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
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-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
France and Germany To which I say 1. That none but Rome much medled in the Empire after their Conquest Nor Rome much in comparison of Alexandria Constantinople and Antioch 2. I easily confess that those Churches within the Empire had been settled in their several powers by the Councils at Nice and Const. did plead the same Canonical Settlement to keep their possession when they were conquered And that e. g. Rome under Theodorick and other Arrians was willing to keep their Relation to the Orthodox Churches of the Empire for their strength And Neighbours that were under Heathens or Arrians were glad of a little countenance from Councils of great Bishops in the Empire as Basil and the Easternes under Valens were from the West without Subjection to the Pope § 33. Pag. 116. After some trifling Quibbles he Answereth my Charge That their Church is not one but two having at times two Heads The Pope to some and a Council to others To this he saith 1. That this belongs to them that take Councils to be above the Pope and not to him who is of a contrary Opinion Answ. It is to your Party in general I did not say that W. I. was two Churches but that those called Papists are so 2. He saith That they also can answer me with a wet finger for the Pope is in the Council and not excluded Answ. Such wet-fingerd Answers serve to deceive the Ignorant The Question is not of the Popes Natural Person but of his Political Two summa potestates make two Polities The Pope in a General Council is not the summae potestas if a Council be above him and may Judge and Depose him To be a Member of a Council that hath the Sovereignty is not to have the Sovereignty Did you not know this § 34. I urged him as his proper work to answer these Questions Whether the Church of which the Subjects of the Pope are Members hath been Visible ever since Christ's days on Earth And therein 1. Whether the Papacy that is their Universal Papal Government over all the Earth hath so long continued 2. Whether all the Catholick Church did still submit to it 3. Whether those that did submit to it took it to be necessary to the Being of the Church and Mens Salvation or only to the more Orderly and Better being But he would not be driven to touch at any of these or prove the perpetual Visibility of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over my last 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over many of his Imâ—… 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 that I refer him but to the pâ—…sing of the Histories which 〈◊〉 coâ—…th with the General Answers which I have before given And he will find 1. That the Pope was but a National Primate 2. And that by Humane Institution 3. And under a General Council 4. Striving upon every Advantage to be greater 5. Under the power of Princes 6. And when he lost his power over all the other four Patriarchs the West falling from the Empire he sought to bring the Western Princes under him and claimed a Government over all the World The Third Part A Defence of my Arguments to prove That the Church of which the Protestants are members hath been visible ever since the daies of Christ on Earth § 1. I Began with an Explication of the termes but this Disputer saith that this is of no concern to his Argument nor much to my answer Answ. It pleaseth not those that are all darkness such Explications as you gave me are indeed of little Use. 1. He saith I make Believers and true Christians Synonyma's whereas one may be a Believer as an unbaptized Catechumene but is not a Christian till baptized Answ. As a Pope once told one how little wit in a place of power would serve to govern the world so I see by this man How little Reason will serve to set up a Iesuite for an â—…nanswerable disputant among the ignorant The word Christian as well as Believer signifieth 1. A heart-consenter to the Baptismal Covenant 2. Or a Professor of that consent And 1. Regularly by Baptism 2. Or without it when it cannot be â—…ad 1. As soon as a man Believeth and Consenteth he is a Christian before God 2. As soon as he solemnly professeth it he is an incompleat Christian before men 3. As soon as he professeth it in Baptism he is orderly and regularly a Christian before the Church Even as two secretly maâ—…rying are marryed before God and when they publish their mutual Consent and Covenant as suppose it were where a priest is not to be had they are irregularly married before men but solemn Matrimony maketh it a Legal Marriage in fore And this distinction holds of the word Beleiver as well as of Christian A Beleiver a Disciple and a Christian were Synonyma's before Popery was born § 2. Next he saith that my words Subject to Christ their Head are equivocal Because Subject may signifie but inferior and Head but a principal member Answ. What is not equivocal to a Jesuite 1. Did I not put this first The Church is the Kingdom of Iesus Christ 2. When I said It is the whole company of Believers subject to Christ their head are not the words significative enough of a governing Head And did I not adde the constitutive parts are Christ and Christians as the pars imperans subdita are there more notifying words in use If there are tell'them me if you can or was not this a cavil that had more of Will and Interest than of Conscience § 3. I said Protestants are Christians protesting against and disallowing Popery To this he cavils 1. That the name had another original 2. That the Greeks Arrians Antitrinitarians Socinians Hussites Anabaptists Familists Millenaries Quakers are not Protestants Answ. 1. Did I undertake to tell you the first Rise of the name or only to tell whom I mean in my dispute If I had the German protestation immediately against a particular Edict was principally and finally against Popery and in that sence is the name continued But it is not the Name but the Church and Religion that I dispute of You know that the Name Reformed Catholick Christians pleaseth us better than the Name of Protestants Were not Christians after they were first called so at Antioch of the same Religion as before when they were called but Disciples and Believers yea and Nazarens by their adversaries 2. Who would have thought that you had taken Arrians Antitrinitarians Socinians or any that deny an Essential part of Christianity for true Christians Did you not here oft profess the contrary and those that are no Christians are not in my definition those that are Christians as Greeks Millenaries and Hussites and most Anabaptists with us are Protestants but not meer Protestants they have somewhâ—…t more and worse which giveth them another name but if Christians protesting against Popery they are of the same Church universal as we are § 4. When I call Popery
Socrates Sozomene Theodoret Evagrius Procopius Victor Nicephorus c. and judge as you see cause especially if you will also read but the works of Tertullian Cyprian Nazianzene Basil Hilary and the true Acts of the old Councils 5. I added the equalizing the Patriarch of Constantinople which he denyeth against the express words of the Council I might adde the after prefering the Bishop of Constantinople The oft contempts and excommunications of him the altering of Church power ordinarily by the Emperors is Iustinian's making Iustiniana prima and secunda to be absolute and under no Patriarch as was Carthage and saith Pet. a Marca and many others Heraclea Pontus and Asia long The managing of many Councils without him and passing Canons as Calced 28. against him The whole Council of Ephes. 2. going against his Legates and that under a most pious and excellent Prince Theodos. 2. that used Cyril and made him President Ephes. 1. and Dioscorous Ephes. 2d and countenance this Council against the Pope When Zeno carryed on his Henoticon and Anastasius his Reconciliation how little did he or any of the Eastern Churches stick at the Popes dissent No nor Iustinian when he turned to the Heresie of the Apththartodocitae and when he drag'd Vigilius as some Historians say with a rope instances might be multiplyed § 32. My 6th proof of the novelty of the Papal Sovereignty was from the testimony of their own greatest Bishops where I cited Greg. 1st his words so plain and large against a Universal Bishop or Pastor as plainer can scarce be spoke and answered Bellarmine words against it and I shall take the impartial Reader to need no more answer to W I. than even to read the words of Gregory themselves only noting that this Iohn of Constantinople that claimed the title of Universal Bishop was a man of more than ordinary mortification and contempt of worldly things for his poverty and great fasting called Iohannes jejunus and therefore not like to do it out of any extraordinary worldliness and pride And also that Gregory was of so little power himself being then out of the Empire under other powers for the most part that he did not blame Iohn as for claiming that which he hath right to but that which no Bishop at all had right to The case is most plain § 33. My 7th proof was The Papists themselves confess that multitudes of Christians if not most by far have been the opposers of the Pope or none of his Subjects Therefore there have been visible Churches of such To this He granteth the antecedent of Christians net Univocally so called but of no others Answ. Here he intimateth that most of the professed Christians of the world were not univocally Christians by profession but equivocally only and who will easily believe such Teachers as unchristen most of the Christian World Any Sect may take that course their sence is this none are Christians indeed but only those that are subjects to the Pope therefore all the Christian World are his Subjects Just so the Donatists and some Foreign Anabaptists take it but for granted that none are Christians but those that are Baptized at Age and then the Inference will be plausible that all the Christian World is against Infant-Baptism § 34. To Aeâ—…eas Sylvius Pope Pius 2d words That small regard was had to the Church of Rome before the Nicene Council He replyeth that he meaneth not so small as not to be the Head of all other Churches else the Council of Nice had introduced a new Government Answ. His words are plain and all History of those times confirm them No one Church before the Council of Nice had any Government over others but what was for meer Concord by free consent at least before Constantine gave it them And in the Council of Nice there is not a word that intimateth that the Pope was Ruler of all the World of Christians but his power is mentioned as limited to his Precincts and the like given to Alexandria Yet Innovation in giving power to Patriarchs is no wonder in Councils How else came Constantinople and Ierusalem to be Patriarchs Was it not by Innovation § 34. Next he saith I cite Goldastus but where the Lord knows Answ. I perceive the Man is a stranger to Goldastus who hath gathered a multitude of Old Writers against the Papacy for Princes Rights and bound them in many great Volumns De Monarchia Constitut. Imperial I cited no particular words but all these great Volumns of many Authors of those times shew the opposition to Papal Claims § 35. His saying That the Schismatical Greeks were not Univocal Christians is no more regardable than the Greeks Anathematizing Papists § 36. My plain Testimony of their Reynerius Armeniorum Ecclesiae Aethiopum Induorum caeterae quas Apostoli converterunt non subsunt Ecclesiae Romanae He first cavils at my saying were not under instead of are not not seeing that I only recited the Assertion as uttered by Reynerius so long ago and must I not say that he saith then they were not under if he so long ago say They are not 2. But he would perswade the Credulous that this speaks of them but as Schismaticks as Alexandria Antioch Constantinople are not now under Rome but have been Answ But those that will be satisfied with forced abuse of words may believe any thing that a Priest will say The context confuteth you You do not pretend that India turned from you and was under you By the Churches Planted by the Apostles he plainly meaneth those without the Empire as being none of the Provinces put under the Bishop of Rome nor of old claimed by the Pope § 37. I cited Melch. Canus words Loc. l. 6. c. 7. fol. 201. Not only the Greeks but almost all or most of the rest of the Bishops of the whole World have vehemently sought to destroy the Priviledges of the Roman Church and indeed they had on their side both the Arms of Emperours and the greatest number of Churches and yet they could never prevail to abrogate the Power of the one Roman Pope To this he saith That 1. Canus speaks of different times not conjunctly 2. And he taketh them not for univocal Christians And here he finds a Root of Rebellion q. d. Most of the Countries Rebelled against the King Ergo he had no Authority over them Answ. Our Question here was only of the matter of Fact Whether de facto most of the Bishops and Churches have not been against the Papacy This Canus asserteth therefore I seek no more And when you have proved them no Christians or Rebels I shall consider your Proofs 2. Had he meant only the most of the Bishops and Churches per vices it had signified nothing to his purpose For that had been no strength but might have been some inconsiderable Town at a time 3. But that all Church-History may help us better to understand his words that tell us oft
Confirmation Vocation Missions Jurisdiction All these explained Sect. 8. He makes the Chapters in Queen Elizabeth days to have had the power of choosing all the Parish Priests Popes no Popes for want of common consent Sect. 9. who must choose a Monark of all the earth Sect. 10. Their succession interrupted Sect. 11. 12. Is it essential to a Bishop to have many Congregations parishes or presbyters By affirming this he nullifieth all the first Bishops who were Bishops before they made presbyters under them and so denyeth all succession by denying the root CHAP. 5. What they mean by TRADITION Sect. 1. He thinks the Tradition of all the world may be known by every Christian as easily as the Tradition of the Canonical Scripture Sect. 2. Tradition against Popery Sect. 4. The Protestants Abassines Armenians Greeks c. are of one Church Sect. 4. The contradictions of W. J. The unity of all other Christians as such greater than the unity of Papists as Papists Sect. 5. CHAP. 6. What they mean by a General COUNCIL His definition of a general Council is no definition Sect. 2. Councils of old not called by the Pope Sect. 3. His confusion and contradictions Sect. 4. General Councils were but of the Empire proved Sect. 5. The impossibility and utter unlawfulness of a true universal Council of the whole Christian world proved Sect. 6. How many make an universal Council Sect. 7. They make presbyters uncapable of voteing in councils and yet the highest ancient part of the Papacy viz. to preside in councils is oft deputed to presbyters Sect. 8. The council of Basil that had presbyters rejected by them for other reasons Sect 9. CHAP. 7. What they mean by SCHISM Papists acquit all from schism who separate not from the Whole visible Church of Christ Sect. 1. We separated not from the Greeks Arminians c. Sect. 3. He absurdly requireth that we should have our Mission and Jurisdiction from them if we have communion with them Sect. 4. We have the same faith with them Sect. 5. How far we separate from Rome Sect. 6. They were not our lawful pastors Sect. 7. Of hearing the pharises Sect. 8. We infer not Rebellion against Authority by our rejecting trayterous Usurpers Sect. 9. Whether the first Reformers knowingly and wilfully separated from the whole Church on earth Sect. 10. He pretendeth that the Churches unity is perfect and therefore that it is impossible there should be any schism in it but only from it when their own sect had a schisme by divers Popes for forty years Whether all that followed the wrong Pope those forty years were out of the Church and damned Sect. 11. His definition of schism agreeth best to the Papists who separate from all the Church save their own sect Sect. 12. An admonition to others Sect. 13. My Reasons unanswered by which I proved 1. That we interrupted not our Church succession when we broke off from Rome 2. That the Roman Church is changed in Essentials PART II. The PREFACE ALL was not well said or done by every Bishop or Council of old Sect. 1 2 3. Of the considerableness of the extra-Imperial Churches of old Sect. 4 5. The plea of Peters supremacy and their succession overthrown There never were twelve Patriarchal seats as the successors of the twelve Apostles No one Patriarch claimed to be an Apostles successor but Rome and Antioch and Antioch never claimed supremacy on that account Sect. 6. The true state of the controversie about the Churches perpetual visibility Sect. 7. Papists make Christians no Christians for not obeying the Pope and no Christians to be Christians if they will be his subjects Sect. 8 9. What I maintain Sect. 10. A discourse republished proving that Christs Church hath no Universal Head but himself Pope nor Council CHAP. 1. The Confutation of W. I's Reply Twelve instances confuâ—…ing the wild fundamental principle of W. J. that whatever hath been ever in the Church by Christs institution is essential to it Sect. 4. By this he unchurcheth Rome Sect. 5. He saith that every such thing is essential to the Church but not to every member of the Church but to such as have sufficient proposal confuted Sect 6. By this their Church cannot be known or the faith of a few may make others Christians Sect. 7. His assertion further confuted Sect. 8. His Logical proof shamed that every accident is separable and therefore all that Christ instituted to continue is no accident Sect. 9. Whether the belief of every institution for continuance be essential to the Church Sect. 10. They unchurch themselves Sect. 11. He acknowledgeth that all Christian Nations are not bound to believe the Popes supremacy expresly but implicitely in subjecting themselves to them that Christ hath instituted to be their lawful pastors Five notable consequents of this The true method of believing Sect. 12. The instance of the conversion of the Iberians and Indians vindicated He supposeth that every revealed truth was taught them by lay-persons Sect. 13. The instance of Peters not preaching his own supremacy Act. 2. vindicated Sect. 14. The Indians converted by the English and Dutch are taught the true faith Sect. 15. And so are the Abassines Sect. 16. His Doctrine against Christs visible reign containeth many gross errors commonly called Heresies And by making the Christian world a Monster if it have not one Papal Head he maketh the humane world a Monster because it hath not one humane King Sect. 17. CHAP. 2. Our Churches visibility confessed Theirs to be by them proved How far any Protestants grant the power of Patriarchs and the Pope as Patriarch Sect. 1. He biddeth me but prove that any Church which now denieth the Popes Soveraignty hath been always visible and he is satisfied whether that Church always denyed it or not Sect. 2. Notes hereon Whether they should exclaim against Christ as an invisible Head who make him as visible in the Eucharist to every receiver as a King is in his cloathes Sect. 3. Whether a Ministry be essential to the universal Church Sect. 4. His Argument against our Christianity re-examined and confuted by divers instances of such fallacies Sect. 5. He requireth an instance of any Church-Unity though without a humane head which endeth the controversie Sect. 6. More differences and greater amongst Papists than among all the other Churches Sect. 7. He hath no evasion but saying that these Churches are not Christians because they depend not on the Pope from which he before said that he abstracted Sect. 8. He denieth us with the Abassines Greeks Armenians c. to have been of the Church and of one Church both fully proved Sect. 9. The charge of Nestorianism and Eutichianism on many Churches examined Sect. 10. His shameful calling for the names of sects and requiring proof of the Negative that they are not such Sect. 11. CHAP. 3. More of our Unity Of the speech of Celestines Legat at Ephesus Sect. 1 2. His saying and unsaying Sect. 3. His
instances of Goths Danes Swedes examined Sect. 4 5. Whether extra Imperial Churches were under the Pope Sect. 5. In what cases some were and which His pretence to the Indians Armenians and Persians examined Sect. 6. The Tradition of these Churches is against Popery Sect 7. His notorious fictions about the subjection of the Indians Armenians and Abassines to Rome Sect. 9. 10. Of Pisanus Arabick Nicene Canons Sect. 11. He intended to write a Tractate to prove that extraneous Bishops were at the Councils But that put-off goeth for an answer Sect. 12. He confesseth that the very Gallicane and Spanish Liturgies mention not the Popes Soveraignty no more than the Ethiopick Sect. 13. When Constantine intreated the King of Persia for the Churches there the Pope did not command there Sect. 14. Whether before Gregory's Mission the British Church was ever subject to the Pope or heretical Sect. 15. Reynerius words vindicated viz. The Churches of the Armenians Ethiopians and Indians and the rest which the Apostles converted are not under the Church of Rome Sect. 16. The 28. Can. of the Council of Calcedon vindicated which declareth the Pope to be but the first Patriarch in the Empire by humane right for the sake of the Imperial City Sect. 17. 18 19 20. His brave attempt to prove that extra-Imperial Bishops were summoned to the Councils At Nice of John Persidis Armenians Gothia At Ephes. 1. Thebamnon Bishop of Coptus Sect. 21. 22. His other citations confuted Sect. 23. Of Eusebius his circular Letter Sect. 24. CHAP. 4. The Emperors and not the Pope called the old Councils Sect. 1. Myraeus his Notitia Episcopat against him Sect. 2. Of the authority over the barbarous given Con. Calced c. 28. Proof that the Papal power was held to be but jure humano Sect. 5. He was over but one Empire Sect. 6. No councils but of one Empire Prospers testimony examined caput mundi expounded Sect. 7. Pope Leo's words examined Sect. 8 9. The Decretal Epistles shew the Popes ruled not the world Sect. 10. More of Ethiopia and Pisanus's Canons Sect. 11. CHAP. 5. The Case 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.
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
of the Presbyters where there are any under them and so thought your own Bishops for above 600 years even when Gregory 1st wrote his Epistles But if you had asserted that it would do more to unpope and unbishop your Church than to disprove ours But he saith that the Capitula had the power of electing Bishops and of constituting Parish-Priests in such places as wanted them Ans. 1. Suppose they had you say no particular Electors act is necessary ad esse and why theirs 2. But quo jure by what right could one Dean and Chapter of a City elect an Overseer of many hundred Parish-priests and many score or hundred thousand souls without their consent You dare not say that God gave them that power and if man did it what men were they If you say that they were men that had more power in England than the King Parliament and the consenting people you must prove it If you lay it on any foreign power Pope and Council we will deny their power here and herein What man doth man may undo 3. But indeed your meer Capitular Election is null and contrary to Gods Word and the ancient custom of the Churches By Gods Word the consent of the Flock and of the ordainers and of the ordained made a Pastor Bishop or Presbyter By the customs of the Churches in the Empire sometime the greatest neighbour-Bishops assumed the power and sometimes Councils overtopt them all and undid what they did and sometimes the Emperours put in and out as pleased them as Solomon put out Abiathar But always the peoples election or acceptance was necessary For instance when Gregory Nazianzene had confuted the Macedonians and Arrians and encreased the Church at Constantinople though the Arrian Bishop since Valens time kept the great Church Gregory had a little one and was chosen their Bishop by the Orthodox people alone This was his first title After that Peter Bishop of Alexandria made him Bishop quantum in se or confirmed him this was his additional title After this the same Peter bribed by money without recalling his former grant made Maximus a right seeker of a Bishoprick as the world hath since gone bishop in his stead the people refused the change and retained Gregory Afterward Maximus got both Peter and the Egyptian bishops to make him bishop of Constantinople where was the Pope all this while the people still kept close to Gregory Afterward Theodosius the Emperor returning from the West puts Gregory in possession of the great Church and turneth out the Arrians and confirmeth him bishop After this Miletius of Antioch and a Council at Constantinople make Gregory bishop After this more bishops coming in to the Council got the major vote and he discerning that they were resolved to depose him departed requesting the Emperors leave as seeing the doleful divisions and contentiousness of the bishops not otherwise to be quieted entreating the Emperor to keep them in some unity and peace lest it should disgrace and ruin the newly reformed Church And the Council made Nectarius bishop the Pope in all this never minded By this one instance you may see how bishops were then made in the greater places though in lesser the election of the people and Presbyters and the ordination of three neighbour-bishops did suffice according to the ancient rule and custom But he saith That the old bishops were living and not legally deposed Ans. 1. Sub judicelis est we say they were 2. Some deserted 3. An illegal removal of the former doth not ever nullisie the title of the latter viz. when the flock consenteth to the change c. else what seat is there that hath not had their succession interrupted and corrupted but none more than Rome and Constantinople and Alexandria What poysonings fightings unjust depositions and schisms have made way for successions Is your Papacy therefore null But methinks it is a strange novelty that he makes the Capitula to have had the right of chusing not only the bishops but all the Parish-priests to say nothing of the Patrons or the Princes power which I think is as good as the Chapter who knoweth not that the bishops and the people did always chuse the Presbyters and not the Chapters But he saith that they were intruded by Seculor Power Ans. And were not your Popes so ordinarily till Hildebrand got the better of the Emperor But we had more than this R. B. Your Popes have not the consent of the most of the Christians in the world nor for ought you or any man knows of most in Europe W. J. Of what Christians such as you and your associates are We regard that no more than did the ancient holy Popes not to have bad the consent of the Nestorians Eutychians Pelagians Donatists Arrians c. R. B. Contempt of most of the body of Christ is one of the great proofs that you are all the Church And did not the Donatists say the same before you And what but the sword doth make your cause to be better than theirs How easie is it for any Sect to say We are the only Church of Christ and though most of the Christian world be against us we regard them not Reader mark the truth and câ—…ndor of these men When we tell them that the Greeks Armenians Syrians Iacobites Georgians Copties Abassines are of the same Church with us because they have the same Head and the same essential faith the Papists in their talk and writings tell us that they are more of their mind than of ours and that indeed they are not Hereticks but well-meaning-men But when we tell them then how two or three parts of the Church is against their Popes pretended universal power they number all these then with Hereticks as not to be regarded But abundance of their own Writers yea such as have lived among them at Ierusalem and other parts do vindicate the generality of these foreign Christians from the charge of Heresie 2. But doth not the world know that a man is supposed to be rightful Pope as soon as the Cardinals an upstart sort of things have chosen him before ever any of the people of Europe even Papists do consent But perhaps hee 'l say that the people consent that these shall be the chusers sure they did not so till Hildebrands days nor since any otherwise than by silence or non-resistance where they have no places to speak nor power to resist even as the Countrey-men consent to the conquering Armies that oppress them R. B. It 's few of your own people that know who is Pope much less are called to consent till after he is setled in possession W. J. What then Is not the same in all elective Princes where the extent of their Dominions is exceeding large R. B. 1. I confess when we have an Elective King of all the world I had rather Cardinals chuse him at Rome than all the world should meet to chuse him And if
Christ had made us a King or Bishop of all the world he would have told us who must chuse him to save the men at the Antipodes their journey 2. But why pretend you then the peoples consent when you plead it unnecessary In Poland that their Diets chuse their Kings is from a known reason it is the Constitution of their Kingdom which the people agreed to and chuse many of the chusers But when did the Universal Church constitute your Cardinals to be the Electors Or which of the Cardinals are chosen by the Universal Church or any other than the Pope himself God made Bishopricks like Corporations where all may chuse the Mayor Who made them like great Kingdoms or set one over all the world where the people cannot chuse nor God made any chusers is the question R. B. 4. According to this rule your successions have been frequently interrupted when against the will of General Councils and of the far greatest part of Christians your Popes have kept the seats by force W. J. These are generalities What Popes What Councils in particular Name and prove if you will he answered R. B. What disgraceful ignorance are you forced to pretend What need I go over your Schisms What need I name any more than Eugenius the 4th deposed by a great General Council and two or three parts of the Church disowning your Pope at this day R. B. I told him how his instance even about Civil Power failed seeing the consent of a people pre-engaged to their Prince giveth not right to a Usurper W. J. The people cannot be supposed to consent freely and lawfully to an usurper c. R. B. Lawfully indeed they cannot and that 's the same thing that I affirmed you confute me by granting what I say When the Bishop of Rome hath a lawful election to be Bishop of all the world we will obey him and so we will any Prelate or Priest that hath a known lawful election R. B. Will any Diocess suffice ad esse What if it be but in particulor Assemblies W. J. It must be more than a Parish or than one single Congregation which hath not different inferior Pastors and one who is their Superior c. R. B. 1. How ambiguously and fraudulently do you answer No man can tell by this whether you unbishop all that had but one Parish or Congregation or only all that had not Presbyters under them Which ever you mean it is notoriously false and a nullifying of the ancient Episcopacy Ignatim tells you that in hiâ—… days one Church was known by one Altar and one Bishop with the Presbyters and Deacons And though I think not as Dr. Hamond that all the first Bishops in Scripture-times were setled as the sole Pastors of single Congregations without any Presbyters under them yet when you consider with whom he agreeth in this viz. Dionysius Petavius and what St. Clara saith for it fathering it on Scotus we think you should not so far differ from your own Doctors as to deny all those to be true Bishops of the Scripâ—…re-times who they think were the only Bishops You have a custom of calling the Apostles Bishops even Peter Bishop of Antioch and Rome Did not those first Bishops then make all the Presbyters that were under them Qu. Whether they were no Bishops till they had made those Presbyters If no then those first Presbyters had not Episcopal ordination If yea then habetur quaesitum The truth is all the ancientest Bishops were the Pastors of single Churches not near so big as many of our Parishes I have elsewhere proved this at large I instanced to him only in Gregory Neocâ—…sariensis who was Bishop only of Seventeen souls when he came thither first He answereth W. J. How know you that there were no more in the Countrey adjacent 2. Know you not that he was sent to multiply Christians and make himself a competent Diocess R. B. I know the first by the consent of History that telleth us of the Seventeen in the City over whom he was set and speaketh of no more in such circumstances as would have occasioned it 2. And I believe your second but do not you see that you desert your Cause and contradict your self 1. Speak out Was he the bishop of the Infidels Were they his Church Or was he only to convert and gather them to the Church 2. Was he not a Bishop there before he had converted any one to those seventeen alone You dare deny none of this Therefore he was a Bishop before he had more Congregations than one and before he had any Presbyters to govern And here you may see how the changes that Popes and their Prelates have made in the Church constraineth them to defend them by subverting their own foundation For if those were no Bishops who had but one Congregation yea and those that had no subject-Presbyters then the first ages if not also the second except in Rome and Alexandria had no true Bishops or at least the founders were not such and their Episcopacy as they describe it hath no succession from the Apostles Truth and Error will never make a close coalition CHAP. V. Q. What mean you by TRADITION W. I. I Understand by Tradition the visible delivery from hand to hand in all cases of the revealed will of God either written or unwritten R. B. I suppose by visible from hand to hand you mean principally of the unwritten audible from ear to ear by speech But all the doubt is by whom it must be delivered by the Pastors or people or both by the Pope or Councils or Bishops disjunct by the major part of the Church Bishops or Presbyters or by how many W. J. By such and so many proportionably as suffice in a Kingdom to certifie the people which are the ancient universal received customs in that Kingdom which is to be morally considered R. B. O wary Disputant that taketh heed lest you should answer while you seem to answer Reader a Kingdom is not so big as all the world The Customs of a Kingdom may be known by the constant consent of the people of that Kingdom and if they differ about it Records and Law-booke decide it expositorily and judges by the decision of particular mens cases by such rules But can customs be known as well over all the world Yea and can matter of faith and doctrine be as easily known as practised customs Can we know as easily what are the Traditions of Abassia Armenia Syria Egypt c. as of England Can they of Abassia tell what are the true Traditions of all the Christian world that have Traditions in their own Countrey so different from ours They have many books as sacred among them by tradition which we receive not They have annual Baptism and other ceremonies by Tradition which we account to be unlawful Here I told W. I. 1. How certainly Tradition is against them when most of the Christian world
deny the Popes Soveraignty and that as by tradition And how lame their tradition is which is carried but by their private affirmation and is but the unproved saying of a Sect. To this he saith W. J. That this belongs to our Controversie and not to the explication of our terms And so I must pass it by R. B. Q. 2. What proof or notice must satisfie as in particulars what is true tradition W. J. Such as with proportion is a sufficient proof or notice of the Laws and Customs of temporal Kingdoms R. B. But you durst not tell us what that is that is proportionable This was answered before I added Is it necessary for every Christian to be able to weigh the credit of contradicting-parties When one half of the world say one thing and the other another thing what opportunity have ordinary Christians to compare them and discern the moral advantages on each side As in the case of the Popes Soveraignty when two or three parts are against it and the rest for it Doth salvation lye on this W. J. As much as they have to know which books are and which are not Canonical Scripture among those that are in controversie R. B. That these books were sent to the Churches from the Apostles 1. Is a matter of fact 2. And an assertion easily remembred 3. And all the Churches are agreed of all that we take as Caâ—…cal 4. And yet men that practically believe but the Creed and Summaries of Religion shall certainly be saved though they erroneously doubted of some of the uncontroverted books as Chronicles Esther Canticles c. much more that receive not the controverted Apocrypha But 1. Your Traditions in question are many particulars hard for to be remembred 2. And that of matter of faith and fact where a word forgotten or altered changeth the thing 3. And most Christians in the world are against it 4. And you would lay the peoples salvation on it yea and make it one of your cheating quibbles to prove your religion safer than ours because some Protestants say a Papist may be saved but you say that Protestants cannot be saved that is because you have less sincerity and charity Is not here difference enough If you hold that all they are damned that believed not that all the Apocryphal books were Canonical peruse Bishop Cousins Catalogue of Councils and Fathers that received them not and see whether you damn not almost all the Church But if you confess that there is no more necessity to salvation for men to be the subjects of your Pope than there is that they try all the Apocrypha whether it be Canonical and know it why then do you found your belief that Christ is the Son of God upon your forebelieving that the Pope is his Vicar or your Church his Church And why do you make such a stir in the world to affright poor people to believe and be subject to your Pope I here asked him Must all the people here take the words of their present Teacher And he durst not answer yea or nay but as much as they do for the determination of Canonical Scriptures Ans. If it be no more it giveth them no certainty but by the belief of one man as a Teacher they are brougâ—…â—…o â—…cern themselves those notifying evidences by which the Teacher himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 books are 〈◊〉 And if they attain no higher than to believe fide Dâ—… the 〈◊〉 Doctrines the doubting or ignorance of some texts or books will not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Scripture that impress of Divine authority which to a prepared heaâ—… oâ—… reader will 〈◊〉 convince him that they are of God though not râ—…e him of every particular Text and Book R. B. Then most of the world must believe against you because most of the teachers are against you Tradition quite â—…eth Pâ—…er W. J. There is no Congregation of Christians united in the same profession of faith external Communion and dependance of Pastors which is contrary in belief â—…o 〈◊〉 any way to be parallel with us in extent and multitude Prove there is and name it All our adversaries together are a patcht body of a thousand different professions and as much adversaries one to another as they are to us the one justifying us in that wherein the other condemn us so that no beed is to be taken to their testimonies non sunt convenientia R B. They agree not with your interest But if the Testimonies and Tradition of two or three parts of the Christian world be not to be heeded I doubt the testimony of your third or fourth part will prove much less regardable Let us try the case for here you are utterly confounded 1 Indeed none that our ordinary language calleth a Congregation that is men that meet locally together are so big as all your party But a Church far better united than you are is far greater than yours Those that have all the Essentials of the one Church of Christ are that one Church of Christ But the Reformed Churches the Greeks Armenians Abassines Syrians Iacobites Georgians Copties c. have all the Essentials of the one Church of Christ Therefore they are that one Church of Christ. The Major is undeniable The Minor is thus proved They that hold the same Head of the Church believing in the same God the Father Son and â—…ly Gâ—…st and are devoted to him in the same Baptismal Covenant and believe all the Articles of faith desire and practice essential to Christianity in the Creed Lords-prayer and Decalogue and receiâ—…e all the â—…re as Gods â—…ord which iâ—…â—…y here received by us as Canonical these have all the â—…ls of the one Church of Christ and much more But such are all the forementioned Christians Ergo c. The Head and the Body are the constitutive parts of the Church The Head is Christ the Body are Christians 1. They are united in the same profession of faith viz. the same Baptism â—…reed and Scriptures 2. They are united in the same external communion if you mean external worship of God in all the Essentials of it and much more They have the same Scriptures read and 〈◊〉 they preach the same Gospel they use the same Sacraments of the Covenant of Grace viz. Baptism and the Lords Supper yea they are commonly for some Confirmation Ordination 〈◊〉 of penitence and absolution of Pâ—…nitents Matrimony c. though they agree not whether the name of Sacraments be fit for them all much less Sacraments of the Coveâ—… Grace they observe the same Lords day for publick worship they pray confess sin give thanks and praises to God and hold the communion of Saints and communication to each other in want This is their external communion 3. They have the same depenâ—… of the people on their Pastors as the Ministers of Christ authorized to 〈◊〉 and guide the Churches and to go before them in the publick worshipping of God But if
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
Andrew cited by me elsewhere and many a Protestant that taketh Peter to have been among the Apostles as the Fore-man of a Jury to the rest would say the same words But he intimateth that the Pope is Peter's Successor True he so supposed him as a Bishop but not as an Apostle and therefore not in equality of Power And common reasâ—…n will interpret him in the common sense of all the Councils and those times viz. as having the first place in the Imperial Councils and being the chief of the Patriarchs in the Empire but not as being the Bishop of all the World There is no probability that this one Man extended his Power further than the Empire and so that he was a Papist and yet you have not proved one in 400 years and more But he saith had not the Council of Ephesus consented they would have contradicted one imposing a Superiour and a Iudge Answ. 1. They never took him for a Judge any further than as the first Patriarch had the first Seat and Vote 2. Cyril was there the first the Legates coming after the Decrees past 3. Cyril was glad of the consent of the West it being become too much of the cause of the day Whether Nestorius or he was the wiser Speaker and should prevail 4. What 's this to the Government of all the World Shew us when that Council subjected any without the Empire to the Pope or to themselves 5. Yea in the Empire he is blind that seeth not that Councils were above Popes and when the major Vote carried it they condemned Popes as well as others as they did Honorius and many since Pag. 90. You have another Instance of his saying and unsaying When I named the Churches of Ethiopia India the outer Armenia c. that were not under the Popes jurisdiction he faith I must mean that they were never under it for if they were under him in any Age and for any time since Christ you can never make them an instance of those who were perpetually in all Ages a visible Congregation of Christians not acknowledging the Popes Supremacy Ans. And yet this same man said before that he did not put me to prove that in all Ages they did not own the Pope but that they that own him not now had been a Church any other way truly united who can answer him that saith and unsaith and changeth his Cause as the occasion tempteth him I have oft told him 1. I prove that the extra-imperial Churches never were subject to the Pope unless when any of them by conquest fell under the Empire or on such an odd accident in some singular instance which I have enumerated in my Naked Popery 2. And that no Church in the whole World owned him as the Bishop of all the World for above 400 if not above 600 years 3. And that those that owned him not as Britain at the first and owned him after and disowned him again were still Christian Churches united in Christ. But the man is loth to understand and pag. 91. saith You mean all other extra-imperial Nations or some If all I find the quite contrary for the Gothes successively Inhabitants of Spain never acknowledged themselves Subjects of the Empire who yet are now subject to the Roman Bishop and consequently were and are sometime under him Ans. I have oft and plain enough told you my meaning This is very cautelously written 1. If the Gothes in Spain were not subject to the Empire the old Inhabitants were before the Gothes conquered them and the Gothes themselves when by Theodosius's leave they dwelt in Thrace and near it And though the Gothes became their Masters they did not exterminate all the Inhabitants who had been used to some subjection to the Pope 2. Yet how little Spain then depended on the Pope is known even by the current of all the Gothick Councils the Toletane Hispalense c. where their Kings called them and were oft present and made certain parts of their Canons and were over and over magnified and Canons made for their honour and security and the due election of Successors when there was not a word of subjection to the Pope 3. And you do well in affirming no more but that Spain is now and therefore sometime under the Pope that they are now so indeed their Inquisition witnesseth nor was it ever in my thoughts to deny it But what of that 〈◊〉 He addeth And the Swedes and Danes though now they reject all obedience to him yet in the year 1500 they acknowledged him c. Ans. Very true and what of all this no doubt but long before 1500 the Pope got possession of the Western Churches we doubt not of it But he tells me that to maintain my Cause I must shew that all the extra-imperial Churches were from under the Pope Ans. My Causâ—… is not of your stating but my own I maintain 1. That the Pope was never made the Bishop of all the World 2. And that the Primacy so much mentioned in the ancient Canons was only over or in the Imperial Churches and was a humane institution and that the Councils and Emperours never pretended to give or acknowledge any more Nor did the Councils themselves and all the Patriarchs pretend to any more nor dream of Governing all the World 3. That the Churches that were from the beginning without the Empire were none of them subject to the Pope for above 400 if not 500 or 600 years 4. That the Empire of Abassia and all the Eastern and Southern extra-imperial Churches Persia India c. were never under the Pope to this day save that the Portugâ—…ls and Spaniards have lately got some Footing in part of the Indies 5. That the whole Greek Church the Armenians Georgians Syrians Egyptians c. never were under the Pope as Pope that is as the Universal Bishop of all the World but only as the primate of the Empire 6. That even in that relation he was not properly the Governour of any of the Diocesses of the other Patriarchs nor the other distinct as Diocesses Carthage Iustinianâ—… c. but the prime Patriarch that had the first Seat in Councils which put in and out Bishops at their pleasure with the Emperours will even Patriarchs and all 7. That those that were under him for some time as Britain were divers of them from under him before and after And yet that the Reader may not mis-understand the matter and this mans importunity I must repeat the exceptions laid down in my Naked Popery pag. 106. 107. and tell him what I grant him 1. Some Cities that were near to Scythia and Persiâ—… had Bishops to whom some Neighbour Scythians and Persians might be voluntary Subjects 2. Some Cities and Countries were sometime under the Roman Power and sometimes under the Enemies Persians Parthians Armenians Gothes Vandales as Africa c. when they were of the Empire their Bishops came to Councils and when they were under Heathen
at this and other Councils For though Rome had formerly been so far from conquering the Scythians that they paid them Tribute yet Constantine disdaining to pay them Tribute Conquered Scythia and after that Sauromatia also The Indians Blemayans Ethiopians and Persians sent honourable Embassies and Presents to Constantinople c. 7. as Neighbours but he was far from summoning their Subjects to his Council but wrote his Letter to the King of Persia only to favor them at home Judge now whether here be a word of summoning any one Bishop out of the Empire or a word of the Pope's summoning them but the contrary or any certainty that any â—…ut of the Empire were there And if any were how inconsiderable their number was â—…nd on what occasion it was like that they were voluntarily there Nay it is most probable that there was not one there by the Circumstances mentioned His second Instance is of Phebamnon at the Council of Ephesus Answ. 1. Mark what kind of proof this Man pretendeth to when he nameth 1. But one Council after Nice 2. And but one Man and no Summons much less that a Pope summoned all the Christian World 2. But what is that he meaneth The Copties are the Egyptian Christians Egypt was known to be in the Empire If he mean that the Abassines are here called the Coptie and their Bishop here he is very shameless and few Men of understanding will believe him It 's plain by the manner and place in the Subscriptions that Coptie there signifieth a City being put in the Genitive Case singular as the others are It 's not Phebammone Episcopo Coptorum but Phaebammone Copti and is put in the midst of the Imperial Bishops by Binnius But Crab hath no Subscriptions at all But was there any City of that Name Yes and amongst those Bishops that were most frequent at the Eastern Councils Ferrarius out of Strabo Plutarch Ptolomy and others saith Coptos Cana teste Rhamusio Urbs Emporium Aegypti sive Thebaidis ad Nilum que merces ex India per sâ—…um Arabicum advectae terra jumentis deferebantur a Thebis 44. mill pas in B. 8. Babylonem versus a Berenice urbâ—… ad sinum Arabicum 258. ab Alexandria vero supra 300. ubi smaragdi inveniuntur Meminit illius Staius l. 1. Theb. Coptos erisoni lugentia flumina Nili You see now with what Ignorances and cheats the unskilful are deceived by these Disputes and the Pope pretendeth to the Monarchy of the World His last proof is out of Theodoret Mar. Victor Eusebius and Secrates That to the Council of Niâ—…e were called Bishops from all the Churches of Europe Affrica and Asia Answ. Would any Man not blinded by prejudice understand this of any other than all the Bishops of Europe Africa and Asia which were in the Empire when he knoweth 1. How much of these three parts of the World were in the Empire 2. That the Emperour wrote a Letter to the Bishops to summon them 3. That he had no power out of the Empire 4. How ill it would have been taken to have summoned or called the Subjects before he had requested their Princes to send them Certainly Constantine would have written to their several Princes and not first to them 5. His Letters to the King of Persia for the Churches there shew this in which yet he never presumed so far as to desire that they might come to his Councils 6. No History mentioneth any such thing as any summons to any one extra-imperial Bishop 7. And to end all doubts the Subscriptions shew that they were not there shall we not believe your own Books and our own Eyes He citeth Theodor. l. 1. c. 7. I suppose he meaneth his Eccles. Hist. for in that he mentioneth the calling of the Council but hath not a word of what this Man doth cite him for But cap. 25. he saith that Europae totius Africae quin etiam maximae partis Asiae imperio potitus est Constantinus Yet this is too largely spoken Socrates hath no such words besides his Recitation of the words of Eusebius Eusebius indeed saith That the Bishops were called out of all these Provinces and who ever questioned it Not a Syllable in any of his cited Authors of any Call or Summons to any one Man out of the Empire These are the Foundations of the Roman Monarchy But I had almost over-past his mention of Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine 's Circular Letter writ in the Name of the Council to be directed to all Bishops and in particular to the Churches through all Persia and the Great India Answ. 1. If it had been the Pope's Letter it would with these Men have proved his Soveraignty of the Earth But alas it was Eusebius's Letter 2. It 's strange if Eusebius were as great an Arrian as you commonly suppose him that the Council should chuse him to write the circular Letter and that you had not feigned that he did it as the Pope's Vicat 3. If writing a Letter would prove a Governing Power I would write a Letter to Rome presently that I might be the Governour of the Pope and then I would command him to lay by his Ambition and recall his rebellious and bloody Decrees and to let the Christian World have peace 4. But the man tells me not by one word where to find any such Epistle of Eusebius In Eusebius there is none such nor in Socrates nor in Theodoret nor in the common Histories of the Councils whence is it that W. I. fished it out At last I found in Pisanus his new-invented History of that Council the Title of Circularis Epistola Scripta ab Eusebio But not a word that it was written to the Churches of Persia or India nor any other by name much less without the Empire nor a word that it was written by him in the name of the Council All these are W I's forgeries But the words and Margin open all the matter Socrates and others tells us that Eusebius having staggered in the beginning of the Council and being as you commonly say an Arrian when he saw how things would go subscribed to the Council and lest his own Flocks should censure him or differ from him he wrote in his own name a Letter only to his own flock giving them the reason and sence of his subscription and indeed he seemeth therein to prevaricate and to give an Arrian sence of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saying To be of one substance with the Father signifieth no other thing than that the Son of God was in nothing like the rest of the Creatures but altogether like to the Father alone that begat him nor begotten of any other than of the Fathers substance and essence to which thus set forth right and reason required that we should condescend This prevaricating Letter to Caesarea the Author of Pisanus Story calleth a Circular Letter ignorantly and W. I. added the rest and thus these men
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
constitute the Essence And shall I obey a trifler so farre as to trouble you with more Syllogismes for this § 8. But he denyeth the Minor and saith that Protestants profess not the true Christian Religion in all it's Essentials I proved it thus Those that profess so much as God hath promised Salvation upon in the Covenant of Grace do profess so much as God hath c. Here the trifler wants all again and then denyeth the Minor I proved the Minor by several arguments 1. All that prosesse faith in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost our Creator Redeemer and Sanctifyer and Love to Him and Absolute obedience to all his Laws of Nature and Holy Scriptures with willingness and diligence to know the true meaning of all these Lawes as farre as they are able and with Repentance for all known sins do profess so much as God hath promised Salvation upon which I proved by many texts of Scripture But so do the Protestants c. Here the trifler wants form again The Covenant of Grace was left out when I cited the Covenant of Grace it self viz Ioâ—… 3. 16. 17. Mark 16 16. Heb. 5. 9. Rom. 8. 28. 1. Act. 26. 18. And after all this what is it that he denyeth Why this that the Protestants have willingness and diligence to know the true meaning of all the Law of Nature and Scripture Answ. This is the man of form that slily puts in Having willingness instead of professing it When he saw and knew that it was not what saith men have which God only knoweth but what they proâ—…ess that we dispute of And whether we profess such willingness to understand if our words our oaths and all our books and confessions published to the world will not prove it let this mans word go for a disproof we come now to the Transubstantiation reasoning where all men Eyes and Eares are to be denyed § 9. But he addeth a reason because else they would take the expositions of the universal Church and not follow novel intâ—…pretations and private judgements Answ. This Cant must delude the ignorant that never read the history of the Church nor know the present State of the World 1. Do not we profess to preferre that which is most ancient before that which is novel But these men must have us e. g. believe that the cup may be left out of the Sacrament of Eucharist which a Sect lately and sacrilegiously introduced or else we have a novel and private interpretation of the Sacrament when the most brazen faced of them cannot deny that their own way herein is novel and the contrary as old as Christs institution and that they are singular as differing from the farre greatest part of Christians upon Earth The same I might say of most other of our differences 2. When did the Universal Church write a Commentary on the Bible where shall we find their exposition of it How little of the Bible have General Councils expounded if you mean not them what mean you sure all your Laity have not expounded it nor all your Clergy yea their Commentaries yea and Translations fight with one another where is your Universal Commentary if you had such a work will your talk make us ignorant that Papists are not a third part of the Christian world but if it be Councils you mean which of them is it that we must believe and why That at Constance and Basil and Pisa or that at Florence or the Laterâ—…ne that de fide contradict them The first and second at Ephesus or that of Calcedon which contradicteth the first indeed and the second professedly The 28th Canon of Calcedon or the Popes that abhor it The General Councils at Ariminum Syrmium c. when the world was said to groan to find it self turned Arrian should we at the 2d Council of Ephesus have followed the greater number when there was not one refuser of Eutychianism save the Popes Legates and Binnius saith that sola navicula Petri only Peters Ship escaped drowning did Rome follow the most when Melch. Canus tells us that most of the Churches and the Armes of Emperors have fought against the Roman privileges Is it a convincing way to have such a Pope as Eugenius 4th at the same time to differ from the greater part of the Christian world and also be damned by his own Church or General Council and to say you do not receive all that 's necessary to Salvation nor are willing to know the truth because you take not the expositions of the Universal Church When you have blinded us so far as to take a domineering sect that liveth not by the Word but by the Sword and Blood to be the Universal Church and all your Decretals to be the Churches expositions of Scripture and all the Scripture and Fathers that are against you to be novelties and your many novelties to be all the ancient truth such as Pet. Moulin de novitate Papismi hath laid open by that time we may think that the Church wanteth an Essential Artâ—…ole of Christianity which taketh not all the Popes expositions of Scripture But seeing this is the great damning Charge against the Protestants faith I pray you tell us next 1. Did all the Christian Church want an Essential part of their Christianity in all those Ages before the Universal Church gave them any expositions of the Scripture what exposition had they besides each Churches Pastor's for the first 300 years And what exposition did the Council of Nice make save about the deity of Christ and Easter day or such things that indeed were deliver'd not as expositions of Scripture but Traditions OF rules of order And what exposition made any of the old General Councils save about the Natures and Person and Wills of Christ and Church policie which Suarez de legiâ—… saith God made no Law for where are their Commentaries 3. Where shall we find any Commentary that the Fathers agreed in though the Trent-Oath is that you will not expâ—…nd the Scripture but according to the Fathers consent Your writers tell us that most whose works be come to us for the first 300 years were Millenaries Dionys. Petavius hath gathered the words of Arrian doctrine from most of them lib. de Trinit till after the Council of Nice yea that the chief of the Anti-Arrians even Athanassus himself was for three Gods telling us that as Peter Paul and Iohn were three names but one in Essence that is in Specie so is the Father Son and Holy Ghost when your Doctors tell us that Iustin Clem. Alexander Dionysius Alexand. Talianus Tertullian Cyprian Origen Eysebius and I know not how many more taught Heresie and Chrysostom Basil and many others that we hoped had been Christians are noted as fautors of Origen and even many of the Martyrs were Hereticks when through the reign of Theodosius Senior Arcadius and Honorius Theodosius Junior Valentinian to say nothing of Constantius and Valens c. of
the Arrians yea and of Marcian Leo Zeno Anastaslus Iustine almost all the Churches of the Empire continued charging each others with Heresie and Councils charging and condemning Councils Bishops deposing and cursing Bishops and Monks as their Souldiers fighting it out to blood when the obeying or cursing the Council of Calcedon divided the Bishops for many Princes reigns and when one part called the other Nestorians and the other called them Eutychians almost every where and when after that the Monothelites cause was in many Emperors Reign uppermost one while and down another and navicula Petri that alone scaped before was thus drowned by Honorius if Councils belie him not and Popes with the rest When the very same Bishops as at Ephesus and Calcedon went one way in one Council and another way in the next and subscribed to one Edict e. g. of Basiliscus and quickly to the contrary of another and cryed 〈◊〉 we did it through fear How should we then know by Fathers Bishops and Councils what was their concordant Commentary of the Scripture 4. I ask you what exposition of the Universal Church is it that we profess to differ from for our novelties name them if you can Either by the Universal Church you mean properly all Christians or most If All alas when and where shall we find their agreement in any more than we hold with them If most do we not know that the most two parts to one are against the Popes Sovereignty which is Essential to your Church Do not the Greeks once a year excommunicate or curse you To tell us now That above two parts of the Christian world are none of the Church because they differ from the Universal Church and that the third part is that Universal which he that believeth not is no Christian are words that deserve indignation and not belief and without the medium of Swords and Flames and tormenting inquisitions on one side and great Bishopricks and Abbies Wealth Ease and Domination on the other had long ago been scorned out of the Christian world § 10. But he also denyeth that we believe with a saving divine faith any of the said mysteries and that our Profession general and particular affirmeth it Answ. It 's like the Devil the Accuser of the brethren will deny it too of our Hearts we will not enter a dispute of our Professions let our books be witnesses Reader canst thou believe that we profess not to believe any Christian verity with a Divine faith yea but the man meaneth that it is not a Divine faith if it be not from the beleif of the Pope and his Party And how then shall we believe the Popes own authority § 11. II. My ad Argument to prove that we hold all the Essentials of Christianity was Those that profess as much and much more of the Christian Faith and Religion as the Catechumens were ordinarily taught in the ancient Churches and the Competentes at Baptisme did profess do profess the true Christian Religion in all it's Essentials but so do the Protestants c. To this he calls for Form again as if here were no Universal and then denyeth the Major but his words shew that indeed it is the Minor Because the Catechumens professed to believe implicitly all that was taught as matter of Faith by the Catholick Church in that Article I believe the Holy Church which the Protestants do not Answ. An unproved fiction on both parts 1. Shew us in Fathers Councils or any true Church-Records that Catechumens were then used to make any other exposition of those words than we do Did they ever profess that a Pope or a General Council cannot erre de fide did they not call many of those Councils General though violent and erroneous which they cursed The great doubt then was which party was the true Church and Christians then judged not of Faith by the Church-men but of the Church by the Faith else they had not so oft rejected and Hereticated many Popes Patriarches and the farre greater part of the Bishops as they did 2. And Protestants deny no article which ab omnibus ubique et semper as Lerinens speaks was accounted necessary to â—…ation yea it is one reason why they cannot be Papists because most of the Catholick Church are against the Papacy and all were against it or without it for many hundred Years after Christ. Let the Reader peruse Cyril Hieros Catech. August and all others that give us an account of the Churches Catechism and see whether he can find in it I believe that the Bishop of Rome is made by Christ the Governour of all the World and is Infallible in himself or with his Council and that we must believe all that they say is the Word of God because they say it or else we cannot be saved But it is an easie way to become the Lords of all the World if they can perswade all Men to believe that none but their Subjects can be saved 3. And what an useless thing to they make Gods Word that they may set up their own Expositions in its stead We know that the Word supposeth that the Ignorant must have Teachers Without Teaching Children cannot so much as learn to Speak And Oportet discentem credere fide humanâ that is he must suppose his Teacher wiser than himself or else how can he judge him fit to Teach him But what is Teaching but Teaching the Learner to know the same things that the Teacher doth by the same Evidence Is it only to know what the Teacher holdeth without knowing why If so must we know it by Word or Writing If by Word only when and where shall every Man and Woman come to be Catechized by the Universal Church That is by all the Christian World Or is every Priest the Universal Church Or is he Infallible And how come Words spoken to be more intelligible than words written Doth writing make them unintelligible Why then are their Councils and Commentaries written But if Writing will serve why not God's writing as well as theirs If God say Thou shalt Love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart Are not these words intelligible till a Pope Expound them When the Pope permitted his Casuists to expound them so as that Loving God once a Moneth or once a Year will serve for Salvation and that Attrition which is Repeating only out of Fear with the Sacrament of Penance will also serve Cannot a Man be saved that Believeth Repenteth and Loveth God upon the bare Commands of God and Scripture without hearing what all the Christian World or Councils say If I make to my self no Graven Image so as to bow down and Worship towards it by virtue of the second Commandment will this damn me because I receive not the Papists obliteration or contradiction of this Commandment as an Exposition If all the Docrees of Councils be as necessary as the Creed and Scripture why were not the Councils read in the
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
Orthodox Church it self 3. That St. Thomas Aquinas and other Doctors differ from the second Council of Nice in holding the Cross and Image of Christ to be Worshipped with Latreia 4. I added a large Testimony of the Theological Faculty of Paris under their Great Seal against one Ioh. de Montesono ordinis praedic recited in the end of Lombard Printed at Paris 1557. p. 426. where they shew that though Tho. Aquinas was a Canonized Saint we may believe that part of his Doctrine was Heretical And the same they say of Cyprian Ierome Augustine Lombard Gratian Anselm Hugo de St. Victore c. To all this he Answereth by silence § 45. At last in vain I importuned him to prove the perpetual Visibility of their Papacy but could not prevail citing their Authors that make the Pope to be the Church and the whole strength of Councils § 46. I added a few Miscellaneous Testimonies against their Foundations 1. The first Council of Ephes. under Cyril in Epist. ad Nestor in Pet. Crab. Tom. 1. fol. 315. Petrus Johannes aequales sunt ad alterutrum dignitatis 2. Bishop Bromhal's citation of Comment in Epist. synodal Basil. p. 31. 40. Impris Colon 1613. saying The Provinces Subject to the four great Patriarchs from the beginning did know no other Supreme but their own Patriarchs And if the Pope be a Patriarch it is by the Church c. 3. Cassander Epist. 37. D. Zimenio p. 1132. saith of Monlucius the Bishop of Valentia highly praised by Thuanus c. that he said Si sibi permittatur in his tribus capitulis uti formâ publicarum precum de ritibus Baptismi de formâ Eucharistae sivae missae Christianam formam ad normam priscae ecclesiae institutam c. confidere se quod ex quinquagint a millibus quos habet in sua Diocesi à praesenti discipliniae ecclesiae adversos quadraginta millia ad Ecclesiasticum unionem sit reducturus Here you see what their Antiquity and Tradition is 4. A closer passage I noted out of Cassander Epist. 42. p. 1138. To all this I find no Reply § 47. In the conclusion I Answered a late paper that I received from him wherein he Humbly intreateth me to declare my Opinion more fully whether any professed Hereticks properly so called are true parts of the Universal Visible Church of Christ so that they compose one Universal Church with the other Visible parts I wrote him so plain and full an Answer to this that I shall only refer the Reader to the perusal of it instead of any defence To this he concludeth with such a Discourse that would make a Man lament that such distracted stuff should be thought sufficient to deceive poor Souls He rants at me for distinguishing He must have had me directly Answer his Question with Yea or Nay and instead of Answering ad rem to have entred an Idle controversie with him which of all the sorts commonly called Hereticks are properly so called And when no Man can resolve us whether properly so called must be expounded by Etymology or by the Canou and by what Canon Or by the Fathers Catalogues and by which Fathers Epiphanius Philastrius Augustine c. or by common custom or by the Pope How should ever this idle controversie of properly so called have ever come to any Resolution unless by making himself the Judge Yet doth the Man absurdly say to me We are not agreed what the Universal Visible Church is What of that Are we not agreed there is such a thing Think you or I what we will of the definition of it 't is sufficient to give an Answer pro or con to my Question whether Hereticks be true Members of the Church And it will be time enough to explicate what you mean by the Universal Church when your Answer is impugned See you not again that whatsoever you or I understand by Heretick properly so called we both agree that there are Hereticks properly so called and that 's enough to Answer my Question c. Answ. It would be irksom to Answer such a Man if I knew whether this came from Ignorance or Dishonesty were it not for the necessity of the simple Is it not a wearisome thing to talk with a Man that must have a Disputation upon terms whose sence we are disagreed of and that abhorreth explication of doubtful words As if when the Question is Whether Canis properly so called do generate or do give suck And I distinguish of Canis Coelestis Terrestris and of Canis Mas foemina and say that only Canis Terrestris Generateth and only Canis foemina giveth suck He should have ranted at me for distinguishing and said We are agreed that Canis there is properly so called and therefore you should Answer without distinguishing Let him that studyeth deceit dwell in darkness and choose Confusion but he shall not so draw me from the Light and cheat me into a foolish Game at Words § 48. But seeing he will not endure a distinction of Heresies nor tell us how we may know which are properly so called I must suppose that he would have me Judge by the Ancient Catalogues or Rolls or else by the Popes or by the Council's nominations Reader I will give thee but a little touch out of the Ancient Catalogue of St. Philastrius and Judge whether all his Hereticks are damned or unchristened I. Of the Hereticks since the Apostles The eleventh were those that kept not Easter at the right time for which Victor would have the Asian Churches Excommunicate but Irenaeus as well as Socrates and Zozomene c. thought much otherwise of the case Our Old Britains and Scots then were all out of the Church II. His twelfth Heresie is that of the Millenaries and so a great part of the Holy Fathers before the Council of Nice were Hereticks III. His twenty seventh Heresie is of those called Artotyritae for Offering Bread and Cheese at the Oblation IV. His 28 Heresie is of the Ascodrogitae that in the Church set New Vessels and put New Wine into them V. The 29th sort of Hereticks are called Passalorinchitae that put their Fingers on their Mouths and imposed silence on themselves it's like with limitation else they could not converse with Men. VI. 30. Some thought that all Prophets ended not with Christ. VII The 33d is the Excalceatorum that were for going without shooes like some Fryars VIII The 34th was that of Novatus who erroneously thought that those that denyed Christ or Sacrificed or Offered to the Heathens Idols after Baptism might be pardoned indeed by God but not received again into the Church Differing but one step from many Church-Canons that deny Communion to many Sinners for many Years yea till they are dying and to some at Death IX The 41. Hereticks thought the Epistle to the Hebrews was not Written by Paul but by Barnabas or Clement and the Epistle to Laodicea by St. Luke X. The
which they may shortly expect by the perswasions of some I have attempted to make this Return to this one Reply which is all that ever they published against me that I know of And because true Order requireth first that we understand each others terms I must begin with that though it be the last thing in his Book in which you will see what a sandy fabrick it is which is adorned by them with the great Epithetes of Apostolical Ancient Universal Infallible and how little they know or can make others know what it is of which they do dispute or what that Church is to which so many hundred thousand Christians called by them Hereticks have been sacrificed by sword and flames In the second Part I defend the Visibility of the Church which the Protestants are members of against his vain Objections And in the third Part I defend those Additional arguments by which I proved it In all which I doubt not but the impartial understanding Reader may see that their Terrestrial Universal Monarchy and their condemnation of the greatest part of the Church of Christ are contrary to Sense Reason Tradition Consent Antiquity and Scripture and that their Kingdom standeth but on three Legs IGNORANCE and deceit worldly INTEREST and the SWORD and violence And when these and especially the sword of Princes do cease to uphold it it will presently die and come to nothing For though Melchior Canus say that the Roman Priviledges as he calleth them have stood though the greater number of Bishops and Churches and the Arms of Emperours have been against them yet was it upheld against all these by no better means than those aforesaid The greater number of Churches and Bishops viz. of East and South being against them and all the other four Patriarchates renouncing them as they do to this day they laid the faster hold of the West and by mastering Italy flattering and advancing France promising Kingdoms and Empire to their Adherents threatning the deposition of others dividing Germany and all Europe that many might need the Pope and few be able to resist him and by keeping men ignorant that they might be capable of their Government by these means they overcame the Arms of Emperours and made them their Subjects whose Subjects they had been If there were nothing else to satisfie the Reader against Popery but these following Particulars it were a shame to humane nature to receive it 1. The natural incapacity of one man to be a Church-Monarch any more than to be a Civil Monarch of the whole Earth 2. That Bellarmine confesseth that the Pope succeedeth not Peter as an Apostle but as an Universal Pastor But Peter never had any higher office than to be the first Apostle 1 Cor. 12. 28. God hath set in the Church first Apoctles not first a Vice-Christ 3. That they affirm that it is not de fide that the Pope is Peter's Successor 4. That none of the other Apostles had Successors as in superior seats nor did any Patriarch much less twelve claim power as Successors of any Apostle save Antioch and Rome and Antioch as from the same St. Peter but no Universal Soveraignty 5. That whoever will turn Papist must confess that he was an ungodly hypocrite before and that all professed Christians are so save the Papists that know their doctrine 6. That he must renounce the senses of all sound men and believe them all deceived by Miracle The Contents of the first Part. CHAP. 1. Sect. 1. HIs Explication of the terms CATHOLICK CHURCH 1. He excludeth all from Christs Universal Church and Christianity that are no Members of Christian Congregations Yet meaneth not only Churches but Families Ships or any civil Assemblies Damning all solitary Christians or that are alone among Infidels 2. He maketh subjection to the supreme Pastor necessary and yet saith the Votum of it alone will serve Sect. 2. He unchurcheth Parish-Churches He maketh dependance on lawful Pastors in general necessary but not on the Pope particularly Sect. 3 What Faith must be in a Church-member His implicite discourse of implicite faith which indeed is no faith of any particular Article Several senses of implicite faith opened His general faith proved No particular faith In what sense we believe all that God hath revealed Sect. 8. His instances explained Sect. 9. When virtual repentance sufficeth Sect. 10. His avoiding to answer Sect. 11. The Papists Church invisible Sect. 12. His strange Doctrine of generals Sect. 13. What Christianity is is no point of faith with them Sect. 14. The invisibility of their Church further proved Sect. 15. Their contradictions about receiving all faith on the Churches Authority Sect. 16. 17. The true method of believing Sect. 18. Humane faith is joyned with Divine Sect. 20. What the Essentials of Christianity are Sect. 21. Papists utterly disagreed what a Christian is and confounded and their Church invisible Sect. 22. Notes of great moment hereupon The baptizing of men that believe only that there is a rewarding God is a new false baptism Sect. 23. Q 3. Who are the Pastors whose rejection unchurcheth men Of Parish Priests Q. 4. How shall all the world be sure that Popes and Priests had a just Election or ordination Sect. 24 25 26 27 28. CHAP. 2. Their sense of the word HERESY Whether Heresie be in will or understanding Sect. 1. Hereticks by their definition are unknown Sect. 2. The power of judging of the Sufficiency of proposals make 's the Clergie Masters of all men lives Sect. 3. He maketh none Hereticks that deny not Gods Veracity Sect. 4. And all Hereticks to deny it Yea all that receive not every truth safficiently proposed Yet unsaith all and saith that not culpable neglect of sufficient proof of all but contradiction to the known proposal of lawful superiours makes a Heretick Sect. 7. Q. What sufficient proposal is Sect. 8. 9. He saith that the true Church-Governours may be known without Revelation Sect. 10. Sufficiency further examined Sect. 11. He hereticateth themselves or none Sect. 12. Whether every misunderstanding of an intelligible Text of Scripture be Heresie Sect. 13. What Heresie is indeed Sect. 14. CHAP. 3. Their meaning of the word POPE Sect. 1. Popes judged Herteicks by many Councils Where Christs institution of the Papacy must be found Sect. 2. Who ad esse must elect the Pope Sect. 3. W. J. cannot and dare not tell Consecration denyed to be necessary to the Pope Sect. 6. Neither Papal nor Episcopal Iurisdiction he saith depends on Papal or Episcopal ordination Sect. 7. So they may be Laymen What such jurisdiction is Sect. 8. What notice or proof is necessary to the subjects CHAP. 4. Their sense of the word BISHOP The Pope is not of Gods ordaining in their way Sect. 1. 2. Their Bishop of Calcedons testimony put off Sect. 3. They make all men that will or no men to be Bishops His great confusion and contradictions Saying we want not Episcopal Consecration but Election
unchurched O poor Anchorites Hermites that are alone and shipwrackt Christians c. 2. Here is a new found priviledg of having company if in a Tavern or Alehouse and of being married and in a family such may be Christians when the solitary cannot Who would have thought that the Papists had held this But you say nothing to the case of them that are converted to Christ by a solitary Preacher that never tells him of a supreme Pastor as the English and Dutch convert many Indians Can they be subject to him that they hear not of W. J. Whether he be named or no the Church must be supposed to be sufficiently explicated to them as having some prudent manner of Government so that they must be instructed to render obedience to such Governours as Christ instituted in his Church which is virtually to a chief Pastor R. B. 1. So they that take the Pope for Antichrist may virtually be Papists Be content with that virtue 2. But I think that even that general belief of Pastoral Government is necessary ad bene esse rather than ad esse of a Christian. R. B. 1. I note by the way to be hereafter remembred his description of a particular Church as given by Hierome that it is Plebs unita Episcopo and Cyprian saith Ubi Episcopus ibi Ecclesia And Ignatius To every church there is one Altar and one Bishop with the Prosbyters and Deacons But by this Rule they make those that are now called parish-Parish-Churches to be no Churches but only parts of a particular Church 2. Note that in his Definition he maketh living in external communion essential to those Congregations or Communities of Christians who make up the Catholick Church but tells us not whether it must be a Civil or only a Religious Communion or what Religious Communions besides unity of faith and dependance on Pastors it must be If by those words pag. 3. every particular family or neighbourhood he express that external communion then if their Pastors never give them Gods Word Sacraments or Prayer it may serve 3. He saith p. 4. In this consists your fallacy that you esteem none to be actually members of the universal Church unless they be actual members of some particular Church which I deny Which is his meer fiction of which I was so far from giving him any occasion that I was charging it as an error on himself reasonably supposing that by Visible Assemblies he had meant Churches 4. Note that he maketh it essential to the members of the Catholick Church that they depend on their lawful Pastors and yet that it is but a virtual subjection to the Pope by subjecting themselves to Christs manner of Government which is essential 1. Are not all Protestants and other Christians that own not the Pope true members of the Church then while they subject themselves in general to Christs manner of Government 2. He subjecteth himself to no Governour who doth it not to some existent individual For the universal existeth not but in the individuals And if it be not necessary that the Pope be this individual then subjection to some other is more essential than to the Pope And who is that who must be preferred before him Q. 2. What is that Faith in unity whereof all members of the Catholick Church do live Is it the belief of all that God hath revealed to be believed or of part and of what part W. J. Of all either explicitely or implicitely R. B. He might easily have known that it is explicite belief which the question meant for his implicite belief is the actual belief of nothing but the general and not of any unknown particulars Where there is no object in esse cognito vel percepto there is no act of faith for the object essentiateth the act in specie And where only the general object is perceived and no particular e. g. All that God saith in Scripture is true when one word of Scripture is not known there is no object for a particular belief But it is the belief of this or that in particular that we enquire of e. g. that Jesus is the Christ c. Your implicite belief is actual belief of the general but of particulars it is actually none at all as common reason tells us His reply to this I shall answer by parts in order R. B. We have here a most implicite account of the implicite faith which is essential to a Church-member The man would make the ignorant believe that their Schools are agreed of the sense when he might easily know the contrary I mentioned different senses of implicite faith 1. When Particulars are known and believed actually but confusedly and not distinctly but in gross So Dr. Holden in Analys sid seemeth to take it so the parts are seen or known oft in the whole so a purblind man seeth all the letters men trees c. before him I see all the sand in the hour-glass or much but not distinctly one sand from another This is a real knowledg of the very things but an imperfect knowledg 2. But besides this there is a knowledg of things only in their general nature which is a real knowledg but partial and imperfect As when I see something coming towards me afar of and know not whether it be a man or a beast I say it is an animal or a wight but what I know not This is not to know the thing formally but to know aliquid rei somewhat of that thing 3. There is also a knowledg which besides the general nature extendeth to some inadequate conception of the form but leaveth out other parts of the conception which are essential As when one knoweth so much of a man as that he hath a rational soul and not that he hath a body or that his soul is a virtus intellectiva but not that it is volitiva or when one knoweth that fire is formally a virtus illuminativa but not that it is calefactiva or motiva This is a real knowledg but partial and not formal being not of the whole essence So when one knoweth Christ to be God but not to be man or man and not God or to be a Teacher but not a King or Priest this is not properly to know Christ but somewhat of Christ. 4. There is a knowledg of meer universal Propositions which is but Organical as to things And this is no knowledg of all the particular things spoken of nor oft of many nor sometimes of any of them nor of the particular Propositions which should be further known nor of the conclusion that should be infer'd from both For instance Men may say that Omnis spiritus est immaterialis And one may mean and know by it but as the Sadducees or Hobs or Gassendus that a spirit is a chimaera si daretur spiritus immaterialis foret And another may doubt and mean si detur spiritus immaterialis est And another may hold that there
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
may elect a Schoolmaster Pope and any man may be Pope or an hundred may be Popes But if not then it must be known who it is that hath the power of Election and that it was done by them The people of Barnet or Brainford have no authority to elect a Lord Mayor of London nor would one of their choice be any better than a Play-house Lord. Our Question is Who must choose the Governour of all the world In reason all the world should meet by themselves or their just Delegates to choose him But the man that claimeth this Divine Soveraignty hath been sometime chosen at Rome by a meeting of Lay-citizens and sometimes by neighbour-Bishops and sometimes at the best by Citizens and Presbyters together Bishops approving it and sometimes by the Emperors of Rome of Constantinople or of Germany and sometime by a sort of things called Cardinals Now if none of these have more right to choose him than the rest then either any body hath right that can carry it out and get possession or else no body hath right or none can tell who hath it Accordingly for above forty years together the Emperour and his party chose one Pope and the King of France and his party chose another one reigned at Rome and another at Avignion in France Part of Europe chose or owned one and part another and at once saith Wernerus there were six alive that were then Popes or had been Popes of whom one honester than the rest because he could not read himself chose another Pope to be his partner to read the Mass which he could not do and to help him in the rest Here in the answer of W. J. 1. He durst not tell us who have the power of Election 2. But he saith it must be those that are fit for the charge If I should ask who must choose the Lord Mayor of London and you should so answer me Those that are fit for the charge would not any sensible Reader judg by your answer that you were unfit for an honest disputation 3. He saith that the Electors must be so esteemed fit for the charge by those to whom it doth belong To whom what doth belong why to esteem the Electors fit But how should a man know to whom it doth belong to judg who is fit to be an Elector Doth it belong to the World or to Rome To the people Presbyters Bishops Emperours or Cardinals Here we have more difficulties than we thought of we must know who is fit to be Pope and who is fit to elect him and to whom it belongs to judg who are fit to be Electors that is to elect Electors and when shall we come to know all this If he say that it is the people that must choose the Choosers what people be they they of Rome or they of all Italy or they of Germany or of France or of all Europe or of all the World 3. He saith that the choosers must be such as by custom are esteemed fit by these But what custom doth the man mean when there have been four or five ways or sorts of Election had not every one of them a beginning and at their beginning could they plead custom O that your sword were no stronger than your reasons 4. Yea he saith It must be approved customs But not a word who must be the approvers of all these new customs 5. And when all is done no more is needful but that the unknown persons to whom it belongs do esteem the Electors fit and so be they fit or unfit their estimation carrieth it 6. But yet the hardest part remaineth The Church must be satisfied with the Election But 1. Either the Election is valid or invalid before If valid will the Churches dissatisfaction invalidate it If invalid will the Churches satisfaction make it valid or make him Pope that was none before Who would have thought that a Pope had been a wight so utterly unintelligible 2. And what way must the Churches satisfaction be notified to me Is it by some note of approbation or by silence It 's in vain for men to contradict that have no power But what if I believed in my conscience that most of the Church is unsatisfied in the Election Must I take that man to be no Pope Then I am necessitated to believe that when Whores and Murderers and such like brought in the fifty that Baronius and Genebrard called Apostatical c. there was an interruption of the Succession by the dissatisfaction of the Church Good Sir was the Church satisfied with such men Was it satisfied with those that the foresaid Council condemned as Heretical wicked and one of them a Devil incarnate Did those Councils signifie no dissatisfaction of the Church 3. And must I suspend my reception of the Pope till the Abassines Armenians Greeks yea or Mexicans and the Antipodes signifie their satisfaction 4. But what is the Church that must be satisfied when half Europe was for one and the rest for another for forty years and more with which of them was the Church satisfied Was France or Germany the Church 5. Lastly by this we are acquit from acknowledging your Pope at all while we know that three fourth parts or at least two third parts of Christs Church on Earth is unsatisfied with your Pope and Papacy it self To all this he answers W. J. 1. Tour exceptions are fallacies à sensu conjuncto ad sensum divisum R. B. See Reader what the Papacy is come to if it had not the sword or ignorance to uphold it when he puts together so many things as necessary ad esse to the Election of a Pope and yet makes nothing but a meer name to deceive the ignorant of any one of them is it fallacious of me to expect that all those things be found in the Election Or is it not fallacious in him that can shew us never a one of them Next W. I. saith If the Church did really acquiesce in such an elected person as Pope it was satisfied according to the substance of the Election though not in the circumstances R. B. 1. Reader is this any answer to any of the foresaid Objections what satisfaction what Church when part of the Church was divided and the greater part abhor'd them all And was he Pope or no before this acquiescing If so what made him so And 2. What doth he but cheat us by his distinction of the substance and circumstances of Election Doth he not obstinately but necessarily refuse to tell what is the substance of Election Have those that were brought in by Whores Poyson and Murders the substance Had those that were chosen by people Presbyters Bishops Emperours and Cardinals all the substance If so why may not twenty have the substance at once or four or five at least what is it that is the substance Alas we ask in vain that which cannot be told us Next he saith If the Church never accepted them as
Popes they are not to be accounted Legal Popes Ans. Farewel the Papacy then and yet must we be burnt for not being their Subjects 1. Then it seems that Election and Consecration made them not Popes at all before the Churches acceptance And sure that never made them such afterward 2. Then we have no Popes now most of the Church Abassines Copties Armenians Syrians Greeks Moscovites Protestants c. there are two to one are against the Papacy 3. And then Eugenius the 4th and others disowned and damned by General Councils your own Churches Representatives were no Popes Next he saith That the abuses of Election came from mingling Lay-authority with Church-Government which is out of their Sphere Now this abuse is much consonant with the Doctrine of Protestants so that those for the most part who conform their practice according to the Protestants Principles introduced this abuse into thâ—… Popes Election Ans. Reader what doth this man deserve for thus murdering the Papal cause 1. Our question was not who it was long of thâ—… they had no true lawful Popes for a long time but whether it be not true and their succession interrupted 2. And is he worthy to be accounted a man that ever read Church-History that knoweth not that before there were any Christian Emperours the Laity with the Presbyters chose the Bishop of Rome and all other Bishops so then if this was the abuse the first and ancient way was the abuse which their innovation rectified and who knoweth not what power the Emperours used from 320 till 1000 years in disposing of all the Patriarchal seats And seeing Cardinals are the newest way of Election is not the newest likest to be the abuse 3. But I desire the Reader specially to note that this man confesseth that Popes were formerly chosen according to Protestant principles and that their present way is a Reformation of the Protestant way as abusive and who then are the Innovators and the culpable Reformers even Hildebrand Greg. 7. after bloody Wars against the Emperours and the perjury that he had involved a great part of the Clergy in And yet they would perswade men that it is our Principles and Reformation that are new and theirs is the old way 4. We are not ashamed to own that the Protestant principles do assert the power of Christian Princes in matters of Religion so far as the sword is therein to interpose which Bishop Bilson of Chris. Subjection hath well opened and the power of the people in consenting to their Pastors and that we abhor their forcing Princes to be their executioners R. B. Is consecration necessary and by whom ad esse W. J. It is not absolutely necessary ad esse R. B. If Consecration be not necessary to Papacy then it is not necessary that this or that man consecrate him more than another and then it is not necessary to a Bishop and then the want of it makes no interruption in any Church any more than in yours W. J. Neither Papal nor Episcopal Iurisdiction as all the Learned know depends of Episcopal or Papal ordination nor was there ever interruption in successions in Episcopal Iurisdiction in any See for want of that alone that is necessary for consecrating others validly and not for jurisdiction over them R. B. What multiplied self-destroying answers are you driven to 1. See here Reader how short a solution you have from themselves of all their old objections about the Bishops Ordination at the Nags head-Tayern in Cheapside and the interruption of our Succession and nullity of our Priesthood now you see that jurisdiction depends not on Ordination but may be without it Their Pope and Bishops may have all their Ecclesiastical Government though they be Lay-men And may not Parish-priests have so also over the people These Papists are more kind to the Protestant-Churches that have not Episcopal Ordination than some called Protestants in this age are want of Ordination nulleth not their Government But for my part I would the Church had never known any such Jurisdiction as is neither the Magistrates by the sword nor given by Ordinaion to the Pastors called the power of the Keys At least I thought that it had been necessary to Popes and Prelates that they be Priests If some as seniors among Presbyters may be the Governours of the rest as an Abbot among Monks yet sure he must be a Presbyter or Monk himself I take the Priestly Office or Ministry to be essentiated by a Subordination to Christ in the participation of the three parts of his Office ministerially viz. to be Sub-teachers Sub-rectors and Sub-priests to guide the people in Gods worship If Ordination be not necessary to Iurisdiction a presumptuous word for Clergy-men then either such unordained Bishops may ordain or not If not they are no Bishops What is their Jurisdiction If yea then they may give that which they never had and Lay-men may ordain And may not ordained Presbyters ordain much more One would think that the reading of Voetius against Iansenius De desperata causa Papatus had driven this man to these desperate answers But he was aware that some Popes having been unordained men he had no other shift Join to this what Dr. Stillingfleet after others hath fully proved that the Orders given by Schismaticks and Hereticks are valid in the opinion of their Doctors and you will see that their talk against the English Ministry is such as the men do not believe themselves R. B. Q. 3. What notice or proof is necessary to the Subjects W. J. So much as is necessary to oblige subjects to accept of other elected Princes to be their Soveraigns R. B. 1. But what that is you would not tell us 2. But if this be so it must be so much as sufficeth to the subjects to distinguish him from Usurpers or else Kings and Usurpers must be equally obeyed and if so then 1. The greatest part of the Christian world Abassines and the rest before named have no such notice of your Pope it was many ages before the Abassines heard of him 2. And Greeks and Protestants have no such notice nay you tell no man which way he should have it when neither any one way of election nor any Consecration is necessary to the Office 3. And then what notice had men in the long Schisms which was the true Pope But note Reader that a Kingdome is so narrow a space that notice may be given to all the subjects who is their true King But the Earth is so great and so much of it unknown and so few ever sailed about it since the Creation and those few saw so few of the inhabitant that verily it is a hard matter to satisfie all the world who is the true Pope and that he is truly elected and is no Usurper And on these terms it is but little of the world that is obliged to be subject to the Pope And now Reader if this man hath
taught thee to understand what a Pope is and what makes him so and who is he thou art far more teachable than I am for he leaveth me more at a loss than he found me CHAP. IV. What mean you by the word Bishop W. J. I mean by Bishop such a Christian Pastor as hath power and jurisdiction to govern the inferior Pastors Clergy and people within his Diocess and to confirm and give holy Orders to such as are subject to him R. B. Here I desired to know of him whether he meant a power given by God or by men and if by God whether mediately or immediately But this he was not willing to answer Saying W. J. The definition abstracts from particulars and subsists without determining that question R. B. But sure equivocals make no good definitions and power or Episcopacy given by God and given by man cannot be ejusdem speciei and therefore the word as to them is equivocal Here therefore I asked Q. 1. Whether seeing they seem to make the Pope himself but a humane creature or jure humano they set not the Bishop above him if the Bishop be jure divino And if not whether they make not all their Churches humane things or however the Roman Church to be humane and so its form not necessary to Salvation if the Pope be humane W. J. Where said I that Election was jure humano that there be an election of him is jure divino by competent Electors the determination who hic nunc are competent is jus Ecclesiasticum Know you not that neither the Electors nor Consecrators of him give him Papal jurisdiction but Christ R. B. 1. You say that there is no need of Revelation to know the Church-Governours therefore they are not of Gods making unless it be jure naturali which none pretend For God no way giveth right but by natural evidence of this will or by Revelation either natural in the constitution of the Creatures or natural by Providential alterations or by Supernatural notice 2. If God have not annexed the power to any one sort of Electors choice or have given no power to any determinate persons to choose a Pope nor to any to choose the Choosers then either God giveth no power to the Pope or else he giveth Papal power to every one that shall be chosen by whomsoever The later you abhor for then any man might be Pope at his pleasure and there might be a thousand at once The former consequence is plain because if God make not every man a Pope but one man in the world the Donation of God must by God be some way applied to that person rather than to others Now if God hath neither impowred any determinate or specified persons to elect him rather than others nor any to elect Electors nor yet made the Consecrators the determining appliers there is no way by which God applieth it more to that man than to others You neither do nor can name any other way Now you confess that God hath not given the power of Election to any determinate persons but that the Electors may be sometimes people sometime Presbyters or both sometime Princes sometime Bishops sometime Cardinals All that God saith you hold is that they be competent But this determineth of none And you neither do nor can tell us to whom God hath given the power to judg antecedently of the Electors competency and to choose the choosing persons without which it will never be any mans work unless all that think themselves competent may choose Popes You dare not undertake to tell us whether it be all the Christian world or only the City of Rome Princes Prelates Presbyters people or who that God hath made choosers of the choosers So that you cannot say that God giveth the Pope his power by your way 3. But on the by I desire those that say that their Electors or Ordainers give Ministers their power to learn here this truth from you that God giveth the power by his Donative word and men do but determine of the person that shall from God receive it But yet a determination there must be and that of Gods appointment R. B. I told him that R. Smith called Bishop of Calcedon Governour of the English Papists ubi supra confesseth it to be no part of their faith that the Pope is St. Peters successor jure divino He answereth W. J. You should have done well to cite the place for I have no time to seek whole books over R. B. Note what trust is due to this sort of men I had to him in the same book cited the words in pag. 289. of my book and R. Calcedons book cap. 5. the words are To us it suffereth that the Bishop of Rome is St. Peter 's successor and this all the Fathers testifie and all the Catholick Church believeth but whether it be jure divino or humano is no point of faith Now when he came to the words where I cited them he wisely takes no notice of them And now when I refer him to the citation which was a few leaves before the weary wary man instead of an answer saith I should have done well to cite the place for he hath not time to seek whole books But what good will well-doing do to such a one as you where the better it is the worse you like it Is not this a false intimation that I did not cite them R. B. Qu. 4. I asked How shall we know who hath this Episcopal power What election or consecration is necessary to it If I know not who hath it I am never the better He answereth W. J. As you know who hath temporal power by an universal or most common consent of the people The Election is different according to different times places and other circumstances Episcopal Consecration is not absolutely necessary to true Episcopal Iurisdiction R. B. More hard things still 1. I know who is King in temporal power in our hereditary Kingdom by the constitution of the Monarchy confest by all men to be hereditary and so attested by Law and History and by most credible testimony and uncontrouled fame that CHARLES the Second is the true Heir And in Elective Kingdoms as Poland it is known by publick undenied testimony But do Bishops become such by their birthright and hereditary Title who hath asserted that If it be by Election the Electors must have just power to elect 2. But what mean you by common consent of the people No man can tell whether you join those words to know or to hath If you mean that I must know it by the peoples consent as notifying it to me it 's nothing to our question now nor is it always true The greater part of the people may mistake the Prince's right and suppose it to be in a Usurper and yet the Prince doth not lose his right by that nor must I believe them And I think in your Schisms
no man could say that the common consent of the people was always for him that carried it at last as right But if you mean as you seem that the universal or common consent of the people is the determining cause that must qualifie the person for the power Then either you mean an antecedent or a consequent consent If antecedent that is election which you say may vary If consequent it could not cause that which was caused before And it is not true that the consequent consent of the most of the people depriveth the King of his Power or proveth it to be in a Usurper 3. But seeing you here also say that Consecration is not absolutely necessary nor Election by any one sort or way but may be varied as times vary you have made either any man a Bishop that any men will chuse or you have made no man a Bishop for want of a determining application or no man can know himself or be known to be a Bishop If the question were Who is the true Husband of such a woman and you should say That her own antecedent consent or election is not necessary but without it sometimes the Kings election sometimes the Ministers sometimes the Parents may serve and Matrimonial celebration is not necessary it would follow that the woman may have a Husband against her will and before she consent and she may have many or can never know which is he for the King may chuse her one and the Priest another and the Parents a third So here 4. And if his Consecration be not necessary to Episcopacy how will you prove Ordination necessary to the Priesthood Here I noted R. B. that he resolveth the mysteries of their succession and mission into popular consent To this W. I. saith that he meaneth it only as the means of knowing it Ans. But I enquired of the causes or evidences by which a Bishop may be known from a Usurper what it is that maketh him a Bishop as I would know a man from a brute a Judg a Physician a Merchant from other men But he durst not come to this because guilt makes them conscious of their own defect But W. I. saith p. 50 It is sufficient that some generalities of Election be determined jure divino Ans. Let them be such that I may know a Bishop from a Usurper by and it is enough W. J. As that it he done by Christians by such as are capable to know who is a fit person for the Office chusing freely occording to the Laws of God the further determinations are left to the Church c. R. B. Worse still 1. If the men of York chuse a Bishop of London or several parties chuse ten Bishops here they are all chosen by Christians But that is not enough What if ten parties chuse ten Popes ten Kings ten Bishops the Christianity of the chusers will not prove them all authorized 2. Nor will the choosers capacity of knowing the capable prove it Three or four very wise men may best know who is capable to be a Judg a Bishop a Husband a Tutor a Physician c. and yet if they should choose all the Judges Bishops Husbands c. in the land the persons chosen by them would be never the more such than the unchosen 3. But being conscious that you had said nothing you put in these words according to the Laws of God But the question is How shall I know what makes a true Bishop according to the Laws of God and you skilfully tell me he must be chosen by knowing Christians according to the Laws of God He that is not satisfied by you with such talk let him be unsatisfied R. B. I here noted again that by his way none of our Churches are disabled from the plea of a continued succession for want of Episcopal Consecration Ordination or due Election 2. But that we cannot know their Bishops to be true Bishops because we cannot know that they have common consent He answereth W. J. No man argues you of the want of succession in your respective Sees because you want Episcopal Consecrations but because you want Episcopal Election Confirmation Vocation Mission Iurisdiction For your first Bishops in Queen Elizabeths time and the same is of your Ministers of Parishes were intruded by secular power the Capitula had the present power of electing the Bishops vid. caet R. B. 1. It 's well we are now quite rid of the old cavil of the Nags-head Consecration Why was not this confest sooner Did you well to abuse the people so long 2. I thought we had nothing to have proved but due Qualifications due election or consent and due Ordination or Consecration But here now comes in I know not what and how much more Confirmation Vocation Mission Iurisdiction All hard words Had I put him but to have told us the meaning of these also what work should I have made him 1. What is Confirmation without which Qualifications Election and Ordination make not a true Minister or Bishop O that we knew it 2. What is Vocation besides the three aforesaid and which is necessary ad esse 3. And what is Mission besides those three which is also so necessary 4. And what meaneth he by Iurisdiction that was wanting was it the Iurisdiction of the Collator or of the Receiver not the former for we never knew that God gave any Jurisdiction to the Clergy but the Pastoral power of guiding the Churches by the Word and Keys which is the work of their own office and the office of the Ordainer is â—…o ordain and if he have power to Ordain or Consecrate he hath that Jurisdiction which consisteth of that power If it be the Receivers Jurisdiction that he meaneth that is the same contradiction For to ordain one to the Pastoral office is to give him all the jurisdiction which is part of that office And for any other jurisdiction we wish Princes would keep it both from the ordainers and the ordained But he saith that our Bishops wanted Episcopal Election Is it come to that and yet the way of Election all this while made so indifferent What is Episcopâ—…l Election not an Election by Bishops that you affirm not Not an election to be Bishops that you deny them not It is therefore such an Election as is necessary to the being of a Bishop And what is that why all that we have been able to extort from you is That it be done by Christians capable to know fit persons choosing freely according to the word of God But what it is that is according to the Word of God and what measure of consonancy to the Word and in what points is necessary ad esse you durst never tell us And we say that our Bishops were chosen by Christians capable of knowing fit persons I confess that it is my own judgment that they should have the choice or consent of the people whom they are to oversee and
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
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
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
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
which we charge them with in Europe and yet the Papists so charge them still that they may seem to have reason for condemning them fearing that their non-subjection to the Pope will not seem enough with impartial men And as to the great Confidence that they seem to place in their succession to St. Peter and Christs words to him on this Rock I will build my Church and to thee I give the Keys c. and feed my sheep I have oft answered it more fully than is fit again to recite but these few hints I would commend to the Reader 1. That we affirm that Peter was among them as a fore-man of a Jury and no more and so Christ spake to the rest in speaking to him and the same power is given to the rest The Church is said to be built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ being the head Corner-stone Is not this as much as is said of St. Peter Christ gave them all the power of Holy Ghost and the remitting and retaining sins binding and loosing which is the Keys which he gave to Peter And they are all sent forth to feed Christs Sheep Now the Fathers give as high Titles oft to others as to the Pope yea and to Peter see what I have cited in my Key for Catholicks pag. 175. 176. and what Gataker hath cited out of Dionysius Tertullian Basil Ierome Augustine Theodoret Gildas Nicephorus c. Cin. 395. 396. 2. Peter never exercised any authority over any of the rest of the Apostles He called them not governed them not There is mention of Paul's reproving him Gal. 2. but none of his reproving them Schismes being among them and greatly lamented they are never directed to unite in Peter as the way to Concord nor to have recourse to him to end them Nay when the over-valuers of Peter made one party in the Schism among the Corinthians Paul seeks to take them off that way and set Peter in the same rank with himself and Apollos as Ministers only by whom they believed calling them Carnal for saying I am of Cephas never calling them to unite in him as the Head of all And had this been necessary what had this been but to betray the Churches 3. The Apostles were never properly Bishops but of a higher rank Bishops were the fixed Over-seers of particular Churches and no one had many But Apostles only planted them and governed them for their Confirmation and so passed on from one to another and had care of many such at once If any one Church might pretend superiority by vertue of succession it would be Ierusalem and next that Ephesus where it is said that Iohn the Beloved Disciple was as Bishop and which hath continued to this day 4. The Apostles as such had no Successors nor as Bishops in any distinct Seats The same Christ that called Peter called the rest and called especially the Beloved Disciple to whom on the Cross he commended his Mother when Peter had denyed him and he promised to be with them to the end of the World But no Bishops on Earth ever pretended to superiority over any other Churches as the Successors of the other eleven Apostles Where are those Seats or where ever were they If the Apostles Successors must rule the Churches as such tell us which be the other eleven and which be their Diocesses and of what extent Nay it is considerable that even in the times of domination there were but five Patriarchates ever set up and not twelve and not one of those claimed Power by vertue of succession from any Apostle Constantinople never pretended to it Alexandria claimed the honour of succession only from St. Mark who was no Apostle And Ierusalem from Iames whom Dr. Hammond laboureth to prove to have been none of the Apostles but a Kinsman of Jesus Only Antioch and Rome claimed succession from Peter and Antioch as his first Seat but they did on that single account claim Power then over other Churches And seeing the Church is built on the Foundation of Apostles and Prophets and that all the Apostles 1 Cor. 12. are mentioned equally as the noblest Foundation Members or Pillars and the People chidden sharply by Paul for making Cephas a Head What reason have we to believe that Peter only hath perpetual Successors fixed to a certain City and that no other of all the Apostles have any such What word of God will prove that Peter hath left his Power at Rome and no other Apostles no not one hath left theirs to any Place or Person on Earth yea and that he left it more to Rome than to Antioch when Antioch claimeth the first succession from him and Rome but the second and when Nilus and others have said so much to make it probable that Peter never was at Rome and when it is certain that Paul was there and those old Fathers that from some word of one of Eusebius his doubtful Authors do say that Peter was at Rome and Bishop there do also say that it was the Episcopal Seat of Paul and when it is certain that no Apostle was any-where a Bishop formaliter but only eminenter as being not fixed nor fixing their Power to any Seat And Dr. Hammond giveth very considerable conjectures That if Peter and Paul were both at Rome they had divers Churches there Paul being the Bishop of the Uncircumcision and Peter of the Circumcision only from whence we may see that the Spirit of God in his Apostles judged that there might be more Churches and Bishops in one City than one much more over a thousand Parishes though as the contrary Spirit prevaileth the contrary Interest and Opinion prevailed with it These things premised the Reader must know that the state of the Controversie between Mr. Terret alias Mr. Iohnson and me is this Finding the Church of Rome in possession of abundance of Errours and Vanities he would not only perswade us that they are of God and have ever been the same because it is so with them now but also concludeth that these Carbuncles are essential to Christianity and the Church and that we cannot prove that we are a Church and Christians unless we prove that we have had from the Apostles a continued succession of their Errours As if a man could not prove himself to be a man unless all his Ancestors from Adam had the French-pox or the Leprosie On the contrary I maintain that the Church of Christ which is his Body is essentiated by true consent to the Baptismal Covenant which is our Christening and integrated by all the additional degrees that this Covenant is expounded in the Creed Lord's Prayer and Christian Decalogue The Lord's Supper is but the same Covenant celebrated by other signs not for Essence but Confirmation That all that consent to the celebrated Baptismal Covenant heartily are Members of the invisible Church and all that profess consent in Sincerity or Hypocrisie are visible Members
coram Ecclesia That the true Church of Christ hath no other Head than Christ himself no Vicarious Universal Head Pope nor Council That the Protestants profess themselves Members of no other Universal Church but that of which Christ only is the Head and all Christians at least not cast out are Members that this Christian Church hath been visible to God by real consent and visible to man by professed consent from the first being of it to this day And when they ask us Where was your Church before Luther we say where there were Christians before Luther Our Religion is nothing but simple Christianity We are oâ—… no Catholick Church but the Universality of Christians We know no other but lament that the pride of the Clergy growing up from Parochial to Diocesan and from Diocesan to Metropolitical and Patriarchal and thence to Papal hath invented any other and that the Serpent that tempted Eve hath drawn them from the Christian simplicity They deny not the successive visibility of Christianity and the Christian Church We desire no more we own we know no other Religion and no other Church But the Roman Artifice here comes in and when their HUMANE UNIVERSAL HEAD hath made the grand Schism of the Christian World hence they have learnt to make Christians of no Christians and no Christians of Christians as Pride and Ignorance serving this usurping interest please Their Doctors are not agreed whether any more be necessary explicitely to be believed to Salvation than that there is a God and that our works shall be rewarded without believing a word of Christ or the Gospel and whether they that believe not in Christ are Christians or whether being no Christians yet they are Members of the Christian Church And the greater part are here on the wider Latitudinarian side as you may see in Fr. S. Clara's Problemes Deus Nat. Grat. and in the words of this W. I. before answered And yet these charitable men conclude that two or three parts of the true Christian world Abassines Copties Syrians Iacobites Georgians Armenians Greeks Moscovites Protestants are all out of the Church of Christ though their own Fryars that have lived among some of them in the East profess that they are no Hereticks and are better Men than the Papists are and none worse of Life than the Roman Party And whence is this strange difference Why it is because that these are none of them subject to the Pope which it is supposed that those are that believe only that there is a God and a Reward But how is this their only explicite Faith if they must also believe that the Pope is the Vice-Christ And some of them tell you further that he that should so far believe his Ghostly Father the Priest as to hold that he is not bound to love God because the Priest tells him so is not only excusable but he meriteth by it So much more necessary to Salvation is it to love the Priest than to love God And yet after all this their own Leaders confess that it is no Article of their Faith that the Pope is Peter's Successour and that it is not by Revelation that the Church-Governours must be known as I have shewed out of Ri. Smyth Bishop of Calcedon and of England and in the fore-confuted Writings of W. I The things that I maintain are I. That the Protestants Religion and Church being only the Christian as such had an uninterrupted succession as such which the Papists deny not II. That the Papal Church as such cannot prove its constant visibility and succession Nay though it be their part to prove it we are ready to prove 1. That it is a Novelty 2. That it hath been often and notoriously interrupted and their Papacy hath not had any continued succession of Men truly Popes by their own Laws and Rules and in their own Account CHAP. I. The Confutation of W. J's Reply THE first regardable Passage in W. I's Reply is p. 53 54. Where he maintaineth that whatsoever hath been ever in the Church by Christ's institution is essential to the Church and nothing meerly Integral or Accidents Because I had omitted the word ever in the Confutation he taketh that as the Insufficiency of all that I said against him and challengeth me still to give an Instance of any Institution not essential to the Church of Christ that hath been ever in it But Reader is Perpetuity any proof of an Essential He was forced to confess that as other Societies so the Church hath Accidents but he faith no Accidents instituted have been ever in it It may be we shall have a Quibble here upon the sense of the word ever whether it was from Everlasting or from the Creation or before Christ's Incarnation or before his Resurrection or the forming of his Church by the Spirit in the Apostles But in Consistency with his own Cause which is That the Papacie hath been ever in the Church he must take up with this last sense Well Let us see what work these Men make and how they are taken in the Traps that they lay for others But first he shall have some confuting Instances 1. Every word of Christ's own Doctrine and Speeches recorded in the Gospel hath been ever in the Church and instituted by Christ but every word of Christ's own Doctrine and Speeches recorded in the Gospel is not essential to the Church Therefore every thing instituted by Christ that hath been ever in the Church is not essential to it If you say that it was not all written till after some years it was yet all in the Church even in the Minds of them that wrote it and the other Apostles and in their Preachings as is like If you say that all this is essential alas then if false Copies have lost us a word the Church is lost and those Churches that received not some words were Unchurched That Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate hath been ever in the Church's Creed and yet the Name of Pontius Pilate is not essential to Christianity 2. The Administring the Lord's Supper in both kinds Bread and Wine hath been ever in the Church and of Christ's own Institution Is this essential to the Church Perhaps some will have the impudence to say that it is not now in it because the Pope hath cast it out but it is now in all the rest of the Church And we might as well say the Papacie is not now in because other Churches do reject it 3. Prayer in a known Tongue was ever in the Church and of Christ's Institution and yet you think it not essential to it 4. The use of the second Commandment as such Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image c. was ever in the Church and yet you have left it out of the Decalogue 5. The Office of Deacons hath been ever in the Church since their Institution Act. 6. yet few think them essential to the
Christians and so not of the Church indeed 2. We know of no Faith in Christ but that which you call Explicite Faith in Christ Common custome calleth those Infidels that never heard that there is a Christ or who he is or hearing it doth not believe it And he cannot believe it that doth not hear it Most of the Infidel and Heathen World profess to believe Gods veracity and that all that he saith is true if this be an implicite believing in Christ almost all the Heathen World believeth in him use Names and Words as you see cause These are Infidels in our use of speech 3. The place in Sancta Clara is pag. 113. besides 109 110. c. the words are too large to be transcribed he citeth many Authors to prove such in the Church and saved where after much to that purpose he saith What is clearer than that at this day the Gospel bindeth not where it is not authentically preached that is that at this day men may be saved without an explicite belief of Christ For in that sense speakes the Doctor concerning the Iews And verily whatever my illustrious Master hold with his Learned Mr. Herera I think that this was the Opinion of Scotus and the Common one and he citeth many for it Read the rest your self in the Book and I defie your pretence that this is unjust Citation I cite none of this as if I were handling the question whether any besides Christians are saved But whether the Nations that never heard of Christ be Christians and Members of your Church But pag. 60. he will prove that nothing which Christ hath instituted to be ever in the Church is accidental to the Church For every accident is separable from the subject without destroying the subject whose accident it is But what Christ hath instituted to be ever in his Church is inseparable from it Ans. 1. What if it were not an Accident must it therefore needs be Essential Are there not Integral parts that are not Essential parts 2. You that boast so greatly of your Logick faculty should not so absurdly erre as you do in your major Do you not hereby deny all proper accidents which agree as omni soli ita semper Is not Risibilis an accident of man and yet inseparable 2. Is not quantity inseparable from a Body or natural substance 3. What the Porphyrians speak of an Intellectual separation you ignorantly or deceitfully apply to an actual eventual separation If Christ had been otherwise put to death than by crucifying or else-where than at Ierusalem if his Bones had been broken if he had not had the same integral parts and accidents of Body as he ever had he had been Christ still But yet it was Logically impossible that any of these should have been otherwise than they were they being fore-decreed of God If the Sun should cease moving illuminating heating you may say it would be still the Sun But yet it is certain that these accidents are eventually inseparable from it If you will cause Humidity to cease from Water or separate Gravity from Earth of Stone c. I shall think you have made them other things 4. But to instance as you do in such a being as the CHURCH dishonoureth your boasted Logick greatly The ratio formalis of a Church is Relative and Relation is an accident and to say that accidents may all be separated from the Church without destroying it is to say that Relation may be separated that is the Church from it self or formal Essence without destroying it Do you conquer by such disputing as this was it by such that you had your boasted printed victory over such great Logicians as Bishop Gunning and Bishop Pierson Can you also prove that all accidents that is Relation may be separable from Families Schools Kingdoms without destroying them I hope you will not say that you mean that the separation destroyeth not the humanity of the Members and that this is the subject you mean for no more would Apostasie or Unchurching them destroy Humanity 3. And that no part may be sound your minor is false as well as your major What Christ by his Law commandeth or prescribeth to be in the Church that he instituteth But all cometh not to pass which Christ commandeth or instituteth He commandeth us higher degrees of Faith Love and other Duty than we perform You say No Man may change his institution but doth it follow that no man doth change it No man ought to plead for Errour or deceive poor Souls Doth it follow that therefore you and such others do not so It is Gods command that we never sin It doth not follow that we never do sin When the Apostles strove who should be greatest it was Christs institution that they should not seek for domination or superiority as the Princes of the Earth do but be as little Children and strive who should be most humble and serviceable and take the lowest place and it was St. Peters Doctrine that Bishops must not Lord it over the Flocks nor rule them by constraint but voluntarily but doth it follow that all this is done by all no nor by your pretended Head who is made an essential part of the Church I conclude then 1. That many accidents are not separable without destruction of the subject 2. That many more shall never be separated 3. That relation is not separable from the Church nor numbers neither 4. That there are Integral parts which are neither Accidents nor Essentials 5. That every thing is not ever in the Church nor in any man which Christ hath commanded or instituted to be ever in it And if that may be in a man which Christ forbiddeth so may it be in the Church and so that be absent which he commandeth 6. That it is a novel Opinion contrary to common Reason and all true Theologie and which a Catechized Child should be ashamed of to hold that all that Christ hath instituted to be ever in the Church is essential to it And so that the Church would be nullified if one word of the Holy Scriptures perished by the carelesness of Scribes or Printers or if one decent order were changed or if one Office were depraved c. 7. It aggravateth the errour to hold that every instituted apex or perfection for continuance is Essential to the Church and yet even the explicite belief that Iesus is the Saviour is not essential to a Church-Member or a Christian. 8. That this Disputer absolutely nullifieth the Roman Church which hath changed the Sacrament and Prayer and Church-Officers c. which were instituted by Christ to be ever in the Church But I noted to him that our question to him was Whether the holding such thing to be instituted be essential to the Church and not whether the institution it self be so May not the Opinion be but integral or an accident Here he replies without blushing 1. That thus I yield up
Iudgments which he executeth Psal. 9. So all things and power now are given unto Christ and he judgeth the World as Lord of all For the Father judgeth no Man but hath committed all Iudgment to the Son Joh. 5. 22. 7. He denyeth Christ's final visible Judgment if he hold strictly to his words That the Exercise of Christ's Pastorship is only in spiritual Influences and internal Graces If you say that some of my Instances are not of his Pastoral but his Regal Offices I answer that it is but some that you so except 2. It is a mistake because his Pastoral and Regal Office are one and the same indeed not two Offices but two inadequate Metaphorical conceptions of one and the same Office of Christ And it belongeth to the Pastor to provide Food for his Flock to govern them to fetch them home and to defend them and destroy the Wolves He saith all that is visible is done by visible pastors and all that is invisible by Christ in the Pastoral Function as if Christ did nothing which they do or no more than they do And he reproacheth Christ's Church as being a Monster unless it have some other visible Head Like Cardinal Bertrand see his words in his Book in Biblioth Patrum that saith God had not been wise if he had not made one Universal Monarch over all the World And when we have fully proved that a mere Humane visible Church-Governour over all the round Earth is impossible and such Power never was deputed by Christ to any and that the far greatest part of the Church never owneth or did own such Will it not then follow that his reproach of Christ's Church and Government is unjust and rash And would it not follow by the same reason that the Earth as Gods Kingdom which Christ also is the King of is a Monster being a visible Body unless it had one mere Humane visible Head Are not Men as Men and governable by the Sword as visible as Men as Christians and governable by the Word and Keys If so which is undeniable Why is the Christian World any more a Monster without a Monarch Bishop than the Humane World without a Monarch King But pag. 66 67. he asks Whether Christ performed immediately any visible Action in relation to the Church and saith Men will expect that I shew that Christ not in his Person but in the Exercise of his Pastoral Headship works visibly by himself Answ. If it be not the Person 's Visibility that you require but the Action that is considered either as it is Agentis or as in Passâ—… in the Receiver The former is seen if ever only when it is the seen Moâ—…us of a Body If the latter I have named you divers visible Acts of Christ. But why must immediate come in Doth not my hand write visibly unless I do it without a Pen How little Government do great Emperours exercise immediately in all their Empire even none in the far greatest part in all their Lives but give out their Laws and Mandates to others What Government hath your Pope exercised immediately in Abassia Armenia Tartary Persia yea or Mexico much less at the terra australis incognita and all that side of the Earth which Lactantius Augustine c. denyed He confesseth that he cited not Ephes. 4. to prove the Papacie but successive Pastors Reader think seriously 1. whether the Pope be not an invisible Head and his Church a Monster by this mans rules Doth he rule all his Church immediately or by others If by others doth not Christ do so and better And was Pope Zachary the visible Head at the Antipodes when he commanded Boniface to excommunicate Vigilius for holding such a World under us as we call the Antipodes And is this Pope a capable Head of all the World that denyeth the very Being of them and holdeth that there is no such thing as so great a part of it O what a Pastor or Apostle is this that excommunicateth men for affirming the existence of the charge which he undertaketh The Answer to W. J's second-Chapter Whereas W. I. would perswade men that it is first incumbent on us to prove where there hath been a Church in all Ages without the Roman Papacie I first evidenced that it is incumbent on them as having the Affirmative to prove that the Universal Church hath been headed by the Pope in all Ages For 1. our Religion is nothing but Christianity as such And this they confess hath been in all Ages since Christs and Churches professing it so that all our Religion being past Controversie between us and them which is still to be noted we have no need to prove that which is not denyed who denyeth that there have been Christian Churches But it is their addition of the Papal Soveraignty over the Universal Church which is denyed by us and must be proved by them according to the common Rules of Disputation 2. And the denyal of their addition is the Renunciative Consequence and no direct and proper part of our Positive Religion True Faith is one thing and the Renunciation of all Errors contrary to it is another thing The one is such as may be defined the other in particulars hath no bounds I can soon say that There is one God the Father Almighty c. and in general that I deny any other but if I will undertake to name them all that are worshipped as Gods and say e. g. Sathan Iupiter Sol c. are no Gods I can never know when I have done and this is but a consequent of my Faith so it is to believe that Mahomet Amida Zachea c. are no Saviours Now if any would bid me prove Where there hath been Church in all Ages that did renounce Arrianism Macedonianism Nestorians Eutychians Monotheliâ—…es c. I cannot prove that any did expresly renounce these before they were known in the World and yet Christianity was the same Religion of the Church without any change before and after So W. I's demand upon his Plea of present possession is as if he should say The man of seventy years of Age which is now gray-headed and lame was ever so Or the Church which now honoureth St. Martin St. Thomas Aquinas as Saints is the true Church of Christ And if you cannot shew us that your Church hath in all Ages so honoured St. Martin c. you are not the true Church of Christ. What if it had been The Church that keepeth Easter-day as now we do and Christmas day on the 25th of December is the true Church of Christ therefore you must prove that your Church hath ever done so Could they prove their Papacy in the Empire as old it would have the same answer viz. It was but a part of the Church and not the whole that kept Easter and Christmas as we do now for one part kept Easter on another day till the Nicene Council ended that Controversie in the East and Christmas-day
on the 6th of Ianuary till after the middle of Chrysostom's time and so in the present case had it been as ancient as they pretend it was not Universal 2. But he saith that at least as Patriarch of the West by the Churches grant they were in full quiet possession of that Right or Power which we confess was lawful Ans. No such matter We make no such Confession Those Protestants who think that the superiority of Patriarchs is lawful do hold that it is by humane Laws and that if any such Laws were made by that which you call the Church that is by Councils it was by such Councils as in such matters received their Power from the Emperours without which they might not set up one City above another nor distribute Provinces and Diocesses and as was done and therefore that while the Imperial Laws enforced them they had the Law to bind Subjects to obey them but when any Kingdom was cut off from the Empire it was from under those Laws and under the Laws of their own Prince and the former decrees of Councils were no Laws to them any longer though they might by voluntary contract still associate with Forraign Lands So that such hold 1. That while Britain was under the Roman Empire they owed some respect or obedience to the Pope as Patriarch of the West as English-men do the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury 2. That before and after they owed him no more obedience than to the Bishop of Rhemes or Arles 3. That when the Saxon Kings permitted the first English Bishops voluntarily to subject themselves to the Patriarch of Rome they made themselves Debtors of all lawful obedience which they promised 4. That when the Saxon and Danish Kings Commanded their Subjects such lawful obedience to the Bishop of Rome they owed it him by the obligation of their Soveraigns Laws 5. And when those Laws ceas'd their obligation ceased and when those Laws forbad it it became unlawful And so the Roman Patriarch had no power in England when the King and Law did deny it him or cease to give it him This is the judgment of those Protestants that think such Patriarchs lawful The other that think them a sinful Usurpation think that they were never lawful yet he urgeth us with what Conscience we ceased to obey them Pag. 74. he saith Prove that any Church which now denyeth it hath been always visible and I am satisfied whether that Church always denyed it or no. Ans. This hath some moderation in it 1. There hath no Church but that of Ierusalem been always visible from the beginning of Christianity for no other was at first existent 2. And that was not visible from the beginning of the World 3. This Church of Ierusalem as it consisteth of the most Christians there now denyeth your Papal Power 4. The Churches of Alexandria Antioch and Abassia now deny it and have been always visible 5. The Church of Ephesus and many others of Greeks that now deny it have been always visible since Paul's time and Constantinople since the first planting 6. And I pray you note that the Church of Rome hath not been always visible for it did not exist till some years after that at Ierusalem Yea note that you cannot pretend that the Bishop of Rome was the Universal Bishop from the beginning for you confess Peter was first Bishop of Antioch and all that while Rome was not the Mistress Church And so if you should have the Supremacy it must be by a change from the first State Though indeed Peter himself never claimed nor exercised any such thing much less did he ever leave it to a Successor and least of all as fixed to one City any more than St. Iohn's power was to the Bishop of Ephesus And indeed Bellarmine himself dare not deny but that the Seat of the Universal Bishop may possibly be removed from Rome to some other place And then suppose it were to Avignion or to Constantinople where is St. Peter's Successor How must he be chosen or how shall his power above others be known when all the old pretensions faile Pag. 78. till then there 's nothing but vain words When I noted that They that make Christ corporally present in every Church in the Eucharist should not say that the King of the Church is absent He replyeth We dispute of a proper visible presence such as is not in the Eucharist Ans. You affirm that Christ is there corporally present under the Forms of Bread and Wine and that the Bread which we see is the Body of Christ and no Bread and yet that we see not the Body of Christ Sure we see something or nothing and if it be something and not Bread nor Christs Body what is it But suppose that it be not Christs Body which we see yet while the Bread is turned into his Body that which you do see is nearer to him than a Kings Crown or Clothing is to the King and yet if you see the King only in his Cloths his â—…ace being vailed will you say that he is not a visible King Doth clothing make Kings or the species of the Consecrated Bread make Christ to become invisible 2. Do you not bow towards him on the Altar Do you not carry him in procession about the Streets and do you not constrain all that meet you to kneel down and adore sure you do not think him to be out of sight or hearing or far off to whom you pray and whom you so honour as present As Paul said to the Iews God is not far from every one of us so that Christ who is adorably present in his Body on the Altar and corporally present in every Receivers hand and mouth surely hath not yet forsaken the Earth so far as to be uncapable of constituting a visible Kingdom without a Pope Pag. 79. I told him that When they prove 1. That Christ is so absent from his Church that there is need of a Deputy to essentiate his Kingdom and 2. that the Pope is so deputed they will have done their work He replyeth I have proved that Christ instituted St. Peter and his Successors to govern visibly his wholly Universal Church in all Ages Ans. Wonderful when was it and where Let the Reader find any such thing in your writing for I cannot no not a word Had that been done I had contradicted you no longer but if it be by an Invisible Proof that your Visible Head reigneth I cannot judge of it He next addeth I press you therefore once more to give an instance of something which hath been ever in the visible Church by Christs institution and yet is accidental to the Church Ans. 1. If I have not given you such Instances and Reasons also to prove that all that Christ instituted to continue is not essential let the Reader say that I have failed you 2. But if I had not what is it to your cause will it thence follow that
you have said a word to prove that Christ instituted the Universal Head-ship of the Pope Or rather do you not overthrow it your self by such arguing seeing 1. the Headship of Rome hath not been ever in the Church as you confess 2. It never was in the Universal Church either instituted by Christ or received by the Church one hour but only for a time received by a corrupt oppressed part of the Church 3. The Pope hath cast out divers things instituted by Christ for continuance as is proved I told him that though the King were absent it is only the King and Subjects that are essential to a Kingdom the Deputy is but an Officer and not essential He replyeth 'T is so indeed de facto But suppose as I do that a Vice-King be by full authority made an ingredient into the essence of the Kingdom then sure he must be essential Ans. Yes by very good reason if he be made essential he is essential and now I understand what is your proof you suppose it to be so But if it be so in our case then the Pope is essentially so the Churches constitutive Head that when-ever he dyeth the Church is dead unless you can say as our Law doth of the King Papa non moritur and when the Church hath been two or near three years without it was no Church and when it had two or three Popes it was no Church or two or three Churches But saith W. I. This is evident in our present Subject for though all the Pastors in Christs Church be only his Officers and Deputies yet you cannot deny such Officers are now essential to his visible Church Ans. 1. When I heard the word Evident I lookt for something But I had nothing but you cannot deny it and what true Christian ever yet denyed it But I do not remember that ever I heard it disputed before affirmed or denyed He that would deny it will say that as all the Mayors Bayliffs and other Magistrates of Corporations are indeed essential parts of those Corporations and these Corporations are the noblest integral parts of the Kingdom but no essential parts of it so that if the Kingdom should be resolved into a King and meer common Subjects only it were a Kingdom still so it is in the Church Particular gathered Churches are the noblest integral parts of the Universal Church but not essential And Pastors are essential parts of those particular Churches But if all the particulars and Pastors should cease the Church would be a Church still while there is a Christ and meer Christians But this never will be in this world because Christ will not only have a Church but a well-formed organized Church Those that had rather use the word essential of the Pastors will say that as soul and body are the only essential parts of a man and yet the brain heart and liver may be called essential parts of the body as distinct from the rest because without these it is not corpus orgâ—…nicum and so not humanum so though Christ be the only soul of the Church yet Officers may be essential parts of his body as organical capable of such a soul And though the other will reply that this is but a deceiving Metaphor Christ being not only the soul but the head and no organical Members being more than noble Integrals because if an Intellectual separation be made the Church is a Church still in such a conception Yet all this is but a Controversie of the aptitude of the word Essential in that case we are agreed that Officers shall be in the Church to the end And yet Saint Paul 1 Cor. 12. calls them but eyes and hands and never heads but reserveth that title to Christ alone yea even when he speaketh of Apostles And yet if any Officers were Essential it would be Apostles who are called Foundations and Pillars of the House but none of them the Head 2. But what 's all this to our Controversie What if Pastors were Essential to the Church viz. that there be some Doth it follow that the Bishop of Rome is any more essential to it than the Bishop of Ierusalem or Antioch If so then 1. Before Peter is feigned Bishop of Rome the Church was no Church All the while that he dwelt at Ierusalem and Antioch 2. And then if Rome were burnt or the Bishop of it ceased the Church were no Church Sir our true question is Whether a trayterous Usurper of Universal Soveraignty received by a third part of the Church and refused by all the rest be essential to the Church Not as whether the heart or head but a Scab or Cancer be essential to the body After some vain repetitions pag. 82. he repeateth the sum of his fraudulent Argument which he calls The force of his Discourse viz No Congregation of Christians hath been perpetually visible but that which acknowledgeth the Popes Supremacy Ergo No Congregation of Christians is Christs true Church save that Ans. I will therefore repeat the sum of my Answer viz. The word Congregation is ambiguous 1. Either it meaneth a company met together 2. Or a number of such Congregations owning one Superiour being part of the Universal Church 3. Or the Universal Church it self Accordingly I answer 1. That in the first sense a Congregation is called the same either because the same men live or because the survivors dwell in the same place or because they are of the same profession In the two first respects it is not necessary that any Congregation continue the same for men dye and places may be conquered or ruined In the third sense All true Christian Congregations in the world are of one and the same species as Christian from the beginning to this day II. In the second sense of the word Congregation I answer like as to the former The men dye the places are mutable but as to the common Christian Profession they are the same that they have been but as to the extent of Diocesses neither you nor we can deny but that they have altered Scotus Petavius and Doctor Hammond who hold that Bishops without Presbyters were first setled must hold that a Church then was but one Assembly or no more than one Bishop could speak to But de facto all agree that it was not long before they widened by degrees And in this sense the Churches of Abassia Armenia Ierusalem Alexandria c. are visible and have been from their beginning and some of them before Rome was The Churches of Ephesus Smyrna Thessalonica c. are and have been such And some Churches are visible which do not acknowledge the Popes Soveraignty that sometimes did viz. The Church of Britain in England and Scotland at first owned it not and after did receive it and after that cast it off again but it is visible and hath been from its beginnings The Churches of Denmark Sweden Transilvania and divers Countries of Germany were not
Churches from the beginning of the Christian Church nor was Rome it self so but ever since their beginnings they have been visible sometimes obeying the Pope and sometimes rejecting him the Abassines and several other Extra-imperial Churches never obeyed him The most of the Churches of the Empire the Eastern and African sometimes obeyed him as the chief in the Empire by the Laws of the Empire amd sometimes they cast him off when the Eastern Empire cast him off but they never obeyed him as the Soveraign Bishop of the whole World III. In the third sense of the word Congregation as it signifieth the Universal Church I confess that I can shew you no Universal Church now visible rejecting the Pope for the Universal leaveth out no part though a corrupt part and while Papists own him I cannot say that the Universal Church disowneth him but I can prove 1. That the Primitive Universal Church never owned any Universal Head or Governour but Christ and his twelve Apostles whose indefinite charge may be called Universal 2. That the Universal Church never owned the Roman Universal Soveraignty 3. That the far greatest part of the Church doth not own it at this day and therefore if the whole may be denominated from the major part we may say that now the Universal Church disowneth him And now Reader answer these like Sophisms and you have answered this man of Art 1. No Congregation of Christians hath been perpetually visible but that which acknowledgeth the Patriarchs in the Empire at least heretofore Ergo no other is the true Church of Christ. Answ. 1. But another is part and the best part of the Church of Christ. 2. And none that doth or ever did acknowledge those Patriarchs was the whole Church 3. And none of the Church acknowledged them at first before they were erected So 2. Inst. No Congregation of Christians hath been perpetually visible but that which condemneth the Monothelites the Nestorians the Eutychians the Audians the Luciferians the Quartodecimani c. Ergo no other is the true Church Answ. 1. Part of the Church condemn them and part never heard of them And before they rose none of the Church condemned them So another Instance is No Congregation of Christians hath been perpetually visible but that which Administreth the Eucharist only in one kind without the Cup and which useth publick Prayers in an unknown Tongue and which forbiddeth the reading the Scripture translated without special License c. Ergo no other is the true Church Answ. 1. Only a corrupt part now doth these The most discover it and none were guilty of it in many Generations Doth there need any other Answer to such palpable Sophismes His Argument plainly should run thus No Congregation of Christians hath been perpetually visible but that which now owneth the Trayterous Usurpation of the Pope and the Council of Trent and of Lateran and part of whose Religion is for exterminating or burning all that will not renounce all belief of Humane Senses in believing Transubstantiation and for casting out Princes that execute not this and absolving Subjects from their Oathes of Allegiance to them and which hath corrupted the Doctrine Worship and Government of Christ Ergo no other is the true Church Answ. A diseased part of the Church only is guilty of this now and the whole Church was far from it heretofore But pag. 83. he telleth me that he meaneth neither one present Assembly nor yet one as united in one visible Humane Head but abstracting from that also be it but truly and properly one whencesoever the Unity is drawn 't is all alike to the solution of the Argument Answ. Then sure our business is in a hopeful way if not as good as ended Remember this and fly not from it Our Unity is in Christ our Head One King maketh us one Kingdom All Christians are one Body of Christ. Yea moreover we are one in all the seven Points of Unity required by the Holy Ghost Eph. 4. viz. We have 1. One Body of Christ not of the Pope 2. One Spirit 3. One hope of our Calling viz. Eternal Glory 4 One Lord without a Vice-Christ 5. One Faith summarily in the Creed and integrally in the Holy Scriptures 6. One Baptisme or solemnised Baptismal Covenant 7. One God and Father of all who is above all and through all and in us all Yea as to the Integrals though our Grace hath various degrees we all receive the inspired Prophets Apostles and Evangelists Authority and Doctrine and the ordinary Pastors and Teachers that are sent by the Holy Ghost and called by the way which God hath appointed though we receive not an Usurper that maketh himself the Governour of the whole World in Title while he Governeth not the tenth part of it nor any according to God's Law and who is oft obtruded by Whores and Murders and is a wicked Slave of Satan so judged by his own General Councils We acknowledge that there are among us different Opinions but neither for Kind or Number comparable to the differences of the Papal Sectaries among themselves Not for Kind such as about Murder Adultery Perjury Lying False-witness yea about the Love of God it self are by the Iansenists charged on the Iesuits and proved out of their express words Nor such as Mr. Clarkson hath collected from the express words of their most famous Doctors of all Parties Nor such about King-killing dissolving Subjects Oathes c. as H. Fowlis hath gathered from the express words of your greatest Doctors And for Number all the Sects in the World of Christians set together have not half the Controversies and contentious Writings against each other as your Schoolmen and other Writers of your Church have For our parts we look not that our Union should be perfect till our wisdom and holiness and patience and we our selves be perfect They that know but in part will err in part and differ in part We believe that there are diversities of Gifts but the same Spirit and differences of Administrations but the same Lord and diversity of Operations but the same God who worketh all in all For as the Bedy is one and hath many Members and all the Members of that one Body being many are one Body so also is Christ For by one Spirit we are Baptised into one Body and have been all made to drink into one Spirit Thus are we the Body of Christ not of the Pope and Members in particular And God hath set some in this Body the Church first Apostles not first a Vice-Christ secondly Prophets thirdly Teachers but no Universal Vicar-Head All these are Members and should so live in love that there be no Schisme in the Body But pag. 84. the Man is not satisfied though I name them what I mean by These Churches united in one Christ. Answ. How should I make a Man know that is unwilling or how but by naming them by their Country and Profession I mean All the Christians of
must I tell you the Opinions of all the People of foreign Lands Is this necessary to know a Papist Cannot I tell you that Men are Papists that profess subjection to the Pope as the Vice-Christ unless I tell you that they are Molinists or Dominicans Franciscans Benedictines Jesuits Jansenists c. Their Profession of Christianity is notorious if you can prove them no Christians do I suppose that one of twenty thousand of them never studied the Eutychian or Nestorian Controversies any more than those Christians that died before these Names and Men were born and I suppose that when these Names came first up one Pastor of an hundred might side with one of these Sects which the Ages following little minded as to any considerable number and I suppose that some that defended Eutyches and Nestorius knew not what the Heresie was and erred not so grosly as those Iesuits did about Murder Adultery Perjury c. whom Montaltus and the Iesuits Morals describe nor your common Doctors cited by Mr. Clarkson no nor so bad as the Councils of Rome Constance and Basil say your Popes have done nor as others of you say those Councils did no nor as the Council at the Laterane did in decreeing the Exterminations of all that you call Hereticks and the deposition of Princes that will not exterminate them and the disobliging Subjects from their Oathes of Allegiance But if this arguing of yours be good suppose it used with your selves It is not enough that you profess your selves Christians and Papists tell us what other Opinions you are of or else how can we know that you are Christians But we are ashamed of such Methods when the Law of Nations bindeth all Men beyond their Profession to prove that they are no Traytors no Thieves Fornicators Lyars c. then I may yield that Men professing Christianity must prove further that they are no Hereticks or invalidate not their own Profession But yet I will not then grant you that any are obliged to prove this but themselves How can I prove such Negatives of millions in the remote parts of the Earth if they could prove it of themselves Call them to do it if you must have such Negatives proved But see that you call them one by one for my Neighbour's errour proveth not mine If I were put to take you and all the Papists in England for no Christians unless I could prove you to be no Sectaries no Hereticks no Traytors no Drunkards Perjured Fornicators c. How were it possible for me to prove it by any one of you This is one difference it seems between the Justice of the Papal Church-Government and Christ's And perhaps this is the ground of the Racks and Torments of the Inquisition to make Men confess what Opinion they are of The Answer to W. J's third Chapter He begins that which he calls his third Chapter pap 88 89. with again repeating his Question thus Were they all united in the profession of one and the same Faith and Unity of external Communion without those two it 's impossible to be united in Christ. Answ. I am afraid these Repetitions will tire the Reader I have proved them united in one Faith even the Christian Faith and in one External Communion in much more of it than is essential to Christianity viz. in one Baptism the Lord's Supper prayer praise thanksgiuing confession of sins preaching and reading the Word of God observation of the Lord's Day c. without differing in any thing inconsistent with the Unity of the Body of Christ But if by the ambiguous word of Unity of External Communion you should mean either that they must meet all in one place or be all under one Pastor these you before disowned And if you mean that they must all have one Book of Liturgie you know that so had not your Roman Church of above 600 years at least nor yet the Eastern Churches nor any considerable number of them every Bishop making his Lyturgie or Prayers as he saw meet If you mean that they must have no differences in any Word or Ceremony and that all are of several Churches or half of no Church who differ about Meats Drinks Days c. I shall not believe you while I believe the Scripture Rom. 14. and 15. 1 Cor. 8. Iam. 3. c. nor till I renounce Humanity or believe that Men of several Complexions Statures or Languages may not yet be all truly Men They that bring it to that that I am no Christian if I eat not Fish in Lent rather than Flesh may Unchristian me next if I eat not my Bread without Cheese or my Cheese without Bread or if I take not the Pope for my Apothecary or Physitian Lay by the Sword and Racks and Fires and the World will soon laugh down your arrogant Tyranny I demanded his Proof that ever there was a Papist or almost one Church of Papists in the World for 400 years after Christ And he tells me that the Oration of Pope Celestine 's Legates in the Council at Ephesus proveth it and though that Council was celebrated 430 yet in a moral consideration that passeth for 400 c. Answ. What cannot the Iesuits Morals make good By them 430 years is within the 400. And by them a Speech of the Pope's Legates goeth for proof of the Judgment of the Council But what was that Speech it self First Note that the Council was called by Theodosius the Emperour and not by Celestine sending his Literae Augustales to all the Metropolitans commanding them to appear at Ephesus 2. That Cyril and not Celestine was sent to at first for help from the Church at Constantinople 3. That Cyril presided And whereas the Papists feign that he did it as the Pope's Substitute the Councils Letters to the Emperour expresses that the Pope's three Legates were the Men that represented his Person Bin. p. 756. And that they commended to Theodosius the Judgment of the Pope but as the signification of common consent 4. And when all is done these words of Philip a Roman Presbyter is all that this great boast is of Thanking them for so receiving the Pope's Letters Non enim ignara est vestra beatitudo totius fidei caeterorumque omnium Apostolorum caput bâ—…atum Apostolum Petrum extitisse And after that Peter the Foundation and Head had the Keys and liveth and judgeth in his Successors But he denyeth not that the other Apostles also had the Keys and that the Church was built on the Foundation of the Apostles And these high words spoken to keep up the Pope's greatness in the Empire were but to maintain his place in Councils and never spoken to the Churches without the Empire nor such Power over them claimed by him And the Councils Decrees were past before these Legates came by whose consent Cyril was glad to strengthen his Party having been condemned by Ioh. Antioch Nestorius c. And doth not Hesichius say as much of
but the Orbis Romanus the whole Empire I added No credible witnesses mention your Acts of Jurisdiction over them or their Acts of Subjection which Church-History must needs have contained if it had been true that they were your Subjects He replyeth Is not Genebrard a Witness that Pope Eugenius wrote to the Emperour of Ethiopia 1437 to send Legates to the Council of Ferrara as the Greek Emperour had decreed to do to whose Letters and Legates David their Emperour sent a respectful answer and accordingly sent some of his Church to that Council as appears by the Acts of the Council and that 1524 the said David and Helena his Empress promised obedience to the Bishop of Rome Pope Clem. 7. Ans. I had rather you had called Father Parsons or Campion or Garnet your credible Witness than Genebrard a late railing Falsifier Such Tales as these be meet for the Ears of none but such as would believe you if you swore that all the Iews and Turks are Christians Do you think that your obtruding such abominable Forgeries commonly known by the Learned to be such and confessed by your own Writers will not increase our alienation from you Did you ever read the subscriptions of that Council when you say that the Acts declare that some of the Ethiopian Church were there Why did you not name them Do we not know how long a Journey it is to Abassia and how much more time the Pope must have had to have sent a message to the Emperour there and received an answer than the sudden calling of the Council at Ferrarâ—… to break another that had deposed the Pope as a 〈◊〉 and wicked man could consist with and that Council sitting a while at Ferrara removed by the plague to Florence was wholly taken up with the Greekâ—… and no mention of any Abassian there We have by Dr. Creightons Edition a better History of that Council than Binniâ—… c. gives us but nothing of this Indeed Binnius reports the now known Fable of an Armenian coming too late after the subscriptions but we have oft enough heard of your scenical Patriarchs and Bishops and feigned Nuncios You can make a Patriarcch or Bishop of any part of the World at Rome when you will and then say that those Churches have submitted to you These Forgeries are part of your foundation as Dr. Willet hath shewed in his Trerastyloâ—…s Papismi Why have you no Bishops no Regiment in Abassia and Armenia Had it been true that David and Helena had promised obedience to the Pope as Iohan. Paleologus the Greek Emperour partly did and forced some of his Bishops to do in his necessity hoping for help to have kept out the Turk till they were come home and then renounced the Act What had that been to the Question One Man and Woman is not the Church but he that will read but your own Godignus will see the utter falshood of your pretences to any thing in Abassia Next he nameth besides Genebrard six others Platina Nauclerus c. that he saith besides the Acts of the Florentine Council that say that the Armenians and Indians acknowledge the Soveraignty of the Roman Bishop through the Whole World Answ. 1. Though he names but his own late Partners yet he citeth not a word page or book of any one of them If any one of them have so gross a Fiction it is no more honour to them than to himself But the Council of Florence in whose Acts I should as soon look to find a Fiction as in any being a packt Anti-Council of a villainous deposed Pope hath no such word in any of my Books but only that which I cited of a forged too late coming of an Armenian And even their own Fiction talks not of his much less the Indians acknowledgment of the Pope's Soveraignty over the whole World He next addeth And as to more ancient times gives not the Arabick Translation of the first Council of Nice a clear Witness that the Ethiopians were to be under the Iurisdiction of the Patriarch of Alexandria and he under that of Rome Answ. I do not wonder that you use to lead the ignorant in your Disputes into a Wilderness or Wood of History under the Name of Antiquity and Tradition when you know your own Refuges Reader the famous Council of Nice hath been predicated and appealed to and gloried in by almost all Parties save the Arrians for many hundred years after it was celebrated and the Affrican Bishops of whom Austin was one had a long Contest with divers Popes for about twenty years about the true Copy of the Canons And now the other day comes one Alph. Pisanus and tells us that he hath found a Copy of them in Arabick and this tells you of the Ethiopians being under Alexandria by Canon and forty things more that were not in the Canons which the Church had for above a thousand years and this is very good Authority with a Papist And so they can yet determine what shall be in any ancient Council or Father as if they had the doing of all themselves It is but saying we have found an old Paper that saith so Why then do you not receive Eutychius Alexandrinus's Reports of that Council published by Selden which tells us other improbable things of it but hath far more appearance of Antiquity than your new-found Canons Next I noted that Their absence from General Councils and no invitation of them thereto that was ever proved is sufficient Evidence To this he saith I intend to make a particular Tract to prove this and to evidence the falsity of your Allegation from undenyable Testimonies of classic Authors and from the ancient Subscriptions of the Councils themselves Answ. A fine put-off I do not believe you dare attempt it for fear of awakening the World to the consideration of this notorious Evidence against you It is now above sixteen years since our writing and yet I hear not of your Book But the Reader need not stay for it let him but peruse the Subscriptions in your own Volumes of the Councils Crab Surius Binius Nicolinus and judge whether all the Christian World without the Empire were ever summoned to General Councils were present at them or judged by them any Bishops put in or out by them and judge as you see proof Next I noted that Their ancient Lyturgies have no Footsteps of any subjection to the Pope though the Papists have corrupted them which in a Digression I shewed out of Usher de succes Eccles. in that instead of Hic panis est Corpus meum in the Ethiopick Canon Universalis they have put Hoc est corpus meum To this he replyeth pag. 96. No more doth the Roman Missal nor that of France o Spain witness their subjection to the Pope Answ. That 's strange that you have suffered so much of the old form unchanged Gregory that denyed the Title of Universal Bishop was the chief Author
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
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
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.
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
it was at once specially when Binnius said that at Eph. 2. Concil Only Peter's Ship escaped drowning As to his Cavil at my Translation Whether Ab aliis plerisque totius orbis Episcopis be not to be Translated if not almost all the rest at least most of the rest of the Bishops of the whole World rather than very many others I leave to the ordinary Readers Judgment And as for either Canus or his own saying that all these the Greeks and most of the Bishops of the whole World the greater number of Churches and the Armed Emperours were all Schismaticks Hereticks and no Christians but Equivocally it is no weak proof of the falseness of their Cause and Tyranny that cannot stand without unchristening most of the Bishops and Churches in the World with such Emperours Canus his confession of the Historical Truth may be pleaded by me while I hate their Robbing Christ of the greatest part of his Church because they are not the Popes § 38. My Eighth Proof of the Novelty of the Papal Sovereignty was from Historical Testimony that the Papal sovereignty was no part of the Churches Faith nor owned by the Ancients This is done at large by Bloudel de Primatu and Pet. Moulin de Novitate Papismi usher Field of the Church lib. 5. Chaucer Whittaker Io. White and many other I instanced only in many Historians Regino Herman Contract Marian Scotus Beneventus de Rambaldis and others that say Phocas first constituted saith one or Boniface obtained of Phocas say others that the Church of Rome should be the Head of all Churches To this 1. He thinks I have forgot my first Thesis because he forgot that when I had proved by three Arguments my Thesis in the fourth to satisfie their importunity I proved it with the Addition that there hath been a Christian Church still visible that Obeyed not the Pope and so added ten more Arguments to prove this Negative or Exclusive part After he cometh to this again and would have ut Caput esset to be no more than an acknowledgment of a controverted Title But at least the Primus constituit confuteth that and it is not ut diceretur haberetur or denuò esset He citeth Platina as if it were a wonder for the Popes Houshold Servant to say that it was his Right 2. But I specially note that both what is said of Phocas and by him of Iustinian Gratian c. who constitute and command this Primacy and Subjection to it shew that it was but Imperial as to bounds and Authority I before mentioned Suarez himself in his Excellent Book De Legibus saying That God hath made no Laws of Church-policy And if so not of the Papacy § 39. I noted their Novelty out of Platina in Gregor saying What should I say more of this Holy Man whose whole Institution of the Church-Office specially the Old one was Invented and Approved by him which Order I would we did follow then Learned Men would not at this day abhor the reading of the Office Hence I Note 1. That all their Church-Office was new being Gregory's Invention though no doubt much of the Matter had been in use before that form 2. Therefore the maintainers of Tradition cannot prove that because they thus Worship God now therefore they always did so 3. Gregory's Invented Office hardly received in Spain was so altered in Platina's time that Learned Men abhorred the Reading of it 4. Why might they not corrupt Church-Government where Ambition had a thousand times greater baits as well as Church-Offices This is their Antiquity and constancy This W. I. thought meet in silence to pass by § 40. My Ninth Proof of the Novelty of the Papal Sovereignty was If the Generality of Christians in the first Ages and many if not most in the latter Ages have been free from the Essentials of the Papists Faith then their Faith hath had no Successive Visible Church professing it in all Ages but the Christians that are against it have been Visible But the Antecedent is true The Antecedent I proved in twelve Instances To this he saith It followeth not that though our Church as Papal had no Successive Visibility the Church whereof the Protestants are Members had ever since Christs time on Earth a Successive Visibility When you have proved this Consequence I Oblige my self to answer your Instances and so he durst not meddle with that matter but puts it off Answ. Reader see here what an Issue our Dispute is brought to Can you wish a plainer I proved that our Religion being nothing else but Christianity our Church hath been still Visible because it is confessed that the Christian Church hath been still Visible But the Papists must have us prove also that our Church-hath been still Visible as without Popery I now prove Popery a Novelty and doth not that then fully prove my Consequence that the Christian Church was Visible without it And I prove that this Novelty of Popery is yet received but by the third part of Christians of whom I am perswaded ten to one are either compelled to profess what they believe not or understand it not Therefore the Christian Church was once wholly and is yet mostly without Popery I know not when a Cause is given up if here he give not up his Cause § 41. Twelve new Articles of the Papal Faith I named 1. That the Pope is above aâ—… General Council Decreed at Later and Florence 2. Contrarily That the Council is above the Pope and may Iudge him c. Decreed at Basil and Constance True before as a point of Humane Order but not made ever an Article of Faith 3. That the Pope may Depose Princes and give their Dominions to others if they exterminate not all their Subjects that deny Transubstantiation Decreed at Later sub Innoc. 3. 4. That the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Iesus Christ is truly and really and substantially in the Eucharist and that there is a change of the whole substance of Bread into the Body and of the whole substance of Wine into the Blood which they call Transubstantiation Decreed at Trent and proved new by Ed. Albertinus Bishop Cousin's History of Trans and by my self 5. That the Eucharist is rightly given and taken under one kind without the Cup Decreed at Constance and Trent 6. That we must never take and Interpret Scripture but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers See the Trent-Oath whereas 1. We have no certainty whom to take for Fathers a great part being called both Fathers and Hereticks by the Papists 2. And they greatly disagree among themselves 3. And have not unanimously given us any sence at all of a quarter of the Bible if of the hundredth part 7. That there is a Purgatory and that the Souls there detained are holpen by the Suffrages of the Faithful 8. That the Holy Catholick Church of Rome is the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and
yet it is the Catholick that is the whole it self 9. That Traditions are to be received with equal pious Affection and Reverence as the Holy Scripture 10. That the Virgin Mary was conceived without Original sin Decreed at Basil. 11. That the people may not read the Scripture Translated into a known Tongue without a special License 12. That the Books of Maccabees and other such are part of the Canon of Faith against which see Bishop Cousins and Dr. Io. Reignolds See in Dr. Challenor's Credo Eccles. Cath. sixteen of their Novelties See Dallaus De cultu Latinorum their Worship proved new All this W. I. passeth over § 42. My Tenth Argument was If multitudes yea the far greatest part of Christians in all Ages have been Ignorant of Popery but not of Christianity then there hath been a Succession of Visible Professours of Christianity that were no Papists But the Antecedent is true Ergo c. Here I brought full proof of the Antecedent 1. From the Ignorance which they themselves accuse the Aethiopians Armenians Greeks Russians c. of and the Protestants also 2. The known Ignorance of the far most of the Vulgar in their own Church 3. The Papists charge on the Council of Chalcedon and others about their power 4. The difference of the Councils of Constance and Basil and Later and Florence about their Essentials 5. The large proof brought by Dr. Field Append. l. 3. Potter p. 68. Bishop Morton Apol. To this he Answers as to the last by notorious giving up his cause neither granting nor denying That there hath been a Succession of Visible Professours of Christianity that were no Papists which he saith is all that I prove Answ. And what need I more Is not the Succession of the Church as Christian granted by him Therefore if I prove it also Successively Christian without Popery I know not what else the Man would have But he saith Arrians may say so too Answ. Arrians are not Christians If his meaning be that besides our rejecting Popery we have some other Heresie which unchristeneth us 1. That 's nothing against my Argument which is but Christians Visibility ... 2. Why did he never tell us what that Heresie is Would he not if he could And was he not concerned to do it 3. It 's known that it is our rejecting Popery that is the Heresie they charge us with as to any other we defie their Accusation And 4. If any individual person be Accused let it be proved Our Religion Objective is justified by themselves from Heresie and all positive Error For it is nothing but the Sacramental Covenant briefly explained in the Creed Lords Prayer and Decalogue in the Essentials and in that and the Integrals all the Canonical Scriptures So that our proof of our Churches Visibility as Christian and not Papal is all that Reason can require of us And so this Task is done § 43. After these Arguments I added some Testimonies of Historians which shew how Melch-Canus words de facto are to be understood and how the word Catholick Church was then taken and how small a party the Papal Sovereignty had in the very worst times viz. Rog. Hoveden Mat. Paris in H. 2d shew that it was Avitas leges consuetudinis Angliae which the Pope here Damned and Anathematized all that favoured and observed them Here is Tradition Antiquity and the immutability of Rome The German History collected by Reuberus Pistorius Freberus and Goldastus fully shew That the Papal Tyranny only kept under by a Turbulent Faction the greater part by fraud and force which never consented to them The Apology of Hen. 4. the Emperour in M. Freberus To. 1. p. 178. saith Behold Pope Hildebrand's Bishops when doubtless they are Murderers of Souls and Bodies such as deservedly are called the Synagogue of Satan Yet they write that on his and on their party is the Holy mother-Mother-Church When the Catholick that is the Universal Church is not in the Schism of any Side or Party but in the Universality of the Faithful agreeing together by the Spirit of Peace and Charity And p. 179. See how the Minister of the Devil is besides himself and would draw us with him him into the Ditch of perdition Who writeth that God's Holy Priesthood is with only thirteen N. B. or few more Bishops of Hildebrand's and that the Priesthood of all the rest through the World are separated from the Church of God our Mr. W. I. would say that only these thirteen Bishops were Univocal Christians when certainly not only the Testimony of Gregory and Innocent but the Judgment of all the Holy Fathers agree with that of Cyprian that he is an Aliene profane an Enemy that he cannot have God for his Father that holds not the Unity of the Church And p. 181. But some that go out from us say and write that they defend the party of tâ—…r Gregory not the whole which is Christ's which is the Catholick Church of Christ so the Catholick Church and the Popes Sect are distinct And p. 180. But our Adversaries that went from us N. B. not we from them use thus to commend themselves We are the Catholicks We are in the Unity of the Church So the Writer calls them Catholicks and us that hold the Faith of the Holy Fathers that consent with all good Men that love Peace and Brotherhood Us he calls Schismaticks and Hereticks and Excommunicate because we resist not the King He addeth out of Isidore Etymol l. 8. The Church is called Catholick because it is not as the Conventicles of Hereticks confined in certain Countries but diffused through the whole World Therefore they have not the Catholick Faith that are in a part and not in the whole which Christ hath Redeemed and must Reign with Christ They that confess in the Creed that they believe in the Holy Catholick Church and being divided into Parties hold not the Unity of the Church which Unity Believers being of one Heart and Soul properly belongs to the Catholick Church So far this Apol. of the Emperour Here you see what the Catholick Church is and that the Papalines were then a little Sect of thirteen or a few more Bishops And now Reader open thine Eyes and Judge whether the Emperour and all the rest of the Western Churches besides all the rest a greater part of the Christian Word are therefore no Univocal but Equivocal Christians because a Papal Faction and an Equivocating Jesuite may call them so All this the prudent Disputer thought best to Answer by silence § 44. I added because of their noise of Heresies charged on the Abassines Syrians Armenians Greeks Protestants c. 1. That they differ in greater matters yea de fide than many things which they call Heresies are 1. I repeated the differences of their Councils Const. and Basil against Later and Florence c. 2. Pighius words Hierarch Eccl. l. 6. That these Councils went against the undoubted Faith and Judgment of the
sottish stuff as this 1. When will he make me know how his sufficient proposal may be discerned 2. And how the Hereticaters can know the sufficiency of the proposals to others Even many Kingdoms of men that they never saw seeing variety of Capacities Opportunities Educations Temptations c. maketh that insufficient to one that is sufficient to another 3. When will he prove that the plainest Scripture is no sufficient proposal till the credit of the Papall Clergy make it so and yet that the obscure volumnes of militant Councils that curse one another are sufficient proposals 4. Or that the word of a Jesuite is a sufficient notice to us what is in the Councils or what is their sence 5. Or who shall expound dark Councils to us when there are no Councils in our age in Being 6. How shall we know that a culpable neglect of a sufficient proposal through prejudice or temptation may never stand with Faith If so is there any man living that is not an Infidel or Heretick I challenge any man living to dare to make good that he never erred or doth erre in any point revealed in Scripture or Councils against sufficient proposal taking sufficiency as it is commonly in the controversie of sufficient Grace What if a man through culpable negligence know not how many years it was from Adam to the flood or know not who was the Father of Arphaxad c. when these are sufficiently proposed Doth this prove that he believeth not Gods Veracity As if there were no other sin that could frustrate any one sufficient proposal 7. But it is the fate of rash condemners to condemn themselves most notoriously If the plain words of Scripture in the institution of the Cup in the Eucharist against praying in an unknown tongue c. If the sensible evidence of Bread and Wine to all sound Senses that are neer be not a sufficient proposal what is Surely not such self-contradicting disputes as this of W. I. and others like him nor the Cant of the Church and all the world by a partial Sect but if Scripture the Tradition and Judgment of the most of Christians Reason and Sense can make up a sufficient proposal out of their own mouths are these men condemned as Hereticks to be avoided by all good Christians But I have more Charity for some of them then herein they exercise to themselves or others And in particular I will be so far from partiality as to profess that though Pope Honorius was an anathematized Heretick in the judgment of the 6th and other General Councils and of his Successors Popes I am not one of those that take him really for such in W. I's sence as held a Doctrine that did unchristen him Nay I take his Epistles to Sergius read in the 6th General Council to be two of the honestest peaceable Epistles that I have read from a Pope except some of Leo's and few more and I think that his counsel for to avoid contention to forbear both the name of two operations and of one operation and leave it to Grammarians and hold to plain Scripture-words was honest counsel And the hereticating of him and the rest by that Council increaseth not my veneration but my great dislike of Hereticating Councils and the factions of the Bishops it was not long after under the Emperour Philipicus when another General Council so great as it 's said it consisted of Innumerable Bishops at Constantinople revoked undid and destroyed all this that was done against Honorius and the Monothelites at the said 6th Council so ordinarily did General Councils condemn each other But what I say in excuse of Honorius I must say also in excuse of Sergius Constant. For he said but the same that Honorius did viz. that he would have had the controversie and the names of Two or One Operation laid by and yet Binnius can call Sergius a lying Heretick while he with others excuseth Honorius for the same And on this occasion I will conclude with a note out of the two Epistles of Cyrus to Sergius read in the same 6th General Council which hath this title Deo honorabili meâ—… Domino benigno Principi Pastorum Patri Patrum Universali Patriarchae Sergio à Cyro humilâ—… vestro I would know whether the Pope can shew that ever any one of his Predecessors had higher titles given him than these And if these prove not an universal Sovereignty of the Patriarch of Constantinople whether the like or less will prove it for Rome if you say that it was but an Heretick that gave it him I answer 1. That 's nothing to the matter in hand 2. He was but such a harmless Heretick as Honorius 3. The Council reprehended not the title Many such instances might be given of as high titles given to Jerusalem Alexandria Antioch Constantinople as Rome pretendeth for the proof of its Universal-church-monarchy And if it prove no such power in others it proveth it not in the Pope FINIS ☞ Sect. 1. Sect. 2 Sect. 3. Sect. 4. Sect. 5. Sect. 6. Sect. 7. Sect. 8. Sect. 9. Sect. 10. Sect. 11. Sect. 12. Sect. 13. Sect. 14. Sect. 15. Sect. 16. Sect. 17. Sect. 18. Sect. 19. Sect. 20. Sect. 21. Sect. 22. ☞ Sect. 23. Sect. 〈◊〉 Sect. 25. Sect. 26. Sect. 27. Sect. 28. Sect. 2. * See them answered by Ioh. Rossens Bishop Buckeâ—…idge Sect. 3. Sect. 4. Sect. 5. Sect. 6. Sect. 7. So all that take not every Priest for a lawful superior to contradict him though about a word must be burned damned Sect. 8. Sect. 9. Sect. 10. ☞ ☞ Sect. 11. Sect. 12. Sect. 13. Sect. 14. Sect. 1. * Yet he maintaineth himself that Hereticks are no Christians but equivocally Baronius Binnius Bellarmine Genebrard your greatest flatterers confess it and much more Who that ever read the Councils and Church-history doubted of it see then the impudency of men pretending to lay their cause on tradition and history I said that the charge of Simony made many of them uncapable to which he giveth no answer for their most flattering Historians assert it and lament it Sect. 2. Sect. 3. ☞ Sect. 4. Sect. 5. Sect. 6. Sect. 7. Sect. 8. Sect. 1 Sect. 2. ☞ Sect. 4. Sect. 5. Sect. 6. Sect. 7. Sect. 8. * Or rather the Emperour For some Bishops put in several names and the Emperour chose Nectarius an unbaptized man and so no Christian in the Churches judgment Sect. 9. Sect. 10. Sect. 11. Sect. 12. Sect. 13. Sect. 14. Sect. 1â—… Sect. 2. Sect. 3. This seâ—…ms to confess that your people have no â—…ivine faith for our belief of a Priest saying This book is canonical is but humane Sect. 4. ☞ Sect. 5. Sect. 6. Sect. 1. Sect. 2. Sect. 4. Sect. 5. Sect. 6. Sect. 7. Sect. 8. Sect. 9. Sect. 1. Sect. 2. Sect. 3. Sect. 4. Sect. 5. Sect. 6. Sect. 7. Sect. 8. Sect. 9. Sect. 10. Sect. 11. Sect. 12. Sect. 13. Sect. 14. Sect. 1. Sect. 2. Sect. 3. Vid.
or Arrian Princes they took it for their calamity and were glad of any Communion with the Imperial Churches and the Honour and countenance of their Relation and it 's like would come among them if they could 3. Some Bishops that lived in Heathen or persecuted Countries in distress were glad to seek Countenance and help from the Roman power as the Britains did from France and a Basil and the Eastern Bishops did from the West in Valens his persecution while yet they took them not for Governours And some weak Princes that lived near the Roman Empire were glad of their Friendship and afraid of their Enmity and were willing to hold a communion with them in Religion in which their Clergy should have some dependance on Rome which was the case of the Saxons in and after Gregory the first 's days 4. Some Western Countries that were converted from infidelity by some Preachers subject to the Pope became themselves subjects to that Seat as their Converters and in obedience to them that first prevailed with them which was partly the case of the Saxons and of some Countries of Germany and Sweden Denmark Poland c. 5. Lastly when the Eastern Empire and Churches forsook the Church of Rome the Pope received a great diminution in the extent of his Primacy the East that forsook him being about twice as big as those that remained under him but withal a great Intensive increase of his power for shortly after he claimed the Government of all the World as Universal Bishop not only of the Empire but the Earth And after that many that were his Subjects owned him in that relation And since then I deny not but that many Princes without the Empire have been his Subjects yea he purposely broke Germany and Italy into many small Principalities and free Cities that they might not be strong enough to resist his claim If all these Concessions will do them any good let them make their best of them I must intreat the Reader to remember hence-forward what is our difference and not to expect that I repeat this over and over again when his words invite me to it Pag. 91. he saith The Indians were not always extra-imperial for in the year 163. they subjected themselves to Antonius Pius And so the Armenians 572. being greivously persecuted for the Christian Faith by the Persians they rendered themselves Subjects to the Roman Empire And 1145 they and the Indian Christians subjected themselves to the Pope and again 1439 and so remain at the present Ans. 1. This maketh against you rather than for you If your Kingdom extended not so far as the Empire But indeed these are impertinent words As it was but a small part of the Indies that ever was under the Heathen Romans so it is not their Empire that I speak of but the Christians for before Constaâ—…ine's day the Patriarchs made no pretence to govern all within the Empire much less all without Pighius tells you That General Councils were the device of Constantine I would you had told us 1. What Indian or Armenian Bishops were at any General Council before Constantine's days and where that Council was and when 2. And what Indian or Armenian or Persian Bishops were imposed or deposed by the Pope of Rome This undertaking would have tryed your strength but you were wiser 7. And it was but the nearer Armenia that you say yielded to the Roman Emperour and I confess that the part that was under hiâ—… had Bishops at some few Councils and are not the men of whom I speak though even they were soon separated from Rome and were no longer under the Roman Papacy 3. But your Fable of the Armenians and Indians subjecting themselves to the Pope and so remaining to this day may be meet to abuse Women with that know not your Cheats by a tale of a counterfeit Patriarch but neither Merchants nor any acquainted with History that know the World will believe you any more than that the Greeks are your Subjects who at Florâ—…ce compelled by necessity made far more shew of it than ever the other did In sum I heartily wish that all the World were as much the Popes Subjects as the Armenians and Abassines are on condition that none were any more your Subjects And whereas you say pag. 92. No one of thâ—…se hath been in all Ages a visible Congregation besides that of Rome 1. A repeated contempt is answer enough to a repeated false Historical Assertion 2. Again I tell you that is no question but whether those that now are none of your Subjects were in all Ages Christians 3. You have not yet proved that there was one Papist in the World for 400 years You add For each of them at one time or other became the same Congregation to that by subjecting and conforming themselves to the Bishop of Rome Ans. As true as the Turk is subject to you If some little of the Indian were subject to a Heathen Antonius doth that prove that they and all the Christians there were subject to Constantine or to the Pope when they revolted And when was Ethiopia and Persia subject to you And why do you not blush to say that the. Armenians are now subject to you You are like to be good Deliverers of Traditions to us and Infallible Decreers and Deciders of Controversies that stick not at such notorious fictions If you had said that England Scotland Sweden Denmark are your Subjects the falshood had some more pretence because you have some among them all I next noted That these Churches profess it to be their Tradition that the Pope was never their Governour This he denyeth and calleth for proof Ans. I give you proof 1. See the words of your own Writers e. g. Godignuâ—… de rebuâ—… Abaâ—…inorum reciting the conference of the Emperours Mother and the Iesuite wherein she professeth it and the answer of the Iesuite confessing it and Godignus confirming it that they were Christians from the time of the Eunuch Act. 8. or St. Matthew and the Pope had nothing to do with them 2. When the same Countries do at once profess these two things 1. That in Religion they follow the Tradition of their Fathers from the Apostles 2. And that the Pope is none of their Governour set these two together and you must conclude that they suppose their Tradition to be against the Papacy or that they are Sots and that these two are their Principles all the Historical notice that we have of those Countreys by Travellers Merchants and Writers Papists Greeks and Protestants assure us deny it as impudently as you will I will not tire the Reader with needless History I next added that No History or Authority of the least regard is brought by your own Writers to prove these under the Pope He replyeth Yes those that say All were under him Ans. That is none but Pope Leo himself and a few of the Empire who speak of no All