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
is that made that Law to all the world And it 's known that the Apostles Elders and Brethren were â—…senters at Ierusalem Act 15. 2. Inferiors may come as Deputies of the Bishops for he knew that the Bishop of Rome had oft sent such to Councils so far off as his gravity would not suffer him to go to But are these Priests capable persons or not If not how can a Bishops deputation make them capable what if a Priest depute a Lay-man to consecrate the Eucharist or a Bishop depute a Priest or Deacon only to ordain will the deputation make them capable but if they are capable why may they not be there by their own right If the business of Councils be as much as our modern Papists tell us to transmit the Traditions which the several Countries have received from their Ancestors why may not ten learned grave Priests as truly and credibly tell what are the Traditions of their Country as one unlearned or learned Bishop 3. Note here how the highest acts of a Pope or Prelate with them may be done per alios by Deputies that are no Bishops To preside in General Councils was of old in the Empire the top of the Popes prerogative and yet he may do that by a Presbyter and a Bishop may vote and do all his part in a General Council by a Presbyter And is that an office properly Ecclesiastical and Sacred which may be exercised by others not of that office why then may not a Lay-man be deputed to preach baptize pray consecrate and administer the Eucharist excommunicate absolve c. if deputed And if so what is proper to the office I told him of the Council of Basil where were a multitude of Priests And he answereth W. J. Basil in many things is not allowed of by us name those others received as General Councils by us that had simple Priests with power of giving Votes as such R. B. See Reader when they have talkt of Councils and Traditions of all the Church c. all signifieth but what please the Pope and his dislike can make Councils and their judgments null at a word Basil was one of the greatest Councils that ever was but they condemned and deposed the Pope and no wonder then if the Pope dislike them and now that 's an answer to all such authority Basil is not allowed by us Nor is any thing allowed by you that is against you But if any of them would see where Priests have had Votes in Councils let them read Blondel in the end of his Def. Sent. Hieron and he shall have proof enough For I will not tire the Reader with vain citations done by many long ago Only I note 1. If Abbots that are no Bishops have Votes in Councils why not Priests saving the Popes will what makes the difference 2d If Presbyters may have Votes in National and Provincial Councils why not in General ones the will of the Pope makes and unmakes all Thus we have no satisfaction what a General Council is CHAP. VII What mean you by SCHISME W. J. I understand by Schism a wilful separation or division of ones self from the whole visible Church of Christ. R. B. If this only be Schism it 's comfortable news to many a thousand and million that some call Schismaticks I hope then there are no Schismaticks in England of those that are called Presbyterians Erastians Independents Separatists or Anabaptists For I know not one of these that separateth from the whole visible Church of Christ. But I doubt with these Judges the Church of Rome goes for the whole visible Church of Christ. I asked here Q. 1. Is it no Schism to separate from a particular Church unless from the whole W. J. No it is no Schism as Schism is taken in the Holy Fathers for that great and Capital Crime so severely censured by them in which sense only I take it here R. B. 1. He first defineth without distinguishing and then tells us that he means only one sort of Schism 2. Let the Reader but peruse all the Texts of Scriptures which mention Schism and see whether he will not find that every Text or almost every one do use the Word only of Divisions made in the Church rather than of dividing or separating from the Church and whether such separating from the whole Church be not there called Heresie rather than Schism But seeing it is only this Capital Schism that he calleth by that name I have no mind to draw him now to more censoriousness and therefore I noted how by this he absolveth the Protestants from the guilt of Schism W. J. Did not your first Protestants in Germany separate as much from the Armenians Ethiopians Greeks as they did from the Romans If they did not shew the Communion they had with them R. B. Very willingly Sir They had the same God the same Saviour the same Spirit the same Faith Baptism and Hope and so were of the same Body of Christ which is all the Union predicated by St. Paul Eph. 4. 3 4 5 6. They had also the same Scriptures the same Rule of Prayer and Practice the Lord's Prayer and the Decalogue and Precepts of Christ as well as the same Creed the same Love the same Sacrament of the Eucharist Prayses of God the Lords day for Holy Communion Pastors of the same Order and had no other Diversities in such things than St. Paul tells us are in the Body of Christ 1 Cor. 12. Is this no Communion W. J. Did your Ministers first take either Mission or Iurisdiction to preach from any of their Bishops or Patriarchs Did they take the prescription of their Liturgies Discipline or Hierarchy from them Did they upon occasion joyn in Prayer Sacraments or Sacrifice with them R. B. 1. Do we hold Communion with none that we take not Mission and Iurisdiction from What Absurdities do you thrust upon us Did the Churches of Ephesus Corinth Galatia Philippi Colosse c. hold no Communion in Scripture-times unless they had Mission and Iurisdiction from each other Must the Greeks and Armenians have Mission c from us If not why must we have it from them Your Church receiveth no Mission or Jurisdiction from others Have you therefore no Communion with them Your Language favoureth of so much Tyranny and Pride as would tempt Men indeed to take you for Anti-christian As if Subjection to you and Communion with you were all one or you would have Communion with no Christians in the World bâ—…n the relation of Servants or Subjects to you 2. When we have Qualification Election and where it may be had due Ordination we know of no other Mission necessary besides Gods own Word which chargeth Christ's Ministers to preach the Gospel in season and out of season c. God's charging all Ministers to preach is their Mission when they are Ministers Princes leave and Peoples consent do give them their opportunity and for
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-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
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