sound any respect to the Bishop of Rome any reverence of his place and judgment any counsel that he giveth to any any help that any sought of him as signifying his Government of all the Empire 6. That he feigneth all such interest or power in the Empire to be a Monarchical Government of all the world 7. That he to these ends leadeth men into verbal quarrels about the sense of many passages in history and fathers where he knoweth that the vulgar cannot judge nor any that are not well versed in all those books which most preachers themselves have not sufficient leisure for 8. That contrary to the notorious evidence of histories he maintaineth that no Councils were called without the authority of the Roman Bishop when the Emperors ordinarily called them by sending to each Patriarch to summon those of his circuit to such a place and the Bishops of Alexandria and Constant. had more hand in calling them till 700 or 800 if not much longer than the Pope had 9. If the Reader can trie all our passages here about by the books themselves not taking scraps but the main drift of Church-history and the particular authors I will desire no more of him than to read them himself if not neither to believe the report of W. I. or me as certain to him For how can he know which of us reports an author truly but to keep to such evidences of Reason and Scripture as he is capable of judging of § 2. When I said that the Emperor Theódòsius 2d gave sufficient testimony and those that adhere to Dioscorus how little in those days they believed the Popes infallibility or sovereignty when they excommunicated him and the Emperor and â—…ivil Officers bare Dioscorus He doth over and over tell me how I defend Rebels against a Sovereign and I have laid a Principle emboldening all Rebels to deposâ—… Sovereigns or prove that they have no authority over them Answ. Alas poor Kings and Emperors who are judged such subjects to the Priests that he that pleadeth for your power pleadeth for Rebels against your Sovereign Pope And that are by these even judged so sheepish as that by the name of Rebellion charged on your defenders they look to draw your selves to take them for Rebels who would make you know that you are Princes and not the subjects of forreigners or your subjects but yet the instance which I give sheweth the sense of Theodosius and others be it right or wrong § 3. Had it not been that the Printer by three or four Errata's as Sixtus fifth c. made him some work he had had little to say but what confutes it self § 4. But cap. 4. p. 289 he would be thought to speak to the purpose viz. That out of the Empire the Pope restored Bishops and did he depose any He was wiser than to name any but saith Such were all those Bishops who about the year 400 in Spain and France and an 475 in England and 595 in Germany 499 and other Western and Northern Kingdoms who were taken from under the command of the Roman Emperor or were never under it and were restored by the Bishop of Romes authority c. Answ. Meer deceit he can name none deposed or restored by the Pope but 1. Such as were in the Empire 2. Or such as were in the same national Church with Rome when the Barbarians claimed power both over Rome and the neighbour Countreys as Odoacer and others claimed power to have the choice of a Pope themselves or that none should be Pope but by their consent 3. Or when the King of any revolted or conquered nation subjected himself or his subjects voluntarily to the Pope as they have done since the declining of the Empire Or 4. when they that had been used in the Empire to the canonical way in Councils and under Patriarchs desired when they were conquered to do as they had done and were permitted As the Patriarch of Constant. that layeth no claim as jure divino yet under the Turk claimeth still superiority over all those Churches that were formerly by Councils put under him what Princes soever they be under supposing that those Councils authority is still valid though the Empire be dissolved 5. Or when the Pope was but a meer Intercessor or Arbitrator and no Rector § 5. But p. 410 c. he cometh on again with repetitions and additions to prove that Forreigners were at the four first General Councils Answ. If he prove that all the Churches in the world made up those Councils he put hard to prove that indeed they were universal But I have not yet found that he hath proved it of any one unless in the fore-excepted cases I. His Theophilus Gothiae metropolis I spake of before He now saith Bishop of Gothia in the farthest parts of the North beyond Germany Answ. But where 's his Proof The Country that he talks of was not long after converted to Christianity He knew not that it was the Getae that were then called Gothes saith Ferrarius Polouci teste Math. Michovicus Steph. Paul Diac populus Sarmatiae Europeae boreale latus maris Euxini incolentes prius Getae teste D. Isidor li. 9. De quibus Auson Horum metropolis et urbs GOTHIA archiepis antequam à Turcis occuparetur Auson ep 3. Hinc possem victos inde referre Gothos Regio Gothea nunc Osia inter Tyram et Borysthenem This was then in the Empire § 6. II. His second is Dominus Domnus Bosphori a City of Thracia Cimmeria or India as Cosmographus declares the Bishop of Botra a City of this name is found in Arabia and Sala a Town also of great Phrygia the higher Pannonia and Armenia is so called Answ. This pitiful stuffe may amase the ignorant Domnus Bospori is the last subscriber Bosphorus is said in the subscriptions to be Provinciae Bostrensis in a Roman Province There be divers straites of the sea called Bosphori one between Constant and Calcedon another the sretum Cimmerium vel os Moeotidis called of the Italians stretto de Cassa and the straits between Taurica Chersonesus in Europe and Sarmatia in Asia There is the City Bosphorus an Archiepiscopal seat vulgo Vospero Abest inquit Ferrarius à Thracio 500 mil. pass ab ostio Tanais 375 in austrum This was in the Empire and he himself nameth it first a City of Thracia and yet the Learned Cosmographer proveth that it was out of the Empire are not these meet men to prove all the Earth to be in the Popes jurisdiction § 7. III. His 3d. is Ioh. Persi lis of whom enough already he is said to be of the Province of Persia which therefore was some skirt of Persia then in the Empire and a Town in Syria was called Persa what proof then is here of any one man out of the Empire So much for Nice § 8. IV. He next tells us of three Bishops of Scythia at the first Council at Constant.
Religion which they hold to be that which by Tradition the Church received for the Apostles and therefore most being against the Papacy think Tradition is against it And the Tradition of two parts of the Christian world especially those next Ierusalem is more regardable as such than the Tradition of the third part only that is contrary unless better Historical proof mak a difference § 29. 4. My 4th proof was Many Churches without the virge of the Roman Empire never subjected themselves to Rome and many not of many hundred years after Christ Ergo there were visible Churches from the beginning to this day that were not for the Roman Vicarship To this he saith If I can prove as I have proved that any one Extra-imperial Church was subject to the Bishop of Rome and you cannot shew some evident reason why that was subject rather than all the rest I convince by that the subjection of all Now it is evident that the Churches of Spain France Britain of France and Germany when divided from the Roman Empire were as subject as the rest c. Answ. 1. Yes and much more Rome it 〈◊〉 was then under Theodorick and other Arrian Gothes and those Rulers gave them their liberty herein and being Hereticks no wonder if the Bishops chose to continue their former correspondency and Church-order to strengthen themselves Here is then a special reason why Rome it self and the rest of the Churches should so voluntarily continue 1. Their old custom when under the Empire had so setled them 2 Their strength and safety invited them 3. It was their voluntary act 2. But what 's this to those many hundred years before when the Empire was not so dismembered Though even till after Gregories daies an 6â—… the Britains obeyed you not yet I told you that when Pagans or Arrians conquered any parts of the Empire the Christians would still be as much under the old Christian power as they could which made the Major Armenia when subduâ—…d by the Persians crave the Romans Civil Government and revolt to the Emperor and kill their Magistrates even when they were not governed by the Pope at all § 30. Here he repeateth what he had frivolously said before of the Council of Nice with an odd supposition as if India were in America and then betaketh himself to prove out of the Fathers the Roman Sovereignty but with such vain citations that I dare not tire the Reader with repeating and particularly answering them 1. They being at large answered by Chamier Whittakers and many other Protestants long ago and many of them or most by my self in my key and my former answer to him 2. Because it is needless to him that will peruse the Authors and Histories themselves and useless to him that will not 3. This general answer is sufficient 1. Part of them are the words of spurious books as St. Denis an interpolate book of Cyprian some new found Chaldaick Nicene Canons c. 2. Part of them say nothing of the Pope but only of St. Peter as being the first of the Apostles but not as the Governour of the rest 3. Part or almost all of them speak only of an Imperial Primacy that mention the Pope 4. Part of them speak only of an honorary precellencie of Rome and the Church there 5. Some speak only de facto that at that time the Church of Rome had kept out the Arrian Nestorian and Eutychian Heresies more than the â—…ast did which was because they had more orthodox Emperours and therefore that those sects that then differed from them were not in the Right nor in the Church 6. Some are only the commendations of Eastern Bishops persecuted by the Arrians in the East that fled to Rome for shelter 7. As high words are often given by Doctors and Councils themselves of Cyril and other Bishops of Alexandria and of Bishops of Ierusalem Antioch and Constantinople as those that are acquainted with Church-writings know There needeth no longer confutation of his Citations § 31. My fifth proof was that The Eastern Churches within the Empire were never subjects of the Pope He denyeth this Antecedent I proved it as formerly from the Africans Letters to Celestinus and the words of Basil c So farther 1. Because the Pope chose not the Patriarchs of Alexandria Antioch Ierusalem or Constantinople nor the Bishops under them 2. He did not ordain them nor appoint any Vicar to do it nor did they hold their power as under him To both these he saith It was not necessary c. But their Patriarchal power was from him Answ. Prove that and you do something but no man verst in Church-writings can believe you I remember not to have met with any learned Papist that affirmeth it that the Pope set up the other four Patriarchs it is notorious in history that as the Churches of Ierusalem and Antioch were before the Church of Rome so Alexandria Antioch and Rome were made Patriarchates together and no one of them made the rest and the other two were added since He proveth it because he restored and deposed those Patriarchs as occasion required Answ. 1. Tell this to those that never read such writings Princes and Councils did set them up and cast them out as they saw cause it were tedious and needless to any but the ignorant to recite the multitude of instances through the reign of all the Christian Emperors till Phocas time how little had the Pope to do in most of their affairs 2. They frequently set up and deposed one another far ofter than the Pope did any Doth that prove that they were Governours of each other accordingly 3. Councils then judged all the Patriarchs Roman and all as is notorious 4. The Pope sometime when he saw his advantage and saw one side striving against another would set in to shew his ambition as the prime Patriarch to strengthen himself by such as needed him and usually was against him that was likest to overtop him as neighbour Princes in War are afraid of the strongest and that was usually the Bishop of Constantinople 3. I said They received no Laws of his to rule by He replyeth The Lawes and Canons of the Church they received and those were consirmed by his authority Answ. But did he make them any Lawes himself by the Church your mean Councils and those made Laws for him therefore he was their subject He had but a voice and was not so much as a speaker in the Parliament some Councils you confess he neither presided in nor any for him as Binnius confesseth of Council Const. He had little to do in any of the Councils for 500 or 600 years less by far than the other Patriarchs 4. I said They were not commanded or judged by him He replyeth I have evidenced they were commanded and judged by him Answ. Reader the solution of such historical controversies is by reading the histories themselves Read throughly the histories of Eusebius
instances of Goths Danes Swedes examined Sect. 4 5. Whether extra Imperial Churches were under the Pope Sect. 5. In what cases some were and which His pretence to the Indians Armenians and Persians examined Sect. 6. The Tradition of these Churches is against Popery Sect 7. His notorious fictions about the subjection of the Indians Armenians and Abassines to Rome Sect. 9. 10. Of Pisanus Arabick Nicene Canons Sect. 11. He intended to write a Tractate to prove that extraneous Bishops were at the Councils But that put-off goeth for an answer Sect. 12. He confesseth that the very Gallicane and Spanish Liturgies mention not the Popes Soveraignty no more than the Ethiopick Sect. 13. When Constantine intreated the King of Persia for the Churches there the Pope did not command there Sect. 14. Whether before Gregory's Mission the British Church was ever subject to the Pope or heretical Sect. 15. Reynerius words vindicated viz. The Churches of the Armenians Ethiopians and Indians and the rest which the Apostles converted are not under the Church of Rome Sect. 16. The 28. Can. of the Council of Calcedon vindicated which declareth the Pope to be but the first Patriarch in the Empire by humane right for the sake of the Imperial City Sect. 17. 18 19 20. His brave attempt to prove that extra-Imperial Bishops were summoned to the Councils At Nice of John Persidis Armenians Gothia At Ephes. 1. Thebamnon Bishop of Coptus Sect. 21. 22. His other citations confuted Sect. 23. Of Eusebius his circular Letter Sect. 24. CHAP. 4. The Emperors and not the Pope called the old Councils Sect. 1. Myraeus his Notitia Episcopat against him Sect. 2. Of the authority over the barbarous given Con. Calced c. 28. Proof that the Papal power was held to be but jure humano Sect. 5. He was over but one Empire Sect. 6. No councils but of one Empire Prospers testimony examined caput mundi expounded Sect. 7. Pope Leo's words examined Sect. 8 9. The Decretal Epistles shew the Popes ruled not the world Sect. 10. More of Ethiopia and Pisanus's Canons Sect. 11. CHAP. 5. The Case reâ—…eated The uselesness of his Testimonies therein CHAP. 6. The Vanity of his proofs that Councils were called General as to all the world and not only to the Empire From the words totius orbis from the end the peace of the World and the rest Sect. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. His Question answered what Hereticks are Christians Sect. 8 9 10 11. He saith that no Heretick believeth for the authority of God revealing and so acquitteth all that do but believe that God is true which is all that believe indeed that there is a God Sect. 12. Of sufficiency of proposal of truths It is not equal He absolveth Hereticks And maketh Hereticks of the Papists Sect. 13 14 15. Whether the Papists and Protestants are one Church Whether the Pope and Christ are two heads Whether a King that saith God hath made me the Vice-god of all the earth set not up a policy destinct from Gods Sect. 16. One called a Papist may be a Christian and another not Sect. 17. 18. CHAP. 7. Whether we separate from the Church as the old Hereticks did Sect. 1. Whether we separate from other Churches as we do from the Papal Sect. 2. Arrians separate from the Church as Christian Sect. 3. Why they-call us Schismaticks Sect. 4. 5. Papists agree not whether Hereticks are in the Church Sect. 6. What we hold herein Sect. 6. His absurd answer Sect. 7. Whether every man deny Christs veracity who receiveth not every truth sufficiently proposed Sect. 8 9. He maketh it a grand novelty of mine to say that there may be divisions in the Church and not from the Church because the Church is a most perfect unity The shame of this charge Sect. 10 11. His charge of Eutychianisme on the Abassines c. Sect. 12. Of self-conceited hereticating wits Sect. 12. Whether the Abassines confess themselves Eutichianes Sect. 14. Of the Greek Churches rejecting us Sect. 16. The Greek Church claimed not Soveraignty over all the world but in the Empire Sect. 17 18 19. Whether every child subject or neighbour must judg Hereticks and avoid them unsentenced Sect. 20. His false answer to the testimony of their own writers that free the Greeks from heresie Sect. 21. The witness of the Council of Florence That the Greeks meant Orthodoxly Sect. 23. Nilus testimony vindicated Sect. 24 Our unity with Greeks and others Sect. 25. A notable passage of Meletius Patriarch of Alexandria and Constantinople for the sole Headship of Christ and the Popes usurpation novelties and forsaking tradition which with Cyril's testimony W. J. passed over Sect. 26. The Answer to W. J's second part of his Reply Sect. 1. SUfficient answers to all his citations pretermitted in terms Sect. 2. Because I cite a Patriarch and Councils excommunicating a Pope by the Emperor Theodosius countenance he saith I plead for Rebellion Sect. 4. His instances of the Popes extraneous power confuted Sect. 5. His particular proofs before promised in a special Tract examined 1. His error of Theophilus Gothiae Sect. 6. 2. Of Domnus Bosphori his gross error Sect. 7. 3. Of Joh. Persidis Sect. 8. 4. Of Bishops of Scythia Sect. 9. 5. Of Etherius Anchialensis for Sebastianus Sect. 10. 6. Of Phaebamnon Copti Sect. 11. 7. Of Theodulus Esulae so falsly called Sect. 12. 8. Of Theodorus Gadarorum Sect. 13. 9. Of Antipater Bostrorum Sect. 14. 10. Of Olympius Schythopoleos Sect. 15. 11. Of Eusebius Gentis Saracenorum Sect. 16. 12. Constantinus Bostrorum Sect. 17. 13. One pro Glaco Gerassae All shew his gross ignorance of the Bishopricks of the Empire Sect. 19. The Nestorians Epistle at the Council Ephes. to Callimores Rex expounded Sect. 20 21. Remarks upon passages in the first Ephisine Council Sect. 22. Remarks of the Council of Calcedon Sect. 23. Of the Titles Caput Mundi Mater omnium Ecclesiarum Primatus Apostolicus c. given to Antioch and Jerusalem Sect. 24. Binnius confession that at Conc. Const. 1. The Pope presided not per se vel per Legatos Sect. 25. His assertion that the Councils pretended to jurisdiction over the Church through all the World examined Sect. 26. The vanity of his first proof Sect. 27 28. Of his second and third More Notes of the Council Calced Sect. 29. His fourth instance confuted Sect. 30. His fifth confuted Sect. 31. His sixth confuted Sect. 32. His last instance vain Sect. 33. He could not disprove the Roman Church from being really two Churches named one as having two supreme Heads Sect. 34. I could not intreat him by any provocation to prove the continued visibility of the Church as Papal PART III. A Defence of my Arguments for our continued visibility Sect. 1. WHether all Believers are Christians Sect. 2. The vanity of his next Cavil against my definition Sect. 3. My definition of Protestants vindicated Sect. 4. One may have communion with faulty Churches Sect. 5.
that believeth only that there is a God that rewardeth and believeth not in Christ or the Holy Ghost be a member of the Christian Church or should be baptized My third Question about his definition of the Church was Is it any lawful Pastors or all that must necessarily be depended on by every member who are those Pastors To this he said Of all respectively to each subject that is that the authority of none of them mediate or immediate be rejected or contemned I shewed him how he contradicteth himself for dependance is more than non-rejection and Millions of Heathens neither depend on the Pope or reject him that never heard of him To this he rejoineth that he spake of subjects only and not of others Ans. 1. But we are never the nearer knowing their Church by this while we are not told who the subjects are and what maketh a visible subject 2. Do not they take all Infidels and Heathens and the Christian Abassines Armenians Greeks Protestants c. to be subjects of the Pope as to obligation and right though not consent yet the Abassines neither obeyed the Pope nor rejected him till Oviedo was sent to them 3. For about forty or fifty years one part of Europe took one man for Pope and the rest took another man for Pope and men were uncertain which was the right or whether either of them and so of the Clergy authorized by them Which was the Church then and who were the members when Millions received one and Millions rejected him and many neither received nor rejected but remained in suspense 4. And if all the Priests should desert a Country as Ireland Meâ—…co or our Wales or Highlands are all the people thereby unchristened or unchurched while they have no Priest either to receive or reject and perhaps hear not of a Pope But I specially answered him That this maketh every Priest so essential to that Church that a man is unchurched that rejecteth or contemneth any one of them though he should â—…onour the Pope Councils and thousands others If a man take a Priest in such a crime as Watson Montaltus and others tell us of is contemning him an unchristening of us Yea if it be done causelessly upon a quarrel This is a notable advancement of the Clergy If contempt of one Priest be damnation or unchristening us he that can make Priests for all the world may well be Lord of all the world even of Princes as well as other men To this he rejoineth that by the word respectively he did not mean all Priests but all that are Pastors to that man for there are some Priests that have no care or cure of souls committed to them but a private Christian rejecting the authority of his Parish-Priest Bishop Archbishop Metropolitan Primate Patriarch or supreme Bishop becomes a Schismatick and casts himself out of the Church Ans. 1. He is a strange Priest that hath no Cure of Souls what then is his office If he be not affixed to a particular charge sure he hath an indefinite cure of Souls in the Church Universal 2. Then one of the next Parish may take our Parish-Priest and all the Parish-Priests in the Country save his own for Hereticks Fornicators Traytors and such as must be rejected and yet be no Schismatick but a Church-member But if I reverence all other Priests and take our own Parish-Priest for an ignorant sot or a knave or a wicked man and contemâ—… him I am cut off from the Church This tells us more reason than I knew of before for our Canon against going from our own Parish-Churches when we have no Preacher there And this ells me how great the power of Patrons is who can make an ignorant wicked man so absolute a Lord of all his Parishioners though they be the greatest Lords that to contemn him shall cost them their damnation And this tells me more than I knew before that the Roman Clergy do not plead for the Pope for his sake only but for their own if all men be in as much danger of damnation or unchurching for rejecting any Parish-Priest as for rejecting the Pope And this tells me more than I knew before of the great Pre-eminence of the Secular Clergy as they call them above the Regulars and how low comparatively the Jesuits and Friers are when it will cut a man off from the Church to contemn one sottish drunken Curate or Parish-Priest that can but read Mass and to contemn ten thousand Friers and Jesuits will not do so And this tells us of how great concernment Parish-bounds are and what a priviledg it is to remove ones dwelling For if I will but remove my dwelling one yard out of the Parish I may then contemn the Parish-Priest without being unchurched which on the other side the way I could not do And this 〈◊〉 us why the Clergy are exempt so much from Princes and Magistrates judgment It may cut off a Prince from the Church to contemn his Priest whether to hang him if he prove a Traytor be contempt I know not Many such lessons may be hence learnt 3. But how came Cyprian then so much mistaken that said Plebs maximam â—…abet potestatem sacerdotes indignos recusandi And how came all the ancient Churches to use that freedom in consenting or diâ—…enting electing or rejecting their Bishops and Priests which Blondeâ—… hath copiously proved pro sentent Hiâ—…ron de jure plebis in regim Eccles. 4. And what a priviledg hath the Pope or a Patriarch above an inferiour Christian when he may reject a â—…housand Priests or Interdict whole Kingdoms or reject most Christian Churches and Pastors in the world as being none of Christs and yet not be himself cut off for so doing whereas one that falls out with his Pâ—…rish-priest and rejecteth him alone is presenâ—…ly â—…o member of the Universal Church It seems that God punisheth not men according to the greatness of their sin for sure it is a greater sin unjustly to reject ten thousand Priests than one Or to contemn all other Priests in the Country mistaking them all for Hereticks Usurpers or inâ—…ollerable than so to do by one Parish-priest only 5. How many Millions then that seem to be of the Church of Rome are not so because they contemn the authority of their Parish-priest 6. But what is the proof of this assertion None at all In other Societies no Union is essential to a member but that which is with the Pars Imperans or supreme power and with the body A man that rejecteth a Justice or the Mayor of a City or the Master of a Colledg or School c. may be yet a subject and a member of the Kingdom while he rejecteth not the King though he be faulty and be cut off from the City Colledg or School And I think that to reject a Parish-priest that ought to be so rejected is well done and if he ought not it 's ill done And that he that
separateth from that Parish-Church may yet be 〈◊〉 member of the Church Universal while he separateth not from it But I see that Guiliel de Sancto Amore and such others had greater reason to condemn the Friers and Watson and such others the Jesuits than we knew of I noted also the difficulty How we shall know the Authority of every Parish-Priest Bishop Archbishop Patriarch and Pope And 1. in a Country where Orders have ordinarily been forged To this he answered As much as you can be assured of any being Pastor of such a Church or Bishop or Iustice c. Aâ—…s 1. If you prove it a duty to believe and obey every such deceiver that hath no authority we will not believe till you prove it that to do otherwise doth unchurch us 2. And if two or three claim authority over us at once as they did in the Papacy about forty years together are we cut off from Christ if we receive not both or how shall we know which If either will serve then they that took Iohn of Constantinople for Universal Bishop were as much in the Church as they that received Pope Boniface as such And they that followed Dioscorus at Alexandria being Orthodox as they that adhered to Proterius c. Is it no matter who it be so we think him to be the right Why then do you deny our English Clergy when we judg them to have the true authority 2. I asked What if we be ignorant whether the ordainer had intentionem ordinandi how shall we be sure of the authority of the Ordained He answered As sure as you can be that you were the lawful child of your parents who could not be truly married without intention Ans. This is new Doctrine they that speak the words and do the actions which properly signifie a true intention and do profess it do thereby mutually oblige themselves in the relation of husband and wife to each other and they that truly so oblige themselves are truly though sinfully married For what is Marriage but such a mutual obliging contract they are truly my parents and I owe them obedience whatever their intention was But you hold a man to be no Priest that was not ordained ex â—…entione ordinandi and our Salvation to lie on our obeying him as a Priest who is none My fourth Question was How the people that dwell in other Countrys can know whether the Priest Prelate or Pope had necessary Election and Ordination To which he saith Wâ—…en it is publickly allowed in the Church witnessed to be performed according to Canonical prescription by those that were present and derived to the people without contradiction by publick fame Ans. 1. This alloweth the Ministry in Ethiopia Armenia Moscovie Grâ—…ece as much as the Roman For it is publickly allowed and attested and brought to the people by uncontradicted fame And so is the Ministry of the Reformed Churches to all that hear not your contradiction 2 But with Rome the case is otherwise one part of the Church hath publickly allowed one Pope and all his Clergy and another part rejected him and allowed another and his Clergy and publick fame hath contradicted one party 3. And what can fame say to us in England of the Election or Ordination made at Rome of a Pope Prelate or Parish-priest when we hear not any witness of it 4. And how can we expect contradiction of an action done a thousand miles off which none near knew of 5. And yet how few Priests or Prelates are they whose authority fame publisheth without contradiction Do not Protestants contradict the authority of your Priests and most of the Christian World the authority of your Pope My fifth Question was If you tell me your own opinion of the sufficient means to know the Popes or Priests authority how shall I know that you are not deceived unless a Council bad desined it sufficient To this he saith That the orders prescribed in the Canon Law and universally received are sufficient for this without Decrees of General Councils for they are no points of faith but of order and discipline whereof a moral certainty and Ecclesiastical authority are sufficient Ans. 1. Is this moral certainty true certaints or uncertainty If true certainty it hath its moral ascertaining evidences And what are those 2. Who is the maker of this Canon Law If not General Councils how shall we know their authority If the Pope and Cardinals how shall we know whether those of e. g. Stephen Sergius or Formosus be the authentick ones and so of many other contradictory ones If a General Council damn and depose e. g. Eugenius the fourth as a Heretick c. and he make Canons after how shall we know that they are authoritative 3. But are your matters of order and discipline no matters of faith Then God hath not bound us to believe that the Pope is the Universal Bishop or Pastor or that Rome hath any authority over the world or other Christian Churches or that your Priests are the true Ministers of Christ and have any authority over us or that the Mass is to be celebrated c. But either these are matters of Divine or Humane Law If man only command them how cometh our Christianity and Salvation to be laid on them What man commands man may abrogate unless extrinsick accidents hinder If God command them doth God command any thing which he binds us not to believe to be our duty Many things may be de fide revealed which are not de moribus nor to be done but nothing is by God commanded to be done which is not first to be known or believed to be duty 4. If it be no matter of faith how to know that your Elections and Ordinations are true then it is no matter of faith that you are true Pastors or have any authority because without true Election and Ordination it is not so and if so then it 's no heresie to believe that you are all deceivers 5. Your Authority or Decrees below that of Pope and General Councils pretend to no Infallible certainty upon this it seems your Church is built and into uncertainty its authority resolved and yet from this we must fetch our certainty of the Gospel in your way And is not the Gospel then made uncertain by you which must be believed on the authority of an uncertain Ministry yea and are not Councils uncertain which consist of such a Ministry 6. It 's a vanity to pretend that your Canon Law is universally received most of the Christian World receive but part of it and much no part at all unless you call the Scripture the Canon Law 7. If your Canon Law be so universally received and sufficient then when that Law is received into England England must be burnt as a land of Hereticks for that 's part of your Law and so your Ministry and our burning as Hereticks have the same authority My next Question was If I culpably were
ignorant but of some few Priests authority among thousands am I cut off from all the rest and the Church His answer is It is not all Priests but all Pastors in relation to their flocks Ans. 1. But if my Parish-priest be but one of twenty or an hundred thousand doth my culpable ignorance of his authority cut me off from all the Church It may be I believe Pope Nicolas Decrees that a man must not hear Mass of a Priest that hath a Concubine Or that a Simonical Pope or Bishop is no true Pope or Bishop 2. And remember that my Parish-Priest and my Bishop Metropolitan Patriarch and Pope can never make a General Council Either I may be safely ignorant of the Priesthood of all the rest in such a Council or not If not then I must know the certain Priesthood of all others as well as of my own Pastors contrary to what you say If yea then I have no certainty of the Priestly authority of Councils I next argued That it is not the rejecting of a Constables authority which maketh him no subject thâ—… owns the Soveraign To this he rejoineth That yet if I reject the Constable and with him all superior Magistrates and at last the Sovereign I am a rebell And so if I reject the authority first of a Parish-priest and then the Bishop of the Diocess and after of all his Superiors to the highest I am a rebel to the visible Church and cast out and reject Christs authority Ans. 1. Do you see what all our dispute is come to at last All this while it was the rejecting of any one Pastor that cut us off and now it is the rejecting of him and all above him to the bighest Is it not lost labour to dispute with these men 2. When you have proved that Christ hath such a thing as you call the visible Church that is all the world obliged to obey any one man or Governour besides Christ when he is naturally as uncapable of it as of being the Universal Physician even at the Antipodes and where he can never send then we will take it for rebellion to reject that Head Till then we shall take it to be Treason against Christ to claim and own that which is his prerogative How cometh it to pass that no one yet learned to call himself the Universal King of the Earth or the Universal Iudg Physician School-master c. as well as the Universal Priest and Teacher of Religion Next I craved his answer to much which I had written on this subject before in my Safe Relig. which he refuseth and tells me That I make a visible body with an invisible head to the Church which Government is internal and invisible abstracting from visible supreme authority Ans. 1. Christ was seen on Earth 2. He is seen in the Court of Heaven 3. He hath left a visible Universal Law by which he governeth 4. He hath appointed visible Officers over the world though no Head which is the way that the Pope pretendeth to govern even per alios when he never sent to a quarter of the world 5. His subjects are men visible known by audible profession and visible worship 6. He will visibly judg the world in Glory and be seen by all his Church for ever And when you prove that he hath a Church that is otherwise visible we will hear you They that assert an Anima Mundi and they that think one Intelligence or Angel ruleth all the Earth say that which is possible though they can never prove it But to talk of a Governour of all the World that never heard who dwelleth on a third part of it and that can get no Ships to sail about the Earth in many ages and when they do come not near the hundredth part of the world this is a prodigious claim for a waking man My fourth Question about his definition of the Church was Why exclude you the chief Pastors that depend on none He answereth I include them Ecclesia est plebs Episcopo unita Ans. 1. But he had defined the Church as those that depend on the Pastors which seemed to exclude the Popes that depend on none 2. Hierome defineth a particular Church and not the universal 3. They oft call the Clergy the Church He rejoineth That Terms have different acceptions Ans. But by all this ado I can have no reasonable satisfaction from you what you mean by the Church or what that Church is which you call us to unite with and which you accuse us as separating from We are like to dispute well with men that cannot or will not explain the terms of the question CHAP. II. Of their sense of the Word HERESIE W. J. HERESIE is an obstinate intellectual opposition against Divine Authority revealed when it is sufficiently propounded R. B. Q. 1. Is the obstinacy that maketh Heresie in the Intellect or the will W. J. In the Will by an imperate act restraining the understanding to that R. B. Still your descriptions signifie just nothing you describe it to be an Intellectual Obstinate opposition and now say that it is in the will He replieth that the error is in the Understanding but the obstinacy in the Will Ans. Indeed the obstinacy is in both but radically in the Will but did Intellectual opposition notifie this R. B. And you contradict your self by saying that it is an imperate act For no imperate act is in the will but of or from the Will The imperant act is in the Will but the imperate as Intelligere in the commanded faculty To this he replieth That 1. he meant not the act was in the Will though he said it was an act of the Will 2. That all Philosophers are against me and say that the Will may command Charity and other acts in it self Ans. 1. Who could conjecture that by an act of the Will you meant not an act in the Will but from it 2. It 's true that Volo velle is a proper speech and one act of the Will may be the object of another and a good man willeth nothing more here than to will better and if you will call this commanding I will not contend about the word But certainly all these Volitions are such acts as they call elicite which they usually distinguish from imperate and thus you confound them Otherwise every act of the will which is willed by a former act should be called imperate and so none but the first should be elicite And who knoweth when that first act was in being seeing the will doth still will its own future action R. B. 2. I hence noted that if wilful obstinacy be essential to Heresie their Church cannot know a Heretick while they burn them For they know not the heart and many that they burn would take their oaths that they are not willing to err He answereth W. J. We enter not into mens hearts that we leave to God only the Church presumes
formal Hereticks if any such were R. B. As Iohn 22 23 Eugenius 4th c. W. J. Prove that R. B. The Articles brought against them and the judgments thereupon are a proof if any thing may be called a proof viz. in the Council at Rome against Iohn in the Councils of Constance against divers at Basil against Eugenius and others much elder against Honorius c. Is a General Council no proof I added that so they were no Christians and he answers Prove that To which I say General Councils are your Catholick Church representative and those charge these Popes with Heresie and Infidelity If you are so frontless as to deny it I will not therefore tire the Reader with transcribing Councils as oft as you can say Prove it I added And all those that wanted the necessary abilities to the essentials of their works He saith Prove that there were such Popes I answer That you have had children Popes and some that were illiterate and ignorant I have oft proved by the express testimonies of your own Historians How oft must I repeat them I added That therefore their Church hath oft been headless and the Succession interrupted Councils having thus censured many Popes W. J. When you have proved the precedents prove that R. B. Reader is not the cause of the Papacy in a desperate case if Arms upheld it not when their Champion hath no more to say for the very successive being of the Popes but to bid me prove that which all men that read them know is commonly and copiously asserted by their Councils and Historians How oft have I cited their Platina Werverus yea Baroâ—…us Binnius Genebrard their greatest flatterers telling us that some were Children and some illiterate and fifty together were not Apostolical but Apostatical c. W. I. Prove that they were lawful Councils which so censured any Popes which we admit as true and lawful R. B. Alas poor men are you driven to that 1. If you have the face to deny those to be lawful Councils that censured Honorius the two Iohns Eugenius c. we may as well and a little better use the same liberty and question whether that of Trent Florence Lateran c. were lawful 2. May not the world see now what is the foundation of your faith and the validity of your Authority and Tradition even your own wills General Councils tell you the sense of the Church and the Tradition of your fore-fathers if you like them But if the Pope dislike them they are no lawful Councils and their testimony null The sum is whatever Councils say the Pope shall never be proved a Heretick or Infidel till he will say that he is one himself and will subscribe as Marcellinus did to his own condemnation or with Liberius confess his fault 3. And have not these men a notable advantage to proselyte Ladies and illiterate persons when if General Councils damn their Popes it is but bidding them Prove those to have been lawful Councils And though I can prove to them that even their own Popes have affirmed them lawful yet few women are so far skilled in History and so they must yield to every impudent deceiver And when I have proved all it is but as Bellarmine's fetching a denial out of the word Conciliariter against the approbation of Martin 5. 4. But is this enough for you what if none were lawful Councils that displease the Pope Are they therefore no competent witnesses of a matter of fact In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established And are not so many hundred Bishops and other Clerks as were at the Councils of Basil Constance Pisa c. competent Witnesses that the Pope was a Heretick Simonest Murderer c. had the Pope but consented these Councils had been the Catholick Church and infallible And may they not be credible Witnesses against him till he consent How shall we believe them when they tell us what was held and done in all the Christian World a thousand or fourteen hundred years ago if after examination of Witnesses we may not believe them concerning one man one publick sinner in their own time and known to many of themselves What then would the testimony of a Historian or an hundred Historians signifie if the testimony of many hundred Bishops congregate and deliberately examining consulting and sentencing be false R. B. I next asked Q. 2. Where and how must this Institution of Christ of the Papacy be found W. J. In the revealed Word of God written or unwritten R. B. 1. Remember Reader that even now he told us that the Church-Governours are known without Revelation else God had made an imprudent Government He could not mean that they are known to be men but Governours distinct from Usurpers or else he had spoke non-sense or impertinently And yet now it is in the revealed word of God 2. I answered That they never gave the world assurance how to know the measure of their unwritten word nor where to find it so as to know what it is W. J. We say we have R. B. Just as now you do to me If that Word of God be still unwritten and neither to be found in your Councils nor any of your Books I challenge all the reason in the world to tell us where we may certainly come to know what it is and when we have all especially when so great Councils as Ariminum Ephes. 2 Constance and Basil may be deceived in your very Fundamentals of Authority in matter of fact so near at hand R. B. Till you prove Christs institution which you have nevâ—… done you free us from believing in the Pope W. J. All are free from believing in the Pope we believe in God but not in the Pope who of us ever charged you to do so R. B. Even they that charge us to trust our very Salvation upon his Infallibility Veracity or Authority as from which only with his Council we must know what is Gods Word and what the meaning of it what is it to believe in but to believe his Authority and Veracity and trust upon it But we thank you for discharging us from believing in the Pope But I doubt when we are in your power you will call us to an after-reckoning and burn us for not believing on him when you acquit us from believing in him so much of your faith doth lie on a Letter R. B. Quest. 3. Will any ones Election prove him to be Pope or who must elect him ad esse W. J. Such as by approved custom are esteemed by those to whom it belongs fit for that charge and with whose election the Church is satisfied R. B. Now we come to their desperation never were men put to more open confusion in the very essence of their cause Something must be said but they know not what I noted here that if no Election or any ones Election will serve turn the Scholars
you mean that they have not the same extâ—… communion of Pastors in dependance on one as the 〈◊〉 Pastor or Governour of all the rest indeed there is none such but you For it is in that that they differ from you Reader is not here an excellent Disputer I affirm that the judgment of most of the Christian world is against the Papists in the point of an Universal Head or Governour of all Churches He saith that no one party which is for an Universal Governour and yet is against an Universal Governour is so big as their party I grant it Had they all dependance on one as an Universal Governour they were not against on Universal Governour The Abassines have one Abuna but he claimeth no Universal Government The Armenians have their Catholick Bishop but he claimeth no Universal power The Greeks have their Patriarch at Constantinople but he pretendeth not to govern all the World We are all against any Head of the whole Church on Earth but Christ and therefore are united under no other You say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 patcht body of a thousand different professions c. Ans Reproach not the Body of Christ they are far more united than your Church as Papal Are not the seâ—…en points of 〈◊〉 mentioned by Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4 5 6 7 as good as yours 1. They have one â—…ead that never â—…arieth and whom all receive you have a Head rejected by most Christians and oft turn'd into two or three Heads one saying I am the Head and another I am the Head and setting the world in blood and contention to try it out which of them shall get the better as your forty years Schisms shewed 2. Therefore this Church which you reproach as patcht is but one But yours is really many and not one specifically as well as oft numerically when there were two or three Popes you had two or three Churches For it is the pars imperans that individuateth the Society And de specie you are still three Churches as holding three several heads one holdeth the Pope to be the Head another a Council and a third the Pope and Council agreeing And these Heads have oft condemned and deposed one another Councils namned Popes as Hereticks Infidels Simonists Murderers Adulterers and Popes accused Councils of schism and rebellion at least And to this day there is no certainty which were true Popes nor which were true Councils some being called by you Reprobate because they pleased not the Popes and some approved But our Head of the Church is not thus divided nor schismatical 3 Our common faith is still the same and its rule the same but yours is mutable by new additions as long Councils will make new Decrees and no man can tell when you have all and your faith is come to its full stature Nay and your Decrees which are your rule of faith are so many and obscure that you are not agreed your selves in the number or the meaning of them 4. It is a notorious truth that all these Churches which you say have a thousand professions as they all agree in one Christian profession so do less differ among themselves than your seemingly united Church doth with it self whether you respect the number or the weight of differences 1. For the Number sint libri judices all the Christian World besides hath not so many nor I think half so many Volumes of Controversies as your Writers have written against one another as far as is come to the notice of this part of the World 2. And for the Weight 1. I have shewed that you are divided in your very Fundamentals the Supremacy you confess here that your Church is not at all agreed what the Christian faith is or who is a Christian some say he that believeth the Church and that God is a rewarder others say a Christian must believe in Christ c. 2. Your Commentators differ about the sense of hundreds or thousands of Texts of Gods own word 3. Your Disputers about Grace and Free-will accuse one the other of making God the cause of Sin and of denying the Grace of God 4. Your Moralists differ about many instances of Excommunicating Kings and then killing them and of the Popes power to depose them and of perjury lying murder adultery fornication false witness yea about loving God himself whether it be necessary to love him once a year or whether attrition that is repentance from bare fear with penance may not serve turn to Salvation with abundance such And we confess that other Christians have their differences And what wonder while they are so imperfect in knowledg and all grace And now if Concord or Discord must tell us whose Tradition or Judgment is most regardable let the Impartial judg whether the moâ—…â—…egardable Tradition of the far greatest part of the Church be not against you and whether your reproaching them for discord condemn not your selves much more than them If a subject should stile himself the Kings Vicegerent and claim much of his Prerogative without his Commission and a third part of the Kingdom should unite in receiving and obeying him and have otherwise a thousand contentions among them Qu. Whether these or the rest of the Kingdom were the more and better united When I next questioned Whether the vulgar that know not Councils resolve not their faith into the belief of the Parish-priest he saith no. And saith That the Priest is but the means by whom we come to believe and tells us that else we know not whether there were any Christians 500 years ago c. Ans. But if they will be content with Ministerial teaching and Historical proof of things past we would not differ from them we do not only assert these as well as they but we say that as we have sounder teaching so we have far better Historical Tradition of our faith than that which dependeth on a pretended fanâ—…tick Infallibility or authority of their Pope and Sect even the Historical Tradition of the whole Christian World and of many of the enemies themselves CHAP. VI. What mean you by a GENERAL COUNCIL W. I. A General Council I take to be an Assembly of Bishops and other chief Prelates called convened confirmed by those who have sufficient spiritual authority to call convene and confirm it R. B. Here is nothing still but flying and hiding his cause is such that he dare not answer Note that 1. Here is no mention of what extent it must be at all whether these Prelates must be sent from all the Christian world or whence The least Provincial Council that ever was called may be a General Council by this description 2. He tells us of other chief Prelates and yet never tells what sort of things he meaneth by chief Prelates that are no Bishops And when he hath told us doubtless he will never prove nor I hope affirm that any such Prelates are of Christs institution And if the
matter of General Councils be not of Divine right whether such Councils can be of Divine right I leave to censure A Council of humane Officers is but a humane Council and yet he leaveth out yea excludeth Presbyters who are of Gods institution 3. He tells us not who it is that must call convene and confirm them And he had reason for it lest he reprobate all those that were otherwise called Here therefore I first asked Q. 1. Who is it ad esse that must call convene and confirm it Till I know that I am never the nearer knowing what a Council is and which is one indeed W. J. Definitions abstract from inferior Subdivisions For your satisfaction I affirm it belongs to the Bishop of Rome R. B. This you must needs say for your cause sake But he justifieth his definition as having a sufficient Genus An Assembly and Differentia Bishops and chief Prelates convened c. Ans. You do ill to refuse all disputes but what are exactly Logical which is your custom for advantage to amuse the women if your Logick be no better should not a Relative Assembly be defined by its subject fundamentum terminus 1. Your Genus is too general it should have been a nearer Genus 2. Your subject is partly false as taking in besides Bishops other chief Prelates and excluding Presbyters and partly ambiguous what other chief Prelates you mean and specially too narrow not at all differencing this Council from any inferior Synod 3. Here is no end or terminus expressed and so no difference put between a Council and an Assembly of Prelates called for any common civil use as if it were but to choose or attend a Prince 4. Here is no just notice of the fundamentum or the ratio fundandi the true fundamentum is totally omitted which is the mutual consent 1. of the Churches chusing and sending their Bishops or Delegates 2. of the Bishops to go in that Relation 3. of all the Bishops to convene and agitate conciliar business for the proper ends And a fundamentum is mentioned which is 1. Insufficient and as nothing being but a Genus called by those that have sufficient authority instead of a species in your own opinion who think that the Authority is only in the Pope 2. And when you so explain your self it is false as shall he shewed 5. Yea the very formal Relation is not mentioned which is the relation which the assembled members have to the Churches which they represent and to each other and to the intended end and work So that here is a definition that is no definition nor hath any thing like a definition yet defended by this great disputer Nor can any man tell what a General Council is by it And how can we dispute intelligibly when you can no better explain your terms Here I urged from his making the Popes call convening and confirmation necessary ad esse that this nullifieth the chief Councils called General this he denieth to be true To which instead of transcribing long Histories I only say that whoever readeth the true Histories of the calling and convening of the Councils at Nice Constantinople divers at Ephesus the first and second yea that at Calcedon though Leo desired it of the Emperour and many others in those ages and yet will not confess that most of them were called by the Emperours special command sometime requiring the Bishop of Alexandria to call them sometime the Bishop of Constantinople and sometime writing or sending to all the Patriarchs or most to come and send their Bishops and usually also to his Civil and Military Officers to concur and to be Judges I shall not think that man fit to be disputed with about such matters who hath the face to contradict such consent of History and Records R. B. Q. 2. Must it not represent all the Catholick Church Doth not your definition agree to a Provincial or the smallest Council W. J. My definition speaks specifically of Bishops and those Prelates as contradistinct from the inferior Pastors and Clergy and thereby comprized all the Priests contained in the species and consequently makes a distinction from the National or particular Councils where some Bishops are only conven'd noâ—… all that being only some part and not the whole speciâ—… or specifical notion applied to Bishops of every age and yet I said not all Bishops but Bishops and chief Prelates because though all are to be called yet it is not necessary that all should come R. B. O what a disadvantage is an ill Cause The man is so confounded that the further he goeth the worse he makes it 1. He must needs intimate that it is all the Church that must be represented and yet he durst not speak that out 2. He intimateth that his speaking specifically of Bishops and Prelates is equivalent to all Bishops and Prelates 3. He intimateth that naming Bishops as contradistinct from inferior Pastors and Clergy was necessary to difference a General Council from a National or other as if a National or Provincial one might not consist of Bishops only or as if the inferior Clergy might not be of a General one as they oft have been 4. He makes the difference here to be that some bishops are convened not all when yet he after saith that all come not to General Councils 5. Our question being What constitutâ—… a General Council He saith It is All the Bishops and 〈◊〉 All are not there though â—…alled As if those that come not were any part of the Council 6. He would perswade us that yet he well left out the word ALL though it must be all that are â—…alled because they come not To this I further answered him That then you have had no General Councils much less can you have any more for you have none to represent the greatest part of the Church unless by a mock representation 〈◊〉 If all must be called your Councils were not General a great part of the Church being â—…t called W. J. We are â—…ow buâ—… explicating terms that all were not called is denied R. B. Then let never modesty forbid you to deny any thing I have elsewhere proved against Mr. Hutchâ—…son that your Councils were generali but as to the Roman Empire and seldom if ever so much as that 1. Had the Emperors who certainly called them any power to call any of other Princes Dominions 2. Doth any History mention that ever the Emperors did so 3. Did the Pope of Rome call to the Councils at Nice Constantinople Ephesus Calcedon c. all the Bishops of all the extra-Imperial Churches 4. Were the businesses there agitated any of theirs 5. Were any Conciliaâ—… Decrees executed on them Any extra-Imperial Bishops put in or out or suspended by them 6. Were all the bishops of the Greek Churches of the Armenians and all other Southern and Eastern Nations called to the Councils at Trent Lateran c. What is it that some
Jurisdiction we need and desire none but a Ministerial Power of guiding Souls towards Heaven by God's Word preached and applyed And he that ordaineth a Minister thereby giveth him all the Jurisdiction which is necessary to his Office If a Man be licensed a Physitian must he have also Mission and Iurisdiction given him after before he may practice 3. How could we take Ordination Mission and Jurisdiction from Men on the other side of the World What need we go so far for it when the Gospel is near us which telleth us how God would have Ministers more easily called than so 4. And as for the prescript of our Liturgy Discipline and Hierarchy that is one of the differences between us and you Must you needs have a Liturgy Discipline and Hierarchy of Man's forming so you have But we can live in Christian Communion with so much as Christ and his Apostles by his Spirit have prescribed us Is there no Communion to be had with any Church but that which hath arrived at that heighth of Pride as to make Liturgies Discipline and Hierarchy for all the Chrstian World and to suffer none to speak publickly to God in any words but those which they write down for them to read to God We make no such Laws to any other Church in the World nor do we receive any such Laws from any and yet we have Communion with them fraternal and not subjective Communion There is one Law-giver who is able to save and to destroy who are you that make Laws for another's Servants and judge them Had the Churches no Communion for the first 400 years when no Liturgies were imposed or when the first Law made hereabout was but that no one should use a Form of Prayer till he had shewed it to the Synod No nor when Gregory's and Ambrose's Liturgies were striving for pre-eminence Had the Church at Neocesaria no Communion with that at Caesarea because they had so different Liturgies as their quarrel against Basil intimateth And when every Bishop used what Liturgy he pleased in his own Congregation Was there then no Communion between the Churches We refuse not any meet Liturgy that is found needful to our Concord But truly for Hierarchy and Species or Forms of Churches and the substantials of Discipline we earnestly wish that no Church had any but what God hath himself prescribed to them 5. But how should we joyn with Men many hundred or thousand miles off us in Word and Sacraments otherwise than by useing those of the same species We do not locally hold such Communion with the next Parishes to us nor with many in the World for we cannot be in many places at once much less can we be every Lords day in every Assembly in Ethiopia and Armenia As for Sacrifice we know of none acceptable but the Commemmoration of Christ's Sacrifice once offered for Sin and the offering of our selves and our Thanksgivings praise and other duties to God And why you distinguish the first from Sacraments I know not W. J. Aâ—…d did they profess the same Faith in all points of Faith and those the very same wherein they dissented from the Church of Rome R. B. 1. Ad hominem it might suffice to say to you that explicitely or implicitely they did 2. But I better answer you We profess the same Faith in all points essential to Christianity and in abundance more I have told you before that we agree in all the Old Creeds and in the truth of the Canonical Scriptures 3. But do you Papists agree in all points of Faith no not by a thousand For all is of Faith which God hath intelligibly revealed in the Holy Scriptures to be believed But there is above a thousand intelligible Texts of Scripture about the sence of which your Commentators differ If all Christians agree in all that is de fide then all Christians fully understand every intelligible Word in the Scripture And then every Woman and Rustick is as wise in Divinity as the greatest Doctors yea far are the Doctors from such Wisdom W. J. If so they may as well be said not to have separated fom the external Communion of the Roman Church R. B. Some will tell you that we did not separate from you but you from us but I must say that the Roman Church is considered either materially as Christians and a part of the Church of Christ and so we neither did nor do separate from you or else formally as Pâ—…pal and so we renounce you and all Communion with you as being no Church of Christ but a Sect that treasonably usurpeth his Prerogative The pars imperans specifieth or informeth the society Christ only is the Universal Head of all Christians as such and of all the Churches with which we profess Concord and Communion In this Head Greeks Armenians Ethiopians and Protestants unite But the Pope falsly pretending to be Christ's Vicar-General is taken for the Universal Head by the Papists and in renouncing this Head we renounce no other Church but yours R. B. Not from you as Christians but scandalous Offenders whom we are commanded to avoid we separate not from any but as they separate from Christ. W. J. 1. No sure for if you did you must be Iews Turks or Infidels 2. Was there no more in it Did not the Primitive Persons who begun your breach and party owe subjection to their respective Ecclesiastical Superiors Diocesans and Pastors R. B. No none at all as they were Papal that is the subordinate Ministers of the usurping Universal Bishop W. J. And is it lawful for a Subject to subtract himself from the obedience of a lawful Pastor because he is a scandalous Offender R. B. Yes if his Offence be a ceasing to be a lawful Pastor and taking on him a false Office by usurpation Or if he remained lawful quoad hoc as Christian and adde a treasonable addition we must have no Communion with him at least in that unlawful part W. J. If you say he remaineth not in his former Power you contradict our Saviour commanding obedience to the scandalous Pharisees c. R. B. 1. The Pharisees set not up a new usurped Office of Head-ship constitutive pretendedly to the Universal Visible Church but only abused a lawful Office that God had made 2. Yet Christ requireth obedience to them no farther than as they sate in Moses's Chair and delivered the Law but warned men to renounce them as Corrupters and to take heed of their Doctrine 3. And this much was but till they shewed themselves uncurable and he set up new Officers over his Church and then all men were to forsake the Pharisees Government W. J. You destroy all Ecclesiastical Government and open a way to tread under foot all temporal Authority If you hold these Offences deprive him of all Ecclesiastical Power why not so of Kings and Magistrates and Parents and then you have spun a fair Thread c. R. B. Confusion
the Cause in naming Integrals for those are not Accidents Ans. 1. My affirming that the Papacie is as much an Accident as a Leprosie is to a Man did not make me forget that I was confuteing his assertion that all is essential to the Church which is instituted to be for ever or indeed which had been ever in it for that was his saying And though Integrals be not Accidents yet they are not Essentials was this hard to see And 2. by his now putting in the word instituted he would make the Reader think that I had granted that the Papacie was instituted by Christ. 2. He saith that Nothing can be an accident to the Church which Christ hath instituted to be perpetually in the Church and consequently the Churches holding any thing to be so if true is essential to the subsistence of the Church if false is essentially destructive of the Church so that whether true or false it will never be accidental to the Church Ans. 1. What work will Interest and Errour make If so then every Errour and every Sin of the Church is essentially destructive of the Church For Christ hath instituted that the Church shall perpetually hold and teach the truth only and obey all his commands without sinning If he say that the Church never hath nor had Sin or Errour I answer 1. If an essential part of the Church have had Sin and Errour then so hath the Church had But an essential part in their account that is their supposed Head hath had Sin and Errour To pass by Peters denying Christ disswading him from suffering till he heard Get behind me Satan Mat. 16. his dissembling Gal. 2. sure Marcellinus sinfully offered Incense to an Idol and Honorius and Tyberius sinned and it was some sin in those Popes that defiled Wives and Maids at the Apostolick doors and that were Whoremongers and came in by Whores and Poyson and that were condemned as Simonists Hereticks Incarnate Devils Perjured Murderers c. and that by Councils 2. If all the particular Members of the Church have some Errour or Sin then so hath the Church But all the particular Members have c. If any Man say that he hath no Sin he is a Lyer and the truth is not in him 1. Joh. 1. And in many things we offend all Iam. 3. 2. c. 2. Why then doth he accuse us for separating from Rome if it be as certainly unchurched as it is certain that they have had Sin and Errour it is certain that the Popes were such as aforesaid or the Councils sinned that condemned them as such and it is certain that either the Councils of Constance Basil and Pisa erred and sinned which decreed that Councils are above the Pope and may condemn and depose him and that this is de fide and the contrary Heresie or else the Councils of Laterane and Florence erred and sinned that said the contrary And so of other Instances 3. But as I have proved the Antecedent of his Argument false already so his consequence that the Churches holding any thing to be instituted for perpetuity is essential and the denying destructive of the essence would not follow but on two suppositions 1. That such institutions are not only no Accidents but no Integrals 2. That every commanded truth is essential which are both false For else the institution might be essential and yet not the believing it such be essential And he confesseth that such belief is not essential to every Member nor can he tell to how many nor to whom ad esse Ecclesiae If he say To as many as have a sufficient proposal 1. Then if none had a sufficient proposal it would cease to be essential to the Church 2. Then if any one sin be committed by the Church against a sufficient proposal the Church is nullified If he said It is not known how many must believe it ad esse Ecclesiae then no man can know whether the Church be nullified or not He saith pag. 6â—… So the acknowledgment of it by all those to whom it is sufficiently propounded is necessary to make them parts of the true Church and the denyal of it when so propounded hinders them from being parts Ans. 1. Still this sayeth nothing to the question how far and in whom it is essential to the Church 2. And this unchurcheth every person that erreth and sinneth against any one word of Scripture after a sufficient proposal yet this same man said pag. 36. of his explications Whatsoever their neglect be to know what is propounded yet so long as they believe explicitely what is necessary to be believed necessitate medii and implicitely the rest they can be no Hereticks for it is not the ignorance though culpable c. And do the wilfully ignorant acknowledge it reconcile these if you can 2. This Unchurcheth your whole Church For it is sufficiently proposed even in express words in the Scripture that there is Bread in the Eucharist after Consecration thrice together in 1 Cor. 11. and that the Church should communicate with the Cup This do in remembrance of me even to shew the Lords death till he come and that we should not make to our selves any graven Image nor bow down to it nor worship it and that we should pray publickly in a known Tongue and that Bishops should not Lord it over the Flock c. and you erre and sin after this sufficient proposal Pag. 36. I had given several Instances of the Iberians Indians Americans the primitive Christians and their own Converts to prove that the belief of and subjection to the Pope is not necessary to Christianity or Salvation to which his answer is very remarkable Viz. I never said that all particular persons or COMMUNITIES are obliged to have an express belief or acknowledgment of the Roman Bishops Supremacy that being necessary to all neither necessitate medii nor praecepti It is sufficient that they believe it implicitely in subjecting themselves to all those whom Christ hath instituted to be their lawful Pastors and when the Bishop of Rome is sufficiently proposed to them to be the Supreme Visible Pastor of those Pastors upon Earth that then they obstinately reject not his authority Ans. There is some moderation in this though it utterly overthrow their cause 1. This fully proveth that the poor Abassines Armenians and such others for all the Popish Accusations of them are neither Hereticks nor Schismaticks for not acknowledging the Pope whose Supremacie hath not been sufficiently proposed to them And so that the Church is greater than the Popes Kingdom 2. This maketh out a receiving of the Popes Supremacie to be no more necessary than the receiving of every Word of the holy Scripture or tradition noâ—… than the receiving e. g. of the Cup in the Lords Supper For all are essentially necessary say they when sufficiently propounded 3. This undeceiveth us that thought their Doctrine had been that the Scripture and Christianity must necessarily be
and the claim of the Monarchy of all the Earth was then but in the Egg even after 600 years and came not into the open World till about the time that Mahomet came else undoubtedly your Lyturgick Commemorations and Prayers would have had some mention of the Universal Bishop as well as our Prayers mention the King and Bishops especially when it was then the Custom to record and commemorate all the Patriarchs and greatest Prelates and the Imposition would have come forth as by his Authority as the Trent symbolical Oath doth and as our Lyturgie doth by Authority of the King and Parliament and Convocation Surely this is much against you Because he knew not the Scholiastes mentioned by Usher he questioneth his Citations about the change of the Ethiopick Lyturgie I next added that Constantin's Letters of Request to the King of Persia for the Churches there mentioned by Eusebius in Vit. Const. do intimate that then the Roman Bishop Ruled not there To this he saith Why so The Pope might command and the Emperour intreat Answ. 1. This sheweth that the Emperours who used to call Councils called none out of Persia for they had no Power there 2. And withal Why is there not a Syllable in any Church-History or credible Author that we have heard of that mentioneth that ever the Pope sent one Command into Persia or that ever he corrected suspended or deposed any Bishop there or excommunicated any there though indeed that had been no sign of Governing Power seeing an equal may renounce Communion with an equal Heretical Society or Person Why is there no mention that ever any General Council did any of this No nor ever took any such exterior Churches into their care any otherwise than as Neighbours to help them nor never made any one Governing Canon for them And I pray you How would the Persian King that must be intreated by Constantine have taken it to have the Religion of his Kingdom under the Command of one of Constantine's Subjects But you have the affirmative let us see your proof that ever the Pope Governed the Persian Churches Next I noted that Even at home here the Scots and Britains obeyed not the Pope even in the days of Gregory above 600 but resisted his changes and refused Communion with his Ministers To this he replyeth That 1. This was their errour as our disobedience now is and Beda so chargeth it on them that it followeth not that they had never been under the Pope 2. That they also held that which was condemned as a Heresie at Nice yet it followeth not that they were not under that Council's Authority 3. They also refused Communion with the English Converts Answ. These words signifie what you would have us believe but let us try what more 1. Seeing you can bring no word of proof that ever they had been subject to the Pope before And 2. Seeing they were found utterly Aliens to his subjection And 3. Seeing they were found in possession of Opinions and Customs quite contrary to the Pope's 4. And seeing they pleaded Tradition for this 5. And seeing they renounced Communion with those that came to subjugate them And 6. Seeing the Pope's Ministers never pretended to any ancient possession in pleading with them as you may see in Beda 7. And seeing we read in Beda Gildas and others that they had heretofore made use of the assistance of the French Church by Germanus and Lupus as more Neighbours without any mention of subjection to Rome Let the Reader that careth what he believeth now judge whether ever the Scots and Britains were before subject â—…o the Pope 2. It is false that the Council of Nice condemned their Easter-practice as a Heresie though they united on a contrary resolution And as it is certain that that Council had no authority out of the Empire and so not over Britain when it was out of the Empire so this British Custome plainly intimateth that Britain had not received the decrees of that Council 3. That they refused the Communion of the English as half Papists it is no great wonder And yet I remember no proof of that at all in Beda but only that taking the English for Pagan-Tyrants that conquered and opprest them they refused to join with Augustine the Monki in preaching to them It 's like taking it for a hopeless attempt in them that were odious to them and open Enemies and not to be trusted Next I recite the words of their Reinerius Cont. Waidens Catal. Bibl. Pat. To. 4. p. 773. The Churches of the Aâ—…enians Ethiopians and Indians and the rest which the Apostles converted are not under the Church of Rome One would think plain words He replyeth No more are you what then our question is not of what is done de facto for the â—…present but what de jure ought to be done or hath been done The Author saith not These Nations were never under the Church of Rome but are not now Aus It 's no wonder that you desire to be the expositors of the Scriptures and all other Books for that is the only device to make them speak what you would have them If Gregory the Seventh be the Expositor of St. Paul no doubt but St. Paul shall be for the power of Popes to depose Kings and Emperours If Innocent the Third be his Expositor no doubt but by Bread 1 Cor. 11. he meaneth no Bread and by this Cup no Wine And I confess there is greater reason that you should be the infallible Expositors of Reynerius than of Christ or Paul for he was more your own and under your Government But this Reynerius was an unhappy speaker and if he were here I would ask him 1. Why do you speak in such a manner as any ordinary Reader would think that you speak de jure de facto and yet mean de facto only 2. Why speak you so as an ordinary Reader would think that you spake dâ—… statu statuto when you mean but de praeente statu inordinato 3. Why speak you of so great a sin as Rebellion against the Vice-Christ and Schism from the Universal Church without any note of reprehension 4. Why name you the old extra imperial Churches only and not those that since renounced Rome as all the Greek Church if you meant but what you charge the Greek Church with Had you not more easily fastened a charge of Rebellion on all those Eustern Churches that sometimes acknowledged some primacy of Rome than on those that the World knoweth were never under him 5. And why do you say also in general and the rest which the Apostles converted are not under the Church of Rome if there were not some special reason for it We took your meaning to be Though those in the Empire and many without it that were turned from Infidelity by the Popes Subjects be under the Church of Rome the first by the Laws of the Empire and Councils and the latter
by voluntary subjection yet so are not the Churches which the rest of the Apostles planted without the Empire aâ—… those Apostles were not subject to St. Peter 6. And why do you so arrogantly accuse such vast Churches as Armâ—…nia Ethiopia India and all the rest of the Apostles planted besides Peter and Paul and take them all for Rebels and Schismaticks and yet bring no word of proof for your Accusations But the truth is Reynerius though he revolted from the 〈◊〉 of his times was an honester man than the Pope that shall thus be his Expositor and yet W. I is not the Pope and therefore I question his partial exposition Next I mentioned the Canon of the Council of Calcedon which saith that the Fathers in Council gave Rome the preheminence c. He replyeth that 1. The Greek word is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exhibited or deferred to Rome as ever before due to it by the right of the Apostolick See of St. Peter established there Ans. You are hard put to it when you have no better shift than so useless a Criticism 1. You know I suppose that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may have a signification as remote from doâ—…ation as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that your own common Translation is tribuere and I desire no more 2. Is here ever a word in the Canon that saith It was ever before due not a word 3. Is not the same word used of the giving of equal priviledges to Constantinople as â—…is of giving or deferring it to Rome the same word And did they mean that this belonged ever to Constantinople and that of Divine Right You dare not say so 4. Did they not say that by the same reason they judged that Constantinople should have equal priviledges because it was the Royal City And was this famous Council of which you boast as obeying Leo's Epistle so sottish and absurd as to argue thus because old Rome had the first Seat assigned to it on this account because it was the imperial Seat and that was because it was ever before its due as St Peter's Chair therefore we judge that by the same reason Constantinople should have equal priviledges because it is now new Rome the imperial Seat though it was never due to it before as the Seat of any Apostle O what cannot some men believe or seem to believe And how much doth it conern your Church to be the Expositor and Judge of the sense of all Councils as well as of God's Word He addeth that the Canon saith not that this was the sole reason Ans. 1 But the Canon saith This was the reason and assigneth no other 2. And if it made not it the great reason which the Church was to take for the fundamentum juris they would never have laid the Right of Constantinople on the same Foundation as by parity of reason The plain truth is but interest and partiality cannot endure plain truth he that will not be deceived by cited By-words of the Ancients must distinguish between the Titâ—…lus or fundamentum juris and the Ratio or Motives of the Statute or Constitution The first was the Law of Emperours and Councils This only giveth the Right The second was prevailingly and principally that which the Canon here assigneth that Rome was the great City and the imperial Seat but as a honorary Tittle adding to the Motive they say sometimes that it was the Seat of Peter and sometimes of Peter and Paul and sometime they mention Paul alone and cry as at Ephesus Magno Paulâ—… Cyrillo Magne Paulo Celestino But note that they give often the same reason for the Patriarchal honour of Antioch that it was Sedes Petri and therefore never took this to be either the Foundation of the Right or the chief determining Motive of the Constitution He addeth that else it had been a contradiction when the Fathers say that Dioscorus had extended his Felony against him to whom our Saviour had committed the charge and care of his Vineyard that is of the whole Catholick Church Ans. 1. No doubt but they acknowledged that Christ committed the care of his Vineyard to Peter and every one of the Apostles and to all Bishops as their Successors though not in Apostleship and they acknowledged Rome the primate in the Empire and when Dioscor us undertook to excommunicate Leo they supposed that he transgressed the Laws of the imperial Church and therefore Anatolius in the Council when the Indices said that Dioscor us condemned Flavian for saying Christ had two Natures answered That Dioscorus was not condemned propter fidem but for excommunicating Leo and for not appearing when he was sent for 2. Is here any word that saith that the Pope was Soveraign of all the Earth Doth not the Council in that very Letter to Leo say that the Emperour had called the Council not ascribing it to any Authority of the Pope And also that the saying Mat. 28 Go teach all Nations c. was delivered to them which is the care of the vineyard and not only to the Pope Quam nobis olim ipse salvator tradidit ad salutem But saith W. I. The true reason why this Canon mentioneth rather the Imperial Authority of that City than the right from St. Peter was because it suited better with the pretensions of Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople and his Complices for the elevaton of that Sea than any other for they had no other c. Ans. It 's true But did Anatolias and his Complices that is the Council speak sincerely and truly here or falsly If truly that 's all that I cite them for If falsly as worldly unconscionable men that were setting up themselves why hoast we of General Councils even of this and of their words to Leo How can we tell when to trust them and whether they that subscribed against Flavian at Ephes. 2. and after cryed omnes peccavimus at Calcedon when they were under a Martian and not Theodosius would not have acquit Dioscorus and condemned Leo and Elavian again if another Theodosius had come But if they were credible believe them But he tells us that a Law of Theodosius and Valentine put both reasons together c. Ans. I told you in what sense even now even as they put the name of Peters Seat as a reason of the honour of Antioch a honorary motive to their Law And he here confesseth himself That Alexander and Antioch had the second and third places because they were the second and third great Cities of the Empire But he saith that St. Peter thought it convenient that the highest spiritual Authority should be placed in that City which had the highest temporal power Ans. Say you so 1. Where is that Canon of St. Peter's to be found and proved 2. If so then why is not this Canon produced for the regulating of all other Churches Why doth Canterbury take place of London
contrary to St. Peter's Judgment 3. And if so then you are gone many hundred years ago Why do you contrary to St. Peter's mind pretend to the highest Ecclesiastical Authority since Rome ceased to have the highest Civil Power Should not Constantinople and Vienna and Paris be preferred before Rome You cannot make both your ends meet I added That these Councils gave not the Pope any Authority over the extra-imperial Nations He replyeth If they had it before and by Christs institution they neâ—…ded not I answer So if Constantinople had it before by Christs institution they need not have given it equal priviledges but did they that proceeded by Parity of reason believe that either of them had any such Title I added some further proof 1. Those extra-imperial Nations being not called to the Councils were not bound to stand to such decrees had they been made He replyeth somewhat that is instead of the Book which he promised before and calleth to me to remember to answer him and nothing that he hath said is more worthy of an answer viz. How came the Bishops of Persia of both the Armenia's and Gothia which were all out of the Empire to subscribe to the first Council of Nice How came Phaebamnon Bishop of the Copti to subscribe to the first Council of Ephesus How came the Circular Letter written by Eusebius Caesar Palest in the name of the Council to be directed to all Bishops and in particular to the Churches throughout all Persia and the great India Lastly if those Bishops were not called to Councils why do Theodoret Marianus Victor Eusebius Socrates all of them affirm that to the Council of Nice were called Bishops from all the Churches of Europe Africa and Asia and he citeth the places in the Margin Ans. 1. Here is but two Councils named in which such invited Bishops are pretended to have been the subscriptions to the rest for many hundred years afforded him no such pretence no not as to one Country in the World 2. To the Council of Nice there subscribed unless you will believe Eutychius Alexandrinus the Presbyterians Friend that tells you of strange numbers but 318 as full Testimony confirmeth And 3. I desire the Reader to note that these subscriptions have no certainty at all The Copies of Crab Binnius Pisanus c. disagree one from another And Crab giveth the Reader this note upon them p. 259. that the Collector must be pardoned if he erre in the assignation or conscription of Bishops or Bishopricks especially beyond Europe for â—…hough they were four old Copies that he used yet they were every one so depraved that the Collector was wearied with the foolish and manifold variations for never a one of them agreed with the rest This is our notice of the subscriptions and as I said Eutychus Aâ—…x quite differeth from all And 1. whereas he tells us here of the Bishops of Persia there is no mention of any man but one Iohannes Persidis and he is said to be Provinciae Persidis and the Romans named not extra-imperial Countries by the name of Provinces therefore there is little doubt but this was some one that verged on the Kingdom of Persia in some City which was under the Romans then and sometimes had been part of Persia. I have oft mentioned Theodoret's plain Testimony saying that James Bishop of Nisibis sometimes under the Persian was at the Nicene Council for Nisibis was then under the Roman Emperour 2. As to the Bishâ—…ps of both the Armenians the Copies disagree even of the number of those of Armenia minor they name two Bishops of Arm. major one hath four another five another six and part of the Armenia's being in the Roman Power it is most probable that these Bishops were Subjects to the Empire or if any at the Borders desired for the honour of Christianity to be at the first famous General Council it signifieth not that any had power to summon them or did so The Emperour had not and that the Pope did it none pretend that hath any modesty and they are called in the subscriptions The Provinces of Armenia 3. And as for Gothia the Books name one Man Theophyâ—…s Gothiae Metropolis which no Man well knoweth what to make of for the Nation of Gothes were not then Christians Socrates saith that it was in the days of Valens that some of them turned Christians and that was the reason that they were Arrians and that Wulphilus then translated for them the Scripture But if they had a Bishop at the Nicene Council it is evident that he was in the Empire for the Gothes then dwelt in Walachia Moldovia and Poland and were no other than the Sauromatae that Eusebius tells us Constantine had Conquered and tells us how even by helping the Masters whom the Servants by an advantage of the War had dispossest so that your Instance of Theophilus Gothiae as without the Empire is your errour Myraeus calls part of France Gothia Saith Marcellinus Comes eodem anno of Thodos 1. after the Council Const. 1. Universa gens Gothorum Athanaricho Rege defuncto Romano sese imperio dedit This was a great addition But here Pisanus helps us out and saith Hunc Eusebius Pamphylus Scytam dixit in vita Constantini Metaphrastes addeth Wulphiluâ—…'s success Eusebius indeed tells us that there were 250 Bishops that differs for the common account and he was one of them and that the Bishop of Persia was present Vit. Const. l. 3. c. 7. And that there were learned Men from other Countries Scythia being one and the Bishop of Tomys was called the Scythian Bishop And that Constantine was the Caller of the Council not the Pope And that he wrote Letters to the Bishops to summon them to appear at the Council And who will believe that he wrote his Summons to the Subjects of other Kings Or if he had What 's that to the Pope If Ioh. Persidis were not a Roman Subject that word he was present seemeth to distinguish his voluntary presence from the Summons of others But saith Euseb. 16. cap. 6. Writs of Summons were sent into every Province And the Persian and Armenian Provinces are here named with the Bishops Those that have leisure to search into the Roman History may find what Skirt of Persia and what Part of Armenia were in the Empire in those times and it 's notable that when these Bordering Parts were lost these Bishops were never more at any General Council neither at Ephesus Constantinople Nice 2. c. And Eusebius there tells us as the reason why some came came from the remotest Countries viz. some did it out of a desire to see the famous first Christian Emperour and some out of a conceit that a Universal Peace should be established And so Ioh. Persidis might come with the rest And though I find not Pisanus's words of Theophilus in Eusebius I find ibid. l. 4. c. 5. That it was no wonder that even a Scythian Bishop should be
prove what they list and this is their proof of Universal Tradition and the Papal Soveraignty of the World He concludeth â—…ou will not forget to answer these questions in your next And I think I have not forgotten it nor failed to evince his worse than forgetfulness and that the Councils then extended but to the Roman Empire and consequently the Papal and Patriarchal pretensionâ—… to no more and even of the Popes Western Diocesses the number of Bishops at those Eastern great Councils were not considerable nor yet any Agency of the Pope in and about them W. J's Fourth Chapter answered I next added for he begins his Chapter in the middle of a Section 2. That the Emperours called and enforced the Councils who had no power out of the Empire To this he saith Called they them alone had they not the Authority of the Roman Bishop joyned with them or rather presupposed to theirs prove that the Emperours called them Ans. Shall I prove it to those that have read the Histories of the Councils or to them that have not If to them that have not I cannot prove it or any such matters but by desiring them to read it If you tell a Woman that it is ten thousand years since the World was created and I tell her it is not 600 neither of us proveth to her what we say but she will believe him that she liketh best But to him that hath read or will read the History I disdain the Task Must I write Books to prove that there were such men as Constantine or Theodosius in the World I will be none of that mans Teacher that hath read the full history of the Councils of Nice First and Second of Ephes. First and Second of Constantinople First Second Third Fourth Fifth c. of Sirmium Armenium and many such as cannot see that the Emperours called them without any previous Call or Authority of the Pope some as Nice the Emperour called immediately by his own Letters without a word of the Popes interposing Authority or Call Most of the Emperours wrote to the Patriarchs and Metropolitanes to call the Bishops under them Sometimes to the Patriarch of Alexandria first if not only to call the rest sometimes to him of Constantinople and sometimes to all the five and if the Pope did at any time send a Bishop or two and a Priest thither you thence pretend that the Pope called the Council He addeth Had not the Emperours power to signifie to those extra-imperials that a Council was to be celebrated and to invite them at least Ans. Yes sure even at the Antipodes but when the History tells us that he commanded and oft threatned them if they came not and that he wrote to them and the men are named what signifieth your question W. I. Could not the Bishop of Rome or other under whose Jurisdiction they were respectively notifie to them the celebration of the Council and require their presence in it you cannot but see this Ans. I cannot but see your shame when you open it 1. Could not an Angel from Heaven have called them yes no doubt but no History saith that they were so called but tells us how in another manner 2. The word Jurisdiction signifieth so much of your Errour and interest that you are resolved at least to keep up the name and supposition and when you do but adde over all the World it maketh me remember Christs temptation All this will I give thee but it is too strong a temptation for the Pope to over-come But you would have gratified me much if you had told me what Patriarch's Jurisdiction in those times the Churches in Persia and India and the rest that were extra-imperial did belong to or where I may find any notice of the Summons that the Pope or any Patriarch sent them to any of those ancient Councils 3. I told him that the Diocesses which these Bishops were related to are described and expresly confined within the verge of the Empire vid. Blondel de primatu To this 1. He taketh it for a Fob to be referred to Bloudel Answ. Look then in your own Cosmographers and even in Aubâ—…rtus Myraeus his Notitia Episcopatuum abating his Fiction of the submission of the Abassine Emperours and such-like in him and his Confession that his Book had next to nothing of the Patriarchate of Alexandria He tells you that the Armenia major and minor were in the Province of Pontus Scythia in the Province of Thracia c. And that you may know who it was that gave these Jurisdictions he tells you how Iustinian gave his Name to a City of Bulgaria subjecting many Bishops of Dacia Dardania Mysia Pannonia c. to that Arch-Bishop with this addition sed ille ab ipsis consecretur eadem jura super eos habeat quae Papa Romanus habet super Episcopos sibi subditos Was that all the World then Novel 119. 508. He next citeth Pisanus's Nicene Canons giving the Pope Universal Power and the Bishop of Alex. and Antioch extra-imperial Power and he promiseth hereafter to justifie those Canons But in the mean time I shall as much regard his Citations out of Esop's Fables or out of Genebrard or Cochleus He saith The Council of Calcedon c. 28. giveth to the Bishop ef Constantinople Authority over the barbarous Nations near those Parts that is such as were extra-imperial such as that of Russia and Muscovia Answ. Is not this a confident Man 1. The Council saith only that the Bishops of the fore-said Diocesses naming only Pontus Asia and Thracia which are among the barbarous shall be ordained by the Throne of Const. And who knoweth not that the word Diocess signified then a part of the Empire and that many of the barbareus so called then were within the Empire such as were the Scythians Gothes or Getae or Sauromatae which Eusebius saith were Conquered by Constantine But is here any mention of Russia or Muscovy 2. And how long after this was it that all History tells us the Muscovites and Russians that were not Gothes were converted to Christianity So that here is not a Syllable in all that he hath said for Popery except the Canons of Pisanus and Turrian which they must better prove before we take them to be of any just regard It is not the word of Baptista Romanus or any late Iesuite that can suffice us I added lastly that Patriarchal Priviledges were ordinarily given by the Emperours who added and altered and sometimes set Rome highest and sometimes Constantinople His many vain words against this I will not tire the Reader with reciting Every man knoweth it that knoweth Church-History Why else in the days of Mauricius and Phocas was one set highest at one time and the other at another time How else came the Bishop of Constantinople to pretend to Universal Primacy His marvel that I translate Pontifex Pope as if never man had so done as if we had never read Bellarmine
so then you have said nothing If not you take a General Council to be indeed the Church representative â—…nd then how many of your Popes Essential parts of your Church have been Excommunicated and deposed as Hereticks by the Universal Church And your Church now is but the Successour of e. g. Eugenius the fourth so rejected Shew us when ever the Greeks did so by our Church or us § 17. I told him the Greek Church claimed but the Primacy or Supremacy in the Empire and not the Government of all the World At this he first wondreth and then takes upon him to disprove it 1. Because else Gregory the first had ill reprehended John of Constant. for claiming the Title of Universal Bishop 2. Because Jeremy saith 1. He was Vice Christi 2. And perswadeth Lucius c. to be Subject to the Church with them Answ. 1. It was the Arrogancy of the Title that Gregory reprehended as sounding like a real Universal Claim and the reality of an Universal Claim in the Empire I proved before that the Greeks knew that Constant. had no Title Iure Divine by the Can. 28 of Chalcedon and the notoriety of the thing And therefore they could not pretend it to be over all the World where the Empire had no Power And what need there more proof than that there is no Evidence brought by you or any that ever they gave Laws to all the Christian World or that ever they called Councils out of it or that ever they set up and put down Bishops in it Indeed they have Excommunicated Roman Popes but that was within the Empire and so did Alexandria Or if since as they do still it is not as their Governours but as any Churches may renounce Communion with Hereticks or Persons uncapable of their Communion 2. And as for Ieremy 1. Will not Cyril as much prove the contrary 2. Is one Man the Greek Church 3. Did every Apostle or doth every Minister of Christ proclaim himself Universal Head of the Church when he saith as 2 Cor. 5. 19. We beseech you Vice Christi in Christs stead to be reconciled to God It is one thing to be Preachers in Christs stead to our particular Flocks and another thing to Usurp Christs proper Office and be in his stead Universal Governour of the World 4. And may not one of us or any Christian perswade a Man to be Subject to the Church of Christ And if Ieremias had a mind to Rule further than the Empire now the Empire is Mahomeâ—…an and Subjects Voluntary and free what wonder is it We undertake not to Justifie him from all Ambition § 18. I told him out of his Ieremias and his Protonotary Iohn Zygomolas that they confessed Agreement with us In continuis causam fidei praecipuè continentibus articulis and that Quae videntur consensum impedire talia sunt si velit quis ut facilè â—…a corrigâ—…re possit He tells me That 1. Yet they consent with them in all save the Popes Authority Answ. 1. How far that is from Truth Thom. a Iesu and other of your own will tell you 2. And the Popes Authority is the ratio formalis of Popery 2. He saith That Ier. claimeth as Supream Authority over the whole Church as the Pope doth Answ. 1. I will not believe it till I see the proof I find he layeth all his Claim from Councils and therefore may possibly claim power over those Churches that were in the Empire when the Council of Chalcedon gave that power but I find no more And if he did they and we may yet be Christians 3. He saith Any of the Roman Church might write the like to the Lutherans But Zygomalas supposeth them of two Churches till united Answ. He supposeth them not in all things of the same mind nor of the same particular Churches But he that saith that we agree in the Articles of Faith and differ but in lesser things of easie reconciliation either supposeth both Parties to be Christians and of one Church of Christ or else that no Men are Christians that have any Difference that is no two explicite Believers perhaps in the World § 19. I told him 1. The Patriarch was not the Greek Church Nor 2. Their lesser Errors prove us of two Religions or Churches He Replyeth 1. But he knew the Extent of his own Iurisdiction Answ. 1. So do not all Ambitious Men If he do then the Papists are all deceived for he pretended say you a Jurisdiction over the Pope and his Church But the Question between him and the Protestants wâ—… not about his Jurisdiction 2. He saith That If the Errors be tolerable we are Schismaticks in Separating from them and should rather have suffered Answ. To separate from any sin and error by not consenting or committing it no Christian denyeth to be our duty and his supposition that we separated from the Catholick or the Greek Church is but his continued fiction We were not under the Government of the Greeks and therefore not obeying them is no separation and not sinning with them is no separation we own them as Christians and we renounce the sins of all the world and hate our own more than any others so far as we know them § 20. To his saying that It is against Christianity to hold condemned Hereticks to be in the Church I answered 1. That I detest that condemnation when even non judices condemn whole nations without hearing one man much-lesser all speak for themselves or any just witness that ever heard them defend a Heresie His Answer is that I mistake the way of their Churches condemnation They do but say whoever holds such errors let him be accursed or we excommunicate such as hold them c. Answ. There is some hope left then for the Nations that are no subjects of the Pope unlesse non-subjection be the Heresie But hath the Pope gone no further than this Hath he not put whole Nations under Interdicts But he saith those that profess their heresies or that communicate with them are esteemed hereticks and those that profess to disbelieve their heresie and yet live in communion with them and subjection to them are Schismaticks Answ. 1. Here 's new confounding doctrine indeed If their Canon only condemn indefinitely those that hold a heresie e. g. Nestorianism taking it to be unfit to say God dyed or God was born must all be taken for hereticks that communicate with any of these before the person guilty is convict and judged Must every private man be the judge of hiâ—… neighbour Every servant of his Master Every woman of her husband Every subject of the King and be burnt for a heretick for communicating with one that was never accused or condemned We live then with one another more dangerously than men converse in the time of pestilence Nay what if the Priest himself admit such to the Communion must the poor people be burned if they communicate with them in the parish Church
those General Councils in all their Decrees Constitutions and Canons intended to Oblige all Christians through the whole World and thereby demonstrated themselves to have Iurisdiction of the whole Church and never so much as insinuated that their Authority was limited within the Precincts of the Empire Answ. 1. I have proved the contrary at large already 2. They might well commend their Decrees or Judgments to all Christians on two accounts 1. For Concord sake it being desirable that all Christians should as much as may be be of one mind and way 2. Ratione rei decretâ—… And so all Churches are bound to receive the same Truth that one is bound to If the Bishop of the poorest City Excommunicate a Man justly for Heresie all the Bishops in the World that know it are bound to deny Communion to that Man and so Cyprian commended the Bishop of Rome for denying Communion to Felicissimus partly because they are bound to keep Concord with all Christians and Order and partly because they are bound to avoid Hereticks And yet such a Bishop is not Governour of all other Bishops nor Cyprian of the Bishop of Rome But let us hear your Proofs § 26. I. Thus saith W. I. the Council of Ephesus saith Their Decrees were for the good of the whole world Answ. I do not mean to search so large a Volumn to find where seeing you tell me not where When as he is unworthy to be Disputed with that knoweth not how commonly then the Roman Empire was called Totus Orbis and even the Scripture saith That all the World was Taxed by Augustus How oft doth Nazianzene complain that the Bishops and Councils had distracted and divided the whole World And also that all that is for the good of the whole World is not an Act of Government of the whole World e. g. The Works of Augustine Chrysostome c. § 27. II. Saith he Thus the Council of Chalcedon Act. 7. declareth the Church of Antioch to have under its Government Arabia Answ. But do you think that no part of Arabia was in the Empire Look but in the Maps of the Empire if you have no other notice And you will be put hard to it to prove that they meant the rest of Arabia § 28. III. And act 16. c. 28. saith he That the Bishop of Const. should have under him certain Churches in Barbarous Nations which you must prove to have been under the Empire Answ. 1. I thought you must have proved that it was out of the Empire who undertook to prove it as you affirm it 2. But seeing Papists lay Mens Salvation upon such skill in History Cosmography and Chronology which this great Disputer had so little of himself we must study it better for the time come And I did fully prove to you before that the Sauromatâ—… many of the Scythians and Goths were conquered and in the Empire and Barbarians were in the Empire And by the way Note 1. That this â—…uncil of Chalcedon even writing to Leo Bishop of Rome tell him That They were called by the Grace of God and Sanction of the most Pious Emperours not mentioning any call of Leo's 2. That the Emperour Martian in his Decree against Hereticks and for this Council saith All Men must believe as Athanasius Theophylus and Cyril believed not naming the Bishop of Rome and that Cyril Praefuit Concilio Ephesino not saying that the Bishop of Rome did it or Cyril as his Vicar And that the Council-Bishops contemptuously against the Romans cryed out They that gain-say let them walk to Rome and stood to their last Canon against the Popes dissent § 29. IV. Next he saith Nicephorus l. 5. c. 16. saith That Leo the Emperour Wrote to the Bishops of all Provinces together Circularibus per Orbem literis ad Ecclesias missis Leo haec sic ad omnes Episcopos misit which he accounts were above a thousand to have them subscribe to the Council of Chalcedon Answ. Some Men perceive not when they consute themselves 1. I tell you Totus Orbis was a common Title of the Empire 2. Had Leo any power out of the Empire His commands shew that they were his Subjects that he wrote to 3. Were any called or wrote to under the Name of Provinces but the Roman Provinces 4. Do you think that there were not more than a thousand Bishops in the Empire Yea many thousands if poor Ireland had as many hundred as Ninius speaks of 5. But remember hence that if all Bishops were written to then the Bishop of Rome was written to to Subscribe the 28 Canon of the Council of Chalcedon which he refused as Papists say But indeed the Epistle that Niceph. there mentioneth c. 16. was but to enquire of all the Bishops whether they stood to the Council of Chalcedon or no and what Bishop of Alexandria they were for to save the calling of a new Council and it is plain he wrote only to his Subjects § 30. V. Next he saith The Bishops of the second Armenia which seem to have been out of the Empire wrote an Answer and Adelphus Bishop of Arabia Subscribes among the rest to this Epistle Answ. 1. He tells me â—…ot where to find any of this In Nicephorus there I find it not 2. But if he know not that part of both the Armenias were Roman Provinces he may see it in the Titles of the Nicene Council and in the Maps and Histories of the Empire And of Arabia I spake before § 31. VI. He saith The Bishop of the second Messia which you must prove to have been then under the Empire writ that the Council of Nice delivered the Faith toti terrarum Orbi and style the Bishop of Rome the Head of Bishops and that the Council of Chalcedon was gathered by Pope Leo's Command Answ. Here is neither Matter nor Authority worthy an Answer 1. He citeth no Author for what he saith 2. Whether he meaneth Messua or Messia or Messina they were all in the Empire But what he meaneth I know not Since I find in his Errat Messia r. Toti But where or what Toti meaneth my Cosmographers tell me not If it be Tottaium that he meaneth it was a City of Bithynia under the Arch-Bishop of Nice But it seems he durst not say it was in the Empire but instead of proving it in I must prove it out without knowing Place or Author 2. He that yet understandeth not the Romans Terrarum Orbem and he that reading History can believe that Pope Leo called the Council at Chalcedon is not to be convinced by me if he maintain that the Turks called it He tells us out of no cited Author of an Epistle subscribed by Dita Bishop of Odyssâ—… in Scythia which I have nothing to do with till I know the Epistle But he should have known that Odyssus is a City of Mysia near the Euxine Sea within the Empire § 32. VII His last Instance is considerable viz. Of the Bishops of Spain
10. ad 11. 5. Scatus in Prolegom in sect 1. 6. Greg. Armin. in Prol. e. g. q. 1. art 2. Resp. fol. 3. 4. 7. Guil. Parisiens de Legib. c. 16. p. 46. 8. Bellarmine again de verbo Dei li. 10. c. 10. ad arg 5. c. And then I most fully proved it out of the ancient Church-Doctors But to all these he giveth such frivolous Answers that it irketh me to weary the Reader by repeating and answering them And he that will faithfully peruse the Authors words I think will either need no other confutation of him or is uncapable of understanding one when he seeth it The fore-confuted contradiction of sufficient explicite and yet not sufficient implicite is the chief and next a vain supposition that to say that Scripture is sufficient to all Theological points and conclusions is less than to say it is sufficient to necessary Articles of Faith and if any of them speak of the Churches exposition he denyeth the Scripture-sufficiency as a rule and yet their Councils need exposition too § 22. III. My 3d. Argument for our Churches perpetual visibility was If the Roman Church as Christian though not as Papal hath been visible ever since the dayes of the Apostles then the Church of which the Protestants are members hath been visible ever since the dayes of the Apostles but the Antecedent is their own Therefore they may not deny the Consequent Here he wants Form again because as Christian is in the Antecedent and not in the sequel Answ. He might have seen that it is but an Expository term in a parenthesis and so the same exposition in the consequent is supposed Next he saith that it is a fallacy a secundum quid ad simpliciter Answ. so then the Church as Christian is not the Christian Church but secundum quid but we that know no other profess to be of no other nor to prove the visibility of any other than the Church as Christian. Let them prove more that pretend to any other Next he saith that the Protestants have been visible as Christians is all that can be pretended and yet that also he denyeth for they believe not one Article with an infallible supernatural divine Faith Answ. 1. The question is whether they profess not so to do nay rather whether their objective Faith that is all the Creed and Holy Scriptures be not infallible of supernatural Revelation and Divine he that denyeth this seemeth an Infidel But if all the members of the Church must have an actual subjective Faith that is of supernatural divine infusion Then 1. No hypocrite is a Church-member 2. And no man can know who is a Church-member besides himself 3. And so the Church of Rome is invisible this is clear 2. I must not too oft write the same things if the Reader will peruse a small Tract of mine called The certainty of Christianity without Popery he shall soon see whether the Papists Faith or Ours be the more certain and divine Of which also I have said more in my Treatise called The safe Religion and Mr. Pool in his nullity of the Roman Faith § 23. I here shewed that having proved our visibility as Christian I need not prove a visibility as Papal any more than he that would prove his humane Genealogie having some leprous Ancestors need to prove that all were leprous Here he denyeth Popery to be Leprosie and again falsly tells us that if it were so all the visible Church in the world was leprous which needs no more confutation than is oft given it § 24. He tells me how an 1500 the Pope was in possession and we dispossest him without order c. Answ. An old Cant but 1. I have fully proved that he never was in possession of the Government of the Christian world 2. Nor in the Empire or any other Princes dominion but by humane donation and consent as the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury is in England 3. And that they that gave him that power may on just reason take it away And that the Bishop of another Princes Countrey cannot stand here by his authority when he hath lost the Government of England himself § 25. IV. My 4th Argument added more than my Thesis required viz. If there have been since the dayes of Christ a Christian Church that was not subject to the Roman Pope as the Vicar of Christ and universal Head and Governour of the Church then the Church of which the Protestants are members hath been visible both in it's Being and in it's freedom from Popery But the Antecedent is true Ergo so is the Consequent To this 1. he wants the word ever in the Antecedent And yet before abated it but he knoweth that since was put for ever since 2. He saith I suppose that the sole denyal of the Popes supremacy constitutes the Church whereof the Protestants are members Answ. In despight of my frequent professions to the contrary who still tell him that our Christianity and Relation to Christ and one another makes us Church-members and our freedom from the Papacy is our renunciation of an Usurper § 26. I proved my Antecedent 1. from the express words of the Council of Calcedon can 28 which he answers as before where he is consuted § 27. 2. My 2d proof was from the silence of the ancient writers Tertullian Cyprian Athan. Nazianzene Nissene Basil Optatus Augustine c. that used not this argument of Popes power over all the world as of Divine Right to confute the Hereticks that they had to do with when two words had expeditiously done all if this had then been Believed Here he saith Their authors have proved that the Fathers did so Answ. Soon said and as soon denyed The books are in our hands as well as yours I will now instance but in Cyprian and the African Churches in his dayes and in Augustine and the same Churches in his dayes 1. Did Cyprian and his Council believe Stephens Universal Monarchy when he opposed his judgment with so much vehemency and set the Scripture against his plea from tradition Let him that will read his Epistles of this too long to be recited believe it if he can And when he twitted his arrogance in Council with nemo nostrum se dicit Episcopum Episcoporum 2. The plea of Aurelius Augustine and the rest of the African Bishops I have formerly recited of which Harding saith that the Africans seduced by Aurelius continued twenty years in Schism from Rome and did Augustine and all the rest then believe the Popes Sovereignty even in the Empire I did plainly show that if the Donatisâ—…s Novatians and all such Sects had believed the Roman Sovereignty and Infallibility they had not so differed from them if they did not believe it the Fathers would have taken the neerest way and wrote their Volumnes to convince them that this Papal Rule was it that must end all their controversies instead of writing voluminously from Scripture and the nature of the