantin [...]p [...]litana primum se omnium Ecclesiarum scribebat.]

Hermannus Contractus, An. M. 4550. p. 122. [ Hoc tempore Phocas Romanam Ec­clesiam omnium Ecclesi [...]rum Caput esse con­stituit: Nam Constantinop. primam se esse scripsit.]

So Marianus Scotus in Phoc. [ Bonifacius P. 67. impetravit á Phoca Caesare ut sedes Apostolica Romana Caput esset Ecclesiae, quum antea Constantinopolis Primam omnium se scriberet.] The same hath Sigebertus Gem­blac. [Page 271] An. 607. p. 526. And so Compilat. Chron. and many more.

Beneventus de Rambaldis Lib. Augustali, saith p. 8. in Phoca [Phocas occi [...]r Man­ritii—qui Primus constituit, Quod Ec­clesia esset Caput omnium Ecclesiarum: Cum prius Constantin. supremum se nominaret.] Mark here the [ Primus Constituit.] So Be­da, P. Diaconus, Anastasius, Pomponius Lae­tus, &c.

And of the Novelty of their worship, saith Platina in Gregor. 1. [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 —] So that here is all invented new by Gregory (which was hardly received in Spain) and yet that changed since.

Arg. 9. If the Generality of Christians in the first ages, and many (if not most) in the later ages, have been free from the Es­sentials of the Papists faith, [...]hen 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: as I prove in some in­stances.

[Page 272]1. It is an Article of their faith deter­mined in a General Council at Laterane and Florence, that the Pope is above a Council: But that this hath not been successively re­ceived, the Council of Basil and Constance witness, making it a new Heresie.

2. It is an Article of their faith, that a Generall Council is above the Pope: for it is so determined at Basil and Constance: But that this hath had no successive duration, the Council of Laterane and Florence wit­ness.

3. It is an Article of their faith, that the Pope may depose Princes for denying Tran­substantiation and such like Heresies, and also such as will not exterminate such Here­ticks from their dominions, and may give their dominions to others, and discharge their Subjects from their oaths and fidelity: For it is determined so in a Council at La­terane: But this hath not been so from the beginning: Not when the 13. Chapter to the Romans was written: Not till the dayes of Constantine: Not till the dayes of Gre­gory that spake in contrary language to Princes: And Goldastus his three Volumes of Antiquities shew you, that there hath been many Churches still against it.

4. It is an Article of their faith, that the [Page 273] Body and Blood, together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, is truly, really, and substantially in the Eucharist, and that there is a Change made of the whole substance of Bread into the body, and of the whole substance of Wine into the blood, which they call Transubstantia­tion.] So the Council of Trent: But the Catholick Church hath been of a contrary judgement from age to age, as among many others, Edm. Albertinus de Eucharist. hath plainly evinced (though a quarreller hath denyed it and little more): And its pro­ved, in that successively they judged sense (and Reason by it) a competent discerner of Bread and Wine.

5. It is now de fide that the true Sacra­ment is rightly taken under one kind (with­out the cup) as the Councils of Constance and Trent shew. But the Catholick Church hath practised, and the Apostles and the Church taught otherwise, as the Council of Constance, and their Writers ordinarily con­fess.

6. It is an Article of their faith (as ap­pears in the Trent Oath) that we must never take and interpret Scripture, but according to the unanimous con­sent of the Fathers]: But the Catholick [Page 274] Church before these Fathers could not be of that mind: and the Fathers themselves are of a contrary mind: and so are many learned Papists.

7. It is an Article of their faith, that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are holpen by the suffrages of the faithful. But the latter was strange to all the old Catholick Church (as Bishop Vsher and others have proved) and the very being of Purgatory, was but a new, doubtfull, indiffe­rent opinion of some very few men, about Augustines time.

8. It is now an Article of their faith, that [the holy Catholick Church of Rome is the mother and mistris of all Churches.] But I have shewed here and elsewhere, that the Catholick Church judged otherwise, and so doth for the most part to this day.

9. It is now an Article of their faith, that their Traditions are to be received with equall pious affection and reverence as the holy Scripture. But the Catholick Church did never so believe.

10. The Council of Basil made it de fide, that the Virgin Mary was conceived with­out Originall sin: But the Catholick Church never judged so.

11. Its determined by a Council now, that [Page 275] the people may not read the Scripture in a known tongue without the Popes License: But the Catholick Church never so thought, as I have proved, Disp. 3. of the safe Religion.

12. The Books of Maccabees and others are now taken into the Canon of faith, which the Catholick Church received not as such: as Dr. Cosin, and Dr. Reignolds have fully proved.

To this I might add the Novelty of their Worship and Discipline; but it would be too tedious: and I have said enough of these in other writings. See Dr. Challoner, pag. 88, 89.

In 16. points Dr. Challoner proveth your Novelty from your Confessions. Indeed his Book de Eccles. Cath. though small, is a full answer to your main Question.

Arg. 10. If Multitudes (yea the far greatest part) of Christians in all ages have been ignorant of Popery, but not of Chri­stianity; then hath there been a succession of Visible Professors of Christianity that were no Papists: but the antecedent is true: there­fore so is the consequent.

In this age it is an apparent thing, that the far greatest part are ignorant of formal Popery. 1. They confess themselves that the common people, and most of the nobi­lity [Page 276] of Habassia, Armenia, Greece, Russia, and most other Eastern Churches that are not Papists, are ignorant of the Controversie. 2. They use to tell us here among Prote­stants, that there is not one of many that know what a Papist is. 3. We know that of those that go under the name of Papists, there is not one of a multitude knoweth. We hear it from the mouths of those we speak with: I have not met with one of ten of the poorer sort of them, even here among us, that knoweth what a Papist or Popery is; but they are taught to follow their Priests, and to say that theirs is the true Church and old Religion, and to use their Ceremonious worship, and to forbear coming to our Churches, &c. and this is their Religion. And in Ireland they are yet far more ignorant: And its well known to be so in other parts: Their Priests they know, and the Pope they hear of, as some person of eminent Power in the Church: But whether he be the Universal Vicar of Christ, and be over all others as well as them & whether this be of Gods institution, or by the grant of Emperours or Councils, &c. they know not. And no wonder, when the Papists think that the Council of Chal­cedon spoke falsly of the humane Originall of [Page 277] the Primacy in the Imperiall territories: And when the Councils of Basil and Constance knew not whether Pope or Council was the Head.

And that the people were as ignorant and much more in former ages, they testifie themselves: And before Gregories dayes they must needs be ignorant of that which was not then risen in the world.

Yea Dr. Field hath largely proved, Ap­pend. lib. 3. that even the many particular points in which the Papists now differ from us, were but the opinions of a faction among them before Luther: and that the Western Church before Luther was Prote­stant, even in those particular Controver­sies; though this is a thing that we need not prove. And as Dr. Potter tells them, pag. 68. [The Roman Doctors do not fully and absolutely agree in any one point among themselves, but only in such points wherein they agree with us: In the other disputed between us, they differ one from another as much almost as they differ from us.] He appeals for this to Bellarmines Tomes. Though I cannot undertake to make this good in every point, yet that proper Popery was held but by a Facti­on in the Western Church, even at its [Page 278] height before Luther, is easily made good.

He that readeth but the Writers before Luther, and in History noteth the desires of Emperours, Kings, and Universities, and Bi­shops, for Reformation of the things that we have reformed, may soon see this to be very true. It was Avitas Leges & consuetu­dines Angliae (as Rog. Hoved [...]n and Matth. Paris in H. 2. shew) that the Pope here damned, and anathematized all that fa­voured and observed them (O tender Fa­ther, even to Kings! O enemy of Novel­ties!) The German History collected by Reuberus, Pistorus, Freherus and Goldastus, shews it as p [...]ain as day light, that a Papal Faction by fury and turbulency, kept under the far greater part of the Church by force, that indeed dissented from them, even from Hildebrands dayes till Luthers, or near. Saith the Apologia Henrici 4. Imperat. in M. Fr [...]heri Tom. 1. p. 178. [Behold Pope Hildebrands 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 side (or party) is the holy Mother Church: When the Catholick, that is, the Universal Church, is not in the Schism of any side, (or parties) but in the Universa­lity [Page 279] of the faithfull agreeing together by the spirit of Peace and Charity.]

And p. 179. [See how this Minister of the Devil is beside himself, and would draw us with him into the ditch of perdition? that writeth that Gods holy Priesthood is with only 13. or few more Bishops of Hil­debrands: and that the Priesthood of all the rest through the world are separated from the Church of God: when certainly, not only the testimony of Gregory and Innocent, but the judgement of all the holy Fathers agree with that of Cyprian—that he is an Alien, prophane, an enemy; that he cannot have God for his Father, that holdeth not the Unity of the Church: which he after de­scribeth to have one Priesthood.] Et p. 181. [But some that go out from us say and write, that they defend the party of their Gregory: not the Whole, which is Christs, which is the Catholick Church of Christ.] And p. 180. [But our Adversa­ries (that went from us, 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 [Page 280] calls Schismaticks and Hereticks, and Ex­communicate, because we resist not the King—] And p. 181. [ Isidore saith, Etym. 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 the holy Catholick Church, and being divided into parties hold not the Unity of the Church: which Unity, be­lievers being of one heart and one soul, pro­perly belongs to the Catholick Church.] So this Apol.

One Objection I must here remove, which is all and n [...]thing: viz. That the Armeni­ans, Greeks, Georgians, Abassines, and ma­ny others here named, differ from Prote­stants in many points of faith; and there­fore they cannot be of the same Church.

Ans. 1. They differ in nothing Essentiall to our Church or Religion, nor near the Essence. 2. Protestants differ in some lesser points, and yet you call them all Protestants your selves. 3. I prove undeniably from your own pens, that men differing in mat­ters [Page 281] of faith, are all taken to be of your Church, and so of one Church, (and there­fore you contradict your selves in making all points of faith to be Essentials of the Christian Religion or Church.)

1. The Council of Basil and Constance differed de fide with the Pop [...] and the Coun­cil of Laterane and Florence: They ex­presly affirm their doctrine to be de fide, that the Council is above the Pope, and may depose him, &c. and the contrary Heresie. And Pighius ( Hierarch. Eccles. lib. 6.) saith, that these Councils went [against the undoubted faith and judgement of the Or­thodox Church it self.]

2. Their Saint Tho. Aquinas, and most of their Doctors with him, differ from the second Council of Nice, in holding the Cross and Image of Christ to be worshipped with Latria, which that Council determined against.

See more Arguments in my Key for Cath. p. 127▪ 128. and after.

I will now add a Testimony sufficient to silence Papists in this point: and that is, The Determination of the Theological fa­culty of Paris under their great Seal, against one Iohan. de Montesono ordinis Praedic. as you may find it after the rest of the Errors [Page 282] rejected by that University, in the end of Lombard, printed at Paris 1557. pag. 426. Their 3. Conclusion is, that [Saint Thom. Aquin. doctrine is not so approved by the Church, as that we must believe that it is in no part of it erroneous de fide (in matter of faith) or hereticall. They prove it, be­cause it hath many contradictions, even in matter of faith; and therefore they ought not to believe it not hereticall. Here fol. 426, 427. they give six examples of his con­tradictions: and therefore they conclude, that though he were no Heretick (because not pertinacious) yet they ought not to be­lieve that his doctrine was in no part hereti­call, or erroneous in the faith. They further argue thus [If we must believe his doctrine not hereticall, &c. this should be chiefly, because it is approved by the Church. But there is some doctrine much more approved by the Church then the doctrine of S. Tho. which yet is in some part of it hereticall or erroneous in the faith: therefore— The Minor they prove by many examples. The first is of Peters doctrine, Gal. 2. (I own not this by citing it:) The second is of Cyprian. The third of Hierom; and they add, that the same may be said of Au­gustine, and many more approved Doctors. [Page 283] The fourth example is Lombard himself, who they say hath somewhat erroneous in the faith. The fifth is Gratian, who had he per­tinaciously adhered to his doctrine, they say, had been a manifest Heretick: And (say they) some say the like of the Ordinary Glosses of the Bible, which yet seem of greater authority then Aquinas. The sixth example is of some not Canonized Saints, as Anselm. Cantuar. Hugo de Sancto Victo­re, and others, as authentick as S. Thomas.] [And (say they) his Canonization, hin­dereth not, which some pretend as of great colour—To say that S. Tho. in some part of his doctrine erred in faith, derogates not from his Canonization, nor from the ap­probation of his Theologicall doctrine: even as to say this of other Saints and chief Doctors derogateth not from their Canoni­zation or approbation. For as the Church by Canonizing one a Saint, doth not there­by approve all his Deeds, so in approving his doctrine, it doth not hereby approve all his sayings or writings, but only that which is not retracted by himself, or corrected by another, or deservedly to be corrected as contrary to truth.

And now when Fathers, even the chief, and your Saints and highest Doctors have [Page 284] this Testimony from the famous University of Paris, to have somewhat hereticall or erroneous in the faith (and so who among you is free?) I leave it to modesty to judge, whether the Greeks, Armenians, &c. and we, are not of one Faith, Religion, and Ca­tholick Church, for all our differences in some points! Have you had all these Nati­ons man by man before your bar, and con­vinced them of pertinaciousness in heresie? If not, call them not Hereticks till you are willing to be called such your selves, and that by your selves.

And thus I have evinced, 1. That the Church of which the Protestants are Mem­bers, hath been Visible since the dayes of Christ on earth. 2. And ex abundanti, that the Papal Church as Papal hath not been vi­sible, and that Christian Churches without Papal Soveraignty have been Visible since Gregories dayes, and the whole Catholick Church was such before. And you see both in the Essentialls, and in the freedom from the Romish Vice-Christ, where our Church hath been before Luther, even since Christ.

Sir, I have performed this task on this supposed condition, that you will now do [Page 285] the like as to your own Church; and send me in solid Arguments your proof of this Thesis.

[ The Church of which the Subjects of the Pope are Members, hath been Visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth.]

Where note, that it is not the Visibility of your Church as Christian, United in Christ the Head, that is in Question: We grant, as Christians, all of you are of the true Chri­stian Church that destroy not your Christi­anity: But it is your new Church form, as Papal, that we question, and renounce. Pro­testants are of no Church but the Christian united in Christ: The name Protestant sig­nifieth not any essentiall of their Church, but their Rejection of your Church as Headed by the Pope: You are therefore to prove that your Catholick Church as Headed by the Pope hath been visible in all ages.

And here I must in Justice expect, that you give us such a Definition as you will stand to through the dispute, 1. Of [the Church] 2. Of [the Pope] and 3. [Of the Sub­jects of the Pope] or [Papists.] The term [Roman Catholicks] would but divert and elude: For it is not as [Romane] that we oppose you, that is, as inhabitants [Page 286] of Rome, or as subject to him as a Bishop of Rome: Nor is it as [Catholicks] that is, as of the Universal Christian Church: but as [Papists] that is, [subjects of the Pope as universal Soveraign, or Bishop.] To dispute of terms not agreed on, is lost la­bour: Define first, or you do nothing. I find of your Writers, some by the [Church] mean [the Pope] as Gretser Defens. cap. 10. lib. 3. de Verbo Dei, pag. 1450, 1451. [By the Church (saith he) we mean the Pope of Rome] and [ per Ecclesiam Papam interpre­tantur: Non abnuo.] Some by [the Church] mean [a Council] and what they mean by [a Council] I know not well. And some mean [the Roman Clergy] i. e. of that Diocess: And some mean [all the Clergy under the Pope:] And some mean [all the people that are his subjects.] I have given you the Reason of my doubting of your meaning in these terms, in a Book come out of the Press since your last to me, where I have answered most of yours.

2. Let me desire of you such proofs as in your own judgement are cogent. I sup­pose (as I have there told you, Key pag. 41. cap. 12.) that none of you will take either Sense, Reason, Scripture, the Tradition or judgement of most of the Church for a [Page 287] sufficient proof: but yet we will accept of them, when you argue but ad hominem: for we renounce them not. I think what ever you say, that is not the Determination of the Pope or a Council by him approved (which is all one) you will give us leave to judge that you are uncertain your selves whether you say true in it, if de fide. Saith Skul. Revius Apol. pro Bell [...]rm. c. 6. p. 255. The Popes Power is as the hinge, the foun­dation, and (that I may comprehend all in a word) the summ of the Christian faith.

Greg. Valent. Anal. fid. l. 8. c. 7. [The Authority that resideth in the Pope alone, is called the Authority of the Church and Councils.

[ Bell [...]r. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 3. [It is ap­parent that the whole firmness (or strength) of Councils is from the Pope; not partly of the Pope, and partly of the Council.] Binnius Vol. 2. p. 515. saith [Every Coun­cil hath just so much strength and authori­ty, as the Apostolike seat bestoweth on it.] But I leave you to give us your own judge­ment.

Your Testimonies from Fathers can seem of no great weight to us, while you so slight them your selves as commonly you do: with what lies, or Errors, or other in­competency, [Page 288] you charge Iustin Mart. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Victorinus, Cy­prian, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Prudentius, Hierom, Lactantius, Augustine, Procopius, Theodoret, Isidore, Euthymius, Sozomen, Oe­cumenius, Bernard, and all the Fathers, see Dr. Iames Corrupt. of Fath. Part. 4. p. 2, 3. Tell us therefore how far you credit them.

Sir if you refuse thus first to explain your terms, and then prove the Visibility of your Church, as Papal, successively, as I have pro­ved the Visibility of the Church that I am of, I shall be forced to conclude, that you love not the light, but at once give up your cause, and the reputation of your impartial Love of truth.

Queries of R. B. on these definitions, with Mr. Iohnsons Answer, and my Reply.

THE Catholick Church of Christ is all those visible Assemblies, Congre­gations, or Communities of Christians, who live in unity of true faith, and exter­nal communion one with another, and in dependance of their lawful Pastors.

Qu. 1. Whether you exclude not all those converted among Infidels, that never had external Communion with, nor were members of any par­ticular visible Church, of which you [Page 312] m [...]ke the Catholick to be consti­tuted?

Answ. It is sufficient that such be subject to the supream Pastor, and in voto, quantum in se est, resolved to be of that particular Church actually, which shall, or may be assign­ed for them by that Pastor, to be included in my definition.

Q 1. Repl. ad 1 ^m 1. You see then that your Definitions signifie nothing: no man can know your meaning by them. First you make the Catholick Church to consist only of visible Assemblies: and after you allow such to be members of the Church that are of no visible Assemblies 2. You now mention subjection to the supream Pastor as sufficient, which in your description or defi­nition you did not. 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, proves no man a member of the Catholick Church, but proves the contrary, because it is Terminus diminuens. Seeing then by your [Page 313] own confession, inexistence in a particular Church is not of necessity to inexistence in the Catholike Church; why do you not only mention it in your definition, but con­fine the Church to such? will you say you meant in voto? who then can understand you, when you say they must be of visible Assemblies, and mean, they need not be of any, but only to wish, desire or purpose it? 4. But yet you say nothing to my case in its lati­tude. Many a one may be converted to Christ by a solitary Preacher, or by two or three, that ne [...]er tell him that there is any supream Pastor in the world: How then can he be subject to that supposed Pastor, that never heard of him? The English and Dutch convert many Indians to the faith of Christ, that never hear of a supream Pastor. 5. If it be necessary that a particular Church must be assigned for such members by the supream Pastor, then they are yet little the better that never have any such assignation from him (as few have▪)

Qu. 2. What is that faith in unity whereof all members of the Catholike [Page 314] Church do live? is it the belief of all that God hath revealed to be believed; or of part? and what part?

Answ. Of all; either explicitly, or im­plicitly.

Reply, Ad 2 ^m. Your second answer fur­ther proves that your definitions signifie just nothing. They must live in unity of the faith: that is, either with faith or without it: with a belief of what Go [...] hath revealed to be believed, or without it. For to believe any point implicitly, in your ordinary sense, is not to believe it, but only to believe one of the Premises, whence the conclusion must be inferred. But why do you not tell me what you mean by [ an Implicite faith]? Faith is called Implicite in several senses. 1. When several truths are actually understood and believed in confuso, or in gross, in some one proposition which containeth the substance of them all; but not with accurate distinct conceptions, nor such as are ripe for any fit expression: This indistinct, immature, im­perfect [Page 315] kind of apprehension may be called Implicite; and the distinct and more digest­ed conceptions Explicite. 2. When a general proposition is believed as the matter of our faith, but the particulars are not understood or not believed: As to believe that omne animal vivit, not knowing whe­ther you are Animal or Cadaver. Or to believe that [all that is in the Scripture is the Word of God and true,] but not to know [what is in the Scripture]. 3. When it is only the formal object of faith that is believed, without understanding the materi­al object.

The first sort of these, I confess, is Actual Belief, though indistinct: But I suppose you mean not this. 1. Because it is not the or­dinary sense of your party. 2. Because else you damn either all the world, or most of your own professed-party at least as no members of the Church: for few or none have an Actual understanding and belief of all that ever God revealed to them; be­cause all men (or most at least) have been sinfully negligent in searching after, and re­ceiving truth; and so are sinfully ignorant: No man knoweth all that God hath reveal­ed, or that he ought to know. 3. Because by this rule it is impossible for you or any [Page 316] man to know who is indeed a member of your Church; for you cannot know mens confused knowledge, or know that it ex­tendeth to all revealed: For if you speak of all revealed in general, or in Scripture, you still damn all, (or most in your own sense) for none, as I said, understand it all to a word: But if you speak of all which that particular man hath had sufficient means to know, it is then impossible for you to make a judgement of any mans faith by this: For you can never discern all the means (in­ternal or external) that ever he had; much less can you discern whether his faith be commensurate to the truth so far revealed. So that by this course you make your Church invisible. I pray tell me how you can avoid it?

2. The second sort of Implicite Belief, is no Belief of the particulars at all. An Ani­mal may live, and yet it followeth not that you are alive or an animal. If this were your meaning, then either you mean [that it is enough if all be believed Implicitly be­sides that general proposition]; or you mean that some must be believed explicitly (that is actually) and some Implicitly, (that is, not at all). If the former be your sense, then Infidels or Heathens may be of your [Page 317] Church. For a man may believe in general that [the Bible is the Word of God and true] and yet not know a word thats in it; and so not know that Christ is the Messias, or that ever there was such a person. But if somewhat must be explicitely (that is, Actually) believed, the Question that you should have answered was, [What is it?] For till that be known, no man can know a Member of your Church by your de­scription.

3. If you take [ Implicite] in the third sense, then Implicite faith is either Divine or Humane. Divine, when the Divine Vera­city is the formal Object. Humane, when mans Veracity is the formal Object. Which may be Conjunct where the Testimonies are so conjunct, as that we are sure it is God that speaks by man; who is therefore credi­ble because God infallibly guideth or inspir­eth him: This is at once to believe a Hu­mane and Divine Veracity. If any of this be your meaning, the last questions remain still to be resolved by you. A man may be­lieve that [ God is true,] and that [his Pro­phets or inspired messengers are true] and yet not understand a word of the message: so that still if this will serve, a man may be of your Church that knoweth not that ever [Page 318] there was such a person as Jesus Christ, or that ever he died for our sins, or rose again, or that we shall rise. And are Infidels of your Church while you are arguing us out? But if there be some truths besides the Ve­racity of God (and his Messengers) that must be believed, you must shew what it is, or your Church-members cannot be known. Tell me therefore without tergiversation, [what are the revealed truths that must actually be believed] or [what is the faith materially, in unity whereof all members of the Catholike Church do live?] I pray fly not, but plainly tell me.

And if again you fly to uncertain points, because of the diversity of means of infor­mation, and say, [It must be so much to every man as he had means to know] I a­gain answer you. 1. If a man had no means to know that there is a Christ, it seems then he is one of your Church. 2. You still damn all your own, there being not a man that knoweth all that he had means to know, because all have culpably neglected means. And so you have no Church. 3. Still you make your Church invisible (if you had any:) For no man can tell, as I said, who knoweth in full proportion to his helps and means. Do you not see now whi­ther [Page 319] your Implicite faith hath brought you?

Qu. 3. Is it any lawful Pastors, or All, that must necessarily be depend­ed on by every member? and who are these Pastors?

Answ. Of all, respectively to each subject; that is, that the authority of none of them, mediate or immediate, be rejected or con­temned by him, that is a true member of the Church.

Ad Qu. 3. R. Reply 1. Here still you tell me that your descriptions signified nothing. You told me that the members must [live in dependance on their lawful Pastors.] And now you tell me that [their authority must not be rejected or contemn­ed.] And indeed, is dependance and non-rejection all one? The millions of heathens that never heard of the Pope or any of your Pastors reject them not, nor contemn them: [Page 320] Are they therefore fit matter for your Church? 2. If you say, that you mean it of such only as have a sufficient Revelation of the Authority of these Pastors, I further reply. 1. It seems then it is not only the Pope, but every Priest respectively that is an essential member of your Church; or to whom each member must be subject necessa­rily ad esse. If so, then every man that by falling out or prejudice, doth culpably re­ject the authority of any one Pastor or Priest among a swarm, is damned, or none of the Church, though he believe in the Pope and in twenty thousand Priests be­sides.

2. And then have we not cause to pray God to bless us from the company of your Priests? or at least, that we may not have too many, when among a multitude we may be in danger of rejecting some one, and then we are cast out of the Church! What if a Gentleman should find some such as Watson or Montaltus describe in bed with his wife; or a Prince find a Garnet, a Cam­pion, or a Parsons in a Treason, and by such a temptation should be so weak, as to con­temn, or reject the authority of that single Priest, while he honoureth all the rest: Is it certain, that such a man is none of the Ca­tholike [Page 321] Church for that? How hard is it in France and Italy then to be a Catholike, where Priests are so numerous, that its ten to one, but among the crowd the authority of some one may be rejected!

3. But is it all the Priests that we never knew, or knew not to be Priests, that we must depend on, or is it only those whose authority is manifested to us by sufficient evidence? Doubtless you will confine our dependance to these only (or else no man could be a Christian:) And if so, you know we are never the nearer a resolution for your answer, till you yet tell us how we must know our Pastors to have authority in­deed. What if they shew me the Bishops orders, and I know that many have had forged Orders? am I bound to believe in his authority? what if I be utterly ignorant whether he that ordained him, were him­self ordained? or had intentionem ordinandi? how shall I then be sure of his authority that is ordained? And how can the people be acquainted with the passages in Election and Ordination that are necessary to the knowledge of their authority? especially of the Popes and prelates. And what if you tell me your own opinion, of the suf­ficient means by which I must be convinced [Page 322] of the Popes and Priests authority? how shall I know that you are not deceived; and that these are the sufficient means in­deed, unless a General Council have defined them to be sufficient? And if they have, if it were not as an Article of faith, you'l say I am not bound of necessity to believe their definition. And what if I have sufficient means to know the authority of a thousand Priests, but am culpably ignorant of it in some few through my neglect? Doth it fol­low that therefore I am out of the Church? Is my obedience to each Priest as necessary, as my belief of every Article of my faith? If so, I know not whether your multiplying Articles, or multiplying Priests, doth fill hell faster, if men must be judged by your laws. But it is our Allegiance to our Soveraign, that is the character of a Subject in the Com­mon-wealth, and not our Allegiance, or du­ty to every inferiour Magistrate: the re­jection of one of them may stand with sub­jection, though not with innocency: It is not treason to reject a Constable: why then should more be necessary to our Church­membership and salvation?

But still you make your Church invisible: For as no man can know that liveth in the remote parts of the world, whether your [Page 323] Popes themselves are truly Popes, as being duly qualified and elected, nor which is the true Pope, when you have oft had more then one at once; so you can never know con­cerning your members, whether their de­pendance on their Pastors be extensively proportionate to the means that discovered their authority? and whether their diso­bedience unchurch them or no? I earnestly crave your answer to the thirty uncertain­ties, which I have mentioned in my Safe Re­ligion, p. 93, to 104. And tell us how all our Pastours may be known. And whether every particular sin unchurch men? and if not, why the contempt or rejection of a drunken Priest doth it, while all the rest are (perhaps too much) honoured?

Quest. 4. Why exclude you the chief Pastors, that depend on none?

Answ. I exclude them not, but include them▪ as those of whom all the rest depend; as St. Hierom does in his definition, Ecclesia est plebs Episcopo unita.

[Page 324] Repl. ad Resp. ad Quest. 4. How uncon­stant are you among your selves in the use of terms? How frequent is it with you to ap­propriate the name of [the Church] to the Clergy? But remember hereafter, when you tell us of the Determinations, and Tra­ditions of the Church, that it is the people that you mean, and not only the Pa­stors in Council; much less the Pope alone.

Is an intellectual obstinate opposition against divine authority revealing, when it is sufficiently propounded.

Is the opposition and obstinacy that makes Heresie, in the Intellect or will?

[Page 325]

In the will, by an imperate Act, restrain­ing the understanding to that errour.

Qu. 1. Reply 1. Still your descriptions signifie just nothing. You describe Heresie to be An Intellectual obstinate Opposition; and yet say that this is in the will. And yet again you contradict your self by saying that it is an Imperate act. No Imperate act is in the will, though it be from the will. It is voluntary, but not in voluntate. An Im­perant act may be in the will, but not Impe­rate. All Imperate acts are in (or imme­diately by the commanded faculties.) The Intelligere, which is the Imperate act, is in the Intellect: though the Velle intelligere, which is an Elicite act, be in the will. 2. From hence its plain that you cannot prove me or any man to be an Heretick that is unfeignedly willing to know the truth, and is not obstinately willful in opposing it: which are things that you cannot ordinarily [Page 326] discern and prove by others, that are ready to be sworn that they would fain know the truth.

Qu. 2. Must it needs be against the Formal object of Faith? is he no Heretick, that denieth the matter re­vealed, without opposing obstinately the Authority revealing?

Answ. Yes. Nor is he a Formal, but only a Material Heretick, who opposes a revealed Truth, which is not sufficiently propounded to him to be a Divine revelation.

Qu. 2. Reply 2. Every man that be­lieveth that there is a God indeed, believeth that he is true: For if he be not True, he is not God. If therefore no man be For­mally an Heretick, that doth not obstinately oppose the Veracity of God, which is the formal object, then as there are I hope but few Hereticks in the world, so those few [Page 327] cannot by ordinary means be known to you: unless they will say that they take God to be a lyar, so that you make none Hereticks indeed but Atheists.

What if a man deny that there is a Christ, a Heaven, a Hell, or a Resurrection? and also deny the Revelation it self, by which he should discern these truths? and yet deny not the Veracity of God, (no nor of the Church?) is this no Heretick? I would your party that have murdered so many thousands as Hereticks, had so judged: (if a falshood may be wished, as a thing per­mitted, to have prevented such a mischief.) It is not Gods Veracity that is commonly denyed by Hereticks, but the thing revealed, and the Revelation of that thing: And your Turnebul against Baronius hath told you, that the Revelation is no part of the Formal object of faith, but as it were the Copula, or a condition sine qua non. If he that obstinately refuseth to believe that the Godhead of Christ, or the Holy Ghost is any where by God revealed, and so denyeth it, be no Heretick, unless he also obstinately deny or resist the Veracity of God; then there are few that you can prove Hereticks. (For forma dat nomen; and he that is not a Heretick Formally, but materially only, is no Heretick at all.)

[Page 328]Lastly, many a truth is sinfully neglected by the members of the Church; that have a proposal sufficient, and yet not effectual through their own fault: and yet they are no Hereticks. Millions in your Church are ignorant of truths sufficiently proposed, and therefore their ignorance is their sin: but it followeth not that it is their Heresie. But if it be, then Hereticks constitute your Church; and then your Church is a thing unknown; because the Hereticks cannot be known, the sufficiency of each mans revelation being much unknown to others.

Qu. 3. What mean you by a suffi­cient proposal?

Answ. I mean such a proposal as is suffi­cient in humanis, to oblige one to take notice, that a King, or chief Magistrate, have en­acted such, or 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 [Page 329] by notorius and universal Tradition.

Qu. 3. Reply [...] there lieth not so much at the stake as a mans salvation: and man is not so able as God to make a truly sufficient revelation of his will to all: and therefore the proportion holds not. 2. But if it did, either you think the suffi­ciency varieth according to the variety of advantages, opportunities, and capacities of the persons, or else that it consisteth only in the act of common publication, and so is the same to all the subjects. If the first be your sense (as I suppose it is,) then still you are uncertain who are Hereticks, as be­ing uncertain of mens various capacities, and so of the sufficiency in question. Unless you will conclude (with me) that thus you make all Hereticks, as aforesaid; because all men living are culpably ignorant of some truths, which they had a revelation of that was thus far sufficient. If the second be your sense, then the same unhappy conse­quence will follow (that all are Hereticks;) and moreover, that some of obscure educa­tion are unavoidably Hereticks, because they had no opportunity to know those [Page 330] things, which as to the Majority, are of pub­lick testimony or universal Tradition. Is not the Bible, a publick Testimony and re­cord, and being universally received, is an universal Tradition? And yet abundance of truths in the holy Bible are unknown, (and therefore not actually believed) by millions that are in your Church, and are not taken by your selves for Hereticks. Your be­friending ignorance would else make very many Hereticks.

By Pope, I mean St. Peter, or any of his lawful Successors in the See of Rome, having authority by the Institution of Christ, to govern all particular Christian Churches, next under Christ.

Qu. 1. I am never the nearer knowing [Page 331] the Pope by this, till I know, how Peters Successors may be known to me. What personal qualification is necessa­ry ad esse?

Answ. Such as is necessary ad esse for other Bishops; which I suppose you know.

Qu. 1. Reply. If so, then all those were no Popes that were Hereticks, or denied essential points of faith (as Iohan. 23.) and so were no Christians; and all those that wanted the necessary abilities to the essen­tials of their work. And so your Church hath oft been headless, and your succession interrupted, Councils having censured many Popes to be thus unqualified: And the dispositio materiae being of it self necessary to the reception of the form, it must needs follow, that such were no Popes, even before the Councils charged them with incapacity or Heresie: because they had it, before they were accused of it. And Simony then made many uncapable.

[Page 332]

Qu. 2. When and how must the in­stitution of Christ be found?

Answ. In the revealed Word of God, writ­ten or unwritten.

Qu. 2. Reply 1. You never gave the world assurance, how they may truly know the measure of your unwritten Word, nor where to find it, so as to know what it is. 2. Till you prove Christs Institution (which you have never done,) you free us from be­lieving in the Pope.

Qu. 3. Will any ones election prove one to be Pope? or who must elect him ad esse?

Answ. Such as by approved custome, are [Page 333] esteemed, by those to whom it belongs, fit for that charge; and with whose election the Church is satisfied.

Qu. 3. Reply. Here you are fain to hide your self instead of answering; and shew indeed that a Pope (thats made an essential part of the Church; subjection to whom is made of necessity to salvation) is indeed but a meer name, or a thing un­known; and so can be certainly believed or acknowledged by none. For either Election of him (by some body) is necessary, or not. If not, then you or another man unchosen may be Pope, for ought I know, or any man else. If yea; then it is either any bodies Election of him that will serve turn, or not. If it will, then you may be Pope, if your Scholars choose you, and then you have had three true Popes at once; for so many were Elected. But if it will not, then it must be known who hath the Power of Election, before it can be known who is indeed the Pope: But you are forced here by your answer to intimate to us, that the Power of Election cannot be known: and therefore the Pope cannot be known. For, [Page 334] 1. Here are no determinate Electors men­tioned; and therefore it seems none known to you: And no wonder: for if you con­fine it to the people, or to the Cardinals, or to the Emperours, or to Councils, you cut off all your Popes that were chosen by the other waies. 2. Nor do you determine of any particular discernable note, by which the Electors, and power of election may be known to the Church: But all these patches make up your description. 1. It must be those that are esteemed fit for the charge. 2. And that by those to whom it belongs. 3. And that by custome. 4. And that ap­proved. 5. And the Church must be satis­fied with the election. O miserable body then that hath been so oft headless, as Rome hath been! 1. Will esteeming them fit, serve turn though they be unfit? then it is not the fitness that is necessary, but the estimation, (true or false.) 2. But why did you not tell us to whom it is that it belongs to esteem the Choosers fit? Here you were at a streight. But is not this to say nothing while you pretend to speak? and to hide what you pretend to open? 3. And who knows what custome, and of what continu­ance you mean? Primitive custom went one way; and afterward custom went another [Page 335] way; and later custom hath varied from both; and hath the power of Election changed so oft? 4. And who is it that must approve this custom? and what appro­bation must there be? All these are meer hiding, and not resolving of the doubt, and tell us that a Pope is a thing invisible or un­known. 5. And your last assureth us, that your succession was interrupted through many usurpations, yea indeed that you ne­ver had a Pope. For the Church was un­satisfied with the election of abundance of your Popes, when Whores, and Simony, and Murder, and power set them up: And most of the Church through the world is unsatis­fied with them still to this day. And you have no way to know whether the greater part of the Church is satisfied or not; for non-resistance is no sign of satisfaction, where men have not opportunity or power to resist. And when one part of Europe was for one Pope, and another for another through so many Schisms, who knows which had the approbation of that which may be called the Church?

Qu. 4. Is Consecration necessary? and by whom ad esse?

[Page 336]

Answ. It is not absolutely necessary ad esse.

Qu. 4. Reply. If consecration be not ne­cessary to the Papacy, then it is not necessa­ry that this or that man consecrate him more then another. And then it is not necessary to a Bishop. And then the want of it makes no interruption in succession, in any Church, any more then in yours.

Qu. 5. What [...], or proof is necessary to your Subjects?

Answ. So much as is necessary to oblige them, to accept of other Elected Princes to be their Soveraigns.

Qu. 5. Reply. When you have answered to the forementioned thirty doubts, we [Page 337] shall know what that general signifieth.

I mean by Bishop, such a Christian Pastor as hath power, and jurisdiction, to govern the inferior Pastors, Clergy, and people within his Diocesse, and to confer holy orders to such as are subject to him.

Qu. 1. Do you mean, that he must have this jure divino, or humano? and if jure divino, whether mediately or immediately?

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

[Page 338]

Qu. 1. Repl. 1. You before seem to yeild that the Papacy is but jure humano; (and therefore sure of no necessity to salva­tion:) For if man can change the power of election, and the foundation be humane, its like the relation is but humane. And there­fore if Bishops must be jure divino, they are more excellent and necessary then the Pope. 2. How gross a subterfuge is this? either the Bishop in question is a divine creature or a humane: If a divine; as you may ma­nifest it, or express it at least, so you ought; it being no indifferent thing to turn a divine office and Church into an humane: If he be not Divine, he is not of necessity to a divine Church, nor to salvation. And yet thus your R. Smith Bishop of Calcedon (ubi supra) confesseth it to be no point of your faith, that the Pope is St. Peters successor jure divino. And if you leave it indifferent to be believed, or not, that both your Pope and Bishops are jure divino, you confess you are but a humane policy or society, and therefore that no man need to fear the loss of his salvation by renouncing you.

[Page 339]

Qu. 2. How shall we know who hath this power? what Election, or Consecration is necessary thereto? If I know not, who hath it, I am never the better.

Answ. 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.

Qu. 2. Repl. 1. How now! Are all the mysteries of your succession and mission resolved into Popular Consent? Is no one way of Election necessary? Do you leave that to be varied as a thing indifferent? And is Episcopal Consecration also unne­cessary? I pray you here again remember then, that none of our Churches are dis­abled from the plea of a continued suc­cession, [Page 340] for want of Episcopal Consecration, or any way of Election▪ If our Pastors have had the peoples consent, they have been true Pastors, according to this reckoning: And if they have now their consent, they are true Pastors. But we have more.

2. By this rule we cannot know of one Bishop of an hundred whether he be a Bi­shop or no; for we cannot know that he hath the Common consent of the people: yea we know that abundance of your Bishops have no such consent: yea we know that your Pope hath none of the Consent of most of the Christians in the world; nor (for ought you or any man knows) of most in Europe. Its few of your own party that know who is Pope, (much less are called to Consent,) till after he is settled in posses­sion.

3. 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 seat by force.

4. In temporals your rule is not univer­sally true. What if the people be engaged to one Prince, and afterward break their vow, and consent to a Usurper? Though in this ease a particular person may be obliged to [Page 341] submission and obedience in judicial admi­nistrations; yet the usurper cannot thereby defend his Right, and justifie his possession, nor the people justifie their adhesion to him, while they lye under an obligation to disclaim him, because of their preengage­ment to another. Though some part of the truth be found in your assertion.

Qu. 3. Will any Diocess serve ad esse? what if it be but in particular As­semblies?

Answ. It must be more then a Parish, or then one single Congregation, which hath not different inferiour Pastors, and one, who is their superior.

Qu. 3. Repl. This is but your naked affirmation. I have proved the contrary from Scriptures, Fathers, and Councils in my disputation of Episcopacy, viz. that a Bishop may be (and of old ordinarily was) over the Presbyters only of one Parish, or [Page 342] single Congregation, or a people no more numerous then our Parishes. You must shew us some Scripture, or general Council for the contrary before we can be sure you here speak truth. Was Gregory Thaumatur­gus no Bishop, because when he came first to Neocaesarea, he had but seventeen souls in his charge? The like I may say of many more.

I understand by Tradition the visible delivery from hand to hand in all ages, of the revealed Word of God, either written, or unwritten.

Qu. 1. But all the doubt is, by whom this Tradition that's valid, must be By your Pastors, or people, or both? By Pope, or Councils, or Bi­shops disjunct? By the Major part of [Page 343] the Church, or Bishops (or Presbyters) or the Minor? and by how many?

Answ. By such and so many proportion­ably▪ as suffice in a Kingdom to certifie the people, which are the Ancient universally re­ceived customs in that Kingdom, which is to be morally considered.

Qu. 1. Repl. I consent to this general. But then, 1. How certainly is Tradition against you, when most of the Christian world, yea all except an interessed party, do deny your Soveraignty, and plead Tra­dition against it? And how lame is your Tradition, when its carried on your private affirmations, and is nothing but the unpro­ved sayings of a Sect!

Qu. 2. What proof, or notice of it, must satisfie me in particular, that it so past?

[Page 344]

Answ. Such, as with proportion is a suffi­cient proof, or notice, of the Laws and customs of temporal Kingdoms.

Qu. 2. Repl. But is it necessary for eve­ry Christian, to be able to weigh the credit of contradicting parties, when one half of the world faith 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 of the Christian world is against it, and the rest for it, can private Christians try which party is the more credible? Or is it necessary to their salva­tion? If so, they are cast upon unavoidable despair. If not, must they all take the words of their present Teachers? Then most of the world must believe against you, because most of the Teachers are against you: And then it seems mens faith is re­solved into the authority of the Parish-Priest or their Confessors. The Laws of a Kingdom may be easier known, then Chri­stian [Page 345] doctrines can be known, (especially such as are controverted among us) by meer unwritten Tradition. Kingdoms are of narrower compass then the world: And, though the sense of Laws is oft in question, yet the being of them is seldom matter of controversie; because men conversing con­stantly and familiarly with each other, may plainly and fully reveal their minds; when God that condescendeth not to such a fa­miliarity, hath delivered his mind by in­spired persons long ago, with much less sen­sible advantages, because it is a life of faith that he directeth us to live.

A general Council, I take to be, an assembly of Bishops and other chief Pre­lates, called, convened, and confirmed, by those who have sufficient Spiritual autho­rity to call, convene, and confirme.

[Page 346]

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

Answ. Definitions abstract from inferior subdivisions. For your satisfaction I affirm, it belongs to the Bishop of Rome.

Qu. 1. Repl. 1. If it be necessary to the being or validity of a Council that it be cal­led or confirmed by the Pope, then your definition signifieth nothing, if you abstract from that which is so necessary an ingredi­ent, unless it were presupposed to be un­derstood. 2. If it belong to the Bishop of Rome to call a Council as necessary to its being, then the first great General Council, and others following, were none; it being certain that they were not called by him. [Page 347] And as certain that he hath never proved any such authority to call them, or confirm them.

Qu 2. Must it not represent all the Catholike Church? Doth not your Definition agree to a Provincial, or the smallest Council?

Answ. Yes, my Definition speaks specifi­cally of Bishops and chief Prelates, as contra­distinct from inferiour Pastors and Clergy, and thereby comprises all the Individuums contained in the Species; and consequently makes a distinction from National, or parti­cular Councils, where some Bishops only are convened, not all; that being only some part, and not the whole Species, 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. Whence appears what I am to answer to the next two Questions.

[Page 348]

Qu. 2. Repl. 1. Then you have had no General Councils; much less can have any more: For you have none to represent the greatest part of the Church, unless by a mock representation.

2. If all must be called, your Councils have not been General, that call'd not a great part of the Church.

3. If most are necessarily detained (as by distance, the prohibition of Princes, &c.) the call made it not their duty to be there, and so makes it not a General Council; which is so called from the generality of the meeting and representation, and not of the invitation: no more then a Call would make it a true Council if none came.

Qu. 3. How many Bishops, and from what parts must ( ad esse) make such a Council?

Answ. The number is morally to be con­sidered, more or fewer according to the difficul­ties [Page 349] of times, distances of place, and other cir­cumstances; as is also the parts, from whence they are to come.

Qu. 3. Repl. This is a put-off for want of an Answer. Is it a Council if difficul­ties keep away all? If not, it can be no General Council, when difficulties keep a­way the most. Much less when such a petty confederacy as met at Trent, shall pretend to represent the Christian world. You thus leave us uncertain when a Council is General, and when not. How can the people tell, when you cannot tell your self, when the Bishops are so many as make a Council General!

Qu. 4. May none but Bishops and chief Prelates be members, as you in­timate?

Answ. No others; unless such inferiours as are sent to supply the places, and as Deputies of those Bishops or Prelates, are such members [Page 350] of the Council, as have Decisive votes in framing Decrees and Definitions.

Qu. 4. Repl. This is but your private opinion. No Council hath defined it, unless they are contradictory. For I suppose you know that Basil and many Councils before it had Presbyters in them.

I understand by Schism, a willfull se­paration, or division of ones self from the whole visible Church of Christ.

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

Answ. No; it is no Schism, as Schism is [Page 351] taken in the Holy Fathers, for that great and capital crime, so severely censured by them; in which sense only I take it here.

Qu. 1. Repl. Though I take Schism more comprehensively, and I think, aptly my self, yet hence I observe your justification of the Protestants from the charge of Schism; see­ing they separate not from the Catholike or whole Church: For they separate not from the Armenian, Ethiopian, Greek, &c. nor from you as Christians, but as scandalous offenders, whom we are commanded to a­void. We separate not from any, but as they separate from Christ.

Qu. 2. Or is it no Schism, unless willfull?

Answ. No; it is not Schism, unless the se­paration be willfull on his part who makes it.

[Page 352]

Qu. 2. Repl. Again you further justifie us from Schism. If it be willfull, it must be against knowledge. But we are so far from separating willfully or knowingly from the whole Church, that we abhor the thought of such a thing, as impious and damnable.

Qu. 3. Is it none, if you make a Division in the Church, and not from the Church?

Answ. Not, as we here understand Schism, 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 divide it into two; which it cannot be.

Qu. 3. Repl. Though I am sure Paul calls it Schism, when men make divisions in the Church, though not from it; not making it two Churches, but dislocating some mem­bers, and abating charity, and causing con­tentions [Page 353] 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 separated from the Head.