Church cannot or doth not err in telling me what is Gods Revelation before I can know or believe any of his Revelation If they mean that this act of faith must go first before I can have any other why may I not know and believe other articles of faith without the divine belief of the Churches authority or infallibility as I may believe this one God hath revealed that the Church is infallible or true in telling me what I must believe If one Article may be believed without that motive and sure it is not believed before it is believed why not others as well as that 3. And which way or by what Revelation did God confer this Infallibility on the Church If by Scripture it is supposed that yet you know not what is in the Scripture or believe it not to be true till you have first believed the Churches Veracity Therefore it cannot be that way If by verbal tradition it is equally supposed that you know not that Tradition to be Gods word and true before you know the Churches Veracity that tells you so So that the Question How I must believe the Churches Veracity herein by what divine revelation before I can believe any other revelation is still unanswered and answerable only by palpable contradiction But were it not for interpreting him contrary to his company I should by his words here judg that it is no Divine faith of the Churches Veracity which he maketh pre-requisite to all other acts of faith but it is Prudential motives of creâ—…bility which must draw him to afford credit to that authority as derived from God which commends to him the Bible as the word of God now that can be no other than the Authority of the Catholick Church Ans. Mark Reader It can be no other than the authority of the Church which must be the prudential motive to credit the authority of the Church as derived from God So the Churches Authority must be first credited that he may credit it or else the Authority not credited must move him to credit it which is all contradiction unless he mean that the Churches Authority credited by a humane faith or by some notifying or conjectural evidences besides divine revelation must move him to believe that it is authorized by God When they have told us whether that first credit given to the Church have any certainty for its object and also what and whence that certainty is we shall know what to say to them Knot against Chillingworth is fain tosay That it is the Churches own Miracles by which it is known to have divine authority before we can believe any word of God And so no man can be sure that Gods word is his word and true till he be first sure that the Church of Rome hath wrought such miracles as prove its veracity as from God which will require in the Catechumene so much acquaintance with Historical Legends which the more he reads them the less he will believe them as will make it a far longer and more uncertain way to become a Christian than better Teachers have of old made use of And 2. it seems when all is done that he taketh this Authority of the Church but for a prudential motive But is it certain or uncertain If uncertain so will all be that 's built upon it If certain again tell us by what ascertaining evidence Reader it is the crooked ways into which byassing-interest hath tempted these men to lead poor souls which are thus perplexing and confounding How plain and sure a way God hath prescribed us I have told you in a small Tractate called The Certainty of Christianity without Popery In short it is possible if a man never hear but one Sermon which mentioneth not the authority of the Church or find a Bible on the high-way and read it that he may see that evidence in it that may perswade him savingly to believe through grace that it truly affirmeth it self to be the word of God But the ordinary method for most rational certainty is To have first Historical ascertaining evidence of the matter of fact viz. that This Book was indeed written and these miracles and other things done as it affirmeth Or first perhaps That this Baptismal Covenant Lords Prayer Creed and Decalogue have been delivered down from the first witnesses of Christ and Miracles wrought to confirm the Gospel which is also written at large in that Book This we have far greater Historical Certainty of than the pretended authority of a judging-Church of Rome even the infallible testimony of all the Churches in the world and as to the essentials Baptism the Creed c. of Hereticks Infidels and Heathens which I have opened at large in a Book called The Reasons of Christian Religion and another called The Unreasonableness of Infidelity and in other writings And the matter of fact with the Book being thus certainly brought down to us as the Statutes of the Land are we then know the Gospel and that Book to be of God by all those evidences which in the foresaid Treatises I have opened at large and more briefly in a Treatise called The Life of Faith the sum of which is the Holy Spirit as Christs Agent Advocate and Witness in his Works of Divine Power Wisdom and Goodness or Love printed first on Christ himself his Life and Doctrine and then on the Apostles their Works and Doctrine and then on all sanctified believers in all ages and especially on our selves besides his antecedent prophesies Pag. 16. He again pretendeth that he need not name the necessary Articles of Faith because I my self say They must be the Essentials and it is supposed I understand my own terms Ans. A candid Disputant The light followeth him while he flyeth from it Doth it follow that if I know my own meaning I therefore know yours and if I know which are the essentials that therefore you know them and are of the same mind Pag. 17. The man would make me believe that I speak not true divinity when I say that Divine and Humane Faith may be conjunct when the testimonies are so conjunct as that we are sure that it is God that speaks by man who is therefore credible because God infallibly guideth and inspireth him He would make you believe that I am singular and erroneous here Ans. And why He saith that would make Christian faith partly humane But 1. when I talk but of two faiths conjunct what if I called the former divine faith only the Christian faith May not a humane yet be conjunct with the Christian 2. But words must be examined If Christian faith be so called from the Object then Christ and not his Apostles are the reason of the name materially we are called Christians for believing in Christ and not for believing in them 2. If Christian faith were taken subjectively it is humane faith for men are the subjects of it 3. If Christian faith be
on it But an ill Cause will admit of no defence If you come to this mark what will follow Even that millions are in the Church that are no Subjects of the Pope but do reject him If there were two real Popes there were two real Churches and therefore neither of them was Universal and consequently neither of the two were Popes because not Universal Bishops so ill do such Forgeries cohere But if only one of them was a true Pope then all that followed the other rejected the Pope Either these were saved or damned If saved then men that reject the Pope may be saved And then why ask you us where was a Church that rejected the Pope before Luther when you tell us where at home If damned what a happiness befell one Kingdom and what a misery the other by the Title or No-Title of the Popes Was it all France and that Party or Germany and that Party that were damned all those times Hell had a great Harvest by it which soever it was and it 's pity that one Man should be able to damn so many Nations by pretending that he was the true Pope And methinks such a division as this should be called a proper Schism unless he will be so jocular as to say that it was a proper division and rent but no proper Schism I add this note Reader if there be any Sect in the world that are true Schismaticks according to W. I.'s own definition judge whether it be not the Papal Sect For it is they that condemn all the World save themselves and say that none else are Churches of Christ and consequently separate from the whole Church of Christ except themselves who are but a third or fourth part of the whole I never knew any of all our Sectaries do so no not the Quakers themselves who come nearest it unless perhaps the Seekers that say the Church is lost but the Papists do so Indeed they separate not always from themselves though they do from all others no more do any other Sect. R. B. Though I am sure St. Paul calls it Schism when men make divisions in the Church though not from it not making two Churches but dislocating some Members and abating Charity and causing Contentions where there should be Peace yet I accept your continued justification of us who if we should be tempted to be dividers in the Church should yet hate to be dividers from it as believing that he that is separated from the whole Body is also separate from the Head W. J. I am glad you accept of something at the last up-shot If it be for your advantage God give you good on 't I speak not of Schism taken in a large sense but of that only which is treated by the Fathers and reckoned up among the most horrid Sins which a Christian can commit and that separateth from the whole Church See Dr. Ham. of Schism c. 1. 2 3. R. B. This is already answered I again intreat you then to consider what a horrid sin it is in the Papal Sect to separate from all the Churches in the World and then to divert their Consciences by crying out of Schism against all that will not joyn with them in so dangerous a Schism 2. And I humbly admonish those Protestants that cry out Schism Schism against all that will not do as they do even in a thing which they call indifferent and others account a heynous sin to remember that even these Papists are so moderate as not to condemn other men as Schismaticks unless they separate from the whole Church of Christ. And I hope to refuse the Tridentiu◅ Symbolical Oath or any other false or sinful Covenant or Profession is not to separate from the whole Church of Christ for false Oaths Covenants or other Sins are not essential to Christ's Church R. B. Sir urgent and unavoidable business constrained me to delay my return to your solutions or Explications of your definitions till this June 29. 1660. When you desire me to answer any such questions or explain any doubtful passages of mine I shall willingly do it In the mean time you may see while your Terms are unexplained and your explications or definitions so insignificant how fit we are to proceed any further till we better understand each other as to our Terms and Subject which when you have done your part to I shall gladly if God enable me go on with you till we come if it may be to our desired issue But still crave the performance of the double task you are engaged in Richard Baxter W. I. Sir I have thus far endeavoured to satisfie your Expectation and to acquit my self of all obligations wherein I have sought as I strongly hope first Gods eternal Glory and in the next place your Eternal good with his for whom I under take this labour and of all these who attentively and impartially peruse this Treatise William Johnson R. B. Your intentions I leave to your self of your performance and my answer I desire such judges as you describe even attentive and impartial re◅ders But O how rare is impartiality even in them that think they ha◅ it In the end I added an Appendix in answer to this objection of theirs that We can have no true Chūrch without Pastors no Pastors without Ordinations and no Ordination but from the Church of Rome Therefore when we broke off from the Church of Rome we interrupted our succession which cannot be repaired but by a return to them To this I gave a full answer of which W. I. taketh no notice Lastly I concluded with an address to himself in which I gave him the reasons why I published our Writings and also proved that the Church of Rome hath not successively been the same from the Apostles much less received no corruptions which I proved first because it hath since received a new essential part even a pretended Vice-Christ or head of the Universal Church 2. Because it hath had frequent and long intercisions in that essential head 3. Because it hath had new essential Articles of Faith and Religion To all this he giveth no answer PART II. Richard Baxter's Vindication of the CONTINUED VISIBILITY of the CHURCH of which the Protestants are Members In answer to William Johnson alias Terret's Reply called by him Novelty represt THE PREFACE I Have great reason to suppose that if I should make this Book as long as it must be if I repeated and answered all the words of W. I. it would frustrate my writing it by discouraging most Readers whose Leisure and Patience are as short as mine Therefore I purpose to cull out all which I take to seem his real strength and of any importance to the understanding Reader and to omit the Vagaries And particularly where he and I differ about the words or sense of any Fathers or Councils what need I more than to leave that Matter to the perusal of the Reader who cannot
and that his primacy is nâ—… governing power nor given him by Peter but by Princes and Councils which he copiouâ—… proveth To this he saith 1. that yet this may stand with the â—…ioque being the first cause Answ. 1. But the question was of the sole cause 2. He denyeth it to be any cause but only an Occasion and the Popes usurpatâ—…on to be the only Cause 3. Is it not known that the Quarrel and Breach began long before about the Title of universal Bishop though the Greeks did not then excommunicate you 2. He saith that By this it 's implied that the Greeks agree with them in all things save the Popes Sovereignty Answ. Doth it follow that because he saith that this only is the cause of the division of your Churches therefore there are no other disagreements all sober Christians have learnt to forbear excommunications and separations when yet there are many disagreements and we never denyed but the Greeks agree more with you than they ought and specially in striving who shall be great § 25. To his repeated words that all these were not distinct congregations c. I told him again that we are for no congregations distinct from Christians as such To which he replyeth again 1. That no hereticks say they depart from the Church as Christian. Answ. But if they do so it 's no matter though they do not say so Whoever departeth from the Church for somewhat Essential to Christianity departeth from it as Christian but you say your self that all hereticks depart from the Church for somewhat Essential to Christianity Ergo c. Object Then they are Apostates Answ. Apostates in the common sense are those that openly renounce Christianity in terms as such but those that renounce any essential part are Apostates really though but secundum quid and noâ—… the usuall sense 2. He intreateth me to name him the first Pope that was the Head of the whole Church in the world Answ. 1. There never was any such for the whole Church never owned him Abussia Persia India c never was governed by him to this day and not past a third or fourth part is under him now 2. But I must name the first that claimed it had I lived a thousand years at every Popes elbow I would have ventured to conjecture but it is an unreasonable motion to make to me that am not 70 years old I must confess my ignorance I know not who was the first man that was for the Sacrament in one kind only without the cup nor who first brought in praying in an unknown tongue or Images in Churches nor who first changed the custome of adoring without genuflexion on the Lords dayes I leave such Taskes to Polydore Virgil de Invent. rerum Little know I who was the first proud Pope or Heretical or Simoniacal or Infidel Pope it satisfies me to know that 1. It was long otherwise 2 And that it came in by degrees nemo repentè sit pessâ—…mus 3. And that it should not be so The rest of his charge against the Greeks c. requireth no answer instead of doing it he tells me he has proved there must be governours of the whole Church which if he had done as to any Universal Head he might have spared all the rest of his labour § 26. I thought a while that he had answered all my book but I find that he slips over that which he had no mind to meddle with and among others these following words you may judge why P. 115. Many of the Greeks have been of brotherly charity to our Churches of late Cyril I need not name to you whom your party procured murdered for being a Protestant A worthy Patriarch of Constantinople who sent us by Sir Tho. Roe our Alexandrian Sept. and whose confession is published And why is not He as much the Greek Church as Ieremias Meletius first Patriarch of Alexandria and then of Constantinople was highly offended with the fiction of a submission of the Alexandrian Church to Rome under a counterfeit Patriarch Gabriel's name and wrote thus of the Pope in his Letters to Sigismund King of Poland An. 1600. Perspiciat Mojestas tua nos cum majoribus c. Your Majesty may see that we with our Ancestors are not ignorant of the Roman Pope whom you pray us to acknowledge nor of the Patriarch of Constant. and the rest of the Bishops of the Apostolical Stats There is one universal Head which is our Lord Iesus Christ. Another there cannot be unlesse it be a two-headed body or rather a monster of a body You may see most serene King that I may say nothing of that Florentine Council as a thing worthy of silence that we departed not from the opinions and traditions of the East and West which by seven General Councils they consigned and obsigned to us but that they departed who are daily delighted with novelties In the same letter he commendeth Cyril and what can a Protestant say more against the Vice-Christ and your novelties and the false pretended submission of the Greeks So much to that which he calleth his First part of his Book An Answer to W. J's second Part of his Reply § 1. IN this which he calls his Second Part there is so much of meer words or altercation and of his false interpretation of some particular histories and citations that should I answer it fully it would be a great snare to the Reader 1. To weary him 2. To lose the matter in controversie in a wood of words 3. And to suppose us both to strive about circumstances and so to cast it by that I shall not lose so much of my time to so ill a purpose All that I desire of the Reader that would have a particular answer is 1. That he remember the answer that is already given to much of it 2. That he observe that almost all his citations signifie no more than 1. That both the Romans and other Patriarchs were long striving who should be the greatest and therefore intermeddling with as many businesses as they could 2. That the supream Church-power being then placed by consent and by the Emperors in Councils the five Patriarchs ought to be at these Councils when they were Universal as to the Empire 3. That Rome had the first place in order of these Patriarchs or Seats 4. That the eastern Bishop when opprest by Arrlans and persecutions did fly for council and countenance to the Roman Emperors who held orthodox and to the Roman Bishops as the first Patriarchs and as having interest in the Emperors he that was one of the greatest might help the oppressed to some relief having an orthodox Emperor by which means Constantius was constrained and Athanasius restored by the threatning of a war by the western Emperor and not by the authority of the Pope And the like aid was oft sought from Alexandria and Antioch 5 That this man and the rest of them straineth all such words as
WHICH IS THE True Church The whole Christian World as Headed only BY CHRIST Of which the Reformed are the soundest part OR THE POPE of ROME And his SUBJECTS as such IN THREE PARTS I. The Papists Confusion in explaining the terms of the Questions not able to bear the light II. A Defence of a Disputation concerning the continued Visibility of the Church of which the Protestants are members III. A Defence of the several Additional proofs of the said Visibility By RICHARD BAXTER Written especially to instruct the younger unexperienced Scholars how to deal with these Deceivers in these dangerous times LONDON Printed and are to be sold by Richard Ianeway in Butcher-hall Lane 1679. The Preface to the Lovers of Truth ABove eighteen years past I received a Paper by the mediation of one Mr. Langhorne from one that called himself VVilliam Iohnson to prove the Papal Church to be the Catholick because no other had been visible in all Ages I answered it and received a Reply and wrote a Rejoinder But being not rich enough to pay either an Amanuensis or Transcriber I never to my remembrance took a Copy of any Book which I wrote except this Rejoinder to him and one other and I never to my remembrance lost any but those two When I had sent this by the ordinary Carrier he lost it but took on him that he never knew how Whereupon when I lookt for a Reply I receiv'd an insulting Letter for not answering But when I sent my Rejoinder the second time I could never have any Reply thereto Above a year after coming up to London at the Kings Restoration I enquired after the Disputer and called yet for some Reply but could get none and I was there informed that his name was Terret and that he usually lived with the Earl of Shrewsbury within seven miles of me when I was told he lived near an hundred miles off But that he was one of the greatest of their Disputers about London where he spent much of his time and had lately disputed with Mr. Pet. Gunning and Mr. Pierson now both Bishops and had printed the Dispute without their consent And lest he should do so by any part of mine I sent him word That if he would not prosecute the Dispute I would publish what was done Whereupon he offered to do it rather by Conference than by Writing Which I accepted and he came to me and we agreed to begin with the true explication of some terms which were likest to be most used in our Controversie I offered to give him my sense of any terms of which he would desire it and desired the like of him which he granted He desired none at all of me but such terms as I offered to him he wrote me immediately his explication of which because it rather encreased the darkness and uncertainty I excepted against it and desired fuller explication By this time our hour was at an end and I expected him to prosecute the Dispute but could never see him more Whereupon after urgency and expectation I published what had passed between us The next year the Countess of Balcarres now Countess of Argyle a person to whom I had extraordinary obligations sent for me being in great affliction for her eldest Daughter turned Papist Whereupon I offered a Conference with the person that had perswaded her or any other whom she would chuse which the Lady accepted and undertook to bring one speedily to perform it But at last she said the person was afraid of the danger of the Law I urged her still and then she told me that when he knew who it was that he was to speak with he professed that he feared no danger from me and greatly honoured me being one that knew me but refused the Dispute I provoked her to get some other though it was the ablest that then attended on the Queen mother who then encourag'd her But she would have none but him that did refuse it Whereupon her mother being in danger of death by grief I was forced to speak more harshly to her and ask her Whether she dealt wisely to follow such as durst not let her hear what was to be said I told her that if he would spend but one hour in giving the reasons why she should turn Papist and let me spend another hour in giving her my reasons to the contrary I would leave the issue to her Conscience After long denial at last she told me that the person did consent on condition that there might be no speaking but only writing ex tempore and nothing done but by syllogism according to the Laws of Disputation I asked her Whether that way was most suitable to her understanding and patience And whether she would stay till we had done our writings which might possibly be some years And whether she might not as well read what is written already But when nothing else would be consented to I yeilded to such writing so be it she would but hear our several Reasons one hour or two first And when that could not be obtained I consented to meet him and only to write But just when the time came the Lady was stoln away and when they followed and overtook her she told them that she was but going on some business and would presently return her mother professed that before her perversion she scarce ever found her in a Lye or disobedience and after could scarce believe any thing that she said But she went to a Nunnery in France and her Mother saw her no more but ere long received Letters of the Reasons of her Religion which at her Mothers desire I answered but you may suppose that they suffered her not to see the Answer When she was gone I understood that it was this same Mr. W. Iohnson alias Terret who was the man that had seduced her and refused the Dispute But not long after he Printed a Reply to the Book which I had published and called it Novelty represt which when I perused I saw that a Rejoinder would be of little use because it must consist for the far greatest part of the detection of his fallacious words and of the vindication of a great deal of Church-History and the former would rather tire than edisie the Reader and the later would profit none but those that were already well acquainted with Church-History or such as would fully search the Authors cited till they understood by them who it is that citeth them aright He that will not do this cannot judg of our case and he that will do it needeth not my help Wherefore having much better work and no time to spare expecting that my change was near my Conscience forbad me such a frivolous expence of time as a Rejoinder to his Reply would prove But having since written many Books against Popery to none of which I can procure yet a word of answer and hearing that they are obliged not to answer me till I am dead
such to be Hereticks as have Catholick truths sufficiently propounded to them and yet contradict and oppose them let such be ready to swear what they will R. B. 1. Note here that they burn men for Hereticks and yet profess that Heresie is an obstinacy of the will which they know not but leave to God and only presume that men are Hereticks though they know it not And so a presuming Clergy are masters of the Crowns of Kings and the lives of all men How excellently would this power have fitted the turn of Abab and Iezebel and the murderers of Christ they need not have got false witness to condemn them as Blasphemers A presuming Clergy might have served For the very act which the Papists judg men for is internal in the intellect and will as Blasphemie is external To condemn men for Blasphemy hath some reason of justice because it may be proved but Intellectual obstinate opposition cannot 2. He tells us now that Heresie is a contradicting Catholick Truths but never tells what those Catholick Truths are Whether any one or only some of the greater sort and how we may know them But it is sufficient that the presumers know It is a Catholick Truth with them for which Bellarmine citeth many Councils That the Pope may excommunicate and depose Kings and Rulers To oppose this now is Heresie A Heretick must be burnt O happy Kings that have such a King over them and such a presuming Clergy 3. But this Catholick Truth must be sufficiently proposed That sufficiently is a doubtful dangerous word who would think how much lieth on Grammatical learning The Pope and his Clergy are Masters of Kingdoms and all mens estates and lives by being the only judges of the meaning of this one word SUFFICIENTLY either it is called sufficiently proposed with respect to the proposer as a Law is sufficiently promulgate when he hath done as much as he was bound to do And then a lazie or a proud Priest will think that two words is sufficient to oblige mankind to renounce all their senses e. g. for Transubstantiation And one that hath a Parish ten times greater than he can speak to will think that he hath done his duty to all when he hath spoken to as many as he could yea indeed the Decree of a General Council Printed goeth for sufficient proposal to millions that cannot read nor ever heard those Councils read Or else it is called Sufficient with respect to the effect on the understanding of the hearer sufficient to convince him and it is supposed that it is not effectual and what mortal man is able to judg of the sufficiency of proposal respectively to all mens understandings some men have great natural dullness and slowness of conception next to Ideots some by long disuse of such cogitations hear all spiritual Doctrine as if it were spoken in an unknown tongue some cannot easily see the connexion of verities And some of weak heads or memories cannot endure to think long enough of such matters as to overcome the difficulties And some think that they perceive such clear evidence for the contrary opinion that it is not in their power to take it to be false There is as great variety of receptive capacities as there is of persons in the world And the Priest knoweth not the internal case of another man And therefore is here no sitter a judg of sufficiency to all other than he is of their thoughts They are like a man that had a writing in a table-Table-book to obliterate and another to write in it in the dark and would so judg that it was sufficiently done And what is Sufficiency they will say that which maketh conviction possible and so poor men that might but possibly have been convinced must be burnt because it is not done Is not this a notable way to save Parish-priests much labour If they have told thousands the truth once or so oft as might possibly have convinced them burn them then to save him the labour of any longer preaching to them but who then shall pay him his Tythes There is remedy in that case most rather than be burned will say what the Priest bids them whether they understand him or believe him or not and then they are safe But they will say perhaps That that proposal is sufficient to convince men which were sufficient if they were not possessed with a blind zeal for their opinions for that 's it that W. I. here lays it on Ans. But is there any man that hath no error and must a man have no zeal for that which he judgeth truth The sense of this is that Proposal is sufficient to cure a man which supposeth him to have no disease If his mind and will have no sin in them to resist the truth but a pure receptivity of any revealed truth as Christ in his childhood and Adam in innocency then this proposal is sufficient But if he be not as white paper that hath nothing to be obliterated but have any sinful opinion to resist the truth than burn him for an Heretick And are not the Papists merciful men that will burn none but sinners 4. But Reader if this definition of Heresie be not recanted the number of Hereticks is very great For by this all the Heathens and Infidels Iews and Mahometans in the world are Hereticks that believe not when the Gospel is sufficiently proposed to them For here is no distinction nor exception surely that Christ is the Son of God is a Catholick truth and so obstinate intellectual opposition to it is Heresie But the old Doctors never said so nor do the Papists ordinarily say so nor do they burn all Infidels that will not turn Christians whether it be because such are unwilling to be burned and ten men can scarce burn ten thousand against their wills I know not But I suppose W. I. forgot here to put Baptized persons into his definition And if he had if all the Ianizaries be but baptized before the Turks take them from their parents then they are Hereticks and to be burnt it seems or else not But perhaps Apostates also should have been excepted But there is no end of conjecturing at unexpressed meanings or of amending other mens words R. B. Q. 2. Must it needs be the formal object of faith Is he no Nereâ—…ick that denieth the matter revealed without opposing obstinately the authority revealing For he defined it to be an opposition to Divine authâ—…ity W. J. Yes nor is he a formal but only a material heretick who opposeth a revealed truth which is not sufficiently propounded to him to be a Divine revelation R. B. To this I answer 1. His definition and his answer here are contradictory 2. His addition solveth it not sufficient propounding it to be a Divine revelation doth not infer that he taketh God for a lyar but only that he culpably denieth this to be the Word of God I answered therefore That
rationally rest in my Yea or W. I's Nay For how will either of those tell him what any Book in question doth contain It is the perusal of the Book it self that must satisfie him But about the Weight or Consequence of any such Citations we may help his satisfaction The Churches alas have not been so innocent since Lording was its way of Government as that all that we can find written or done by any great Patriarchs Prelates yea or Council should pass with us for proof that it was well said or done nor can we take one Prelate for all Christs Church no nor a synod oâ—… the Clergie in the Roman Empire Nor can we be so void of understanding as to read over the ancient Writers and the Councils and not to know how much the Major Vote of the Clergie still followed the Emperours Wills and the Byas of Interest We cannot lye or believe evident Lyes on pretence of honouring them He that readeth the Stories and doth not find how much the Will of Constantine prevailed in one Council and the contrary Will of Constantius in many What the Will of Valens did with most in the Eâ—…st and the Will of Iovian Valentinian and other good Princes did against it How far the Will of Theodosius went while he Reigued against the Arrians to heal what Valens had done And how much the Will of Theodosius junior did for the Eutythians and yet against the Nestorians And how far the Will of Martian prevailed against the said Eutychians when he was dead How much even the Usurper Basiliscus in a year or two could do to strengthen the Arrians and Eutyohians And how quickly Zeno's Prevalency turned the Scales I say he that doth read on such Histories to the end and yet will think that the Clergie have been still one unanimous Body of the same Mind and Opinion in all things and not turned up and down by Princes Power and their own Interest and fears I leave such a Reader as desperate and as one that will be deceived in despight of the clearest Evidence of Truth He that doth read these Stories and doth not perceive the great Corruption of the Clergie when once their places had a Bait of Wealth and Honour and Dominion suitable to a proud worldly carnal mind and what a continual War there was among the Clergie between a holy spiritual and a worldly proud domineering unconscionable Party and how ordinarily or oft the carnal worldly Clergie had the major Vote how the same e g. Bishops at the Council of Ephes. 2. could yield to Theodosius and Dioscorus and condemn the just and at Calcedon go the contrary way and cry out omnes peccavimus and we did it for fear How the same Council at Constantine that confirmed Greg. Naz. when some more were added and got the major Vote resolved to depose him and caused him to depart How the same Peter of Alexandria Athanasius's Successour that first made him Bishop of Constantinople for a sum of Money put in Maximus in his place without once hearing him or giving any Reason or re-calling his first Letters and how the bribed Egyptian Bishops did concur How Theophilus carryed it with the Egyptian Monks and against Origen and Chrysostome and between Theodosius and Eugenius the Usurper and how the Synod carried it against Chrysostome and how Cyril first made himself a Magistrate to use the Sword at Alexandria and what past between Theodoret Iohan. Antioch and him and how the Bishops and their Synods in Ithacius time carryed it against St. Martin and against the Priscillianists and how all this while Rome and Constantinople set and kept the Empire in a Flame by striving which should be the greatest and how the Pope on such putid accounts did molest the African Churches in the days of Augustine himself and their Writers charge them with Schism to this day I say he that can read abundance of such stuff as this and yet think that any one Citation of the words of a Prelate Pope or Council â—…is as valid as if it were the word of God let him go his own way for he is not for my Company Nay if they could prove as much of the Popes Universal Episcopacy within the Empire under the Christian Emperours as Salmâ—…sius I think too liberally granteth them de Eccles. suburbicar circa finem it is no more with me than to prove the Power of the Bishop of Alexandria or of Anâ—…och in their assigned Patriarchates which altered at the Pleasure of the Emperours and Synods as the division made after between the Bishops of Antioch Ierusalem and Cesarea sheweth and that which was given to Constantinople from Heraclea Pontus and Asia Christianity was not unknown till Councils or altered as often as they made new decrees And it is a great mistake of them that think that there was little of Christianity save in the Roman Empire The Apostles preached else-where and they preached not in vain There were Churches in Ethiopia the Indies Persia Parthia the outer Armenia Scythia Britain and other parts that were without the Empire but we have no large or particular Histories of them partly because that they were not so much literate and given to writing as the Romans and the Greeks were and partly because they were in Warrs with the Empire or did not communicate by Correspondence with them and partly because their Books were not in any Language which the Greeks or Romans understood How long was it ere the Empire had much acquaintance with the Syriack or Samaritane Persian Arabick or Ethiopick Versions or Books after they were extant and how few of the many Books that by Travellers are said to be in Abassia Armenia or Syria are known to us to this day How little know we of the old Christians of St. Thomas and those parts And how full and satisfactory a Testimony doth Alvarez profess that he saw himself even a large Stone with memorial Inscriptions of it digged up that the Christian Religion had been in China when otherwise he could not hear of one word by Tradition or History that could notifie such a thing How little know we now of the case of Nubia and Tendâ—… while they were great Christian Kingdoms How little know we at this day of the state of the Armenians Georgians Mengrâ—…tians Circassians c. How little was known of the great Empire of Abassia till the Portugals opened the way for Oviedo and his Companions the other day Iacobus de Vitriaco tells us of more Christians in those parts of the World than all the Greeks or Latines when he was at Ierusalem where he had notice of them Brocardus that lived there also tells us as of their great numbers so of their great piety being better men than the very Religious of the Church of Rome and yet how little notice was there then of their Writings or them He saith they were free from the Heresies of Nestorianism and Eutychianism
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
ergo Petri privilegium ubicunque ex ipsius fertur aequitate judicium nec nimia est vel severitas vel remissio So Petrus Chrysologus expoundeth super hanc petram Serm. 74. p. 69. 1. and many others But it is the way of these Men to take some Sentence that soundeth as they think for sufficient Proof of their Foundations Leo in his Epistles to Anatolius and to the Emperour Martian against him Ep. 54. p. 131. layeth all the Priviledges of the Churches on the Council of Nice Privilegia ecclesiarum sanctorum Patrum Canonibus instituta Venerabilis Nicenae Synodi fixa decretis nulla novitate mutari c. He saith that no later Council though of greater number can alter any thing done in the Council of Nice and so none of their Rules for the Churche's Regiment And in many other Epistles to Pulcheria c. he over and over accuseth him as breaking the Statutes of the Fathers and Councils but not the Institution of Christ or his Apostles Next he citeth Leo's Epist. 82. to Anastas But it is in the 84th and he that will but read it will easily see that it was but in the Empire that Lâ—…o claimed the final Decision and Appeals And once more I here appeal to any impartial Man that ever read over all the true Epistles and Decretals of the Popes themselves and findeth that none of them for 400 if not 500 years were ever sent to any extraimperial Church as any way exercising Authority over them yea and till after 600 when Gregory sent into England they wrote but to their own Missionaries or but by way of Counsel as any Man may do whether he can believe they then arrogated the Government of all the World In the rest of this Chapter there is nothing worth the answering but that he saith to prove Ethiopia under the Patriarchs of Alexandria That 1. Some Learned Men think Ethiopia is included in Egypt 2. That Dr. Heylin and Rosse did regard Pisanus his Nicene Canons and their Authority is more than mine Answ. 1. You are a Learned Man who take Thracia to have been without the Empire and must I therefore be of the same mind If your Learned Men cannot distinguish between Egypt an imperial Province and the vast and distant Kingdoms of Ethiopia What 's that to me Is it enough to confute any evident truth that there was found some Man that was against it 2. Nor is the Name of Heylin and Rosse of any more Authority to prove the Antiquity of a late-produced Script against all the Testimony of the Fathers and Councils near those times than your own naked Assertion would have been Is not this a pitiful Proof that Pisanus's Canons are authentick and ancient because Dr. Heylin and Rosse regard them If you had any better Proof Why did you not produce it An Answer to W. J's fifth Chapter The thing that I asserted is 1. That the Pope had never any Governing Power over the whole Earth 2. Nor anciently over any out of the Empire 3. Nor a proper Government of the other Patriarchs or exempt Provinces within the Empire But that he was principally for the honour of the Imperial Seat and next as to honour the Memorial of St. Peter voluntarily by Councils and Emperours made the prime Bishop of the Empire Alexandria first and Constantinople after the second Antioch the third c. And that not the Pope but the Emperours and General Councils were the chief Rulers of the Imperial Churches But in these Councils the Bishop of Rome had the first Seat and Alexandria the second And that this Bishop of Rome had but one Voice ordinarily in Councils but sometimes he claimed a Negative Voice and sometimes Councils have condemned excommunicated and deposed him And in his absence the Bishop of Alexandria had the same Power as he when present had Now W. I. here citeth some Testimonies truly and some falsly to prove that which I deny not that sometimes the last Appeals were made to him and other Priviledges allowed him which belonged to the first Bishop of the Empire I think it but an injury to the Reader to examine them any further If he will read the Histories and Fathers themselves he needs not my Testimony If he will not my Testimony is no notifying Evidence to him And upon the perusal of the rest I find nothing in this Chapter needing or worthy of any further Answer And I am sensible that fruitless altercation will be ungrateful to wise and sober Men. An Answer to W. J's Sixth CHAPTER § 1. I Noted that under the Heathen Emperours Church-Associations were but by Voluntary Consent and yet then they called in none without the Empire To this he Replyeth 1. Denying such Consent 2. Saying They could not call them that were Extraimperial to sit with them Answ. 1. I would he had told us how Provinces were distributed while Emperours were Heathens if not by Consent Doth he think that the Pope did it all himself Did he make Alexandria Antioch Patriarchates and divide to all other Bishops their Seats and Provinces If he say this he will but make us the more wary of such a Disputant for he will never prove it 2. And if by Consent they could not call any without the Empire then none were Called which is the Truth § 2. But he cometh to his grand Proof That the four first Councils were Univerâ—… as to all the World 1. Because they are called General and Oecumenical Councils by themselves by the Canons by Histories by the whole Christian World by the Fathers by Protestants by our statute-Statute-Books by our thirty nine Articles and by Orthodox Writers To all which I Answer Even in Scotland the Presbyterians have their General Assembly which yet is somewhat less than all the World And as for their Phrase of Totius Orbis So it is said in the Gospel that all the World was Taxed by Augustus He is very easily perswaded that after all the Evidence which I have given and in particular after the sight of all the subscribed Names at Councils which were within the Empire can yet believe that they were the Bishops of all the World because he readeth the name Oecumenical and Totius Orbis § 3. But he argueth from the Reason of the thing 1. Councils were gathered for the Common Peace of Christians Answ. The Peace of the Christian World is promoted by the Peace of the Empire 1. As it was the most considerable part then of the whole Christian World 2. As the welfare of every part conduceth to the welfare of the World 3. As it is Exemplary and Counselling to all others but not by Authoritative Command and Constraint § 4. Secondly He saith Else any obstinate Hereticks might but have removed to the Extra-imperial Churches and been free Answ. 1. He might no doubt have been free from force unless his own Prince were of the same mind 2. But he could not have
forced the Imperial Churches to have owned him as Orthodox nor to have forborn renouncing Communion with him 3. And surely if it was Heresie which he was guilty of it was so before it was declared so by the Council and therefore might be so known by that Extraimperial Church to which he should remove § 5. Thirdly The same Answer serveth to his third Reason That If any Imperial Country were won from the Empire they would be free not free from other Mens disowning or renouncing them I told you before the plain words of Theodoret That James Bishop of Nisibis was at the Council of Nice for Nisibis was then under the Roman Empire § 6. Fourthly The same Answer sufficeth to his fourth Reason That a Nation Conquered would have been brought under the Council and Faith would have depended on the Fortune of War Answ. True If Faith were no Faith without a General Council's determination and if there was no Faith in the World before there was a General Council nor any Christian before Constantine's time What if only a Provincial Council had Condemned any Heresie Consider how far the Extraimperialists had been Obliged by it The Truth and Reason of the decision would have Obliged them § 7. Fifthly He saith It would follow that the Kingdoms that are now fallen from that Empire should have no Successive descending Obligation to the four first General Councils Answ. Not at all as Subjects to Men dead and gone nor as if the Canons of those Councils were a Law properly Divine and so bound us as meer Subjects of God nor yet as Subjects to the present Patriarchs of Rome Alexandria Antioch c. whose Predecessours made those Canons But 1. The Word of God which they declared bound Men before and bindeth them since in all Nations of the World 2. And God Obligeth us to do all things in as much Love and Concord as we can And when the greatest part of the Christian World agree upon any thing Lawful and convenient an Obligation for Concord may hence arise on others without any Subjection to a Governing Authority And in these two respects such Councils may Oblige us but not as Subjects § 8. Sixthly His last Reason is That those Extraimperial Christians who embraced the Heresies Condemned in any one of those Councils never alledged this Reason Answ. 1. Those Councils themselves had more Modesty than to say This is a Heresie because we have Iudged it so for it was so before by the Judgment of Gods Word It had been therefore a frivolous Defence of Heresie to say We are not Subject to the Council unless they could have said We are not Subject to the Law of God 2. What Extraimperial Nations mean you that owned Condemned Heresie If the Arrian Goths they Learned it from Valens and the General Councils of the Empire If the Nestorians and Eutychians prove that any Extraimperial Nations were such If they were guilty of any Heresie what Occasion had they to alledge such Reasons to Justifie themselves to Men that never sent or urged the Authority of such Councils on them Prove you first that ever any General Council for five hundred Years did Judge any Extraimperial Bishops or Depose any one of them for Heresie 3. But your Sect use to accuse the Abassines as Eutychians and Godiguus and others will tell you that they deny that they were under the Pope § 9. I told him that some Hereticks are not Christians univocally and others so called were better Christians than the Papists The former are not of the Christian Church the latter are It is not an Usurpers calling others Hereticks that will blot their Names out of the Book of Life To this he saith That I should have told him which of them I take for Univocal Christians and that they had the Names given them long agoe Answ. 1. By what Authority can you require me if you name Men by an hundred Nick-names to tell you all over which of these I account Christians Is it not enough that I tell you in General that I account all those Christians that hold all the Essential parts of Christianity and renounce none of them 2. How long soever Men are Calumniated that proveth not the Calumny Just. It is long since the General Council at Basil pronounced the Pope an Heretick and that it is Heresie to deny that a General Council may Judge him and yet the Papists believe not this Council § 10. I told him that I had rather be in the case of many that have been burnt as Hereticks than of the Pope and others that burnt them His Answer to this is He wisheth me better and he bringeth many Accusations against the Albigenses as if we had never disproved those Calumnies which hath been so long and fully done as among others by Bishop Usher Dâ—… Statu success Ecclesiar and Paul Perrin It being a Company of Manichees only that were scattered among the Albigenses and waldenses that were guilty of the Heresies mentioned by him as I have also shewed in my Confutation of Mr. Danvers the Anabaptist § 11. I told him that All those that were true Christians were of one Universal Church And he again canteth over the Nick-names of some and would know which of them I mean And I told him again that I mean all that owned the Essentials of Christianity Perhaps such a Monothelite as Pope Honorius might be a Christian. I told you before that Anatolius in the Council openly said that Dioscorus was not condemned for Heresie And I would most Papists were as good Christians as we have reason to think the Novatians were The name of Luciferians Quartodecimani Iconoclasts Waldensâ—…s Hugonotes Lutheranes Zuinglians Calvinists c. unchristian none no more than the name of Papists And it is worth the noting 1. How zealous Macedonius Nestorius and Dioscorus were against Hereticks and how hot in persecuting them and stirring up the Emperours against them and by this were carryed into those Errors for which they were condemned as Hereticks themselves 2. And how long it was oft in doubt which party should be accounted Hereticks till the countenance of Emperors turned the Major Vote of the Bishops Right In the dayes of Constantius and Valens the Orthodox went for Hereticks with the greater mumber And under Valentinian and Theodosius they were Catholicks under Theodosius junior the Eutychians went for Catholicks and under Martian they were condemned The same Bishops went one way at Sirmium and Ariminum with old Osius who after repented and went the other way And the same Bishops went one way at the Second Council of Ephesus who recanted at the Council of Calcedon and how long was the case of the Monothelites in doubt and the Iconoclasts much longer § 12. When I told him that it is only our Relation to Christ the Head that maketh all Christians one Church he saith that Christ is but our Causal and not Formal Unity and that Faith and Charity are not
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.