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
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
such to be Hereticks as have Catholick truths sufficiently propounded to them and yet contradict and oppose them let such be ready to swear what they will R. B. 1. Note here that they burn men for Hereticks and yet profess that Heresie is an obstinacy of the will which they know not but leave to God and only presume that men are Hereticks though they know it not And so a presuming Clergy are masters of the Crowns of Kings and the lives of all men How excellently would this power have fitted the turn of Abab and Iezebel and the murderers of Christ they need not have got false witness to condemn them as Blasphemers A presuming Clergy might have served For the very act which the Papists judg men for is internal in the intellect and will as Blasphemie is external To condemn men for Blasphemy hath some reason of justice because it may be proved but Intellectual obstinate opposition cannot 2. He tells us now that Heresie is a contradicting Catholick Truths but never tells what those Catholick Truths are Whether any one or only some of the greater sort and how we may know them But it is sufficient that the presumers know It is a Catholick Truth with them for which Bellarmine citeth many Councils That the Pope may excommunicate and depose Kings and Rulers To oppose this now is Heresie A Heretick must be burnt O happy Kings that have such a King over them and such a presuming Clergy 3. But this Catholick Truth must be sufficiently proposed That sufficiently is a doubtful dangerous word who would think how much lieth on Grammatical learning The Pope and his Clergy are Masters of Kingdoms and all mens estates and lives by being the only judges of the meaning of this one word SUFFICIENTLY either it is called sufficiently proposed with respect to the proposer as a Law is sufficiently promulgate when he hath done as much as he was bound to do And then a lazie or a proud Priest will think that two words is sufficient to oblige mankind to renounce all their senses e. g. for Transubstantiation And one that hath a Parish ten times greater than he can speak to will think that he hath done his duty to all when he hath spoken to as many as he could yea indeed the Decree of a General Council Printed goeth for sufficient proposal to millions that cannot read nor ever heard those Councils read Or else it is called Sufficient with respect to the effect on the understanding of the hearer sufficient to convince him and it is supposed that it is not effectual and what mortal man is able to judg of the sufficiency of proposal respectively to all mens understandings some men have great natural dullness and slowness of conception next to Ideots some by long disuse of such cogitations hear all spiritual Doctrine as if it were spoken in an unknown tongue some cannot easily see the connexion of verities And some of weak heads or memories cannot endure to think long enough of such matters as to overcome the difficulties And some think that they perceive such clear evidence for the contrary opinion that it is not in their power to take it to be false There is as great variety of receptive capacities as there is of persons in the world And the Priest knoweth not the internal case of another man And therefore is here no sitter a judg of sufficiency to all other than he is of their thoughts They are like a man that had a writing in a Table-book to obliterate and another to write in it in the dark and would so judg that it was sufficiently done And what is Sufficiency they will say that which maketh conviction possible and so poor men that might but possibly have been convinced must be burnt because it is not done Is not this a notable way to save Parish-priests much labour If they have told thousands the truth once or so oft as might possibly have convinced them burn them then to save him the labour of any longer preaching to them but who then shall pay him his Tythes There is remedy in that case most rather than be burned will say what the Priest bids them whether they understand him or believe him or not and then they are safe But they will say perhaps That that proposal is sufficient to convince men which were sufficient if they were not possessed with a blind zeal for their opinions for that 's it that W. I. here lays it on Ans. But is there any man that hath no error and must a man have no zeal for that which he judgeth truth The sense of this is that Proposal is sufficient to cure a man which supposeth him to have no disease If his mind and will have no sin in them to resist the truth but a pure receptivity of any revealed truth as Christ in his childhood and Adam in innocency then this proposal is sufficient But if he be not as white paper that hath nothing to be obliterated but have any sinful opinion to resist the truth than burn him for an Heretick And are not the Papists merciful men that will burn none but sinners 4. But Reader if this definition of Heresie be not recanted the number of Hereticks is very great For by this all the Heathens and Infidels Iews and Mahometans in the world are Hereticks that believe not when the Gospel is sufficiently proposed to them For here is no distinction nor exception surely that Christ is the Son of God is a Catholick truth and so obstinate intellectual opposition to it is Heresie But the old Doctors never said so nor do the Papists ordinarily say so nor do they burn all Infidels that will not turn Christians whether it be because such are unwilling to be burned and ten men can scarce burn ten thousand against their wills I know not But I suppose W. I. forgot here to put Baptized persons into his definition And if he had if all the Ianizaries be but baptized before the Turks take them from their parents then they are Hereticks and to be burnt it seems or else not But perhaps Apostates also should have been excepted But there is no end of conjecturing at unexpressed meanings or of amending other mens words R. B. Q. 2. Must it needs be the formal object of faith Is he no Nereâ—…ick that denieth the matter revealed without opposing obstinately the authority revealing For he defined it to be an opposition to Divine authâ—…ity W. J. Yes nor is he a formal but only a material heretick who opposeth a revealed truth which is not sufficiently propounded to him to be a Divine revelation R. B. To this I answer 1. His definition and his answer here are contradictory 2. His addition solveth it not sufficient propounding it to be a Divine revelation doth not infer that he taketh God for a lyar but only that he culpably denieth this to be the Word of God I answered therefore That
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
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
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
may help to deceive the ignorant 1. Your Popes as Universal Bishops had never true Power over us 2. Nor any Bishops as their Ministers as such 3. For this treasonable Usurpation we were bound to avoid them as scandalous Invaders of Christ's Prerogative which some call Antichristian 4. Our English Bishops and other Pastors when they came to see that such an Usurper had no right to govern them forsook him but forsook no Governour 5. Those Bishops that adhered to him the People justly forsook as Usurpers under him 6. Those that forsook him they obeyed as their true Pastors And now will it follow if I be obliged to renounce a Usurping vice-Vice-King and Traytor as having no power over me as such and that I partake not of his Treason that I must therefore forsake the King for his personal faults If the Deputy of Ireland should say I am Vice-King of all the Kings Dominions and I challenge Obedience from all the Subjects and the King forbid us to obey him as such I may obey him in Ireland till the King depose him and I must renounce him in England and yet I must not tell the King Sir why must we not then for your faults also renounce you The scandal of Treasonable Usurpation differeth from a meer immorality or miscarriage R. B. Qu. 2. Is it no Schism unless wilful W. J. No. R. B. Again you further justifie us from Schism If it be wilful it must be against knowledge But we are so far from separating wilfully from the whole Church that we abhor the thought of it as impious and damnable W. J. Abhor is as much as you please for your own particular I know not what may be pleaded for you I am certain that your first beginners did it and that knowingly and wilfully and you still maintaining what they began must by all considering Christians be judged guilty of the same Crime for still you remain separate from all these Christians from which they departed that is from all the visible Churches existent immediately before they sprung up and in their time and still continue through the whole World R. B. A naked bold and shameless assertion without one word of proof Our Reformers knew no Head of the Church but Christ and they neither renounced him nor any one Member of his Church as such but only a Trayterous Usurper and his Sect indeed while he claimed but as Patriarch some Government of them jure humano by the Will of Princes they gave him answerable obedience and in their ignorance most gave him too much and many perceived not his Usurpation But when the Empire was down that set him up or had no power here and their own Princes no longer obliged them hereto he had not so much as such a humane Authority And when they that renounced him as a Traytor to Christ protested to hold Communion with all Christs Church on Earth according to their distant Capacities and to abhor all separation from them would not a man have expected that this Dispute should have given us some proof that to forsake this false Head was to separate from all the visible Churches on Earth I proved our Union with them before Yea he presumes to say That he is certain that they did it knowingly and wilfully As if he knew all the hearts of thousands whose Faces he never saw when they that should know them better thought that they were certain that they separated from no Christians but an Usurper and his Adherents as such And this we have great reason to continue as much as Subjects have to separate from Rebels R. B. Qu. 3. It is no Schism if men make a division in the Church and not from the Church W. J. Not as we are here to understand it and as the Fathers treat it For the Church of Christ being perfectly one cannot admit of any proper Schism within it self for that would divide it into two which cannot be R. B. 1. If there be other Schisms besides separating from the whole Church why should you not here understand it unless understanding things as they are will hurt your Cause 2. What a stranger doth this Disputer make himself to the Fathers if he know not that they frequently use the word Schism in another sense than his I will not be so vain as to trouble my self or the Reader with Citations The Indexes of the Fathers and Councils will satisfie those that will but search them Was it a separation from the whole Church which Clemens Romanus the eldest of them all doth write his Epistle to the Corinthians against or rather a particular Schism between the people and some few eminent men Read it and see what credit these men deserve when they talk of the Eathers Judgments 3. But his reason is most unreasonable That the Church of Christ is so perfectly one that it cannot admit of any proper Schism within it self Can the Unity be perfect while all our uniting Graces are imperfect When every Member is imperfect in Knowledge Faith Love Holiness Obedience Iustice Patience c. how can the Union be perfect 4. Reader do but read their Councils Church-Histories Baronius Genebrard Platiâ—… Wernerus to whom I may add above one hundred and if thou dost not find them and also their polemical and practical Divines commonly mentioning Schisms in the Church of Rome it self then believe these deceivers and call me the deceiver Do they not lament their Schisms Were not the Councils of Constance Basil Pisa c. called to heal them Do they not number the Schisms that fell out in 40 or 50 years time and continued Dare any man deny it Were these then Proper Schisms or not No it 's like this man would say that none of these Writers speak properly when they call it Schism I would he would tell in the next what proper word to use But either these Schisms were within the Church or without it Reader see whither falshood will run at last If they were within the Church then W. I. doth but abuse you by his falshoods If without the Church then one half the Roman Church was Unchurched for 40 or 50 years when they followed one Pope while the other half followed another And who knoweth which of these parts was the Church It seems whoever adhered to the wrong Pope was none of the Church But saith Wernerus and other Historians sometimes the wisest were at their Wits end and knew not which was the true Pope nor is it known to this day Nay the matter is yet worse A great General Council deposed Euginius the Fourth as no Pope but an uncapable wicked Heretick and yet he kept in and became the only Head of their Church whom the rest succeed And so all that Church by this rule was unchurched Sure necessity must make you recant and say that yet both Parties in your long and odious Schisms were within the Church or else what a Wound will ye inflict
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.
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
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