Which is the true church? the whole Christian world, as headed only by Christ ... or, the Pope of Rome and his subjects as such? : in three parts ... / by Richard Baxter ...

PART II.

Richard Baxter's Vindication of the CONTINUED VISIBILITY of the CHURCH, of which the Protestants are Members: In answer to Wil∣liam Johnson, alias Terret's Reply, called by him, Novelty represt.

THE PREFACE.

I Have great reason to suppose, that if I should make this Book as long as it must be, if I repeated and answered all the words of W. I. it would frustrate my writing it, by dis∣couraging most Readers, whose Leisure and Patience are as short as mine: Therefore I pur∣pose to cull out all which I take to seem his real strength, and of any importance to the un∣derstanding Reader, and to omit the Vagaries: And particularly where he and I differ about the words or sense of any Fathers, or Councils; what need I more than to leave that Matter to the perusal of the Reader, who cannot rationally rest in my Yea, or W. I's Nay: For how will either of those tell him what any Book in question doth contain? It is the pe∣rusal of the Book it self that must satisfie him. But about the Weight, or Consequence of any such Citations, we may help his satisfaction.

The Churches alas have not been so innocent since Lording was its way of Govern∣ment, as that all that we can find written or done by any great Patriarchs (Prelates) yea or Council, should pass with us for proof that it was well said or done: nor can we take one Prelate for all Christs Church, no nor a synod o•…•… the Clergie in the Roman Empire. Nor can we be so void of understanding as to read over the ancient Writers and the Councils, and not to know how much the Major Vote of the Clergie still followed the Emperours Wills, and the Byas of Interest. We cannot lye, or believe evident Lyes, on pretence of honouring them. He that readeth the Stories, and doth not find how much the Will of Constantine pre∣vailed in one Council, and the contrary Will of Constantius in many: What the Will of Va∣lens did with most in the E•…•…st, and the Will of Iovian, Valentinian, and other good Prin∣ces did against it: How far the Will of Theodosius went while he Reigued, against the Arri∣ans,

to heal what Valens had done: And how much the Will of Theodosius junior did for the Eutythians, (and yet against the Nestorians:) And how far the Will of Martian prevailed against the said Eutychians when he was dead: How much even the Usurper Basiliscus in a year or two could do to strengthen the Arrians and Eutyohians: And how quickly Zeno's Prevalency turned the Scales: I say, he that doth read on such Histories to the end, and yet will think that the Clergie have been still one unanimous Body, of the same Mind and Opinion in all things, and not turned up and down by Princes Power, and their own Interest and fears; I leave such a Reader as desperate, and as one that will be deceived in despight of the clearest Evidence of Truth.

He that doth read these Stories, and doth not perceive the great Corruption of the Cler∣gie, when once their places had a Bait of Wealth and Honour and Dominion, suitable to a proud, worldly, carnal mind; and what a continual War there was among the Clergie, be∣tween a holy spiritual, and a worldly proud domineering unconscionable Party; and how ordinarily, or oft, the carnal worldly Clergie had the major Vote: how the same (e g.) Bi∣shops at the Council of Ephes. 2. could yield to Theodosius and Dioscorus, and condemn the just; and at Calcedon go the contrary way, and cry out omnes peccavimus, and we did it for fear! How the same Council at Constantine, that confirmed Greg. Naz. when some more were added, and got the major Vote, resolved to depose him, and caused him to depart: How the same Peter of Alexandria, (Athanasius's Successour) that first made him Bishop of Con∣stantinople, for a sum of Money put in Maximus in his place, without once hearing him, or giving any Reason, or re-calling his first Letters; and how the bribed Egyptian Bishops did concur: How Theophilus carryed it with the Egyptian Monks, and against Origen, and Chrysostome, and between Theodosius and Eugenius the Usurper; and how the Synod carried it against Chrysostome; and how Cyril first made himself a Magistrate to use the Sword at Alexandria; and what past between Theodoret, Iohan. Antioch. and him; and how the Bi∣shops and their Synods in Ithacius time carryed it against St. Martin, and against the Pri∣scillianists; and how all this while Rome and Constantinople set and kept the Empire in a Flame, by striving which should be the greatest; and how the Pope on such putid accounts did molest the African Churches, in the days of Augustine himself; and their Writers charge them with Schism to this day: I say, he that can read abundance of such stuff as this, and yet think that any one Citation of the words of a Prelate, Pope, or Council, •…•…is as valid as if it were the word of God, let him go his own way, for he is not for my Company.

Nay if they could prove as much of the Popes Universal Episcopacy within the Empire under the Christian Emperours, as Salm•…•…sius (I think too liberally) granteth them, (de Eccles. suburbicar. circa finem) it is no more with me than to prove the Power of the Bishop of Alexandria or of An•…•…och in their assigned Patriarchates, which altered at the Pleasure of the Emperours and Synods, (as the division made after between the Bishops of Antioch, Ierusalem, and Cesarea sheweth, and that which was given to Constantinople from Heraclea, Pontus, and Asia.)

Christianity was not unknown till Councils, or altered as often as they made new decrees: And it is a great mistake of them that think that there was little of Christianity, save in the Roman Empire: The Apostles preached else-where, and they preached not in vain. There were Churches in Ethiopia, the Indies, Persia, Parthia, the outer Armenia, Scythia, Britain, and other parts that were without the Empire; but we have no large or particular Histories of them, partly because that they were not so much literate and given to writing as the Romans and the Greeks were; and partly because they were in Warrs with the Empire, or did not communicate by Correspondence with them; and partly because their Books were not in any Language which the Greeks or Romans understood. How long was it ere the Empire had much acquaintance with the Syriack or Samaritane, Persian, Arabick, or Ethiopick Versi∣ons (or Books) after they were extant; and how few of the many Books that by Travellers are said to be in Abassia, Armenia, or Syria, are known to us to this day? How little know we of the old Christians, of St. Thomas, and those parts? And how full and satisfactory a Te∣stimony doth Alvarez profess, that he saw himself (even a large Stone with memorial In∣scriptions of it digged up) that the Christian Religion had been in China, when otherwise he could not hear of one word by Tradition or History that could notifie such a thing. How little know we now of the case of Nubia and Tend•…•… while they were great Christian King∣doms?

How little know we at this day of the state of the Armenians, Georgians, Mengr•…•…∣tians, Circassians, &c. How little was known of the great Empire of Abassia till the Portu∣gals opened the way for Oviedo and his Companions the other day. Iacobus de Vitriaco tells us of more Christians in those parts of the World than all the Greeks or Latines; when he was at Ierusalem, where he had notice of them. Brocardus that lived there, also tells us as of their great numbers, so of their great piety, being better men than the very Religious of the Church of Rome: and yet how little notice was there then of their Writings or them? He saith they were free from the Heresies of Nestorianism and Eutychianism which we charge them with in Europe, and yet the Papists so charge them still, that they may seem to have reason for condemn∣ing them, fearing that their non-subjection to the Pope will not seem enough with impartial men.

And as to the great Confidence that they seem to place in their succession to St. Peter, and Christs words to him [on this Rock I will build my Church] and to thee I give the Keys, &c.] and [feed my sheep.] I have oft answered it more fully than is fit again to recite; but these few hints I would commend to the Reader.

1. That we affirm that Peter was among them as a fore-man of a Jury and no more; and so Christ spake to the rest in speaking to him; and the same power is given to the rest: The Church is said to be built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ be∣ing the head Corner-stone] Is not this as much as is said of St. Peter? Christ gave them all the power of Holy Ghost and the remitting and retaining sins, binding and loosing, which is the Keys which he gave to Peter. And they are all sent forth to feed Christs Sheep: Now the Fathers give as high Titles oft to others as to the Pope, yea and to Peter; see what I have cited in my Key for Catholicks, pag. 175. 176. and what Gataker hath cited out of Dionysius, Ter∣tullian, Basil, Ierome, Augustine, Theodoret, Gildas, Nicephorus, &c. Cin. 395. 396.

2. Peter never exercised any authority over any of the rest of the Apostles: He called them not; governed them not; There is mention of Paul's reproving him, Gal. 2. but none of his reproving them. Schismes being among them and greatly lamented, they are never directed to unite in Peter as the way to Concord, nor to have recourse to him to end them. Nay, when the over-valuers of Peter made one party in the Schism among the Corinthians, Paul seeks to take them off that way, and set Peter in the same rank with himself and A∣pollos, as Ministers only by whom they believed, calling them Carnal for saying, I am of Cephas, never calling them to unite in him as the Head of all: And had this been necessary, what had this been but to betray the Churches?

3. The Apostles were never properly Bishops, but of a higher rank: Bishops were the fixed Over-seers of particular Churches, and no one had many: But Apostles only planted them, and governed them for their Confirmation, and so passed on from one to another, and had care of many such at once. If any one Church might pretend superiority by vertue of succession it would be Ierusalem, and next that Ephesus, where it is said that Iohn the Be∣loved Disciple was as Bishop, and which hath continued to this day.

4. The Apostles as such had no Successors, nor as Bishops in any distinct Seats: The same Christ that called Peter called the rest, and called especially the Beloved Disciple, to whom, on the Cross, he commended his Mother, when Peter had denyed him; and he promised to be with them to the end of the World: But no Bishops on Earth ever pretended to superiority over any other Churches, as the Successors of the other eleven Apostles. Where are those Seats, or where ever were they? If the Apostles Successors must rule the Churches as such, tell us which be the other eleven, and which be their Diocesses, and of what extent? Nay, it is considerable, that even in the times of domination, there were but five Patriarchates ever set up, and not twelve, and not one of those claimed Power by vertue of succession from any Apostle. Constantinople never pretended to it: Alexandria claimed the honour of succession only from St. Mark, who was no Apostle: And Ierusalem from Iames, (whom Dr. Ham∣mond laboureth to prove to have been none of the Apostles, but a Kinsman of Jesus:) Only Antioch and Rome claimed succession from Peter, and Antioch as his first Seat; but they did on that single account claim Power then over other Churches. And seeing the Church is built on the Foundation of Apostles and Prophets, and that all the Apostles, 1 Cor. 12. are men∣tioned equally as the noblest Foundation, Members or Pillars, and the People chidden sharply by Paul for making Cephas a Head; What reason have we to believe that Peter only hath

perpetual Successors fixed to a certain City, and that no other of all the Apostles have any such: What word of God will prove that Peter hath left his Power at Rome, and no other Apostles, no not one hath left theirs to any Place or Person on Earth? yea and that he left it more to Rome than to Antioch, when Antioch claimeth the first succession from him, and Rome but the second; and when Nilus and others have said so much to make it probable, that Peter never was at Rome; and when it is certain that Paul was there, and those old Fathers, that from some word of one of Eusebius his doubtful Authors, do say, that Peter was at Rome, and Bishop there, do also say that it was the Episcopal Seat of Paul; and when it is certain that no Apostle was any-where a Bishop, formaliter but only eminen∣ter, as being not fixed, nor fixing their Power to any Seat. And Dr. Hammond giveth very considerable conjectures, That if Peter and Paul were both at Rome, they had divers Chur∣ches there, Paul being the Bishop of the Uncircumcision, and Peter of the Circumcision only, (from whence we may see that the Spirit of God in his Apostles judged that there might be more Churches and Bishops in one City than one, (much more over a thousand Parishes) though as the contrary Spirit prevaileth, the contrary Interest and Opinion pre∣vailed with it.

These things premised, the Reader must know, that the state of the Controversie be∣tween Mr. Terret, alias Mr. Iohnson, and me is this. Finding the Church of Rome in possessi∣on of abundance of Errours and Vanities, he would not only perswade us that they are of God, and have ever been the same, because it is so with them now, but also concludeth, that these Carbuncles are essential to Christianity and the Church, and that we cannot prove that we are a Church and Christians, unless we prove that we have had from the Apostles a continued succession of their Errours: As if a man could not prove himself to be a man, unless all his Ancestors from Adam had the French-pox or the Leprosie.

On the contrary I maintain that the Church of Christ (which is his Body) is essentiated by true consent to the Baptismal Covenant (which is our Christening) and integrated by all the additional degrees, that this Covenant is expounded in the Creed, Lord's Prayer, and Christian Decalogue. (The Lord's Supper is but the same Covenant celebrated by other signs not for Essence but Confirmation) That all that consent to the (celebrated) Baptismal Co∣venant heartily, are Members of the invisible Church; and all that profess consent (in Sincerity or Hypocrisie) are visible Members (coram Ecclesia) That the true Church of Christ hath no other Head than Christ himself; no Vicarious Universal Head, Pope nor Coun∣cil; That the Protestants profess themselves Members of no other Universal Church but that of which Christ only is the Head, and all Christians (at least not cast out) are Mem∣bers; that this Christian Church hath been visible to God by real consent, and visible to man by professed consent from the first being of it to this day: And when they ask us, Where was your Church before Luther, we say, where there were Christians before Luther. Our Re∣ligion is nothing but simple Christianity: We are o•…•… no Catholick Church but the Universa∣lity of Christians; We know no other, but lament that the pride of the Clergy growing up from Parochial to Diocesan, and from Diocesan to Metropolitical, and Patriarchal, and thence to Papal, hath invented any other; and that the Serpent that tempted Eve hath drawn them from the Christian simplicity. They deny not the successive visibility of Chri∣stianity and the Christian Church: We desire no more; we own we know no other Religion and no other Church.

But the Roman Artifice here comes in, and when their HUMANE UNIVERSAL HEAD hath made the grand Schism of the Christian World; hence they have learnt to make Christians of no Christians, and no Christians of Christians, as Pride and Igno∣rance serving this usurping interest please. Their Doctors are not agreed whether any more be necessary explicitely to be believed to Salvation, than that there is a God, and that our works shall be rewarded, without believing a word of Christ or the Gospel; and whether they that believe not in Christ are Christians; or whether being no Christians, yet they are Members of the Christian Church: And the greater part are here on the wider Latitudina∣rian side; (as you may see in Fr. S. Clara's Problemes, Deus, Nat. Grat. and in the words of this W. I. before answered.)

And yet these charitable men conclude that two or three parts of the true Christian world (Abassines, Copties, Syrians, Iacobites, Georgians, Armenians, Greeks, Moscovites,

Protestants) are all out of the Church of Christ, though their own Fryars that have lived among some of them in the East, profess that they are no Hereticks, and are better Men than the Papists are, and none worse of Life than the Roman Party. And whence is this strange difference? Why, it is because that these are none of them subject to the Pope; which it is supposed that those are that believe only that there is a God and a Reward. (But how is this their only explicite Faith, if they must also believe that the Pope is the Vice-Christ.) And some of them tell you further, that he that should so far believe his Ghostly Father, the Priest, as to hold that he is not bound to love God, because the Priest tells him so, is not only ex∣cusable, but he meriteth by it: So much more necessary to Salvation is it, to love the Priest, than to love God.

And yet after all this, their own Leaders confess, that it is no Article of their Faith, that the Pope is Peter's Successour, and that it is not by Revelation that the Church-Governours must be known; (as I have shewed out of Ri. Smyth, Bishop of Calcedon, and of England; and in the fore-confuted Writings of W. I▪)

The things that I maintain are, I. That the Protestants Religion, and Church, being on∣ly the Christian as such, had an uninterrupted succession as such, (which the Papists deny not.) II. That the Papal Church as such, cannot prove its constant visibility and succession. Nay, (though it be their part to prove it) we are ready to prove; 1. That it is a Novelty. 2. That it hath been often, and notoriously interrupted; and their Papacy hath not had any continued succession of Men truly Popes by their own Laws and Rules, and in their own Account.

CHAP. I. The Confutation of W. J's Reply.

THE first regardable Passage in W. I's Reply, is, p. 53, 54. Where he maintaineth, that [whatsoever hath been ever in the Church by Christ's institution, is essential to the Church;] and nothing meerly Integral, or Accidents. Because I had omitted the word [ever] in the Confutation, he taketh that as the Insufficiency of all that I said against him; and challengeth me still to give an Instance of any Institution not essential to the Church of Christ, that hath been ever in it.

But, Reader, is Perpetuity any proof of an Essential? He was forced to confess, that as other Societies, so the Church hath Accidents; but he faith, no Accidents instituted have been ever in it.

It may be we shall have a Quibble here upon the sense of the word [ever,] whether it was from Everlasting, or from the Creation; or before Christ's Incarnation, or before his Re∣surrection, or the forming of his Church by the Spirit in the Apostles? But in Consistency with his own Cause, (which is) That the Papacie hath been ever in the Church, he must take up with this last sense.

Well, Let us see what work these Men make, and how they are taken in the Traps that they lay for others: But first he shall have some confuting Instances.

1. Every word of Christ's own Doctrine and Speeches, recorded in the Gospel hath been ever in the Church, and instituted by Christ; but every word of Christ's own Doctrine and Speeches, recorded in the Gospel, is not essential to the Church: Therefore, every thing in∣stituted by Christ, that hath been ever in the Church, is not essential to it.

If you say, that it was not all written till after some years, it was yet all in the Church, even in the Minds of them that wrote it, and the other Apostles, and in their Preachings as is like. If you say that all this is essential, alas, then if false Copies have lost us a word the Church is lost, and those Churches that received not some words, were Unchurched.

That Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate hath been ever in the Church's Creed; and yet the Name of Pontius Pilate is not essential to Christianity.

2. The Administring the Lord's Supper in both kinds (Bread and Wine) hath been ever in the Church, and of Christ's own Institution: Is this essential to the Church? Perhaps some will have the impudence to say, that it is not now in it, because the Pope hath cast it out: but it is now in all the rest of the Church. And we might as well say, the Papacie is not now in, because other Churches do reject it.

3. Prayer in a known Tongue was ever in the Church, and of Christ's Institution; and yet you think it not essential to it.

4. The use of the second Commandment as such, (Thou shalt not make to thy self any gra∣ven Image, &c.) was ever in the Church; and yet you have left it out of the Decalogue.

5. The Office of Deacons hath been ever in the Church since their Institution, Act. 6. yet few think them essential to the Church.

6. Christ himself washed his Apostles Feet, and taught them to do the like, which was used in those hot Countries where it was a needful Act of Ministry: but yet it is not essen∣tial to the Church.

7. Baptism from the beginning, as Instituted by Christ, was Administred by dipping over Head in Water; but you take not that to be essential to the Church.

8. The Lord's Day's holy Observation, as Instituted by Christ and his Apostles, hath ever been in the Church: and yet many of your Doctors do equal it with other Holy Days, and make it not essential to the Church.

9. Christ and his Apostles distinguish Essentials from Integrals and Accidents in their time; therefore they are still to be distinguished: And it is a strange Society that hath not ever had Integrals and Accidents. Christ, Instituting Baptism, saith; He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved: Thus the Essentials. Yet he saith, [Teach them to observe all things whatever I have Commanded you. But all those are not Essentials; for Christ himself distin∣guished Tything Mint, Annise, and Cummin, from the great things of the Law: And yet saith, These ought ye to have done. And St. Paul saith, The Kingdom of God is not Meat and Drink; but Righteousness, and Peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost, &c. And yet more than these were then a Duty.

All things were to be done decently, and in order: And yet, who ever said, but you, that all this is essential to the Church?

Christ by his Apostles, instituted, that Collections for the Poor should be made on the first Day of the Week: yet is not that essential to the Church.

10. Afflictions are Accidents of the Church, and of Christ's appointment, and have been ever there; and yet are not essential to it.

11. All the numbers of Christians, and the higher Degrees of Gifts and Grace, have been of Christ, and ever in the Church; and yet it is not essential to it, that Christians be just as many as they have been, or of such measures of Gifts and Grace; for even Perfection is a Duty.

12. Few of your own do think that extreme Unction is essential to the Church, and that if it ceased it would be no Church. The like may be said of many other things.

But see how these Men Unchurch themselves; For if this be true, then the Church of Rome can be no true Church. For it hath cast off that which they call Essential: Were it but the Cup in the Lords Supper, and Publick Prayers in a Known Tongue, the change hath Unchurched them. These Consequents fall on them that will Unchurch most of the Church of Christ.

But Page 55, 56. he saith, [That he doth not say, that every such thing must be necessarily be∣lieved by every Member: No, not the belief of the Pope's Supremacy; but to such only to whom they are sufficiently propounded.

Answ. 1. And yet these Men tell our People, to affright them, That they cannot be saved out of their Church, or in our Religion. And now it is not essential to believe the Pope's Supremacy.

2. But who can ever know what will pass for a [sufficient propounding] while twenty de∣grees of Mens Capacities, make twenty degrees of Proposal respectively sufficient; what Man of Reason can believe that such self-confuting Disputes as yours, are a sufficient Proposal of the Pope's Supremacy? And sure the Christian Empire of Abassia then had no sufficient Proposal, when but lately your Emissaries told them, that they never heard from the Pope

till now, because he could not have access, or send to them. (Q. Whether that Empire be true Christians through so many Ages, seeing they received not the Scriptures on the Autho∣ritative Proposal of the Pope, or Papal Church; and yet confessedly were never bound to believe the Pope's Supremacy?)

3. By this account all Christians essentially differ from each other in their Religion; and Christianity is a word of such monstrous ambiguity, that it signifieth as many several Religions as there be persons in the World, whose divers Capacities maketh diversity of proposal become necessary or sufficient to them.

But he saith, that these are all essential to the Church, though not to the several Members. More difficulties still: 1. How shall we ever know the Church this way? If the belief of the Popes Supremacy be essential to some, and only to some, how many must they be that so believe? Will one serve, or one thousand, to make all the rest Church-Members that believe it not? Or how many will this Leven extend to? Why then may not the belief of Italy prove all the World to be the Church.

2. How cometh another mans belief to be of such saving use to others; If you say, that it is not his belief, but their own (who believe not) then all the World is of your Church that want sufficient proposal: And Unbelievers are Christians, or of the Christian Church, so be it they never heard of Christ: and so all the unknown World, and Ameri∣cans, and most of the Heathens are of your Christian Church.

And why may not the Pope be saved then without believing his own Supremacy. (I verily think that there is not one Pope of twenty that believeth his own Infallibility.) Doubtless some illiterate or ill-bred Popes have had but very defective Proposals of their own Supremacy, it being rather affirmed by Flatteries than ever proved to them.

Pag. 57. (Having first called for sense in my words, because the Printer had put [as] for [is]) he turneth his former assertion (whatever hath been ever in the Church by Christs institu∣tion is essential to it] into another; [Because Christ hath instituted that it should be for ever in the Church, it is essential:] And this yet more plainly shameth the asserter than the former; For no man can deny but that Christ hath instituted, 1. That every word of the Canoni∣cal Scripture should be ever (after its existence) in the Church; 2. And that no Ministers should preach any thing but truth in the Church; 3. And that no man should commit any sin at all; 4. And that the Eucharist be delivered in both kinds, in remembrance of Christ, till he come, &c. And yet sure all this is not essential to the Church

Pag 58. He would perswade me that I miscite Fr. Sta. Clara, and that he saith not that Infidels may be saved, but only those that have not an explicite Faith in Christ, (through invin∣cible ignorance) and that he saith not that it is most of the Doctors Opinions, nor that any may be saved who are out of the Church: and that my Friends will be sorry to see me so defective in my Citations, and he hopes I will mend it in the next.

Ans. That I will, if plain words transcribed be any amending: but I cannot amend your deceitful dealing. 1. I did not say that Sta. Clara saith▪ They may be saved out of the Church, but that such are in your Church, and so may be saved who indeed are no Christians, and so not of the Church indeed. 2. We know of no Faith in Christ, but that which you call [Explicite Faith in Christ:] Common custome calleth those Infidels that never heard that there is a Christ, or who he is, or hearing it doth not believe it: And he cannot believe it that doth not hear it. Most of the Infidel and Heathen World profess to believe Gods vera∣city, and that all that he saith is true; if this be an implicite believing in Christ, almost all the Heathen World believeth in him; use Names and Words as you see cause: These are Infidels in our use of speech. 3. The place in Sancta Clara is pag. 113. besides 109, 110. &c. the words are too large to be transcribed; he citeth many Authors to prove such in the Church and saved; where after much to that purpose he saith,

What is clearer than that at this day the Gospel bindeth not, where it is not authentically preached; that is, that at this day men may be saved without an explicite belief of Christ: For in that sense speakes the Doctor concerning the Iews: And verily whatever my illustrious Master hold with his Learned Mr. Herera, I think that this was the Opinion of Scotus and the Common one.

] and he citeth many for it. Read the rest your self in the Book, and I defie your pretence that this is unjust Citation. I cite none of this as if I were handling the question whether any besides Christians are saved. But whether the Nations that never heard of Christ be Christians and Members of your Church.

But pag. 60. he will prove [that nothing which Christ hath instituted to be ever in the Church is accidental to the Church: For every accident is separable from the subject, without destroy∣ing the subject whose accident it is: But what Christ hath instituted to be ever in his Church, is inseparable from it.

Ans. 1. What if it were not an Accident, must it therefore needs be Essential? Are there not Integral parts that are not Essential parts.

2. You that boast so greatly of your Logick faculty should not so absurdly erre, as you do in your major. Do you not hereby deny all proper accidents which agree as omni & soli, ita & semper? Is not Risibilis an accident of man and yet inseparable? 2. Is not quantity inse∣parable from a Body or natural substance? 3. What the Porphyri∣ans speak of an Intellectual separation, you ignorantly or deceitfully apply to an actual eventual separation. If Christ had been other∣wise put to death than by crucifying, or else-where than at Ierusalem; if his Bones had been broken, if he had not had the same integral parts and accidents of Body as he ever had, he had been Christ still: But yet it was Logically impossible that any of these should have been otherwise than they were, they being fore-decreed of God. If the Sun should cease moving, illuminating, heating, you may say it would be still the Sun: But yet it is certain, that these accidents are eventually inseparable from it. If you will cause Humidity to cease from Water, or separate Gravity from Earth of Stone, &c. I shall think you have made them other things. 4. But to instance as you do in such a being as [the CHURCH,] dishonoureth your boasted Logick greatly: The ratio formalis of a Church is Relative; and Relation is an accident; and to say, that accidents may all be separated from the Church with∣out destroying it, is to say, that Relation may be separated; that is, the Church from it self, or formal Essence without destroying it. Do you conquer by such disputing as this? was it by such that you had your boasted printed victory over such great Logicians as Bishop Gunning and Bishop Pierson? Can you also prove that all accidents, that is, Relation, may be separable from Families, Schools, Kingdoms, without destroying them? I hope you will not say that you mean that the separation destroyeth not the humanity of the Members, and that this is the subject you mean: for no more would Apostasie or Unchurching them destroy Humanity.

3. And (that no part may be sound) your minor is false as well as your major. What Christ by his Law commandeth or prescribeth to be in the Church that he instituteth: But all cometh not to pass which Christ commandeth or instituteth. He commandeth us higher degrees of Faith, Love and other Duty than we perform. You say, No Man may change his institution; but doth it follow that no man doth change it? No man ought to plead for Errour or deceive poor Souls. Doth it follow that therefore you and such others do not so? It is Gods command that we never sin: It doth not follow that we never do sin: When the Apostles strove who should be greatest, it was Christs institution that they should not seek for domination or superiority as the Princes of the Earth do, but be as little Children, and strive who should be most humble and serviceable, and take the lowest place; and it was St. Peters Doctrine, that Bishops must not Lord it over the Flocks, nor rule them by constraint, but voluntarily; but doth it follow that all this is done by all? no nor by your pretended Head who is made an essential part of the Church.

I conclude then, 1. That many accidents are not separable without destruction of the sub∣ject. 2. That many more shall never be separated. 3. That relation is not separable from the Church, (nor numbers neither.) 4. That there are Integral parts which are neither Accidents nor Essentials. 5. That every thing is not ever in the Church (nor in any man) which Christ hath commanded or instituted to be ever in it: (And if that may be in a man which Christ forbiddeth, so may it be in the Church, and so that be absent which he commandeth.) 6. That it is a novel Opinion, contrary to common Reason and all true Theologie, and which a Catechized Child should be ashamed of, to hold, that all that Christ hath instituted to be ever in the Church is essential to it: And so that the Church would be nullified if one word of the Holy Scriptures perished by the carelesness of Scribes or Printers, or if one decent order were changed, or if one Office were depraved, &c. 7. It

aggravateth the errour to hold that every instituted apex or perfection (for continuance) is Essential to the Church; and yet even the explicite belief, that Iesus is the Saviour, is not essential to a Church-Member or a Christian. 8. That this Disputer absolutely nullifieth the Roman Church, which hath changed the Sacrament, and Prayer, and Church-Offi∣cers, &c. which were instituted by Christ to be ever in the Church.

But I noted to him, that our question to him was, Whether the holding such thing to be in∣stituted be essential to the Church, and not whether the institution it self be so: May not the Opinion be but integral or an accident? Here he replies without blushing. 1. That thus I yield up the Cause, in naming Integrals, for those are not Accidents.

Ans. 1. My affirming that the Papacie is as much an Accident as a Leprosie is to a Man, did not make me forget that I was confuteing his assertion, that all is essential to the Church which is instituted to be for ever, (or indeed, which had been ever in it; for that was his saying;) And though Integrals be not Accidents, yet they are not Essentials, was this hard to see? And 2. by his now putting in the word [instituted] he would make the Reader think that I had granted that the Papacie was instituted by Christ.

2. He saith that [Nothing can be an accident to the Church, which Christ hath instituted to be perpetually in the Church; and consequently the Churches holding any thing to be so, if true, is essential to the subsistence of the Church; if false, is essentially destructive of the Church; so that whether true or false it will never be accidental to the Church.

Ans. 1. What work will Interest and Errour make. If so, then every Errour, and every Sin of the Church is essentially destructive of the Church: For Christ hath instituted that the Church shall perpetually hold and teach the truth only, and obey all his commands without sinning. If he say that the Church never hath nor had Sin or Errour; I answer, 1. If an essential part of the Church have had Sin and Errour, then so hath the Church had: But an essential part (in their account) that is their supposed Head hath had Sin and Errour: To pass by Peters denying Christ, disswading him from suffering till he heard, Get behind me Satan, Mat. 16. his dissembling, Gal. 2. sure Marcellinus sinfully offered Incense to an Idol, and Honorius and Tyberius sinned; and it was some sin in those Popes that defiled Wives and Maids at the Apostolick doors, and that were Whoremongers, and came in by Whores and Poyson, and that were condemned as Simonists, Hereticks, Incarnate De∣vils, Perjured, Murderers, &c. and that by Councils. 2. If all the particular Members of the Church have some Errour or Sin, then so hath the Church: But all the particular Mem∣bers have, &c. If any Man say that he hath no Sin, he is a Lyer and the truth is not in him. 1. Joh. 1. And in many things we offend all, Iam. 3. 2. &c.

2. Why then doth he accuse us for separating from Rome, if it be as certainly unchurched, as it is certain that they have had Sin and Errour; it is certain that the Popes were such as afore∣said, or the Councils sinned that condemned them as such: and it is certain that either the Councils of Constance, Basil, and Pisa, erred and sinned, which decreed that Councils are above the Pope, and may condemn and depose him; and that this is de fide, and the contrary Heresie; or else the Councils of Laterane and Florence erred and sinned that said the contrary. And so of other Instances.

3. But as I have proved the Antecedent of his Argument false already, so his conse∣quence (that the Churches holding any thing to be instituted for perpetuity, is essential, and the denying, destructive of the essence) would not follow but on two suppositions. 1. That such institutions are not only no Accidents, but no Integrals. 2. That every commanded truth is essential, which are both false: For else the institution might be essential, and yet not the believing it such be essential: And he confesseth that such belief is not essential to every Member; nor can he tell to how many, nor to whom ad esse Ecclesiae; If he say, To as many as have a sufficient proposal. 1. Then if none had a sufficient proposal, it would cease to be essential to the Church. 2. Then if any one sin be committed by the Church against a sufficient proposal, the Church is nullified. If he said, It is not known how many must believe it ad esse Ecclesiae, then no man can know whether the Church be nullified or not.

He saith, [pag. 6•…•…. So the acknowledgment of it, by all those to whom it is sufficiently pro∣pounded, is necessary to make them parts of the true Church, and the denyal of it when so pro∣pounded hinders them from being parts.]

Ans. 1. Still this sayeth nothing to the question, how far and in whom it is essential to the Church. 2. And this unchurcheth every person that erreth and sinneth against any one word of Scripture after a sufficient proposal; yet this same man said, pag. 36. of his expli∣cations, [Whatsoever their neglect be to know what is propounded, yet so long as they believe ex∣plicitely what is necessary to be believed necessitate medii, and implicitely the rest, they can be no Hereticks; for it is not the ignorance though culpable, &c. And do the wilfully ignorant ac∣knowledge it? reconcile these if you can.

2. This Unchurcheth your whole Church; For it is sufficiently proposed, even in express words in the Scripture that there is Bread in the Eucharist after Consecration, (thrice to∣gether in 1 Cor. 11.) and that the Church should communicate with the Cup, [This do in re∣membrance of me, even to shew the Lords death till he come,] and that we should not make to our selves any graven Image, nor bow down to it, nor worship it, and that we should pray publickly in a known Tongue, and that Bishops should not Lord it over the Flock, &c. and you erre and sin after this sufficient proposal.

Pag. 36. I had given several Instances (of the Iberians, Indians, Americans, the primi∣tive Christians, and their own Converts) to prove that the belief of, and subjection to, the Pope is not necessary to Christianity or Salvation; to which his answer is very remarkable, Viz. [

I never said that all particular persons or COMMUNITIES are obliged to have an express belief or acknowledgment of the Roman Bishops Supremacy, that being necessary to all, neither necessitate medii nor praecepti: It is sufficient that they believe it implicitely in subjecting themselves to all those whom Christ hath instituted to be their lawful Pastors; and when the Bishop of Rome is sufficiently proposed to them to be the Supreme Visible Pastor of those Pastors upon Earth, that then they obstinately reject not his authority.

Ans. There is some moderation in this, though it utterly overthrow their cause. 1. This fully proveth that the poor Abassines, Armenians, and such others, (for all the Popish Accu∣sations of them) are neither Hereticks nor Schismaticks, for not acknowledging the Pope, whose Supremacie hath not been sufficiently proposed to them: And so that the Church is greater than the Popes Kingdom.

2. This maketh out a receiving of the Popes Supremacie to be no more necessary than the receiving of every Word of the holy Scripture, or tradition, no•…•… than the receiving e. g. of the Cup in the Lords Supper: For all are essentially necessary (say they) when suffi∣ciently propounded.

3. This undeceiveth us, that thought their Doctrine had been that the Scripture and Christianity must necessarily be received by the Proposal of the Papal Church as such, whereas now we perceive that it may be received from the Church though they know it not to be Papal; And we thought it must have been received as from a General Council, or the Church universal: but it seems here, it is needful but that it be from their particular Pastors.

4. By this it seems that there are other Pastors that must be believed, received and obeyed before the Pope, and Subjection to them is of absolute necessity to salvation and Churchmem∣bership, when subjection to the Pope is of no such necessity. How the Pope will take this we know not: but,

5. It leaveth us to new doubts as hard as any of the rest; How to know that such indeed are our lawful Pastors, before we know that there is a Christ or a Pope, and how to know which are they. We perceive now that Implicite Faith is not necessarily the believing Pope or Coun∣cil, but the believing those that Christ hath instituted to be our lawful Pastors.

Qu. 1. But can we know that Christ instituted them before we know that there is a Christ, or that he is true Christ?

Q 2. Can you be true Pastors without derivation from, and dependance on the Pope; or be so known by the People? O that you would but come into the light and tell us how! And then, Q. 3. tell us why the same People may not take Protestant, Armenian, Abassine Bishops, or Presbyters for true Pastors, by the same Proof? Q. 4. And doth not the Proof, or Knowledge, that Men are our Lawful Pastors, without knowing that they have Ordination, Jurisdiction, Mission, or Confirmation (as you distinguish them) from the Pope, or are subject to him; also prove that, quoad esse, Men may be cur true Pastors without any of these

relations to the Pope? For the esse rei is presupposed to the Proof and Knowledge 〈◊〉〈◊〉 And in relations the Fundamentum entereth the Definition.

I conclude, that being my self unfeignedly and earnestly desirous to know the truth, whe∣ther the Pope be the appointed Church-Monarch, of Government of all Christians that dwell on the Face of the Earth; and having diligently read what you, and abu•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 more have written for it, I profess that I never yet heard or saw any Proposal of it (nor yet of abun∣dance of your Doctrines) which was sufficient to convince my understanding of it, but much to convince me of the contrary. And I may suppose this to be the case of most, who need as clear evidence as I; and therefore that we are none of us, by your Concession, obliged ei∣ther necessitate medii, or praecepti, to believe you, or to be your Subjects.

And I confess I like the preaching of these Men whose labour is only to subject Men to Christ, and to their Lawful Magistrates, and Domestick Governours; and to the Teaching-Conduct of those that speak to them the Word of God; better than theirs that make it the Foundation of their Religion, to make all Men on Earth their Subjects.

And yet Teachers we acknowledge necessary to our Faith; but it is not first necessary to believe them to be sent by Christ, before we believe in Christ. But, 1. The first Messengers (Apostles) did at once affirm that Christ is the Saviour of the World, and that he sent them to witness his Resurrection, Miracles, and Works; and to preach his Gospel. And the Tongues, Miracles, &c. by which they proved it, was a Proof of both at once; but princi∣pally of the former: (For if an un-called Preacher had wrought a Miracle, it would have proved his Doctrine, but not his Calling.)

2. But ordinary Preachers now give us the Evidences of the truth of the Gospel, which were heretofore delivered to the Church. (The Doctrine's self-evidencing Divinity, as it hath the Impress of God's Power, Wisdom, and Love, his Holiness, Justice, and Mercy, with the antecedent Prophesies fulfilled, and the concomitant and subsequent Miracles, and the continued Seal of the sanctifying Spirit in all Believers.) And by these we are first drawn (by the inward operation of the Holy Ghost) to believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spi∣rit; before we believe that he sent these Men to be our Lawful Pastors: Yea, without be∣lieving them (oft-times) to be our Pastors, or any Pastors at all. We detest those Self-Preachers that would make the World believe, that we must believe them to be our Lawful Pastors, and receive them before we believe in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and receive him. And we detest that false Doctrine that saith, That a Lay-man may not con∣vert Souls to the Faith of Christ; and that God's Word and Spirit may not, by his opening that Word, win Souls that know not yet what Ministry Christ hath instituted.

To my Instance of the Iberians (converted by a Maid) and the Indians by Frumentius and Edesius, he answers, 1. That he can prove the Papacy preach'd to them, as well as I can Iustification by Faith alone, or any other parcicular Point of our Doctrine. 2. We must both say that all important truths of Christianity were preached to them; and till you have evinced this of the Supremacy to be none of those, it is to be supposed it was sufficiently declared to them. 3. Ex∣plicating the Article of the Catholick Church, it's supposed they were told it consisted of Pastor and People united, and that they must obey their Lawful Pastors; in which Doctrine the Pope is implicitely included.

Answ. 1. Our Doctrine (as you call it) is Christianity, and I can prove nothing preached but what made them Christians; which you confess may be without believing the Pope's Su∣premacy.

2. A brave Argument: All important truths were preached, Ergo you must prove that this is not one of them. 1. All important truths cannot in reason be supposed to be preached by those two Lay-men, and by a Maid: All essential truths we may suppose preached, or else they could not be Christians. We heard before that you would perswade us that every truth of continued institution, is not only important, but essential to the Church. Whence you may infer (in your way) that the Maid and the two Lay-men had preached every such truth, and left not one out; or else there was no Christians and Church. 2. It's your part to prove that the Papacy is such an important truth, and not mine to prove the Negative, (which yet I have oft and fully done.)

3. The Article of the Catholick Church was not at first in the Creed, as the old Copies shew: And Baptism was Administred without mentioning that Article.

4. If holding that [People must obey their Lawful Pastors] will serve, then we are all right▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 if this be an implicite belief of the Papacy, we are all Papists; yea, perhaps Mahometans and He•…•…thens are Papists too, by such a belief.

To 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Instance from Act. 2. he saith, 1. Who can tell whether Peter told them not of his Su∣prem•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 2. They address'd their Speech first to him, &c.

Answ. 1. Who can tell that Peter did preach his own Supremacy? I prove he did not: Be∣cause if he did, it was as necessary to be believed, or not. If not, he preached it not among things necessary. If yea, then had he so preached it, that Text, or some other would have mentioned it: Peter or Paul, or some Apostle would have express'd it on Record; which they have not done, yea have denyed it.

2. Those that Paul preach'd to, Act. 16. and other places, address'd their Speech first to him: But doth it follow that therefore he was Governour of all the Apostles? How un∣happy are great Conquerours that must fight many bloody Battels to win one Kingdom of another Mans, in Comparison of the Pope; who without a blow, or a word of good reason, can hope by such gross Sophismes as these to get the Monarchy of the whole Earth.

To my Instance of those converted by the English and Dutch in the Indies, he bids me prove them to be instructed in the true Faith?

Answ. They that are instructed in the Baptismal Covenant, the Creed, and in general the truth of all the Sacred Scriptures; and are devoted to God by the Baptismal Covenant, and taught to conform their Desires to the Lord's-prayer, and their Practice to the Decalogue; to live sober∣ly, righteously, and godly; and in love to God and Man, and in good works, and hope of Heaven, are instructed in the true Faith. But such are they in question, &c. Do you so oft say, that less than all the Creed is necessitate medii to be believed? and many of you, not so much as Christ himself; and yet is not all that Protestants teach the true Faith? O Impartiality!

Next to my Instance of the Abassian Empire, he bids me also prove them to be Orthodox Ca∣tholick Christians.

Answ. 1. I must first know what you mean by [Orthodox and Catholick] which your ill faculty of expounding makes me despair of. If by [Orthodox] you mean such as have no errours, I cannot prove it; but it's shame for such erroneous Men as you to demand it. But if you mean but such as hold all the Essentials of Christianity and much more, the former Argument joyned with all just Testimonies of them, (such as you have in Damianus a Goes, Alvarez, Godignus, &c.) prove it. So if by Catholick you mean a Papist, I cannot prove it, but the eontrary. But if you mean [Parts of the Universal Church] it's proved as afore.

Note here what vafritious Men these are, that save or •…•…amn Empires to and fro; as the inte∣rest of their arguing requireth. When we prove that the rest of the Christian Church is twice or thrice as great as all the Papal Church; then they tell us that Greeks, Abassines, &c. are of their mind; and they feign that the Greeks, Armenians, Abassines, &c. are all subject to the Pope, and have submitted to him; Godignus wrote to confute one of their own Writers that affirmeth the Abassines to be for the Pope. But when their Cause bids them say otherwise, then we are challenged to prove them Catholick Christians, and Orthodox. Had you put me to prove the Papists such, you had put me harder to it.

Our next Point is of [the Visibility of Christ as Head of the Church, where he saith, p. 65. [He is most certainly an invisible Pastor, both in Heaven, and on Earth: For though his Person may be seen there, yet the Exercise of his Pastorship consisting only in spiritual Influences and in∣ternal Graces cannot be seen by any Corporal Eye whatsoever: Therefore as a Pastor of the Mili∣tant Church he is wholly invisible; so you put a visible Body without a visible Head, all that is vi∣sible in the Pastoral Function being performed by visible Pastors; and all that is invisible by our Saviour. So you by a strange piece of Novelty constitute a visible Body, without a visible Head; you destroy the visible Church, and frame a Monster▪]

Answ. What abundance of Heresies must I charge on such Men, if I judged them accord∣ing to their terms and rigour of judging? 1. Christ, as a visible Head of the Church, is here denyed: Whereas, 1. It is not that he is Visus, but Visibilis that we assert. 2. And he was seen till about thirty three years of Age on Earrh: He was seen to do Miracles, suffer, rise, ascend. 3. He was seen of Paul and Stephen after his Ascension. 4. The poor scattered Flock on Earth is but a Handful, to the Church Triumphant that see him still in Hea∣ven; and it is the same Body. 5. He will come visible in Glory to Judgment. 6. Eve∣ry

Believer, after a few hasty hours, passeth to the sight of him. 7. And we shall all see him in Heaven for ever.

Compare this now with the Visibility of the greatest Earthly Monarchs, who are never seen to the thousandth Person of their Empires; and rarely to any but their Courtiers: and some of them rarely to the most of them, but to some very few, and quickly die and are seen here no more. And yet may not Christ be called a Visible Head. And yet we say but that he is visible in tantum, and not every-where, nor to every one.

2. But it is not his Person that he saith is invisible, but worse than that; it is [the Exer∣cise of his Pastorship] which he erroneously (that I say not heretically) affirmeth to consist only in spiritual Influxes, and internal Graces.] So that here, 1. He denyeth all Christ's visible teaching and government, while he was on Earth (were his words to be strictly under∣stood;) and all his Mission and Commissioning of his Apostles, &c. 2. He denyeth all the Sacred Scriptures, which are Christ's visible Doctrine, Laws and Promises; and so the visi∣ble Exercise of his Office, as the King's Laws are of his. 3. He denyeth all Christ's visi∣ble Administrations by his Officers, Princes and Pastors; as if it were a good Argument, that Christ doth it not, because they do it: whereas it is he that visibly ruleth (as to the effect here questioned) by them; as it is the visible Government of the King which is exercised all abroad the Kingdom by his Command. 4. He denyeth Christ's visible Mercies, Provision, Protecti∣on, Deliverances of many sorts; which are all parts of the Exercise of his Office. 5. He denyeth all the visible Miracles which Christ hath wrought by others, whilst yet their Church so boasteth of them as if they were their very Foundation, (as I shewed out of Knot against Chillingworth, who ultimately resolveth their Faith into them,) and they would have us think that they are costant things. If you say that Christ is not seen here: I answer, It is not Christ's Person now whose Visibility he speaks of, but the Exercise of his Office. 6. He de∣nyeth all the visible punishments which Christ himself inflicteth on his sinning People, and on his Enemies, though they are many and notorious; and as God is known by the Iudgments which he executeth, Psal. 9. So all things and power now are given unto Christ, and he judg∣eth the World as Lord of all: For the Father judgeth no Man, but hath committed all Iudg∣ment to the Son, Joh. 5. 22. 7. He denyeth Christ's final visible Judgment, if he hold strictly to his words, That the Exercise of Christ's Pastorship is only in spiritual Influences and internal Graces. If you say that some of my Instances are not of his Pastoral, but his Regal Offices, I answer that it is but some that you so except. 2. It is a mistake, because his Pasto∣ral and Regal Office are one and the same indeed; not two Offices, but two inadequate Metapho∣rical conceptions of one and the same Office of Christ: And it belongeth to the Pastor to provide Food for his Flock, to govern them, to fetch them home, and to defend them and destroy the Wolves.

He saith, all that is visible is done by visible pastors, and all that is invisible by Christ (in the Pastoral Function,) as if Christ did nothing which they do, or no more than they do. And he reproacheth Christ's Church as being a Monster, unless it have some other visible Head: Like Cardinal Bertrand, see his words in his Book in Biblioth. Patrum, that saith; God had not been wise, if he had not made one Universal Monarch over all the World. And when we have fully proved that a mere Humane visible Church-Governour over all the round Earth is impossible, and such Power never was deputed by Christ to any; and that the far greatest part of the Church never owneth, or did own such: Will it not then follow, that his reproach of Christ's Church and Government is unjust and rash?

And would it not follow by the same reason that the Earth, as Gods Kingdom, (which Christ also is the King of) is a Monster, being a visible Body; unless it had one mere Humane visi∣ble Head? Are not Men as Men, and governable by the Sword, as visible as Men as Christians, and governable by the Word and Keys? If so (which is undeniable,) Why is the Christian World any more a Monster without a Monarch Bishop, than the Humane World without a Monarch King?

But pag. 66, 67. he asks [Whether Christ performed immediately any visible Action in relation to the Church?] and saith, Men will expect that I shew that Christ, not in his Person, but in the Exercise of his Pastoral Headship, works visibly by himself.

Answ. If it be not the Person's Visibility that you require, but the Action; that is consider∣ed either as it is Agentis, or as in Pass•…•…, in the Receiver. The former is seen, if ever, only

when it is the seen Mo•…•…us of a Body. If the latter, I have named you divers visible Acts of Christ. But why must [immediate] come in? Doth not my hand write visibly unless I do it without a Pen? How little Government do great Emperours exercise immediately in all their Empire? even none in the far greatest part in all their Lives, but give out their Laws and Mandates to others. What Government hath your Pope exercised immediately in Abassia, Armenia, Tartary, Persia, yea or Mexico, much less at the terra australis incognita, and all that side of the Earth which Lactantius, Augustine, &c. denyed?

He confesseth that he cited not Ephes. 4. to prove the Papacie, but successive Pastors.

Reader, think seriously, 1. whether the Pope be not an invisible Head, and his Church a Monster by this mans rules. Doth he rule all his Church immediately or by others? If by others, doth not Christ do so, (and better.) And was Pope Zachary the visible Head at the Antipodes, when he commanded Boniface to excommunicate Vigilius for holding such a World under us as we call the Antipodes? And is this Pope a capable Head of all the World that denyeth the very Being of them, and holdeth that there is no such thing as so great a part of it? O what a Pastor or Apostle is this that excommunicateth men for affirming the existence of the charge which he undertaketh!

The Answer to W. J's second-Chapter.

Whereas W. I. would perswade men that it is first incumbent on us to prove where there hath been a Church in all Ages without the Roman Papacie, I first evidenced that it is incumbent on them, as having the Affirmative, to prove that the Universal Church hath been headed by the Pope in all Ages: For 1. our Religion is nothing but Christianity as such: And this they confess hath been in all Ages since Christs and Churches professing it; so that all our Religion being past Controversie between us and them, (which is still to be noted) we have no need to prove that which is not denyed, who denyeth that there have been Christian Churches?

But it is their addition of the Papal Soveraignty over the Universal Church which is denyed by us, and must be proved by them according to the common Rules of Disputation.

2. And the denyal of their addition is the Renunciative Consequence, and no direct and pro∣per part of our Positive Religion: True Faith is one thing, and the Renunciation of all Errors contrary to it is another thing: The one is such as may be defined; the other in particulars hath no bounds: I can soon say that There is one God the Father Almighty, &c. and in general that I deny any other; but if I will undertake to name them all that are worshipped as Gods, and say, e. g. Sathan, Iupiter, Sol, &c. are no Gods, I can never know when I have done; and this is but a consequent of my Faith: so it is to believe that Mahomet, Amida, Zachea, &c. are no Saviours.

Now if any would bid me prove Where there hath been Church in all Ages that did renounce Arrianism, Macedonianism, Nestorians, Eutychians, Monotheli•…•…es, &c. I cannot prove that any did expresly renounce these before they were known in the World; and yet Christianity was the same Religion of the Church without any change before and after.

So W. I's demand upon his Plea of present possession, is as if he should say, The man of seventy years of Age which is now gray-headed and lame was ever so: Or the Church which now honoureth St. Martin, St. Thomas Aquinas, as Saints, is the true Church of Christ: And if you cannot shew, us that your Church hath in all Ages so honoured St. Martin, &c. you are not the true Church of Christ. What if it had been [The Church that keepeth Easter-day as now we do, and Christmas-day on the 25th of December is the true Church of Christ; therefore you must prove that your Church hath ever done so. Could they prove their Papacy in the Empire as old, it would have the same answer, viz. It was but a part of the Church, and not the whole, that kept Easter and Christmas as we do now; for one part kept Easter on another day, till the Nicene Council ended that Controversie in the East, and Christmas-day on the 6th of Ianuary till after the middle of Chrysostom's time; and so in the present case, had it been as ancient as they pretend, it was not Universal.

2. But he saith that [at least, as Patriarch of the West by the Churches grant, they were in full quiet possession of that Right or Power which we confess was lawful.]

Ans. No such matter: We make no such Confession: Those Protestants, who think that the superiority of Patriarchs is lawful, do hold that it is by humane Laws; and that if any such Laws were made by that which you call the Church, that is, by Councils, it was by such Councils as in such matters received their Power from the Emperours, without which they might not set up one City above another, nor distribute Provinces and Diocesses, and as was done; and therefore that while the Imperial Laws enforced them, they had the Law to bind Subjects to obey them: but when any Kingdom was cut off from the Empire, it was from under those Laws, and under the Laws of their own Prince, and the former decrees of Councils were no Laws to them any longer; though they might by voluntary contract still associate with For∣raign 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 Bi∣shop 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 Ierusa∣lem been always visible from the beginning of Christianity; for no other was at first ex∣istent.

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 in∣deed 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 preten∣sions 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 •…•…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 lon∣ger; but if it be by an Invisible Proof that your Visible Head reigneth, I cannot judge of it.

He next addeth [I press you therefore once more to give an instance of something which hath been ever in the visible Church by Christs institution, and yet is accidental to the Church.]

Ans. 1. If I have not given you such Instances and Reasons also to prove that all that Christ instituted to continue is not essential, let the Reader say that I have failed you. 2. But if I had not, what is it to your cause; will it thence follow that you have said a word to prove that Christ instituted the Universal Head-ship of the Pope? Or rather do you not over∣throw it your self by such arguing, seeing 1. the Headship of Rome hath not been ever in the Church as you confess. 2. It never was in the Universal Church either instituted by Christ, or received by the Church one hour, but only for a time received by a corrupt oppressed part of the Church. 3. The Pope hath cast out divers things instituted by Christ for conti∣nuance, as is proved.

I told him, that though the King were absent [it is only the King and Subjects that are essential to a Kingdom; the Deputy is but an Officer and not essential.]

He replyeth ['Tis so indeed de facto: But suppose (as I do) that a Vice-King be by full au∣thority made an ingredient into the essence of the Kingdom, then sure he must be essential.

Ans. Yes, by very good reason; if he be made essential he is essential: and now I under∣stand what is your proof; you suppose it to be so. But if it be so in our case, then the Pope is essentially so the Churches constitutive Head that when-ever he dyeth the Church is dead, (unless you can say as our Law doth of the King; Papa non moritur) and when the Church hath been two or near three years without it was no Church, and when it had two or three Popes it was no Church or two or three Churches.

But saith W. I. [This is evident in our present Subject; for though all the Pastors in Christs Church be only his Officers and Deputies, yet you cannot deny such Officers are now essential to his visible Church.]

Ans. 1. When I heard the word Evident, I lookt for something: But I had nothing but [you cannot deny it: and what true Christian ever yet denyed it?] But I do not remember that ever I heard it disputed before; affirmed or denyed. He that would deny it, will say that as all the Mayors, Bayliffs, and other Magistrates of Corporations, are indeed essential parts of those Corporations, and these Corporations are the noblest integral parts of the Kingdom, but no essential parts of it, so that if the Kingdom should be resolved into a King and meer common Subjects only, it were a Kingdom still: so it is in the Church. Particular gathered Churches are the noblest integral parts of the Universal Church, but not essential: And Pastors are essential parts of those particular Churches: But if all the particulars and Pastors should cease, the Church would be a Church still, while there is a Christ and meer Christians. But this never will be in this world; because Christ will not only have a Church, but a well-formed organized Church.

Those that had rather use the word essential of the Pastors will say, that as soul and body

are the only essential parts of a man, and yet the brain, heart, and liver may be called essen∣tial parts of the body, as distinct from the rest, because without these it is not corpus org•…•…∣nicum, and so not humanum; so though Christ be the only soul of the Church, yet Offi∣cers may be essential parts of his body as organical, capable of such a soul: And though the other will reply, that this is but a deceiving Metaphor, Christ being not only the soul but the head, and no organical Members being more than noble Integrals, because if an Intelle∣ctual separation be made, the Church is a Church still in such a conception. Yet all this is but a Controversie of the aptitude of the word Essential, in that case; we are agreed that Officers shall be in the Church to the end. And yet Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 12. calls them but eyes and hands, and never heads, but reserveth that title to Christ alone; yea even when he speak∣eth of Apostles. And yet if any Officers were Essential it would be Apostles, who are called Foundations and Pillars of the House; but none of them the Head.

2. But what's all this to our Controversie? What if Pastors were Essential to the Church, viz. that there be some? Doth it follow, that the Bishop of Rome is any more essential to it than the Bishop of Ierusalem or Antioch? If so, then 1. Before Peter is feigned Bishop of Rome, the Church was no Church: All the while that he dwelt at Ierusalem and Antioch. 2. And then if Rome were burnt, or the Bishop of it ceased, the Church were no Church.

Sir, our true question is, Whether a trayterous Usurper of Universal Soveraignty, received by a third part of the Church, and refused by all the rest, be essential to the Church? Not as whe∣ther the heart or head, but a Scab or Cancer, be essential to the body?

After some vain repetitions, pag. 82. he repeateth the sum of his fraudulent Argument, which he calls [The force of his Discourse] viz, [No Congregation of Christians hath been perpe∣tually visible, but that which acknowledgeth the Popes Supremacy: Ergo, No Congregation of Christians is Christs true Church save that.]

Ans. I will therefore repeat the sum of my Answer: viz. The word [Congregation] is am∣biguous: 1. Either it meaneth a company met together. 2. Or a number of such Congregations owning one Superiour, being part of the Universal Church. 3. Or the Universal Church it self.

Accordingly I answer, 1. That in the first sense a Congregation is called the same, either because the same men live, or because the survivors dwell in the same place, or because they are of the same profession. In the two first respects, it is not necessary that any Congregation continue the same; for men dye, and places may be conquered or ruined. In the third sense, All true Christian Congregations in the world are of one and the same species (as Christian) from the beginning to this day.

II. In the second sense of the word [Congregation] I answer like as to the former: The men dye; the places are mutable: but as to the common Christian Profession, they are the same that they have been: but as to the extent of Diocesses, neither you nor we can deny but that they have altered: Scotus, Petavius, and Doctor Hammond, who hold that Bishops without Presbyters were first setled, must hold that a Church then was but one Assembly, or no more than one Bishop could speak to. But de facto all agree that it was not long before they widened by degrees. And in this sense the Churches of Abassia, Armenia, Ierusalem, Alexandria, &c. are visible and have been from their beginning, and some of them before Rome was. The Churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Thessalonica, &c. are and have been such. And some Churches are visible which do not acknowledge the Popes Soveraignty, that sometimes did, viz. The Church of Britain in England and Scotland at first owned it not, and after did re∣ceive it, and after that cast it off again; but it is visible and hath been from its beginnings. The Churches of Denmark, Sweden, Transilvania, and divers Countries of Germany (were not Churches from the beginning of the Christian Church, nor was Rome it self so, but) ever since their beginnings they have been visible, sometimes obeying the Pope, and sometimes rejecting him: the Abassines and several other Extra-imperial Churches, never obeyed him: The most of the Churches of the Empire (the Eastern and African) sometimes obeyed him as the chief in the Empire by the Laws of the Empire, amd sometimes they cast him off when the Eastern Empire cast him off: but they never obeyed him as the Soveraign Bishop of the whole World.

III. In the third sense of the word [Congregation] as it signifieth the Universal Church, I confess that I can shew you no Universal Church now visible rejecting the Pope; for the

Universal leaveth out no part, though a corrupt part; and while Papists own him I cannot say that the Universal Church disowneth him; but I can prove, 1. That the Primitive Universal Church never owned any Universal Head or Governour but Christ and his twelve Apostles, whose indefinite charge may be called Universal. 2. That the Universal Church never owned the Roman Universal Soveraignty. 3. That the far greatest part of the Church doth not own it at this day; and therefore if the whole may be denominated from the major part we may say, that now the Universal Church disowneth him.

And now Reader answer these like Sophisms and you have answered this man of Art.

1. No Congregation of Christians hath been perpetually visible, but that which acknowledgeth the Patriarchs in the Empire, (at least heretofore;) Ergo no other is the true Church of Christ. Answ. 1. But another is part, and the best part of the Church of Christ. 2. And none that doth, or ever did acknowledge those Patriarchs, was the whole Church. 3. And none of the Church acknowledged them at first, before they were erected.

So, 2. Inst. [No Congregation of Christians hath been perpetually visible, but that which condemneth the Monothelites, the Nestorians, the Eutychians, the Audians, the Luciferians, the Quartodecimani, &c. Ergo no other is the true Church.

Answ. 1. Part of the Church condemn them, and part never heard of them: And before they rose, none of the Church condemned them.

So, another Instance is, [No Congregation of Christians hath been perpetually visible, but that which Administreth the Eucharist only in one kind (without the Cup) and which useth publick Prayers in an unknown Tongue; and which forbiddeth the reading the Scripture translated without special License, &c. Ergo no other is the true Church.

Answ. 1. Only a corrupt part now doth these; The most discover it, and none were guilty of it in many Generations, Doth there need any other Answer to such palpable So∣phismes? His Argument plainly should run thus; [No Congregation of Christians hath been perpetually visible, but that which now owneth the Trayterous Usurpation of the Pope, and the Council of Trent, and of Lateran; and part of whose Religion is for exterminating, or burn∣ing all that will not renounce all belief of Humane Senses, in believing Transubstantiation; and for casting out Princes that execute not this, and absolving Subjects from their Oathes of Allegi∣ance to them; and which hath corrupted the Doctrine, Worship, and Government of Christ; Ergo no other is the true Church.]

Answ. A diseased part of the Church only is guilty of this now; and the whole Church was far from it heretofore.

But pag. 83. he telleth me that he meaneth neither one present Assembly, nor yet one as united in one visible Humane Head; but abstracting from that also, be it but truly and properly one: whencesoever the Unity is drawn, 'tis all alike to the solution of the Argument.]

Answ. Then sure our business is in a hopeful way, if not as good as ended. Remember this and fly not from it: Our Unity is in Christ our Head: One King maketh us one Kingdom: All Christians are one Body of Christ. Yea, moreover we are one in all the seven Points of Unity required by the Holy Ghost, Eph. 4. viz. We have, 1. One Body, (of Christ, not of the Pope.) 2. One Spirit. 3. One hope of our Calling, (viz. Eternal Glory.) 4, One Lord, (without a Vice-Christ.) 5. One Faith, (summarily in the Creed, and integrally in the Ho∣ly Scriptures) 6. One Baptisme, (or solemnised Baptismal Covenant.) 7. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all: Yea, as to the Integrals, though our Grace hath various degrees, we all receive the inspired Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists, Authority and Doctrine; and the ordinary Pastors and Teachers that are sent by the Holy Ghost, and called by the way which God hath appointed; (though we receive not an Usurper that maketh himself the Governour of the whole World in Title, while he Governeth not the tenth part of it, nor any according to God's Law; and who is oft ob∣truded by Whores and Murders, and is a wicked Slave of Satan, so judged by his own Gene∣ral Councils.)

We acknowledge that there are among us different Opinions; but neither for Kind or Number comparable to the differences of the Papal Sectaries among themselves. Not for Kind, such as about Murder, Adultery, Perjury, Lying, False-witness; yea, about the Love of God it self are by the Iansenists charged on the Iesuits, and proved out of their ex∣press words: Nor such as Mr. Clarkson hath collected from the express words of their most

famous Doctors of all Parties: Nor such about King-killing, dissolving Subjects Oathes, &c. as H. Fowlis hath gathered from the express words of your greatest Doctors, And for Num∣ber, all the Sects in the World (of Christians) set together, have not half the Controver∣sies and contentious Writings against each other, as your Schoolmen and other Writers of your Church have.

For our parts, we look not that our Union should be perfect, till our wisdom, and holiness, and patience, and we our selves be perfect. They that know but in part, will err in part, and differ in part. We believe that [there are diversities of Gifts, but the same Spirit; and differences of Administrations, but the same Lord; and diversity of Operations, but the same God, who worketh all in all. For as the Bedy is one, and hath many Members; and all the Mem∣bers of that one Body, being many, are one Body; so also is Christ: For by one Spirit we are Bap∣tised into one Body, and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. Thus are we the Body of Christ, (not of the Pope,) and Members in particular: And God hath set some in (this Body) the Church, first Apostles, (not first a Vice-Christ,) secondly Prophets, thirdly Teachers; (but no Universal Vicar-Head.) All these are Members, and should so live in love that there be no Schisme in the Body.

But pag. 84. the Man is not satisfied, though I name them, what I mean by [These Churches united in one Christ.]

Answ. How should I make a Man know that is unwilling? or how but by naming them by their Country and Profession? I mean, All the Christians of Abassia, Armenia, Egypt, Syria, the Georgians, the Iacobites; those falsly called by you Nestorians, and Eutychians, the Afri∣cans, Greeks, Muscovites, the Britains, Seots, Swedes, Danes, Belgians, Saxons, Helveti∣ans, the rest of the Germans, Transilvanians, Hungarians, French, &c. which now disown the Papacy; who were some Countrys never under the Pope, some Countries at first under him, and after rejected him; and some at first from under his Government, next under him, and after repented; and all of them have been Christians from their first conversion to this day. Can I speak plainer?

But Num. 42. he granteth that All that are true Christians are one Kingdom, or Church of Christ; but denyeth that these are true Christians. And pag. 84. He would seem to give some reason for his denyal, saying, [I deny it, if they were independent on the Bishop of Rome.]

Answ. 1. Even now he abstracted from this: But now they are no Christians, unless they be Dependendents on the Pope. Such a Denyal is an easie Task, and the sum of all their Writings. But what need there then so many Ambages and large Volumes, to bring out such a short and crude Assertion? Could you not have said this without all the rest, [He is no Christian that dependeth not on the Pope.] But is it not incumbent on you to prove it? Un∣doubtedly it is. 1. In foro Scholastico, as an Affirmer. 2. In foro civili & Ecclesiastico, as an Accuser. And till you have proved it, what need they, or I care for yoùr words? Must all Men pass for no Christian, that a Priest or Jesuit will say are none? Or am I, and all Men, disobliged from loving all those as Christians, whom such as you will affirm to be no Chri∣stians? Love is easily destroyed, if this much will do it: But it costeth more than so to cause it.

Pag. 85. He addeth, [Let them have been as visible as you please, that's nothing to me; so were the Arrians, Sabellians, Montanists, &c. Prove they were no more than one visible Con∣gregation of Christians among themselves, and with▪ Orthodox Christians: that's the present Controversie.]

Answ. I hope we shall find out the Controversie at last; though it seems as hard almost as to resolve it: How oft must I repeat the same Proof? Again my Proof is this, [Those that are baptised into the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and hold all essential to Christi∣anity; not apostatizing from the whole, or any essential part, are true Christians: But such are they before mentioned.]

1. That they are Baptized is not denyed; and Baptizing is Christening; and supposeth the profession of all that is essential to Christianity; or else it could not make them Chri∣stians. 2. No man that professeth himself a Christian must be taken to be no Christian, till he be convict by lawful proof; because as sincerity or heart-consent to the Covenant of Grace is our Christianity as invisible before God, so Baptism and professed consent to that Cove∣nant is our visible Christianity before men; every man being the Expositor of his own belief and

resolution: but that these Churches have Apostat•…•…zed from the whole or any essential part of Christianity, is unproved, and therefore not to be supposed: As every particular man is to be taken for a Christian who is baptized and professeth it, till his profession be disproved, so much more whole Countries and Churches that profess Christianity, must not be supposed without proof to be no Christians. If a Papist will say to all the men in the City, prove that you are no Thieves, no Adulterers, no Murderers, no Lyars, no Traytors, or else I will take you for such. I think they may more justly say, prove that we are such, or else we will take you for a standerer.

And that they are of one Church I prove; [All Christians are one Church, but those are Chri∣stians; therefore of one Church.

The major is certain, [They that are the Members and Subjects of one Christ, are of one Church. All Christians are the Members and Subjects of one Christ, therefore they are of one Church.]

All that have the seven terms of Union before mentioned out of Eph. 4. are of one Church; but such are these before named.

Here remember, 1. That I plead not for the Christianity of any that are proved to deny indeed any one essential point of Christianity; but I will not believe this man, that every thing instituted by Christ (and so every word in the Bible) is such an essential; nor that our Church or Religion is so strange a thing as to have no perpetual, integral parts nor accidents; but what will not some men have a Face to defend? 2. That this same man hath already maintained that no man is bound to be subject to the Pope to whom he is not sufficiently pro∣pounded; and that he confesseth, that it is not yet agreed among them that any more is ne∣cessary to Salvation to be explicitely believed, than that there is a God, and reward for good works: And yet two or three parts of the Christian World must be no Christians, nor Mem∣bers of the Church of Christ, because they are not Members of the Pope.

And let it be still remembred to acquit the Eastern and Southern Churches from the Pa∣pists charge of Heresie, (as being Nestorians and Eutychians,) 1. That the Accusers are to be taken for Calumniators, till they prove it, by all the rules of common Justice.

2. That if they could prove Dioscorus e. g. an Eutychian, that's no proof that all the Bishops that adhered to him were such: for it's apparent by the Acts of the Councils that Multitudes adhered to him because they thought him no Eutychian: [and Derodon de supposit•…•… hath undenia∣bly proved, that Dioscorus said but what his Predecessor Cyril hath oft said, whom you approved.] and many because they thought the Judgment unjust that judged him so, and cast him out, and many for the honour of the Seat, yea many for fear of death by the people that were affected to him as their Patriarch, though they understood not the cause in question. He that readeth the Bishops at the Council of Calcedon, part crying out prostrate on the Earth, miseremini, mi∣seremini, non dissentimus; else, kill us here, we dare not go home, if we desert and raile a∣gainst our Patriarch before another be chosen, the people will kill us; and another part of them confessing that fear made them subscribe at the Council at Ephes. 2. and some crying out, Away with them they are Hereticks, who cryed non dissentimus; may well judge that all were not Hereticks that clamor called so. 3. If they could prove those few Bishops that were openly accused and noted to be Eutychians, that's no proof that the rest were so. 4. If they could prove that many then were so, that will not prove that those that now there inhabit are so. 5. And of Nestorianism there is less publick shew of proof. 6. And indeed the main Body of the Common People, yea and Clergy, it's most probable never understood the Controversies. 7. Yea he that with judgment readeth the Acts, History, and Debates of those times, may well doubt whether Nestorius, Eutyches, or Dioscorus understood them themselves: and whether the Heresie lay not mostly in an unskilfulness of interpreting of words and expressions. Dioscorus solemnly professed that he held neither division of Natures, nor confusion of them, nor transmutation, and that antece∣dent to their Union they were two: These are unskilful expressions: But one would think that he that held that Union did neither change nor confound them, must needs mean that they were distinct though not divided: and the Orthodox denyed division as well as he. And if men had in those Councils but distin guished the senses of the word [Union] or [One] half as exactly as all Metaphysicks and Schoolmen use to do, it's a great doubt whether it would not have reconciled both Eutyches and Nestorius to the Orthodox, it being most undeniable

that there is a sense of the word in which Christs Natures may be said to be One, and a sense in which they cannot be so said: A sense in which he had two Wills, and a sense in which he had •…•…ut one: A sense of the word [person] in which it might be said to have had two persons, and a sense in which it could not be so said: And he that readeth how Hierom was a while Hereticated for refusing the word hypostasis, and what Controversie was about that word and persona between the Eastern and Western Bishops, till it was found out by Nazian∣zene and other peaceable men that they meant the same thing, may possibly hope that if such men as are peaceable and skilful in discussing ambiguous terms, and driving unskilful men to understand others, and speak aptly themselves, had patiently searched the business to the bottom, they would have found fewer Hereticks than were judged such. And their own Writers have no other Argument to excuse Pope Honorius, (condemned for a Heretick by a Council as well as Nestorius and Dioscorus) but that he understood not the words and was misunderstood: And Nestorius (whatever some say to the contrary) denyed Christ to be two persons; These are his words to Cyrils Papers [In eo 〈◊〉〈◊〉 laudo quod distinctionem Natu∣rarum secundum Divinitatis & humanitatis rationem harumque in Una duntax•…•…t persona proe∣dicas. His Heresie lay in two words, 1. That he said Mary was not to becalled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Deipara, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Mother of Christ: 2. That he said in the Synod, He would not say that God was two or three months old; and do not Cyril's answer to the objections of the oriental Bishops plainly shew, that the aptness of the word Deipara was the Controversie: And he that had but said that Christus non Qua Deus, sed Qui Deus, & qua Deus Unitus hu∣manitati was born of Mary, had been like to have reconciled them all.

However, the number so judged was inconsiderable as to all the Christians in those Coun∣treys; and among millions of Christians it is not twenty Bishops thought guilty that are a proof that the Country or Multitude was so.

8. To conclude, the Papists themselves ordinarily justifie them from that charge, and con∣fess, that the Christians of those Countries are honest harmless men, that understand not what such Heresies are or detest them; as I have before shewed out of Brochardus that dwelt at Ierusalem, and others. And what man can tell us that millions of professed Christians are Hereticks, that never declared any such thing themselves. Were it lawful so boldly to cen∣sure others, how much more excusable should we be if we judged the Pope and his Followers Hereticks, who are far more corrupt and erroneous than these whom they accuse, and deny to be Christians?

But page 86. 87. malignity is so hard put to it for some sorry pretensions against Christian charity, and for Unchurching the most of the Church of Christ, that he hath nothing to say but such stuff as this.

I require the nomination of the determinate Opinions of Societies, as Hussites, Wal∣denses, Nestorians, Eutychians, &c. not of their persons; and therefore I say you nomi∣nate none, much less prosecute you those with whom you begun: Now these were Greeks, Armenians, Ethiopians, Protestants; So that I speak undeniably of the nomination of Sects and Societies, not of Names and Sir-names and Genealogies of persons: There were different Sects and Professions in different Countries, as Armenia, Abassia, &c. I re∣quire the nomination of which of those Sects or Parties you mean in those Times and Nations, not what were their Names and Sir-names: nor is it sufficient that you say there were Christians, that is, Christians univocally so called or true Christians in all Ages, in Armenia, Ethiopia, Egypt &c. who denyed the Popes supremacy; for unless you nomi∣nate of what Party, Sect, Opinion, or Profession they were, how shall any man judge whether they held not some Opinion contrary to the essentials of Christianity, and by that became no Christians, &c.

Answ. I would not insult over Men in their sin and folly; but I must say that I reve∣renee that Wisdom and Justice of God which hath made the Evidences of Christian Truth, and the Rights of his Church, and the Obligations to Love and Concord so clear; that Learned Malice, trained up in Satan's 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cannot speak against it, without such impu∣dencse as this Man here is put to exercise. When he denyed most of the Church to be true Christians, he puts me to prove that they have been such: I convince him that I am not bound •…•…o name the Men, and even the Country it self may prove but a mutable Seat of Religion; but I prove that Christians that deny the Pope's Supremacy, or are none of his Subjects,

have successively from the beginning inhabited those Countries: And now the Man is angry that I will not call them by the Names which their malice casteth on them, but only call them Christians of Armenia, Ethiopia, &c. Their factious Interest taught them to stigmatize bet∣ter Men with odious Titles, and I must needs do so too. But, Sir, resume some modesty; if I prove them Christians, do you prove them unchristned if you can. I prove that they are baptised, and profess all these Creeds which were the Symbol of Christians for many hun∣dred years; and they receive the Holy Scriptures: Do you prove that they invalidate all this Profession, or confess your self a Calumniator. Must I tell you what By Opinions they all hold, that you may judge whether they are Christians or not? Cannot you judge by their Baptism, Creeds, and Profession of Christianity, till you are told their Opinions in con∣troverted things? Why then said you, that you call not for their Names? How can I tell the Opinions of Men un-named and unknown, but by their Professions? I know not the Opinions of my Neighbours at the next Doors; and must I tell you the Opinions of all the People of foreign Lands. Is this necessary to know a Papist? Cannot I tell you that Men are Papists that profess subjection to the Pope as the Vice-Christ, unless I tell you that they are Molinists, or Dominicans, Franciscans, Benedictines, Jesuits, Jansenists, &c. Their Profession of Christianity is notorious; if you can prove them no Christians, do. I sup∣pose that one of twenty thousand of them never studied the Eutychian, or Nestorian Contro∣versies, any more than those Christians that died before these Names and Men were born; and I suppose that when these Names came first up, one Pastor of an hundred might side with one of these Sects, which the Ages following little minded, as to any considerable number: and I suppose that some that defended Eutyches and Nestorius knew not what the Heresie was, and erred not so grosly as those Iesuits did about Murder, Adultery, Perjury, &c. whom Montaltus and the Iesuits Morals describe; nor your common Doctors cited by Mr. Clarkson; no nor so bad as the Councils of Rome, Constance and Basil say your Popes have done, nor as others of you say those Councils did; no nor as the Council at the Laterane, did in decreeing the Exterminations of all that you call Hereticks, and the deposition of Princes that will not exterminate them, and the disobliging Subjects from their Oathes of Allegiance.

But if this arguing of yours be good, suppose it used with your selves: [It is not enough that you profess your selves Christians and Papists; tell us what other Opinions you are of, or else how can we know that you are Christians?] But we are ashamed of such Methods; when the Law of Nations bindeth all Men, beyond their Profession, to prove that they are no Traytors, no Thieves, Fornicators, Lyars, &c. then I may yield that Men professing Christianity must prove further that they are no Hereticks, or invalidate not their own Profession: But yet I will not then grant you, that any are obliged to prove this but themselves. How can I prove such Negatives of millions in the remote parts of the Earth? (if they could prove it of them∣selves) Call them to do it, if you must have such Negatives proved: But see that you call them one by one; for my Neighbour's errour proveth not mine. If I were put to take you and all the Papists in England for no Christians, unless I could prove you to be no Secta∣ries, no Hereticks, no Traytors, no Drunkards, Perjured, Fornicators, &c. How were it possible for me to prove it by any one of you? This is one difference it seems between the Justice of the Papal Church-Government and Christ's: And perhaps this is the ground of the Racks and Torments of the Inquisition, to make Men confess what Opinion they are of.

The Answer to W. J's third Chapter.

He begins that which he calls his third Chapter, pap. 88, 89. with again repeating his Question thus; [Were they all united in the profession of one and the same Faith, and Unity of external Communion; without those two it's impossible to be united in Christ.]

Answ. I am afraid these Repetitions will tire the Reader, I have proved them united in one Faith, even the Christian Faith; and in one External Communion in much more of it than is essential to Christianity, viz. in one Baptism, the Lord's Supper, prayer, praise, thanksgiu∣ing, confession of sins, preaching and reading the Word of God, observation of the Lord's Day, &c. without differing in any thing inconsistent with the Unity of the Body of Christ: But if by the ambiguous word of [Unity of External Communion] you should mean either that

they must meet all in one place, or be all under one Pastor, these you before disowned: And if you mean that they must all have one Book of Liturgie, you know that so had not your Roman Church of above 600 years at least, nor yet the Eastern Churches, nor any consi∣derable number of them; every Bishop making his Lyturgie, or Prayers, as he saw meet.

If you mean that they must have no differences in any Word, or Ceremony; and that all are of several Churches, (or half of no Church,) who differ about Meats, Drinks, Days, &c. I shall not believe you while I believe the Scripture, (Rom. 14. and 15. 1 Cor. 8. Iam. 3. &c.) nor till I renounce Humanity, or believe that Men of several Complexions, Statures, or Languages, may not yet be all truly Men! They that bring it to that, that I am no Christian if I eat not Fish in Lent rather than Flesh, may Unchristian me next if I eat not my Bread without Cheese, or my Cheese without Bread; or if I take not the Pope for my Apothecary, or Physitian. Lay by the Sword, and Racks, and Fires, and the World will soon laugh down your arrogant Tyranny.

I demanded his Proof that ever there was a Papist, or almost, one Church of Papists in the World for 400 years after Christ? And he tells me, that [the Oration of Pope Celestine's Legates in the Council at Ephesus proveth it; and though that Council was celebrated 430, yet in a moral consideration that passeth for 400, &c.]

Answ. What cannot the Iesuits Morals make good? By them 430 years is within the 400. And by them a Speech of the Pope's Legates goeth for proof of the Judgment of the Coun∣cil: But what was that Speech it self? First, Note that the Council was called by Theodosius the Emperour, and not by Celestine, sending his Literae Augustales to all the Metropolitans, commanding them to appear at Ephesus. 2. That Cyril, and not Celestine, was sent to at first for help, from the Church at Constantinople. 3. That Cyril presided: And whereas the Papists feign that he did it as the Pope's Substitute, the Councils Letters to the Emperour expresses, that the Pope's three Legates were the Men that represented his Person, (Bin. p. 756.) And that they commended to Theodosius the Judgment of the Pope, but as the signifi∣cation of common consent. 4. And when all is done, these words of Philip, a Roman Pres∣byter, is all that this great boast is of, [Thanking them for so receiving the Pope's Letters,]—[Non enim ignara est vestra beatitudo totius fidei caeterorum{que} omnium Apostolorum caput b•…•…atum Apostolum Petrum extitisse. And after that Peter, the Foundation and Head, had the Keys, and liveth and judgeth in his Successors: But he denyeth not that the other Apostles also had the Keys, and that the Church was built on the Foundation of the Apostles: And these high words spoken to keep up the Pope's greatness in the Empire, were but to maintain his place in Councils; and never spoken to the Churches without the Empire, nor such Power over them claimed by him: And the Councils Decrees were past before these Legates came, by whose consent Cyril was glad to strengthen his Party, having been condemned by Ioh. Antioch. Ne∣storius, &c. And doth not Hesichius say as much of Andrew, (cited by me elsewhere?) and many a Protestant that taketh Peter to have been among the Apostles, as the Fore-man of a Ju∣ry to the rest, would say the same words: But he intimateth that the Pope is Peter's Successor. True, he so supposed him as a Bishop, but not as an Apostle, and therefore not in equality of Power: And common reas•…•…n will interpret him in the common sense of all the Councils and those times, viz. as having the first place in the Imperial Councils, and being the chief of the Patriarchs in the Empire; but not as being the Bishop of all the World. There is no probability that this one Man extended his Power further than the Empire, and so that he was a Papist; and yet you have not proved one in 400 years and more.

But he saith, had not the Council of Ephesus consented, they would have contradicted one imposing a Superiour and a Iudge.

Answ. 1. They never took him for a Judge, any further than as the first Patriarch had the first Seat and Vote. 2. Cyril was there the first; the Legates coming after the Decrees past. 3. Cyril was glad of the consent of the West, it being become too much of the cause of the day; Whether Nestorius or he was the wiser Speaker, and should prevail. 4. What's this to the Government of all the World? Shew us when that Council subjected any without the Empire, to the Pope, or to themselves. 5. Yea in the Empire, he is blind that seeth not that Councils were above Popes; and when the major Vote carried it, they condemned Popes as well as others, (as they did Honorius, and many since.)

Pag. 90. You have another Instance of his, saying and unsaying. When I named the

Churches of Ethiopia, India, the outer Armenia, &c. that were not under the Popes juris∣diction, he faith, I must mean that they were never under it; for if they were under him in any Age, and for any time since Christ, you can never make them an instance of those who were perpetually in all Ages a visible Congregation of Christians not acknowledging the Popes Supre∣macy.

Ans. And yet this same man said before, that he did not put me to prove that in all Ages they did not own the Pope, but that they that own him not now had been a Church any o∣ther way truly united: who can answer him that saith and unsaith, and changeth his Cause as the occasion tempteth him? I have oft told him, 1. I prove that the extra-imperial Chur∣ches never were subject to the Pope, unless when any of them by conquest fell under the Empire, or on such an odd accident in some singular instance which I have enumerated in my Naked Popery. 2. And that no Church in the whole World owned him as the Bishop of all the World for above 400, if not above 600 years. 3. And that those that owned him not (as Britain) at the first, and owned him after and disowned him again, were still Christian Churches united in Christ.

But the man is loth to understand, and pag. 91. saith [You mean all other extra-imperial Nations or some: If all I find the quite contrary; for the Gothes, successively Inhabitants of Spain, never acknowledged themselves Subjects of the Empire, who yet are now subject to the Roman Bishop, and consequently were and are sometime under him.

Ans. I have oft and plain enough told you my meaning: This is very cautelously written: 1. If the Gothes in Spain were not subject to the Empire, the old Inhabitants were before the Gothes conquered them, and the Gothes themselves, when by Theodosius's leave they dwelt in Thrace and near it. And though the Gothes became their Masters, they did not exterminate all the Inhabitants, who had been used to some subjection to the Pope. 2. Yet how little Spain then depended on the Pope is known even by the current of all the Gothick Councils, the Toletane, Hispalense, &c. where their Kings called them, and were oft present, and made certain parts of their Canons, and were over and over magnified, and Canons made for their honour and security, and the due election of Successors, when there was not a word of subjection to the Pope. 3. And you do well in affirming no more but that Spain is now and therefore sometime under the Pope; that they are now so indeed, their Inquisition witnesseth, nor was it ever in my thoughts to deny it. But what of that?

〈◊〉〈◊〉 He addeth, [And the Swedes and Danes, though now they reject all obedience to him, yet in the year 1500 they acknowledged him, &c.]

Ans. Very true; and what of all this! no doubt but long before 1500 the Pope got possession of the Western Churches; we doubt not of it.

But he tells me that to maintain my Cause, I must shew that all the extra-imperial Churches were from under the Pope.

Ans. My Caus•…•… is not of your stating but my own. I maintain, 1. That the Pope was never made the Bishop of all the World. 2. And that the Primacy so much mentioned in the ancient Canons was only over, or in the Imperial Churches, and was a humane in∣stitution; and that the Councils and Emperours never pretended to give or acknowledge any more. Nor did the Councils themselves, and all the Patriarchs, pretend to any more, nor dream of Governing all the World. 3. That the Churches that were from the beginning without the Empire, were none of them subject to the Pope for above 400 if not 500 or 600 years. 4. That the Empire of Abassia, and all the Eastern and Southern extra-imperial Churches (Persia, India, &c.) were never under the Pope to this day, save that the Por∣tug•…•…ls and Spaniards have lately got some Footing in part of the Indies. 5. That the whole Greek Church, the Armenians, Georgians, Syrians, Egyptians, &c. never were under the Pope as Pope, that is, as the Universal Bishop of all the World, but only as the primate of the Empire. 6. That even in that relation he was not properly the Governour of any of the Diocesses of the other Patriarchs, nor the other distinct as Diocesses (Carthage, Iustinian•…•…, &c.) but the prime Patriarch that had the first Seat in Councils, which put in and out Bishops at their pleasure (with the Emperours will) even Patriarchs and all. 7. That those that were un∣der him for some time (as Britain) were divers of them from under him before and after.

And yet that the Reader may not mis-understand the matter and this mans importunity, I must repeat the exceptions laid down in my Naked Popery pag. 106. 107. and tell him what I grant him.

1. Some Cities that were near to Scythia and Persi•…•…▪ had Bishops to whom some Neigh∣bour Scythians and Persians might be voluntary Subjects.

2. Some Cities and Countries were sometime under the Roman Power, and sometimes under the Enemies: (Persians, Parthians, Armenians, Gothes, Vandales, (as Africa, &c.) when they were of the Empire their Bishops came to Councils; and when they were under Heathen or Arrian Princes they took it for their calamity, and were glad of any Communion with the Imperial Churches, and the Honour and countenance of their Relation; and it's like would come among them if they could.

3. Some Bishops that lived in Heathen or persecuted Countries, in distress were glad to seek Countenance and help from the Roman power; as the Britains did from France, and a Basil and the Eastern Bishops did from the West in Valens his persecution, while yet they took them not for Governours. And some weak Princes that lived near the Roman Empire were glad of their Friendship and afraid of their Enmity, and were willing to hold a communion with them in Religion, in which their Clergy should have some dependance on Rome, which was the case of the Saxons in and after Gregory the first's days.

4. Some Western Countries that were converted from infidelity by some Preachers subject to the Pope became themselves subjects to that Seat as their Converters, and in obedience to them that first prevailed with them, which was partly the case of the Saxons, and of some Countries of Germany, and Sweden, Denmark, Poland, &c.

5. Lastly, when the Eastern Empire and Churches forsook the Church of Rome, the Pope received a great diminution in the extent of his Primacy (the East that forsook him being about twice as big as those that remained under him) but withal a great Intensive in∣crease of his power; for shortly after he claimed the Government of all the World as Uni∣versal Bishop, not only of the Empire, but the Earth. And after that many that were his Subjects owned him in that relation: And since then, I deny not but that many Prin∣ces, without the Empire, have been his Subjects: yea he purposely broke Germany and Italy into many small Principalities, and free Cities, that they might not be strong enough to resist his claim.

If all these Concessions will do them any good, let them make their best of them. I must intreat the Reader to remember hence-forward what is our difference, and not to expect that I repeat this over and over again when his words invite me to it.

Pag. 91. he saith [The Indians were not always extra-imperial, for in the year 163. they subjected themselves to Antonius Pius. And so the Armenians 572. being greivously per∣secuted for the Christian Faith by the Persians, they rendered themselves Subjects to the Roman Empire. And 1145 they and the Indian Christians subjected themselves to the Pope, and again 1439, and so remain at the present.]

Ans. 1. This maketh against you rather than for you: If your Kingdom extended not so far as the Empire. But indeed these are impertinent words. As it was but a small part of the Indies that ever was under the Heathen Romans, so it is not their Empire that I speak of, but the Christians: for before Consta•…•…ine's day, the Patriarchs made no pretence to govern all within the Empire, much less all without. Pighius tells you, That General Councils were the device of Constantine. I would you had told us, 1. What Indian or Armenian Bishops were at any General Council before Constantine's days, and where that Council was and when? 2. And what Indian, or Armenian, or Persian Bishops were imposed or deposed by the Pope of Rome? This undertaking would have tryed your strength: but you were wiser.

7. And it was but the nearer Armenia that you say yielded to the Roman Emperour; and I confess that the part that was under hi•…•… had Bishops at some few Councils, and are not the men of whom I speak; though even they were soon separated from Rome, and were no longer under the Roman Papacy.

3. But your Fable of the Armenians and Indians subjecting themselves to the Pope, and so remaining to this day, may be meet to abuse Women with, that know not your Cheats by a tale of a counterfeit Patriarch; but neither Merchants, nor any acquainted with History that know the World, will believe you, any more than that the Greeks are your Subjects, who at Flor•…•…ce, compelled by necessity, made far more shew of it than ever the other did. In sum, I heartily wish that all the World were as much the Popes Subjects as the Armenians and Abassines are, on condition that none were any more your Subjects.

And whereas you say, pag. 92. No one of th•…•…se hath been in all Ages a visible Congregation besides that of Rome. 1. A repeated contempt is answer enough to a repeated false Histo∣rical Assertion. 2. Again, I tell you, that is no question; but whether those that now are none of your Subjects were in all Ages Christians. 3. You have not yet proved that there was one Papist in the World for 400 years.

You add, [For each of them at one time or other became the same Congregation to that, by sub∣jecting and conforming themselves to the Bishop of Rome.

Ans. As true as the Turk is subject to you: If some little of the Indian, were subject to a Heathen Antonius, doth that prove that they and all the Christians there were subject to Constantine, or to the Pope, when they revolted? And when was Ethiopia and Persia subject to you? And why do you not blush to say that the. Armenians are now subject to you? You are like to be good Deliverers of Traditions to us, and Infallible Decreers, and Deciders of Controversies, that stick not at such notorious fictions? If you had said that England, Scotland, Sweden, Denmark, are your Subjects, the falshood had some more pretence, because you have some among them all.

I next noted, That these Churches profess it to be their Tradition that the Pope was never their Governour. This he denyeth and calleth for proof.

Ans. I give you proof. 1. See the words of your own Writers, e. g. Godignu•…•… de rebu•…•… Aba•…•…inorum reciting the conference of the Emperours Mother and the Iesuite, wherein she professeth it, and the answer of the Iesuite confessing it, and Godignus confirming it, that they were Christians from the time of the Eunuch Act. 8. or St. Matthew, and the Pope had nothing to do with them. 2. When the same Countries do at once profess these two things. 1. That in Religion they follow the Tradition of their Fathers from the Apostles. 2. And that the Pope is none of their Governour: set these two together and you must con∣clude that they suppose their Tradition to be against the Papacy, or that they are Sots; and that these two are their Principles, all the Historical notice that we have of those Countreys by Travellers, Merchants, and Writers, Papists, Greeks, and Protestants assure us; deny it as impudently as you will, I will not tire the Reader with needless History.

I next added, that [No History or Authority of the least regard is brought by your own Writers to prove these under the Pope.]

He replyeth, Yes, those that say, All were under him.

Ans. That is none but Pope Leo himself and a few of the Empire, who speak of no All, but the Orbis Romanus, the whole Empire.

I added [

No credible witnesses mention your Acts of Jurisdiction over them, or their Acts of Subjection; which Church-History must needs have contained, if it had been true that they were your Subjects.

He replyeth, [

Is not Genebrard a Witness that Pope Eugenius wrote to the Emperour of Ethiopia 1437 to send Legates to the Council of Ferrara as the Greek Emperour had decreed to do, to whose Letters and Legates David their Emperour sent a respectful an∣swer, and accordingly sent some of his Church to that Council, as appears by the Acts of the Council, and that 1524 the said David and Helena his Empress promised obedience to the Bishop of Rome Pope Clem. 7.]

Ans. I had rather you had called Father Parsons, or Campion, or Garnet, your credible Witness than Genebrard, a late railing Falsifier. Such Tales as these be meet for the Ears of none but such as would believe you if you swore that all the Iews and Turks are Christians. Do you think that your obtruding such abominable Forgeries, commonly known by the Learned to be such, and confessed by your own Writers, will not increase our alienation from you? Did you ever read the subscriptions of that Council when you say that the Acts declare that some of the Ethiopian Church were there? Why did you not name them? Do we not know how long a Journey it is to Abassia, and how much more time the Pope must have had to have sent a message to the Emperour there and received an answer, than the sud∣den calling of the Council at Ferrar•…•… (to break another that had deposed the Pope as a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and wicked man) could consist with? and that Council sitting a while at Ferrara, removed (by the plague) to Florence, was wholly taken up with the Greek•…•…, and no mention of any Abassian there: We have (by Dr. Creightons Edition) a better History of that Coun∣cil than Binni•…•…, &c. gives us; but nothing of this. Indeed Binnius reports the now known

Fable of an Armenian coming too late after the subscriptions: but we have oft enough heard of your scenical Patriarchs and Bishops and feigned Nuncios: You can make a Patriarcch or Bishop of any part of the World at Rome when you will, and then say that those Churches have submitted to you. These Forgeries are part of your foundation, as Dr. Willet hath shewed in his Trerastylo•…•…s Papismi. Why have you no Bishops no Regiment in Abassia and Armenia? Had it been true that David and Helena had promised obedience to the Pope, (as Iohan. Paleologus, the Greek Emperour partly did, and forced some of his Bishops to do in his necessity, hoping for help to have kept out the Turk, till they were come home, and then renounced the Act;) What had that been to the Question? One Man and Woman is not the Church; but he that will read but your own Godignus, will see the utter falshood of your pretences to any thing in Abassia.

Next he nameth, besides Genebrard, six others, (Platina, Nauclerus, &c.) that he saith be∣sides the Acts of the Florentine Council, that say that the Armenians and Indians acknowledge the Soveraignty of the Roman Bishop through the Whole World.

Answ. 1. Though he names but his own late Partners, yet he citeth not a word, page, or book of any one of them. If any one of them have so gross a Fiction, it is no more honour to them than to himself: But the Council of Florence, (in whose Acts I should as soon look to find a Fiction as in any, being a packt Anti-Council of a villainous deposed Pope,) hath no such word in any of my Books, but only that which I cited of a forged too late coming of an Armenian. And even their own Fiction talks not of his (much less the Indians) acknow∣ledgment of the Pope's Soveraignty over the whole World.

He next addeth, [And as to more ancient times gives not the Arabick Translation of the first Council of Nice a clear Witness, that the Ethiopians were to be under the Iurisdiction of the Patriarch of Alexandria, and he under that of Rome?]

Answ. I do not wonder that you use to lead the ignorant in your Disputes into a Wilder∣ness, or Wood of History, under the Name of Antiquity and Tradition, when you know your own Refuges. Reader, the famous Council of Nice hath been predicated, and appealed to, and gloried in by almost all Parties save the Arrians, for many hundred years after it was cele∣brated; and the Affrican Bishops (of whom Austin was one) had a long Contest with di∣vers Popes (for about twenty years) about the true Copy of the Canons: And now the other day comes one Alph. Pisanus, and tells us that he hath found a Copy of them in Ara∣bick; and this tells you of the Ethiopians being under Alexandria, by Canon, and forty things more that were not in the Canons which the Church had for above a thousand years: and this is very good Authority with a Papist. And so they can yet determine what shall be in any ancient Council, or Father; as if they had the doing of all themselves. It is but say∣ing, we have found an old Paper that saith so. Why then do you not receive Eutychius Alex∣andrinus's Reports of that Council, (published by Selden,) which tells us other improbable things of it, but hath far more appearance of Antiquity than your new-found Canons?

Next I noted that [Their absence from General Councils, and no invitation of them thereto, (that was ever proved,) is sufficient Evidence.]

To this he saith, [I intend to make a particular Tract to prove this, and to evidence the falsity of your Allegation, from undenyable Testimonies of classic Authors, and from the ancient Sub∣scriptions of the Councils themselves.]

Answ. A fine put-off; I do not believe you dare attempt it, for fear of awakening the World to the consideration of this notorious Evidence against you: It is now above sixteen years since our writing, and yet I hear not of your Book. But the Reader need not stay for it; let him but peruse the Subscriptions in your own Volumes of the Councils, Crab, Surius, Binius, Nicolinus, and judge whether all the Christian World without the Empire were ever summoned to General Councils, were present at them, or judged by them; any Bishops put in, or out by them; and judge as you see proof.

Next I noted that [Their ancient Lyturgies have no Footsteps of any subjection to the Pope, though the Papists have corrupted them; which in a Digression I shewed out of Usher de succes. Eccles. in that instead of Hic panis est Corpus meum in the Ethiopick Canon Universalis, they have put Hoc est corpus meum.]

To this he replyeth, pag. 96. No more doth the Roman Missal, nor that of France, o Spain witness their subjection to the Pope.

Answ. That's strange that you have suffered so much of the old form unchanged. Grego∣ry that denyed the Title of Universal Bishop was the chief Author, and the claim of the Monarchy of all the Earth was then but in the Egg, (even after 600 years,) and came not into the open World till about the time that Mahomet came; else undoubtedly your Lytur∣gick Commemorations and Prayers would have had some mention of the Universal Bishop, as well as our Prayers mention the King and Bishops; (especially when it was then the Custom to record and commemorate all the Patriarchs, and greatest Prelates;) and the Imposition would have come forth as by his Authority, as the Trent symbolical Oath doth; and as our Lyturgie doth by Authority of the King, and Parliament, and Convocation. Surely this is much against you.

Because he knew not the Scholiastes mentioned by Usher, he questioneth his Citations about the change of the Ethiopick Lyturgie.

I next added that [Constantin's Letters of Request to the King of Persia for the Churches there, (mentioned by Eusebius in Vit. Const.) do intimate that then the Roman Bishop Ruled not there.]

To this he saith, [Why so? The Pope might command, and the Emperour intreat.]

Answ. 1. This sheweth that the Emperours who used to call Councils, called none out of Persia; for they had no Power there. 2. And withal, Why is there not a Syllable in any Church-History, or credible Author, (that we have heard of,) that mentioneth that ever the Pope sent one Command into Persia; or that ever he corrected, suspended, or deposed any Bishop there, or excommunicated any there; (though indeed that had been no sign of Governing Power, seeing an equal may renounce Communion with an equal Heretical So∣ciety, or Person.) Why is there no mention that ever any General Council did any of this? No, nor ever took any such exterior Churches into their care, any otherwise than as Neigh∣bours to help them; nor never made any one Governing Canon for them? And I pray you, How would the Persian King that must be intreated by Constantine, have taken it to have the Religion of his Kingdom under the Command of one of Constantine's Subjects? But you have the affirmative, let us see your proof that ever the Pope Governed the Persian Churches.

Next I noted that [Even at home here the Scots and Britains obeyed not the Pope, even in the days of Gregory, (above 600) but resisted his changes, and refused Communion with his Ministers.]

To this he replyeth, [That, 1. This was their errour, as our disobedience now is; and Beda so chargeth it on them, that it followeth not that they had never been under the Pope. 2. That they also held that which was condemned as a Heresie, at Nice; yet it followeth not that they were not under that Council's Authority. 3. They also refused Communion with the English Con∣verts.]

Answ. These words signifie what you would have us believe; but let us try what more: 1. Seeing you can bring no word of proof that ever they had been subject to the Pope before: And, 2. Seeing they were found utterly Aliens to his subjection: And, 3. Seeing they were found in possession of Opinions, and Customs quite contrary to the Pope's: 4. And seeing they pleaded Tradition for this: 5. And seeing they renounced Communion with those that came to subjugate them: And, 6. Seeing the Pope's Ministers never pretended to any an∣cient possession in pleading with them, (as you may see in Beda:) 7. And seeing we read in Beda, Gildas, and others, that they had heretofore made use of the assistance of the French Church (by Germanus and Lupus) as more Neighbours, without any mention of subjection to Rome: Let the Reader that careth what he believeth, now judge whether ever the Scots and Britains were before subject •…•…o the Pope.

2. It is false that the Council of Nice condemned their Easter-practice as a Heresie, though they united on a contrary resolution. And as it is certain that that Council had no authority out of the Empire, and so not over Britain when it was out of the Empire; so this British Custome plainly intimateth that Britain had not received the decrees of that Council.

3. That they refused the Communion of the English as half-Papists, it is no great won∣der: And yet I remember no proof of that at all in Beda, but only that taking the English for Pagan-Tyrants that conquered and opprest them, they refused to join with Augustine the Monki in preaching to them: It's like taking it for a hopeless attempt in them that were odi∣ous to them, and open Enemies, and not to be trusted.

Next I recite the words of their Reinerius Cont. Waidens. Catal. Bibl. Pat. To. 4. p. 773. [

The Churches of the A•…•…enians, Ethiopians, and Indians, and the rest which the Apostles, converted are not under the Church of Rome: One would think, plain words.]

He replyeth, [

No more are you; what then; our question is not of what is done de facto for the •…•…present, but what de jure ought to be done, or hath been done: The Author saith not, These Nations were never under the Church of Rome, but are not now.]

Aus. It's no wonder that you desire to be the expositors of the Scriptures (and all other Books;) for that is the only device to make them speak what you would have them. If Gre∣gory the Seventh be the Expositor of St. Paul, no doubt but St. Paul shall be for the power of Popes to depose Kings and Emperours: If Innocent the Third be his Expositor, no doubt but by [Bread] 1 Cor. 11. he meaneth [no Bread] and by [this Cup] [no Wine.] And I con∣fess there is greater reason that you should be the infallible Expositors of Reynerius than of Christ or Paul; for he was more your own and under your Government. But this Rey∣nerius was an unhappy speaker, and if he were here I would ask him, 1. Why do you speak in such a manner as any ordinary Reader would think that you speak de jure & de facto, and yet mean de facto only? 2. Why speak you so as an ordinary Reader would think that you spake d•…•… statu statuto, when you mean but de praeente & statu inordinato? 3. Why speak you of so great a sin as Rebellion against the Vice-Christ, and Schism from the Universal Church, without any note of reprehension? 4. Why name you the old extra imperial Churches only, and not those that since renounced Rome, (as all the Greek Church,) if you meant but what you charge the Greek Church with? Had you not more easily fastened a charge of Rebellion on all those Eustern Churches that sometimes acknowledged some primacy of Rome, than on those that the World knoweth were never under him? 5. And why do you say also in general, [and the rest which the Apostles converted are not under the Church of Rome,] if there were not some special reason for it? We took your meaning to be [Though those in the Empire, and many without it that were turned from Infidelity by the Popes Subjects, be under the Church of Rome, the first by the Laws of the Empire and Councils, and the latter by voluntary sub∣jection; yet so are not the Churches which the rest of the Apostles planted without the Empire, a•…•… those Apostles were not subject to St. Peter.] 6. And why do you so arrogantly accuse such vast Churches as Arm•…•…nia, Ethiopia, India, and all the rest of the Apostles planted, (besides Peter and Paul) and take them all for Rebels and Schismaticks, and yet bring no word of proof for your Accusations? But the truth is Reynerius (though he revolted from the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of his times) was an honester man than the Pope that shall thus be his Expositor; and yet W. I, is not the Pope, and therefore I question his partial expo∣sition.

Next I mentioned the Canon of the Council of Calcedon which saith, that the Fathers (in Council) gave Rome the preheminence, &c. He replyeth, that 1. [

The Greek word is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, exhibited or deferred to Rome, as ever before due to it by the right of the Apostolick See of St. Peter established there.]

Ans. You are hard put to it when you have no better shift than so useless a Criticism. 1. You know I suppose that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may have a signification as remote from [do•…•…ation] as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and that your own common Translation is tribuere; and I desire no more. 2. Is here ever a word in the Canon that saith [It was ever before due;] not a word. 3. Is not the same word used of the giving of equal priviledges to Constantinople, as •…•…is of giving or deferring it to Rome? the same word. And did they mean that this belonged ever to Constantinople, and that of Divine Right? You dare not say so. 4. Did they not say that [by the same reason] they judged that Constantinople should have equal priviledges, because it was the Royal City. And was this famous Council (of which you boast as obeying Leo's Epistle) so sottish and absurd as to argue thus [

because old Rome had the first Seat assigned to it on this account, because it was the imperial Seat, and that was because it was ever before its due, as St Peter's Chair, therefore we judge, that by the same reason Constantinople should have equal priviledges because it is now new Rome, the imperial Seat, though it was never due to it before as the Seat of any Apostle.]

O what cannot some men believe or seem to believe! And how much doth it conern your Church to be the Expositor and

Judge of the sense of all Councils, as well as of God's Word.

He addeth that [

the Canon saith not that this was the sole reason.]

Ans. 1: But the Canon saith, This was the reason, and assigneth no other. 2. And if it made not it the great reason which the Church was to take for the fundamentum juris, they would never have laid the Right of Constantinople on the same Foundation as by parity of reason.

The plain truth is, (but interest and partiality cannot endure plain truth) he that will not be deceived by cited By-words of the Ancients, must distinguish between the Tit•…•…lus or fundamentum juris, and the Ratio or Motives of the Statute or Constitution. The first was the Law of Emperours and Councils. This only giveth the Right. The second was prevailingly and principally, that which the Canon here assigneth, that Rome was the great City and the imperial Seat; but, as a honorary Tittle adding to the Motive, they say some∣times that it was the Seat of Peter, and sometimes of Peter and Paul, and sometime they mention Paul alone; and cry, (as at Ephesus) Magno Paul•…•… Cyrillo! Magne Paulo Celesti∣no—But note that they give often the same reason for the Patriarchal honour of An∣tioch, (that it was Sedes Petri,) and therefore never took this to be either the Foundation of the Right, or the chief determining Motive of the Constitution.

He addeth that, [

else it had been a contradiction when the Fathers say that Dioscorus had extended his Felony against him, to whom our Saviour had committed the charge and care of his Vineyard] that is, of the whole Catholick Church.

Ans. 1. No doubt but they acknowledged that Christ committed the care of his Vineyard to Peter, and every one of the Apostles, and to all Bishops as their Successors, though not in Apostleship; and they acknowledged Rome the primate in the Empire: and when Dioscor us undertook to excommunicate Leo, they supposed that he transgressed the Laws of the impe∣rial Church; and therefore Anatolius in the Council, when the Indices said that Dioscor us condemned Flavian for saying Christ had two Natures, answered, That Dioscorus was not con∣demned propter fidem, but for excommunicating Leo, and for not appearing when he was sent for. 2. Is here any word that saith that the Pope was Soveraign of all the Earth? Doth not the Council in that very Letter to Leo, say that the Emperour had called the Council, not as∣cribing it to any Authority of the Pope. And also that the saying, Mat. 28, Go, teach all Nations, &c. was delivered to them (which is the care of the vineyard) and not only to the Pope, Quam nobis olim ipse salvator tradidit ad salutem.

But saith W. I. [The true reason why this Canon mentioneth rather the Imperial Authority of that City, than the right from St. Peter, was because it suited better with the pretensions of Ana∣tolius Bishop of Constantinople and his Complices for the elevaton of that Sea than any other, for they had no other, &c.

Ans. It's true: But did Anatolias and his Complices, that is, the Council, speak sincere∣ly and truly here, or falsly? If truly, that's all that I cite them for; If falsly, as worldly, unconscionable men that were setting up themselves, why hoast we of General Councils? e∣ven of this, and of their words to Leo? How can we tell when to trust them? and whether they that subscribed against Flavian at Ephes. 2. and after cryed omnes peccavimus, at Calcedon, when they were under a Martian, and not Theodosius, would not have acquit Dioscorus, and condemn∣ed Leo and Elavian again, if another Theodosius had come. But if they were credible believe them.

But he tells us that a Law of Theodosius and Valentine put both reasons together, &c.

Ans. I told you in what sense even now, even as they put the name of Peters Seat as a reason of the honour of Antioch, a honorary motive to their Law. And he here confesseth himself, That Alexander and Antioch had the second and third places, because they were the second and third great Cities of the Empire.

But he saith, that [

St. Peter thought it convenient that the highest spiritual Authority should be placed in that City which had the highest temporal power.]

Ans. Say you so? 1. Where is that Canon of St. Peter's to be found and proved? 2. If so, then why is not this Canon produced for the regulating of all other Churches? Why doth Canterbury take place of London, contrary to St. Peter's Judgment? 3. And if so, then you are gone many hundred years ago. Why do you, contrary to St. Peter's mind, pretend to the highest Ecclesiastical Authority, since Rome ceased to have the highest Civil

Power? Should not Constantinople, and Vienna, and Paris, be preferred before Rome? You cannot make both your ends meet.

I added, [

That these Councils gave not the Pope any Authority over the extra-imperial Nations.]

He replyeth [

If they had it before, and by Christs institution, they ne•…•…ded not.]

I answer, So if Constantinople had it before by Christs institution, they need not have given it equal priviledges; but did they that proceeded by Parity of reason, believe that either of them had any such Title?

I added some further proof. 1.

Those extra-imperial Nations being not called to the Councils, were not bound to stand to such decrees had they been made.

He replyeth somewhat that is instead of the Book which he promised before; and calleth to me to remember to answer him; and nothing that he hath said is more worthy of an answer; viz. [

How came the Bishops of Persia, of both the Armenia's, and Gothia (which were all out of the Empire) to subscribe to the first Council of Nice? How came Phaebam∣non, Bishop of the Copti, to subscribe to the first Council of Ephesus? How came the Circular Letter written by Eusebius Caesar Palest. in the name of the Council, to be di∣rected to all Bishops, and in particular to the Churches throughout all Persia, and the great India? Lastly, if those Bishops were not called to Councils why do Theodoret, Marianus, Victor, Eusebius, Socrates, all of them affirm, that to the Council of Nice were called Bishops from all the Churches of Europe, Africa, and Asia, [and he citeth the places in the Margin.]

Ans. 1. Here is but two Councils named in which such invited Bishops are pretend∣ed to have been; the subscriptions to the rest for many hundred years afforded him no such pretence, no not as to one Country in the World.

2. To the Council of Nice there subscribed (unless you will believe Eutychius Alexandrinus, the Presbyterians Friend, that tells you of strange numbers) but 318, as full Testimony con∣firmeth. And 3. I desire the Reader to note that these subscriptions have no certainty at all. The Copies of Crab, Binnius, Pisanus, &c. disagree one from another. And Crab giveth the Reader this note upon them p. 259. that [

the Collector must be pardoned if he erre in the assignation or conscription of Bishops or Bishopricks, especially beyond Europe, for •…•…hough they were four old Copies that he used, yet they were every one so depraved, that the Collector was wearied with the foolish and manifold variations; for never a one of them agreed with the rest.]

This is our notice of the subscriptions; and as I said Euty∣chus A•…•…x. quite differeth from all.

And 1. whereas he tells us here of the Bishops of Persia, there is no mention of any man but one Iohannes Persidis, and he is said to be Provinciae Persidis; and the Romans named not extra-imperial Countries by the name of Provinces; therefore there is little doubt but this was some one that verged on the Kingdom of Persia, in some City which was under the Romans then, and sometimes had been part of Persia. I have oft mentioned Theodoret's plain Testimony saying, that James Bishop of Nisibis, (sometimes under the Persian) was at the Nicene Council, for Nisibis was then under the Roman Emperour.

2. As to the Bish•…•…ps of both the Armenians, the Copies disagree even of the number; of those of Armenia minor they name two Bishops, of Arm. major, one hath four, another five, another six; and part of the Armenia's being in the Roman Power, it is most probable that these Bishops were Subjects to the Empire; or if any at the Borders desired for the honour of Christianity to be at the first famous General Council, it signifieth not that any had power to summon them, or did so. The Emperour had not, and that the Pope did it, none pretend that hath any modesty; and they are called in the subscriptions, The Provinces of Ar∣menia.

3. And as for Gothia, the Books name one Man, Theophy•…•…s Gothiae Metropolis, which no Man well knoweth what to make of; for the Nation of Gothes were not then Christians. Socrates saith that it was in the days of Valens that some of them turned Christians, and that was the reason that they were Arrians, and that Wulphilus then translated for them the Scrip∣ture. But if they had a Bishop at the Nicene Council, it is evident that he was in the Em∣pire; for the Gothes then dwelt in Walachia, Moldovia, and Poland, and were no other than the Sauromatae, that Eusebius, tells us Constantine had Conquered, and tells us how;

even by helping the Masters whom the Servants by an advantage of the War had dispossest so that your Instance of Theophilus Gothiae, as without the Empire, is your errour. Myraeus calls part of France, Gothia. Saith Marcellinus, Comes eodem anno, (of Thodos. 1. after the Council Const. 1.) Universa gens Gothorum Athanaricho Rege defuncto Romano sese imperio dedit: This was a great addition. But here Pisanus helps us out, and saith, Hunc Eusebius Pamphylus Scytam dixit in vita Constantini; & Metaphrastes addeth Wulphilu•…•…'s success: Eusebius indeed tells us that there were 250 Bishops (that differs for the common account, and he was one of them,) and that the Bishop of Persia was present, (Vit. Const. l. 3. c. 7.) And that there were learned Men from other Countries, Scythia being one, (and the Bishop of Tomys was called the Scythian Bishop:) And that Constantine was the Caller of the Coun∣cil; (not the Pope:) And that he wrote Letters to the Bishops, to summon them to ap∣pear at the Council: And who will believe that he wrote his Summons to the Subjects of other Kings? Or if he had, What's that to the Pope? If Ioh. Persidis were not a Roman Subject, that word [he was present] seemeth to distinguish his voluntary presence from the Summons of others. But saith Euseb. 16. cap. 6. Writs of Summons were sent into every Pro∣vince: And the Persian and Armenian Provinces are here named with the Bishops. Those that have leisure to search into the Roman History may find what Skirt of Persia, and what Part of Armenia were in the Empire in those times; and it's notable, that when these Bor∣dering Parts were lost, these Bishops were never more at any General Council; neither at Ephesus, Constantinople, Nice 2. &c.

And Eusebius there tells us, as the reason why some came came from the remotest Coun∣tries, viz. some did it out of a desire to see the (famous first Christian) Emperour, and some out of a conceit, that a Universal Peace should be established: And so Ioh. Persidis might come with the rest.

And though I find not Pisanus's words of Theophilus in Eusebius, I find ibid. l. 4. c. 5. That it was no wonder that even a Scythian Bishop should be 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 Em∣bassies and Presents to Constantinople, (c. 7.) as Neighbours; but he was far from summon∣ing 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 •…•…ut of the Empire were there? And if any were, how inconsiderable their number was, •…•…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 s•…•…um Arabicum advectae terra jumentis deferebantur a Thebis 44. mill. pas. in B. 8. Babylonem versus, a Berenice urb•…•… 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 Ni•…•…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 Em∣pire. 4. How ill it would have been taken to have summoned, or called the Subjects, be∣fore he had requested their Princes to send them? Certainly Constantine would have writ∣ten 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 mention∣eth 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 cal∣led out of all these Provinces, and who ever questioned it! Not a Syllable in any of his ci∣ted 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 So∣veraignty 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] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [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 Fa∣ther 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 preva∣ricating Letter to Caesarea the Author of Pisanus Story, calleth [a Circular Letter] ignorant∣ly, and W. I. added the rest; and thus these men prove what they list; and this is their proof of Universal Tradition and the Papal Soveraignty of the World.

He concludeth [•…•…ou will not forget to answer these questions in your next.] And I think

I have not forgotten it, nor failed to evince his worse than forgetfulness; and that the Councils then extended but to the Roman Empire, and consequently the Papal and Patriarchal preten∣sion•…•…, to no more (and even of the Popes Western Diocesses, the number of Bishops at those Eastern great Councils were not considerable, nor yet any Agency of the Pope in and about them.)

W. J's Fourth Chapter answered.

I next added (for he begins his Chapter in the middle of a Section,) 2. That the Empe∣rours called and enforced the Councils who had no power out of the Empire.]

To this he saith [

Called they them alone? had they not the Authority of the Roman Bishop joyned with them, or rather presupposed to theirs? prove that the Emperours called them.]

Ans. Shall I prove it to those that have read the Histories of the Councils, or to them that have not? If to them that have not, I cannot prove it or any such matters, but by desiring them to read it: If you tell a Woman that it is ten thousand years since the World was created, and I tell her it is not 600, neither of us proveth to her what we say, but she will believe him that she liketh best: But to him that hath read, or will read, the History, I disdain the Task: Must I write Books to prove that there were such men as Constan∣tine or Theodosius in the World? I will be none of that mans Teacher that hath read the full hi∣story of the Councils of Nice, First and Second, of Ephes. First and Second; of Constantinople First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, &c. of Sirmium, Armenium, and many such, as cannot see that the Emperours called them without any previous Call or Authority of the Pope; some (as Nice) the Emperour called immediately by his own Letters without a word of the Popes interposing Authority or Call: Most of the Emperours wrote to the Patriarchs and Metro∣politanes to call the Bishops under them: Sometimes to the Patriarch of Alexandria first (if not only) to call the rest; sometimes to him of Constantinople; and sometimes to all the five; and if the Pope did at any time send a Bishop or two and a Priest thither, you thence pretend that the Pope called the Council.

He addeth [

Had not the Emperours power to signifie to those extra-imperials that a Council was to be celebrated, and to invite them at least?]

Ans. Yes, sure, even at the Antipodes; but when the History tells us that he command∣ed and oft threatned them if they came not, and that he wrote to them, and the men are named, what signifieth your question?

W. I. [

Could not the Bishop of Rome, or other under whose Jurisdiction they were re∣spectively, notifie to them the celebration of the Council, and require their presence in it? you cannot but see this.]

Ans. I cannot but see your shame when you open it. 1. Could not an Angel from Hea∣ven have called them? yes no doubt: but no History saith that they were so called, but tells us how in another manner.

2. The word [Jurisdiction] signifieth so much of your Errour and interest, that you are resolved at least to keep up the name and supposition; and when you do but adde [over all the World] it maketh me remember Christs temptation [All this will I give thee;] but it is too strong a temptation for the Pope to over-come. But you would have gratified me much if you had told me what Patriarch's Jurisdiction in those times, the Churches in Persia and India, and the rest that were extra-imperial, did belong to? or where I may find any notice of the Summons that the Pope or any Patriarch sent them to any of those ancient Coun∣cils.

3. I told him that [

the Diocesses which these Bishops were related to are described and expresly confined within the verge of the Empire; vid. Blondel. de primatu.]

To this, 1. He taketh it for a Fob to be referred to Bloudel. Answ. Look then in your own Cosmographers, and even in Aub•…•…rtus Myraeus his Notitia Episcopatuum, (abating his Fiction of the submission of the Abassine Emperours, and such-like in him; and his Con∣fession that his Book had next to nothing of the Patriarchate of Alexandria:) He tells you that the Armenia major and minor were in the Province of Pontus, Scythia in the Province

of Thracia, &c. And that you may know who it was that gave these Jurisdictions, he tells you how Iustinian gave his Name to a City of Bulgaria, subjecting many Bishops of Dacia, Dardania, Mysia, Pannonia, &c. to that Arch-Bishop; with this addition, sed & ille ab ipsis consecretur, & eadem jura super eos habeat, quae Papa Romanus habet super Episcopos sibi subditos. (Was that all the World then?) Novel. 119. 508.

He next citeth Pisanus's Nicene Canons, giving the Pope Universal Power, and the Bishop of Alex. and Antioch extra-imperial Power; and he promiseth hereafter to justifie those Canons. But in the mean time, I shall as much regard his Citations out of Esop's Fables, or out of Genebrard, or Cochleus.

He saith, [The Council of Calcedon, c. 28. giveth to the Bishop ef Constantinople Authority over the barbarous Nations near those Parts; that is, such as were extra-imperial, such as that of Rus∣sia, and Muscovia.]

Answ. Is not this a confident Man? 1. The Council saith only that the [Bishops of the fore-said Diocesses (naming only, Pontus, Asia, and Thracia,) which are among the barbarous, shall be ordained by the Throne of Const. And who knoweth not, that the word Diocess sig∣nified then a part of the Empire? and that many of the barbareus, so called then, were with∣in the Empire? such as were the Scythians, Gothes, (or Getae, or Sauromatae,) which Eu∣sebius saith were Conquered by Constantine: But is here any mention of Russia, or Musco∣vy? 2. And how long after this was it that all History tells us the Muscovites and Russians (that were not Gothes) were converted to Christianity?

So that here is not a Syllable in all that he hath said for Popery, except the Canons of Pisanus and Turrian, which they must better prove before we take them to be of any just regard: It is not the word of Baptista Romanus, or any late Iesuite that can suffice us.

I added lastly that Patriarchal Priviledges were ordinarily given by the Emperours, who added and altered, and sometimes set Rome highest and sometimes Constantinople. His many vain words against this I will not tire the Reader with reciting: Every man knoweth it that know∣eth Church-History: Why else in the days of Mauricius and Phocas was one set highest at one time, and the other at another time? How else came the Bishop of Constantinople to pretend to Universal Primacy?

His marvel, that I translate Pontifex Pope, as if never man had so done, as if we had never read Bellarmine de Pontifice Romano, and others that so speak, &c. is a vain digression not worthy an answer, nor the rest.

I will here briefly recite some undeniable Reasons which I have given pag. 100, &c. of my Naked Popery, to prove what we have been all this while upon.

1. That the Papal Power was not held to be jure divino, but humano. 1. It stood by the same right as did the other Patriarchs; but it was jure humano.

2. The Africans, Aurelius, Augustine, &c. of the Carthage Council, enquired not of Gods Word, but of the Nicene Canons to be resolved of the Papal Power.

3. The whole Greek Church heretofore and to this day is of that Judgment; for they first equalled and after preferred Constantinople, which never pretended to a Divine Right; but they were not so blind as to equal or prefer a humane right before a Divine.

4. The fore-cited Ca. 28. of the Council of Calcedon expresly resolves it.

5. Their own Bishop Smith confesseth that it is not de fide that the Pope is St. Peters Successor jure divino.

II. The Roman Primacy was over but one Empire; besides all the Reasons fore-going I added, That the Bishop of Constantinople, when he stood for to be Universal Bishop, yet claimed no more; therefore no more was then in contest, but Power in the Empire.

III. That Councils then were called General in respect only to the Empire, I proved by ten Arguments, p. 104. 105. adding five exceptions.

Page 114. he had put a Verse under the name of Pope Leo, with a Testimony, &c. I shewed that there was no such; and he confesseth the Errour, but he supposeth a confident Friend of his put it into his Papers, and now saith the Verse was Prosper's, and some words to the like purpose are Leo's de Nat. Pet. Prosper (he saith) is somewhat ancienter than Leo, and less to be excepted against.

Ans. 1. He was Leo's Servant, even his Secretary, as Vossius and Rivet have shewed; and so his Words and Leo's are as one's. 2. It is in a Poem where li∣berty of phrase is ordinarily taken. 3. No wonder if Caput Mundo be found in a Poet, either as it is spoken de Mundo Romano, or as Caput signifieth the most excellent, great and honourable: And so Rome it self is oft called by Histo∣rians Caput Mundi, before and since Christianity entered it. And it may well be said that this was Pastoralis Honoris, though not ex Pastorali Regimine Universali; For one Bishop was a Caput or chief to others Pastorali Honore, that was not their Governour; as the chief Earl, or chief Judge among us, is to the inferiours. 3. And the Pope did Nihil possidere armis. 4. And Tenere and Re∣gere be not all one. He may be said thus [Tenere] in that the Religion which he professed had possession of more than the Roman Empire, and he was the Chief Bishop in honour of that profession. The sense seemeth to be but this, [As great a honour as it is to be the Bishop of the Imperial City of a Con∣quering Empire, it is a greater to be the Prime Bishop of that Christian Religion which extendeth further than the Roman Conquests.] He citeth a sentence as to the same sence out of Prosper de Vocat. Gent. l. 2. c. 6. viz. [That the Prin∣cipality of the Apostolick Priesthood, hath made Rome greater through the Tribunal of Religion, than through that of the Empire.] Which I take to be the true sence of the Poet: but to be greater by Religion than Empire is no more to be Ruler of the World, than if I had said so of Melchizedeck, that he was greater as he was Priest of the most high God, than as he was King of Salem. But there is in the cited place of Prosper none of these words, nor any about any such matter at all; but there is somewhat like it in cap. 16. which indeed is expository. Ad cujus rei effectum credimus providentia Dei Romani regni latitudinem praeparatam, ut Nationes vocandae ad Unitatem Corporis Christi, prius jure unius consociarentur imperii; quamvis gratia Christiana non contenta sit eosdem limites habere quos Roma, multosque jam populos sceptro Crucis Christi illa subdiderit quos armis suis ista non domuit. Quae tamen per Apostolici sacerdotii principatum amplior facta est arce Religionis quam solio potestatis. All this we acknowledge that Prosper then said about 466 years after Christ, being Pope Leo's Secretary, and seeing the Church in its greatest outward Glory: The Unity of the Empire pre∣pared for the greatness of the Church, and those that were Unit∣ed in one Empire were United after in one Religion, and yet the Gospel went further than the Empire; and Rome it self became more honourable in being the seat of the most honourable Christian Bi∣shop, whose Religion extended further than the Empire, than in being the Imperial Seat of Power.

The words which he citeth of Leo, I made the lightest of, be∣cause he was a Pope himself, and pleaded his own cause more high∣ly than any of his Predecessors, and lived so late; but yet the words

do not serve the Papists turn; for he at large sheweth that his meaning was, that Rome which was domina mundi, before it wa•…•… Christian, (and yet not the Ruler of the World) was prepared to be the Seat of Peter and Paul, that even the outer Nations, by their Neighbourhood to the Empire, might be capable of the Gospel; which is a certain Truth. Ut hujus inenarrabilis gratiae per totum mundum diffunderetur effectus, Ro∣manum regnum divina providentia praeparavit; cujus ad eos limites incrementa perducta sunt, quibus cunctarum undi{que} gentium vicina & contigua esset uni∣versitas. Disposito namq divinitatis operi maxime congruebat, ut multa regna uno conf•…•…derarentur imperio, & cito pervios haberet populos praedicatio generalis, quos unius teneret regimen civitatis.—Nec mundi dominam times Romam, qui in Caiphae domo expaveras sacerdotis ancillam. And mentioning 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 at Rome. he saith▪ ut cos in 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 caput est Christus, quasi geminum constituerit lumen oculorum, de quorum meritis atque vi•…•…tutibus, que omnem loquendi superant facultatem, nihil diversum, nihil debemus sentire dis∣cretum; quia illos & electio pares, & labor similes, & finis fecit aequales.

And in the next Sermon, expounding super hanc petram, thus saith, [su∣per hanc, inquit, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…ternum extruam templum, & ecclesiae meae caelo in∣serenda sublimitas, in hujus fidei firmitate consurget. Hanc confessionem portae Inferi non tenebunt, &c.]

And of Tibi dabo claves—[Transivit quid•…•…m in Apostolos alios vis illius pote∣statis; sed non frustra uni commendatur, quod omnibus intimetur: Petro enim sin∣gulariter hoc creditur, quia cunctis ecclesiae rectoribus Petri forma proponitur: Manet ergo Petri privilegium ubicun{que} ex ipsius fertur aequitate judicium, nec ni∣mia est vel severitas vel remissio.—

So Petrus Chrysologus expoundeth super hanc petram, Serm. 74. p. 69. 1. and many others.

But it is the way of these Men, to take some Sentence that soundeth, as they think, for sufficient Proof of their Foundations.

Leo in his Epistles to Anatolius, and to the Emperour Martian against him, Ep. 54. p. 131. layeth all the Priviledges of the Churches on the Council of Nice, [Privilegia ecclesiarum sanctorum Patrum Canonibus instituta, & Venerabilis Nicenae Synodi fixa decretis, nulla novitate mutari, &c. He saith, that no later Council, though of greater number, can alter any thing done in the Council of Nice;—and so none of their Rules for the Churche's Re∣giment. And in many other Epistles (to Pulcheria, &c.) he over and over accuseth him as breaking the Statutes of the Fathers, and Councils, but not the Institution of Christ, or his Apostles.

Next he citeth Leo's Epist. 82. to Anastas. But it is in the 84th. and he that will but read it will easily see, that it was but in the Empire that L•…•…o claimed the final Decision and Appeals.

And once more I here appeal to any impartial Man that ever read over all the true Epistles and Decretals of the Popes themselves, and findeth that none of them for 400, if not 500 years, were ever sent to any ex∣traimperial Church, as any way exercising Authority over them; yea, and till after 600 (when Gregory sent into England) they wrote but to their own Missionaries, or but by way of Counsel, as any Man may do; whether he can believe they then arrogated the Government of all the World.

In the rest of this Chapter there is nothing worth the answering, but that he saith, (to prove Ethiopia under the Patriarchs of Alexandria,) That, 1. Some Learned Men think Ethiopia is included in Egypt. 2. That Dr. Heylin and Rosse did regard Pisanus his Nicene Canons; and their Authority is more than mine.

Answ. 1. You are a Learned Man, who take Thracia to have been with∣out the Empire; and must I therefore be of the same mind? If your Learn∣ed Men cannot distinguish between Egypt, an imperial Province, and the vast and distant Kingdoms of Ethiopia; What's that to me? Is it enough to confute any evident truth, that there was found some Man that was against it? 2. Nor is the Name of Heylin and Rosse of any more Authori∣ty to prove the Antiquity of a late-produced Script, against all the Te∣stimony of the Fathers and Councils near those times, than your own na∣ked Assertion would have been. Is not this a pitiful Proof, that Pisanus's Canons are authentick and ancient, because Dr. Heylin and Rosse regard them? If you had any better Proof, Why did you not produce it?

An Answer to W. J's fifth Chapter.

The thing that I asserted is, 1. That the Pope had never any Governing Power over the whole Earth. 2. Nor anciently over any out of the Em∣pire. 3. Nor a proper Government of the other Patriarchs, or exempt Provinces within the Empire: But that he was (principally for the honour of the Imperial Seat, and next as to honour, the Memorial of St. Peter) voluntarily by Councils and Emperours, made the prime Bishop of the

Empire; Alexandria first, and Constantinople after, the second; Antioch the third, &c. And that not the Pope, but the Emperours, and General Councils were the chief Rulers of the Imperial Churches: But in these Councils the Bishop of Rome had the first Seat, and Alexandria the second: And that this Bishop of Rome had but one Voice ordinarily in Councils, but sometimes he claimed a Negative Voice; and sometimes Councils have condemned, excommunicated, and deposed him: And in his absence, the Bishop of Alexandria had the same Power as he, when present, had.

Now, W. I. here citeth some Testimonies truly, and some falsly, to prove that which I deny not; that sometimes the last Appeals were made to him, and other Priviledges allowed him, which belonged to the first Bishop of the Empire. I think it but an injury to the Reader to examine them any further. If he will read the Histories and Fathers themselves, he needs not my Testimony: If he will not, my Testimony is no notifying Evidence to him.

And upon the perusal of the rest, I find nothing in this Chapter needing, or worthy of any further Answer: And I am sensible that fruitless altercati∣on will be ungrateful to wise and sober Men.

An Answer to W. J's. Sixth CHAPTER.

§ 1. I Noted that under the Heathen Emperours, Church-Associations were but by Vo∣luntary Consent; and yet then they called in none without the Empire.

To this he Replyeth: 1. Denying such Consent. 2. Saying, They could not call them that were Extraimperial to sit with them.

Answ. 1. I would he had told us how Provinces were distributed while Emperours were Heathens, if not by Consent: Doth he think that the Pope did it all himself? Did he make Alexandria, Antioch Patriarchates, and divide to all other Bishops their Seats and Provinces? If he say this, he will but make us the more wary of such a Disputant; for he will never prove it.

2. And if by Consent they could not call any without the Empire, then none were Called, which is the Truth.

§ 2. But he cometh to his grand Proof, That the four first Councils were Univer•…•… as to all the World: 1. Because they are called General and Oecumenical Councils, by them∣selves, by the Canons, by Histories, by the whole Christian World; by the Fathers, by Prote∣stants, by our Statute-Books, by our thirty nine Articles, and by Orthodox Writers. To all which I Answer, Even in Scotland the Presbyterians have their General Assembly, which yet is somewhat less than all the World: And as for their Phrase of Totius Orbis, So it is said in the Gospel, that all the World was Taxed by Augustus. He is very easily perswaded, that af∣ter all the Evidence which I have given, and in particular, after the sight of all the sub∣scribed Names at Councils, which were within the Empire, can yet believe that they were the Bishops of all the World, because he readeth the name Oecumenical and Totius Orbis.

§ 3. But he argueth from the Reason of the thing. 1. Councils were gathered for the Common Peace of Christians.

Answ. The Peace of the Christian World is promoted by the Peace of the Empire. 1. As it was the most considerable part then of the whole Christian World. 2. As the welfare of every part conduceth to the welfare of the World. 3. As it is Exemplary and Counselling to all others, but not by Authoritative Command and Constraint.

§ 4. Secondly, He saith, Else any obstinate Hereticks might but have removed to the Extra-imperial Churches, and been free.

Answ. 1. He might, no doubt, have been free from force, unless his own Prince were of the same mind. 2. But he could not have forced the Imperial Churches to have owned him as Orthodox, nor to have forborn renouncing Communion with him. 3. And surely if it was Heresie which he was guilty of, it was so before it was declared so by the Coun∣cil, and therefore might be so known by that Extraimperial Church to which he should re∣move.

§ 5. Thirdly, The same Answer serveth to his third Reason: That If any Imperial Coun∣try were won from the Empire, they would be free; not free from other Mens disowning or re∣nouncing them. I told you before, the plain words of Theodoret, That James,: Bishop of Nisi∣bis was at the Council of Nice, for Nisibis was then under the Roman Empire.

§ 6. Fourthly, The same Answer sufficeth to his fourth Reason: That a Nation Conquered would have been brought under the Council, and Faith would have depended on the Fortune of War.

Answ. True, If Faith were no Faith without a General Council's determination; and if there was no Faith in the World before there was a General Council, nor any Christian be∣fore Constantine's time. What if only a Provincial Council had Condemned any Heresie? Consider how far the Extraimperialists had been Obliged by it. The Truth and Reason of the decision would have Obliged them.

§ 7. Fifthly, He saith, It would follow, that the Kingdoms that are now fallen from that Em∣pire should have no Successive descending Obligation to the four first General Councils.

Answ. Not at all as Subjects to Men dead and gone, nor as if the Canons of those Coun∣cils were a Law properly Divine, and so bound us as meer Subjects of God; nor yet as Subjects to the present Patriarchs of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, &c. whose Predecessours

made those Canons. But 1. The Word of God which they declared, bound Men before, and bindeth them since in all Nations of the World. 2. And God Obligeth us to do all things in as much Love and Concord as we can. And when the greatest part of the Chri∣stian World agree upon any thing Lawful and convenient, an Obligation for Concord may hence arise on others, without any Subjection to a Governing Authority. And in these two respects such Councils may Oblige us, but not as Subjects.

§ 8. Sixthly, His last Reason is, That those Extraimperial Christians who embraced the Here∣sies Condemned in any one of those Councils, never alledged this Reason.

Answ. 1. Those Councils themselves had more Modesty than to say, This is a Heresie be∣cause we have Iudged it so, for it was so before by the Judgment of Gods Word: It had been therefore a frivolous Defence of Heresie, to say, We are not Subject to the Council, unless they could have said, We are not Subject to the Law of God. 2. What Extraimperial Nations mean you, that owned Condemned Heresie? If the Arrian Goths, they Learned it from Va∣lens and the General Councils of the Empire. If the Nestorians and Eutychians, prove that any Extraimperial Nations were such: If they were guilty of any Heresie, what Occasion had they to alledge such Reasons to Justifie themselves, to Men that never sent or urged the Authority of such Councils on them. Prove you first that ever any General Council for five hundred Years did Judge any Extraimperial Bishops, or Depose any one of them for Heresie. 3. But your Sect use to accuse the Abassines as Eutychians; and Godiguus and others will tell you that they deny that they were under the Pope.

§ 9. I told him that some Hereticks are not Christians univocally, and others so called were better Christians than the Papists: The former are not of the Christian Church, the latter are. It is not an Usurpers calling others Hereticks, that will blot their Names out of the Book of Life.

To this he saith, That I should have told him which of them I take for Univocal Christians, and that they had the Names given them long agoe.

Answ. 1. By what Authority can you require me, if you name Men by an hundred Nick-names, to tell you all over which of these I account Christians? Is it not enough that I tell you in General, that I account all those Christians that hold all the Essential parts of Christianity, and renounce none of them. 2. How long soever Men are Calumniated, that proveth not the Calumny Just. It is long since the General Council at Basil pronounced the Pope an Heretick, and that it is Heresie to deny that a General Council may Judge him; and yet the Papists believe not this Council.

§. 10. I told him that I had rather be in the case of many that have been burnt as Here∣ticks, than of the Pope and others that burnt them.

His Answer to this is, He wisheth me better, and he bringeth many Accusations against the Albigenses; as if we had never disproved those Calumnies; which hath been so long and fully done, as among others by Bishop Usher, D•…•… Statu & success. Ecclesiar. and Paul Perrin. It being a Company of Manichees only that were scattered among the Albigenses and walden∣ses, that were guilty of the Heresies mentioned by him (as I have also shewed in my Con∣futation of Mr. Danvers the Anabaptist.)

§. 11. I told him that All those that were true Christians, were of one Universal Church.

And he again canteth over the Nick-names of some, and would know which of them I mean. And I told him again, that I mean all that owned the Essentials of Christianity; Per∣haps such a Monothelite as Pope Honorius, might be a Christian. I told you before that Ana∣tolius in the Council openly said that Dioscorus was not condemned for Heresie; And I would most Papists were as good Christians as we have reason to think the Novatians were. The name of Luciferians, Quartodecimani, Iconoclasts, Waldens•…•…s, Hugonotes, Lutheranes, Zuinglians, Calvinists, &c. unchristian none; no more than the name of Papists. And it is worth the noting, 1. How zealous Macedonius, Nestorius and Dioscorus were against Hereticks, and how hot in persecuting them, and stirring up the Emperours against them, and by this were carryed into those Errors for which they were condemned as Hereticks themselves. 2. And how long it was oft in doubt which party should be accounted Here∣ticks, till the countenance of Emperors turned the Major Vote of the Bishops Right. In the dayes of Constantius and Valens the Orthodox went for Hereticks with the greater mum∣ber: And under Valentinian and Theodosius they were Catholicks, under Theodosius junior

the Eutychians went for Catholicks, and under Martian they were condemned. The same Bishops went one way at Sirmium and Ariminum, (with old Osius) who after repented and went the other way; And the same Bishops went one way at the Second Council of Ephe∣sus, who recanted at the Council of Calcedon: and how long was the case of the Monothe∣lites in doubt, and the Iconoclasts, much longer.

§. 12. When I told him that it is only our Relation to Christ the Head, that maketh all Christians one Church, he saith that Christ is but our Causal and not Formal Unity, and that Faith and Charity are not necessary to make us Members.

Answ. As the union of King and Subjects maketh one Kingdom, so the union of Christ and Christians maketh one Church; and we call none Christians that profess not true Faith and Charity (and their seed.)

But he saith, the Question is How a Heretick or Schismatick can be a true Christian.

Answ. Ambiguous words are the game of deceivers, and to open the ambiguity marreth their cause. The word Heretick I have told you signifieth either one that denyeth an Essenti∣all part of Christianity, or one that only denyeth an Integral part; The former are no Christians; the latter may.

§. 13. But he will prove that no Heretick is a Christian, or hath true Faith, viz. [Who∣ever hath true faith believeth the material object of faith, for the Divine authority of God re∣vealing it. (That is certain) But so doth no Heretick.

That's very false of both sorts of Hereticks. 1. You call the Luciferians, the Novati∣ans, &c. Hereticks; and who can see reason to doubt but they might believe that all that God saith is true?

2. Overdoing is undoing: As you are the greatest causes of Schisme by overdoing as against Schisme, so you would justifie almost all the Hereticks in the world by your blind overdoing, as against Hereticks; and while you would make most or much of Christs Church to be Hereticks, you would make men believe that there are none. All that be∣lieve that there is a God, believe that he is Verax, no Lyar, but true. All that believe that God is no Lyar, but true of his word, believe all to be true which they judge to be his word. But saith W. I, no Heretick believeth any thing on the authority of God revealing, that is, because God that revealeth it is true: And so all those that believe that God is true, and that any thing is true because he revealeth it, are no Hereticks. And who knoweth other mens hearts better, You or They? You take me (it's like) for a Heretick, I say that I believe that God cannot Lye, and I believe in Christ because God the •…•…evealer is true. You say, Then I am no Heretick. If an Arrian can but truly say, that he believeth all Gods word to be true, but he taketh not Christs Consubstantial eternal Deity to be Gods word; you will justifie him to be no Heretick: And yet the poor Iconoclasts, the Waldenses, the Berengarians can find no place in this mans Church, when yet he thus acquitteth al∣most all Hereticks in the whole world. Nothing but humerous singularity can pretend any probable reason why an Arrian, a Nestorian, an Eutychian, a Monothelite, yea a Mahometan, or other Infidel, may not believe that God is no Lyar, but all that is indeed his word is true.

§. 14. But he will not be unreasonable without reason. His Argument is [Whosoever be∣lieveth the material object of Faith, for the Divine Authority of God revealing it, must believe all things which are as sufficiently propounded to him to be revealed of God, as are the Articles which he believeth, protesteth to, and believe nothing as revealed, which is as sufficiently declared to him to be erroneous, and not revealed &c. But every Heretick—doth otherwise—If he believe some and refuse others equally propounded; it is not for Divine Authority.

Answ. If you believe this reasoning your self, you deserve little belief from others. 1. The word [sufficiently] propounded will never sufficiently be expounded by you, nor ever is like to be. Sometimes by sufficient [as in the Dominicans controversie of sufficient grace] is meant that which quo posito res fieri potest, & sine quo non potest: And so taken as necessarium or possible for the minimum tale, it hath no degrees. But usually we take sufficient in such a la∣titude as that things may be in many degrees, one more sufficient than another, that is, more apt and powerfull to produce the effect.

And for the first, remember that if you judge so mercifully of Hereticks as that no one is such that hath not a proposal in the very first sense sufficient, you can call no Arrian, nor Photinian, or Gnostick a Heretick, till you know that the Proposal was to him sufficient.

And how much less can you call the Nestorians or Eutychians, or the Abassines, Syrians, Ar∣menians, &c. Hereticks, when you know them not, and know not the sufficiency of their proposals? And to know that a proposal was sufficient to Nestorius, Eutyches, or Dioscorus, doth not prove that there was such sufficient proposal to all others that go under such names either then or now. Who knoweth not that an unlearned man hath need of clearer and ofter teaching than the Learned; and one that by Education is prepossest with contrary conceptions hath need of more than the unprejudiced; and one that is corrupted by sensual lusts hath need of more than the temperate? And what man is well able to judge of the measures of sufficiency as to other then: much less to whole Nations whom we know not.

2. But as to your Minor; which by the word [as sufficiently] sheweth that you take suf∣ficiency as it hath degrees, here you seem plainly to absolve all the Hereticks in the world, e. g. As if a Monothelite were no Heretick unless it be as sufficiently, in degree revealed that Christ hath two wills, as it is that he is the Christ and rose again; or, as if an Arrian were no Heretick, unless it be as sufficiently revealed that Christ is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the same substance with the Father, as it is that he dyed.

3. And the supposition in your Minor is notoriously false, (that all Hereticks have as suf∣ficient a proposal of all they deny, as of that which they believe.) For if the meaning of the words revealing be not equally plain and intelligible, then the proposal is not equally sufficient. But &c

Can any man not blinded by faction believe that God hath no more plainly told us that Christ dyed, rose and ascended, than that he hath two distinct wills, or that he hath but one person, or that his mother is to be called The parent of God, and one that did beget and bring forth God, and that God dyed, yea or that Christ is God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, and yet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not only from the same substance, but the same substance? Though these are equally true, they are not equally clear and evident. Do the Quartode∣cimani, the Luciferians, the Iovinians deny Truthes as sufficiently proposed, as that there is a God, or a Christ?

If you say that though they be not equally proposed in Scripture, yet they are by Coun∣cils or Traditions.

I Answer 1. Were they no points of Faith, nor the denyal Heresie, for 300 years be∣fore the first General Council? 2. When they of Constance and Basil are for the Supre∣macy of Councils as de fide, and they of Laterane and Florence against them, when the Council of Basil decreed the Immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, and yet you take it for a controversie, &c. are these as sufficiently proposed, as that there is a God or Christ? 3. When Petavius citeth the words of most of the Doctors or Fathers that wrote before the Council of Nice, and of Eusebius himself that was of the Council, and sub∣scribed it, as being for Arrianisme, or dangerously favouring it, did all these Fathers think that the proposal of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was as sufficient as of a God or Christ.

§. 15. He taketh upon him to clear his Argument by two deluding instances, which sup∣pose an equality in the revelation: But he that knoweth not, 1, that it was long before all the Canonical books were equally known to be Gods word. 2. And that yet it is not equally certain what Councils are true, and what Traditions. 3. And that there is great difference between one Text of Scripture and another in intelligible places (else why do their Expo∣sitions so disagree) yea, of Councils too. 4. And that the Hereticks have still pleaded Scripture and Tradition, and Councils, as well as the Orthodox (as the Eutychians, &c. did the Council of Nice;) all equally professing to believe Scripture, Tradition, and true Coun∣cils, but not equally understanding them: I say, he that knoweth not all this, knoweth not the matters of Fact which should be known in this Dispute.

But how he will excuse the Papists from Heresie by his Reasoning, I know not, e. g. Christ Instituting his. Supper, saith equally: 1. This is my Body, and This is the New Testament. 2. And equally saith, Take, Eat and Drink this. The Papists, 1. Do not believe that literally this Cup is the New Testament, though equally said. 2. Nor do they believe that they must Drink of it, though equally Commanded. Ergo, by W. I's Arguing, The Papists believe not that the Bread is literally Christs Body, or that it must be Eaten because of Christs Truth or Autho∣rity that spake it, else they would have believed both.

§. 16. He addeth a Supposition like the rest, that a Calvinist is assured that the Pope is

not the Antichrist, by the same Authority which he acknowledgeth to be the sufficient proposer of the Articles of his Faith. And yet here may lie one of his usual Equivocations: The Authority of the Author and prime Revealer of the Gospel is one; and the Authority of the prime Instrumental Revealers is another. The first is Gods, the second is the Prophets and Apostles: Tell us where either of these say that the Pope it not Antichrist. But the Autho∣rity of a distant Messenger and Teacher is of a third rank.: A Drunken or Fornicating Priest may be such a Messenger or Teacher, and may give an Infidel those Reasons of the Faith, which by Gods Blessing may bring him to Believe. And it is possible such a Priest (and a Synod of such) may say that the Pope is not Antichrist, and another Synod may say he is.

§. 17. I came next to Answer a question of his own, Whether I take the Church of Rome and the Protestants to be one Church? I Answered, that They have two Heads, and We but one: As they are meer Christians united in Christ, they are one Church with us; as Papists united in the Pope they are not. And if any so hold the Papacy, as not really to hold Christianity, those are not of the Christian Church with us; otherwise they are; though a Corrupt, Diseased, Erroneous part.

To this he saith, who ever called a King and his Viceroy, a Captain and Lieutenant two Heads? The Pope is a dependent Officer.

Answ. 1. But if you distinguish between a Visible Head and an Invisible, and say, that the Pope only is the Visible Head of the Church as Visible, and that Christ is only the Invi∣sible Head by Influx; and that it were a Monstrous Body if it had not such a Visible Head (as you do:) 2. And if this Visible Head be an Usurpation, never owned by Christ; then I have reason to distinguish the Policy which is of Gods making, from that which is an Usur∣pation, and of Mens relations accordingly.

If any King should say, I am a Vice-God, or Gods Viceroy to Govern all the Earth, •…•…nd that by Gods Appointment, and none can be saved that Obey me not; I would distin∣guish between the World, or particular Persons, as Gods Subjects, and as this Vice-Gods Subjects.

§ 18. But he saith, Is it possible for two Persons to be Papists, and one to destroy his Christi∣anity and the other not?

Answ. Yes, very possible and common: That is, one holdeth those Errors which by consequence subvert some Article of the Christian Faith, but as to the Words not understood, or not understanding the consequences; or only speculatively, and at the same time hold∣eth the subverted Articles (not discerning the contradiction) fastly and practically; ano∣ther doth the contrary. Even as a Monothelite, or a Nestorian, or Eutychian may either be one that only as to the Words, or superficially erreth, and in sence, or practically holds the Truth, or one that is contrary. This should seem no strange thing to you; for even a Man that professeth only Christianity may do it, but Nomine tenus, not understanding it; or superficially and not practically, and be no true Christian indeed.

§. 19. When I exprest my hope that even he and I as Christians are of one Church, he will not believe it, 1. Because I am of a Church by my self; neither of theirs nor any other part. 2. Because I have no Faith.

Answ. It seems then that meer Christianity is no Faith, and that there are none of the meer Christian Church but I. But who will believe the latter, and when will he prove either?

An Answer to W. J's Seventh CHAPTER.

§. 1. TO his Question, Why we separated from them? I Answered, that as they are Chri∣stians we separate not from them: As Papists we were never of them, but our Fore-fathers thought Repentance of Sin to be no Sin. If by Popery they separate from Christianity, they are damnable Separatists; if they do not, we are of the same Church, whether they will or not.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 To this he saith, That We separate from them as much as the Pelagians, Donatists, Acacians, Luciferians, Nestorians, and Eutychians did from the Church.

Answ. 1. The Doctrinal Errors and the Separation are of different consideration. The Pelagians Erred as some Dominicans say the Iesuites do. The Donatists, like the Papists, appropriated the Church to their own Bishops and Party; we do none of this. Lucifer Calaritanus was too Zealous against the Arrians, not communicating with them upon so short Repentance as others did: But they went not so far, as Crab saith the Roman Council in Sylvester's day•…•… did, that Received no Repentance before forty Years: Nor so far as the ho∣nest Elebertine Council in the number of Years of Mens exclusion from the Communion. I take Lucifer for Erroneous and Schismatical, but not comparable to the Papists, who err far more, and yet separate from most of the Christian World. These Schismaticks named by you Sinned by unjust separation from the Imperial Churches near them, but they did not separate from all the World save themselves, as the Papists do. And if you believe History, you will find that some of them did not separate themselves, till they were Anathematized and cast out by others. Nestorius retired and Lived four Years in great repute in his Old Monastery near Antioch. The Novatians were too scrupulous of joyning with Wicked Priests and People: And your Writers say, that Pope Nicholas forbad hearing Mass from a Fornicator Priest. I had rather be in this of the Pope and the Novatians mind than of those Catholick Priests.

2. But I think this is a considerable Difference: The Erroneous Schismaticks of those times, much more the proper Hereticks, did sinfully withdraw from the Communion of most of the Universal Church, to profess some Error of their own in singular Conventicles. But we, who take meer Christianity for our Religion, do own Communion with the far greatest part of the Church on Earth; yea, with all as Christian, and sepa•…•…ate not for Error, but only from Error and Sin: We separate from Pelagians as Pelagians, from Novatians as Novatians, and from Papists as Papists, but not as Christians.

You say, No more did they then. I Answer, 1. They separated from Truth, and we from Error, as the Council that condemned him did from Pope Honorius. 2. The Luciferians and Novatians separated Voluntarily; we are cast out by you from Christian Communion, and are counted Separatists unless we will Sin with you, or be burnt as Hereticks, 3. Let the Reader still note the cheating ambiguity of your word [Separation.] The Schismaticks named, separated from Brotherly Communion, but we separate from Tyrannical Usurped Domi∣nation; and are called Schismaticks (not because we will not have such Communion with you in all Christian Truth and Duty, but) because we will not be your Vassals or Subjects, and Sin as oft as you command us.

§. 2. Pag. 155. He saith, That Had we deserted the sole Communion of the Papacy▪ it might have born some show of Defence; but seeing when we separated from that we remained separated as much from all particular Visible Churches in the World, as that; you have no Excuse.

Answ. If the Reader have not a very gross Head, he shall see your Calumny. As your Church is Essentiated by the Papal Head, so far we renounce the very Essence of your Church: None of the rest of the Christian World pretend to any such Universal Head but Christ. Therefore we separate not from their Head, or any Essential part of their Church, as such. We separate as far as we are able from the corrupt Accidents and faults of every Church and Christian, and would fain separate more from our own. As we separate from the Abas∣sines in the point of their oft Baptizing, and from the Muscovites, Greeks, Armenians, as to their Ignorance and some Mistakes and Vices: And so we would separate from Drunken∣ness, Fornication, Covetousness, Simony, false Subscriptions, Lies, &c. in any, where we find them in the World: But this is not Schism or separating from the Church. Dare you say that this is not our Duty? Will you joyn in Sin with every Sinful Church for fear of Schism?

§. 3. But he saith, That any Arrian will say so, That he separateth not from the Church as Christian.

Answ. We have brave Disputing with a Man that cannot, or will not distinguish between Saying and doing. Doth it follow that an Arrian doth not separate from the Church as Chri∣stian, because they say they do not? I prove the contrary. He that separateth from the Church for an Ess•…•…ntial part of Christianity, separateth from the Church as Christian; but so do the Ar∣rians; Ergo: I prove the Minor. He that separateth, as denying the God-head of Christ,

separateth for and from an Essential part of Christianity; but so do the Arrians, Eunomians, Photinians, Samosatemans, Socinians, &c. Ergo—

§. 4. Next I opened their dealing with us, that call us Schismaticks, because we will not willingly Sin with them, and be burnt by them, as if it were our Ashes that refused their Communion; or because Princes will punish wicked Priests, or as Solomon cast out Abiathar, and put Zadok in his place, or will not be Subject to a Foreign Usurper, &c.

To this he saith, It is a Rhetorical Exclamation and whole Kingdoms condemned by the Popes Canons to the Flames, must take such an Answer as that for their Lives. And he again calls on me to name any Visible Church which we separated not from, which I am aweary of answering so oft.

§. 5. He ask'd me whether Subordination and Obedience to the same State and Government, is not as well required to our Church as to our Common-wealth? I Answered, Yes: But as all the World is not one Humane Kingdom, so neither is it one Humane Church. To this he re∣peateth his old [Visible and Invisible] taking it for granted, that the Church must have one meer Humane Visible Head or Governour (Personal or collective) which yet he knoweth is the great thing which I deny, and he had to prove, which if he did; all his work were done.

§. 6. I Noted that their own Divines are not agreed whether Hereticks and Schismaticks are parts of the Church.

To this he saith, That 1. He speaks of Parts of the Church, as I understand parts: Answ. Who would have thought till now but he had spoken as he thought himself.

2. He saith, That I hold that some Hereticks, properly so called, are parts of the Church of Christ, and united to Christ their Head, believing the Essentials of Christianity, and so are Chri∣stians, though Erring in some Accidents; and this is contrary to all Christianity, and a Nov•…•…lty never held before by any Christian.

Answ. But such gross Falshoods as yours, and such deceits have been used before by ma∣ny Papists. 1. Where did I say that such as err only in some Accidents, are properly called Hereticks? I distinguished De re & ratione nominis, but undertook not to tell from the Ety∣mology of the word, which is the only proper sence of Heresie; but according to the vulgar use of the word among us, it is taken for one that denieth some Essential: But with such as you I see it is taken more largely; and I am not sure that at first it was not taken for any Separation or Schism into distinct Sects. All that I say (you may be ashamed to call me▪ so oft to repeat it) is, That 1. Many are called Hereticks by Papists, yea•…•… by Phila∣strius and Epiphanius, that were true Christians, for ought is said against them (yea, Phi∣lastrius numbereth some certain Truths with Heresies, when his contrary Errors are liker such.) 2. That they that erre in some Accidents may be true Christians, or else I think there is none at Age in the World. 3. That there is much lamentable Schism, which is no Separation from the whole Church. 4. That he shall be saved that holdeth all the Essen∣tials of Christianity truly and practically. 5. I have proved that your Definitions absolve more from 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Schism than I do.

But it's here to be noted, That this Man maketh multitudes to be under the Papal Head, that are no Subjects of Christ our Head; and so that the Pope hath a Church of his own that is none of Christs Church.

§. 7. I Noted, That either their Church hath defined, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and S•…•…hismaticks are no parts of the Church, or not: If not; how can he stand to it and impose it on me? If they have, then their Doctors that say the contrary, (named by Bellarmine) are all 〈◊〉〈◊〉 themselves.

He saith, None of ours ever held them parts, as you do; that is, united to Christ by Faith and Charity.

Answ. Is not this Man hard put to it? All this while he hath been Disputing us, and all called by their Usurping censure Hereticks, out of the Church Visible; and calling on me to prove the perpetuity of our Church Visible; and telling me, that without a more Visible Head than Christ it is not Visible. And yet now it is but the Invisible▪ Church as Headed by Christ, and endowed with true Faith and Charity, which these Doctors of theirs exclude Hereticks and Schismaticks from.

§. 8. I said, Arrians are no Christians, denying Christs Essence.

He replyeth, True, and so do all H•…•…reticks.

I Answer, If indeed they did so, not only in words not understood, but in the und•…•…tood sence, so that this is really their belief, and really Exclusive of the contrary Truth; I place no such Hereticks in the Church.

He proveth his charge thus: Whosoever denyeth Christs most Infallible Veracity and Divine Authority denyeth somewhat Essential to Christ; but so doth every Heretick properly called.

Answ. Away with such Hereticks as do so indeed.

For the Minor, he cometh to the old obscurity, Whosoever denyeth that to be true which is sufficiently propounded to him to be Revealed by Christ, denyeth Christs Verity and Divine Autho∣rity; but so doth every Heretick.

Answ. I have oft enough shewed, 1. That the Argument is useless, because no Man can judge of the Sufficiency of Proposals (till they come to very high degrees) as to the capacities of other Men.

2. That the Major is false: For a Man that doubteth not of Christs Verity and Authority, may not understand (and so may deny) many Truths sufficiently propounded, hindering the understanding of them by sloth, senfuality, partiality, prejudice, or other faults. Can any Man doubt of this?

3. That his Minor also is false: He may be a Heretick that denyeth that which is not suf∣ficiently proposed, if his own crime either blinding his mind, or forfeiting better proposals, cause the insufficiency.

§. 9. I noted how they charge one another with Pelagianisme; And he saith, Not in the point of Original Sin.

Answ. And is all the rest come now to be no Heresie? Was it for nothing else that they were judged Hereticks? The rest should have as fair play, if your interest were but as much for it?

§. 10. But saith he [Who ever, before you, said that the Catholick-Church could be divided it self, when it is a most perfect unity; A grand novelty of yours.

Answ. This is because I said, that some make divisions in the Church, that divide not from it, much less from the whole. I proved before that in this sense Paul usually speaketh against Schisme or Divisions, As when he tells the Corinthians of the divisions among them, &c. But this man would make Scripture and common sense and reason to be grand novelties; may there not be divisions in a House, in a Kingdom, in an Army, in a particu∣lar Congregation, as that at Corinth; and that after which Clement wrote his Epistle to heal? Have there not been abundance of such at Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople? was there no Division in the Church of Rome, when part cleaved to one Pope, and part to another for above forty years? Did the Councils of Constance and Basil meet to heal their Schismes, upon mistake when there was no such thing? And do all their Historians erroneously number their Schisms? Reader pardon my oft answering such bold abuses; These are their argu∣ers that hope to subvert England.

§. 11. And his reason is such as would shew him a Catharist, viz. The Church is a most perfect Unity; If so, than all grace is perfect which is necessary to perfect unity. Then the Popes and Anti-Popes, the warring Papalines and Imperialists, the Iesuites, Dominicans, and Iansinists are all at perfect Unity; Then there is no disagreement, of Judgement Will or Practice among any Papists in the world; no Volumes written against other; Alas, how far are such words from proving it, or from ending their present Controversies or Wars. Watson and Preston had scarce perfect unity with Father Parsons and the Iesuites. Doth perfect unity draw all the blood between France and the house of Austria, or in France, between King Hen. •…•…d. and the Leaguers. It is enough for me to believe that all true Chri∣stians have a true unity in Christ, with each as his members, but that this Unity among themselves is sadly imperfect, and so was when they had all the contentions in many Ge∣neral Councils, and when the people have oft fought it out to blood about Religion, and the choice of Bishops, at Alexandria, Rome, &c. Is this perfection? It is in heaven that we hope for perfect unity, where all is perfect.

§. 12. I told him, Heresie being a personal crime, the Nations cannot be charged with it With∣out better proofs.

He saith, if he hath. 1. the testimony of one of our Writers. (Answ. Alas poor Kingdoms

of Christians! that can be proved Hereticks if Pet. Heylin or any one of our Writers do but say it.) 2. He tells a story of Prestor Iohn sending to Rome for instruction (Answ. Con∣futed so oft, and by their own Writers, that it's a shame to repeat it. Nor doth that prove them so much as Papists, much less Hereticks.) 3. That their Canon of the Mass, proveth them Eutychians, in that they name the three former Councils, and not that of Calcedon.) Answ. Small proof will serve the turn with such willing men. What if Dioscorus made them be∣lieve that That Council did condemn the doctrine of Cyril (which he verily thought was the same which he defended) and rejected the Nicene Creed (which he appealed to) and that they divided Christ? Might not the consent of the neighbour Egyptian Bishops put them out of conceit with that Council, though they owned no Heresie? Do not your Writers now ordinarily quit them of such Heresie? Do they that disown the Councils of Constance or Basil, own all the Errors or Schismes which They condemned? You justifie the Abas∣sines when you tell men that your calumnies have no better show of truth.

§. 13. Erasmus laments the Age when it became a matter of the highest wit and subtilty to be a Christian. This seemeth about Cyrils dayes, when mens salvation and all the Churches peace and safety was thought to be at stake, upon the controversies, Whether de Christo Locutio formalis an materialis erat maximè propria. An Deus à Sp. Sancto in Virgine concipi & ab ipsâ generari propriè diceretur. Whether Nestorius was a Heretick for saying that he would not say God was two or three months old. And when poor Eutyches and Dioscorus for want of skill thought verily they had spoken but what Cyril taught them, and became Hereticks by it before they were aware; when the grand Question was, whether the word persona had such a signification, as that Christs Humane Nature might be called any part of his Person; or whether the Divine Nature, which is infinite, can be Pars: And whether if the Humane be Pars personae, then that Personality which was from Eternity without the Hu∣mane, could be the same with that Personality of which the Humane was a part? Or if the Humane be no part of the Person, but an Accident, whether it be proper to denominate the Person and Essence from an Accident, so as to say, God was begotten of Mary? God was two Moneths old! God was dead and buried, ascended, &c. And when the whole Salvation of Men seemed to lye on the curiosity, How far two Natures, or two wills so near∣ly united as to have a communication of Names and Epithets, might be said to be made One? No doubt but in all these the Orthodox were in the right: But it's pity that when Logick was so denyed in the Council of Nice, and Apollinaris blamed for too much using it, and the Council at Carthage forbad the use of the Heathens Books, yet so many Men must burn in Hell for being no better Logicians or more metaphysical; and all Men to the end of the World must be numbred with them, that do not anathematize them. And that Mil∣lions of Ignorant Men and Women in Abassia, Syria, Armenia, &c. that know nothing of these Matters, nor ever heard of them, to whom they are as an unknown Tongue, must all be unchristened and damned as Hereticks; yea, for not owning a Council that most (it's like) never heard of. Alas, how few in England, Ireland, or any Countrey know what the Council of Chalcedon did, or ever heard it?

But yet all these Hereticks (two or three parts of the World) have an easie way of Recovery: It is but to believe as the Pope of Rome believes, though they know not what, and take him for their Sovereign, and they are safe. But the final Judgment is more Just.

§. 14. Pag. 169. He addeth, The Abassines confess themselves to follow Eutyches and Dios∣corus, and therefore there needeth neither Tryal nor Conviction.

Answ. 1. Where is your Proof that they so confess? We will not confess that this is no Slander. 2. Alas, how few of them know who Eutyches and Dioscorus were! 3. And of those that Honour their Names how few know what they held? 4. Your own Writers acquit them of that Heresie. 5. The Truth is, the Tradition of their Countrey teacheth them to Honour Dioscorus for his place sake; but I cannot learn that the Name of Eutyches is known or Honoured much by them. 6. O that the Papists had not more and greater Errors than either Nestorius or Eutyches, and that you condemned not your selves in con∣demning the Abassines.

§. 15. Let the Reader Note, that this Man would first have us believe that the Abassines and others, whom they call Hereticks, are Subjects of the Pope, and of their Church,

and yet that they are Hereticks, and so that Hereticks are no parts of the Church, and yet that they are parts of their Church.

His shameless calling for proof that any of their Writers acquit them from these Heresies, shall not tempt me to lose my time in citing them.

§. 16. Next we come to his charge, That the Greek Church rejects us as well as they: There∣fore the whole Church rejecteth us. Therefore we are to be rejected (Hereticks) or else the whole Church is deceived.

Answ. 1. He that never read Church-History, may think that there is some significa∣tion in this Cant of, The whole Church, and the Universal Church: But so will not he, that knoweth how the Prelates have usually turned to the stronger side, and that if the Majority be the whole, the whole Church was Orthodox in Constantines days, and the whole Church was Arrian in the days of Constantius and Valens; the whole Church was Eutychian in Theo∣dosius Junior's days, and long Monothelites, and Iconoclasts, &c.

2. If it prove Men to be Hereticks or Schismaticks because the Major part reject them, then the Orthodox were Hereticks when the foresaid Arrians rejected them. But you have been so long used to Usurp Christs Chair, that you seem to be grown to believe your selves, that a Man is out of Christs Church, if other Men do but say that he is out. As if you knew not that the Church is to put no Man farther from Christ, but only to declare how far from him they have put themselves. And if any declare more than is true, it doth not separate the wronged Person from Christ. e. g. I heard but yesterday divers Persons Ex∣communicated, some for Teaching School without License, and some for other such like things: Doth it follow, that these are any further out of the Church than they put them∣selves?

3. But tell us, if you can, when the Greek Church, or Patriarch of Constantinople did presume to Excommunicate us? You will not tell us. How then doth their rejection sig∣nifie that we are not of the same Church? The Truth is, the Greek Church never declared their mind concerning us: If you will call one Man, or twenty Men the Greek Church, you may use your Liberty, but we shall little regard it. In the days of one Patriarch (Cyril) he declareth for us, and our Reformation: The Papists in Charity get him Murdered. Another (Ieremiah) declareth his dissent from us; but it is one thing to dissent from some things, and another thing to take Men for none of the Church. If you will charge the Greeks to be such Separatists, as to unchurch or unchristen all that they in controverted▪ Points dissent from: We will not believe you in so ugly a charge, till you have proved it. The Greeks disown us, and we them, in some lesser things, but neither they nor we presume to unchristen one another. And if they or we did, it would unchristen none of us, unless we first unchristened our selves.

4. But if the Greeks have the supream authority, as the virtual universal Church, then the Papists have it not; if the Papists have it, the Greeks have it not: If neither hath it, who hath it? Neither of you, nor both are the real Universal Church, and neither is Virtually the Universal. Therefore if both did Excommunicate us, we are not therefore Excom∣municate by the Church Universal.

5. But may the Church Universal erre in Excommunicating, or not? If so, then you have said nothing: If not, you take a General Council to be indeed the Church representative: •…•…nd then how many of your Popes (Essential parts of your Church) have been Excom∣municated,

and deposed as Hereticks by the Universal Church? And your Church now is but the Successour of (e. g. Eugenius the fourth) so rejected: Shew us when ever the Greeks did so by our Church or us.

§. 17. I told him, the Greek Church claimed but the Primacy or Supremacy in the Em∣pire, and not the Government of all the World.

At this, he first wondreth, and then takes upon him to disprove it. 1. Because else Gre∣gory the first had ill reprehended John of Constant. for claiming the Title of Universal Bishop. 2. Because Jeremy saith, 1. He was Vice Christi: 2. And perswadeth Lucius, &c. to be Sub∣ject to the Church with them.

Answ. 1. It was the Arrogancy of the Title that Gregory reprehended, as sounding like a real Universal Claim, and the reality of an Universal Claim in the Empire. I proved before, that the Greeks knew that Constant. had no Title, Iure Divine, by the Can. 28 of Chalcedon, and the notoriety of the thing: And therefore they could not pretend it to be over all the World, where the Empire had no Power. And what need there more proof, than that there is no Evidence brought by you or any, that ever they gave Laws to all the Christian World; or that ever they called Councils out of it, or that ever they set up and put down Bishops in it? Indeed they have Excommunicated Roman Popes; but that was with∣in the Empire, (and so did Alexandria.) Or if since, (as they do still) it is not as their Governours, but as any Churches may renounce Communion with Hereticks, or Per∣sons uncapable of their Communion.

2. And as for Ieremy, 1. Will not Cyril as much prove the contrary? 2. Is one Man the Greek Church? 3. Did every Apostle, or doth every Minister of Christ proclaim himself Universal Head of the Church, when he saith, as 2 Cor. 5. 19. We beseech you, Vice Christi in Christs stead to be reconciled to God? It is one thing to be Preachers in Christs stead to our particular Flocks, and another thing to Usurp Christs proper Office, and be in his stead Universal Governour of the World. 4. And may not one of us, or any Christian perswade a Man to be Subject to the Church of Christ? And if Ieremias had a mind to Rule further than the Empire, now the Empire is Mahome•…•…an, and Subjects Voluntary and free, what wonder is it? We undertake not to Justifie him from all Ambition.

§. 18. I told him, out of his Ieremias, and his Protonotary Iohn Zygomolas, that they confessed Agreement with us [In continuis & causam fidei praecipuè continentibus articulis;] and that [Quae videntur consensum impedire talia sunt, si velit quis, ut facilè •…•…a corrig•…•…re pos∣sit.]

He tells me, That, 1. Yet they consent with them in all save the Popes Authority. Answ. 1. How far that is from Truth, Thom. a Iesu, and other of your own will tell you. 2. And the Popes Authority is the ratio formalis of Popery.

2. He saith. That Ier. claimeth as Supream Authority over the whole Church, as the Pope doth. Answ. 1. I will not believe it till I see the proof: I find he layeth all his Claim from Coun∣cils, and therefore may possibly claim power over those Churches that were in the Empire when the Council of Chalcedon gave that power; but I find no more: And if he did, they and we may yet be Christians.

3. He saith, Any of the Roman Church might write the like to the Lutherans: But Zygo∣malas supposeth them of two Churches, till united. Answ. He supposeth them not in all things of the same mind, nor of the same particular Churches. But he that saith, that we agree in the Articles of Faith, and differ but in lesser things of easie reconciliation, either supposeth both Parties to be Christians, and of one Church of Christ, or else that no Men are Chri∣stians that have any Difference, that is no two explicite Believers, perhaps, in the World.

§. 19. I told him, 1. The Patriarch was not the Greek Church: Nor, 2. Their lesser Errors prove us of two Religions or Churches.

He Replyeth: 1. But he knew the Extent of his own Iurisdiction. Answ. 1. So do not all Ambitious Men: If he do, then the Papists are all deceived; for he pretended, say you, a Jurisdiction over the Pope and his Church.

But the Question between him and the Protestants, w•…•… not about his Jurisdiction.

2. He saith, That If the Errors be tolerable, we are Schismaticks in Separating from them, and should rather have suffered. Answ. To separate from any sin and error, by not consent∣ing

or committing it, no Christian denyeth to be our duty: and his supposition that we sepa∣rated from the Catholick or the Greek Church, is but his continued fiction. We were not under the Government of the Greeks, and therefore not obeying them is no separation; and not sinning with them is no separation: we own them as Christians, and we renounce the sins of all the world, and hate our own more than any others, so far as we know them.

§. 20. To his saying that It is against Christianity to hold condemned Hereticks to be in the Church. I answered 1. That I detest that condemnation when, even non judices, condemn whole nations without hearing one man, much-lesser all speak for themselves, or any just witness that ever heard them defend a Heresie.

His Answer is, that I mistake the way of their Churches condemnation: They do but say whoever holds such errors let him be accursed, or, we excommunicate such as hold them, &c.

Answ. There is some hope left then for the Nations that are no subjects of the Pope, unlesse non-subjection be the Heresie. But hath the Pope gone no further than this? Hath he not put whole Nations under Interdicts?

But he saith those that profess their heresies, or that communicate with them, are esteemed here∣ticks: and those that profess to disbelieve their heresie, and yet live in communion with them and subjection to them, are Schismaticks.

Answ. 1. Here's new confounding doctrine indeed. If their Canon only condemn inde∣finitely those that hold a heresie (e. g. Nestorianism, taking it to be unfit to say God dyed or God was born) must all be taken for hereticks that communicate with any of these, before the person guilty is convict, and judged? Must every private man be the judge of hi•…•… neighbour? Every servant, of his Master? Every woman, of her husband? Every subject, of the King; and be burnt for a heretick, for communicating with one that was never ac∣cused or condemned? We live then with one another more dangerously than men con∣verse in the time of pestilence. Nay what if the Priest himself admit such to the Commu∣nion, must the poor people be burned if they communicate with them in the parish Church: and yet be punished if he do not come to Church and communicate?

2. Lament, Reader, to think what engines Clergy-tyranny hath made against Christia•…•… Love, Peace, and Concord, to set the world into a war. If the Council, for want of un∣derstanding a point of doubtful words, pronounce such words Heresie, all people for fea•…•… of being burnt and damned, must fly from all as hereticks that they think are for those con∣demned words. All our Plowmen and women must be supposed to know that it is heresie e. g. to say that Christ hath but one will, (though the speaker mean objectively one, or else. One by Union of the divine and humane nature,) or to say that it was not God that was conceived▪ and, suffered and dyed, and was passible, (when he meaneth only formal•…•…ter, not As God, but on•…•…▪ he that is God;) and then every family must have an inquisition, and people must f•…•… from one another, before any judgment. Doth not this give every lad and woman som•…•… power of the keyes, and every subject a power of judging Kings and Judges.

3. But mark, Reader, how sin condemneth it self, as envy eateth its own flesh, e. g. general Council condemneth Pope Eugenius as an Heretick, (or Iohn XXIII. or others:) T•…•…▪ whole Church of Rome continued in communion and subjection to this condemned Her•…•…∣tick (as they did with Honorius:) Therefore by their own sentence the whole Church 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Rome must be taken for Hereticks.

And if so, 4. See how they justifie us for separating from them, when they judge us he∣reticks themselves if we communicate with them.

Alas, if a wrangling proud Clergy have but ignorance and pride enough to call Gods ser∣vants Berengarians, Wicklefists, Waldenses, Lutherans, Zuinglians, Calvinists, Iconoclasts, Lu∣ciferians, Quartodecimani, &c. hereticks, all families and neighbourhoods are presently bound to fly from one another, as if they had the plague, or were enemies.

And must subjection come in for heresie? If you call our King a heretick, must all his subjects be taken for hereti•…•…ks for having communion and subjection to him. Will the Popes charge•…•… yea, or real heresie disoblige us from Subjection. And yet will you pretend to be loyal sub∣jects.

§. 21. I gave him the proof that he before called for, from Thomas à Iesu, & Paul•…•…, Veriditus (Harris of Dublin against Usher) that their writers vindicate the Greeks from here∣sie. To which he saith that I could not but know that he meant of the modern Greeks (as he∣reticks)

and not of the ancient fathers, of which Bernard, Aquinas & Paul Harris speak.

Answ. This Answer hath a very bold face if it do not blush. 1. It was the words of Thomas à sancto Iesu de convers. Gent. a late writer that I recited, to whose testimony as his he giveth not one word of answer: And Thom. in the words cited expressely speaketh of the present Greeks, and it is the very scope of his writing.

2. Thomas cited ex junioribus Azorius. 1. Iustit. Moral. l. 8. c. 20. To which he giveth not a word of answer.

3. Paul Harris saith that when the Greeks had explicated their à Patre per filium, (viz. in the Council at Florence) they were found to believe very orthodoxely, and catholickly, ye•…•… doth this man say that Harris speaks of the ancient Greeks; expressely contrary both to his dris•…•… and words. Is there any dealing with these false hereticaters? It's well that no Council hath anathematized falshood and calumny for heresies, else we must have no communion with such, that have no better meanes to dispute down christian Love and Concord.

Yea what need I more testimony than that Council of Florence it self, which so judged; and was supposed to heal the breach by explications. Nor is it true that Bernard and Aqui∣nas spake not of the Greeks in their times as owning the same cause that these do now.

§. 22. I told him, if Greeks and Latines, will divide the Church, and damn each other, they shall not draw us into their guilt.

He saith again that the Church cannot be divided, it is so perfectly One.

Answ. If I have not shamed the Saying, let me bear the shame, though we say, that it cannot have any part totally divided from Christ; for then it were no part; and therefore none is divided relatively or really from the whole body. But if the parts may not have sinful divisions from each other, secundum quid, Paul told the Corinthians amiss, and the Papists Historians much mistook that talkt of about 40 Schisms at Rome, and of the Popes adherents, when part of the body had one head, and part another, for so long a time, and to such sad effects.

§. 23. Next I cited him the express words of their own Florentine Council, professing that the Greeks and Latines were found upon conference to mean the same thing. To which he saith. 1. That it was but a few of them, and that Marcus Ephesus dissented. 2. Tha•…•… they revolted when they returned home▪

Answ. 1. See still how they fight against their selves. The seeming concord of this Council (which did the Pope who was newly condemned and deposed by a great general Council, more service than ever any did them) is the great pretense of their false boasting that the Greek Church is subject to the Pope: And yet he teaches us truly to say that it was but a few, and that Marcus Eph. dissented, and that they stood not to it when they came home. The known truth is that the Emperor in distress constrained some to dissemble in hope of relief, of which when he failed, the submission was at an end. And the Church never consented to it.

2. But as to the point in hand, it is not the Greeks recovery from an error that the Council mentioneth, but the discovery of their meaning which was found to be Orthodox. And though they yet use not the Romans phrase, they never retracted the sense in which they were found to be orthodox.

§. 24. Next, he citing Nilus that the Greeks broke off from the Latines for the [filioque] alone, I recited Nilus his title and words at large, professing, that There is no other cause of

dissention between the Latin and Greek Churches but that the Pope refuseth to deferre the cogni∣sance and judgment of that which is controverted, to a general Council, but he will sit the sole Master and Iudge of controversie, which is a thing aliene to the Lawes and actions of the Apo∣stles and Fathers. The cause of the disseren•…•… (saith he) is not the sublimity of the point exceeding mans capacity; for other matters that have divers times troubled the Church, have been of the same kind. This therefore is not the cause of the dissention; much lesse the Scripture. But who the fault is in; any one may easily tell that is well in his wits. Nor is it because the Greeks 〈◊〉〈◊〉 claim the Primacy (N. B.) He mentioneth that the Pope succeedeth Pet•…•… only as a Bishop or dained by him, as many other Bishops originally ordained by him do, and that his primacy is n•…•… governing power, nor given him by Peter, but by Princes and Councils, which he copiou•…•… proveth.

To this he saith. 1. that yet this may stand with the [•…•…ioque] being the first cause.

Answ. 1. But the question was of the sole cause. 2. He denyeth it to be any cause, but only an Occasion, and the Popes usurpat•…•…on to be the only Cause. 3. Is it not known that the Quarrel and Breach began long before, about the Title of universal Bishop, though the Greeks did not then excommunicate you?

2. He saith that By this it's implied that the Greeks agree with them in all things, save the Popes Sovereignty.

Answ. Doth it follow that because he saith that this only is the cause of the division of your Churches, therefore there are no other disagreements? all sober Christians have learnt to forbear excommunications and separations when yet there are many disagreements; and we never denyed but the Greeks agree more with you than they ought, and specially in striving who shall be great.

§. 25. To his repeated words, that all these were not distinct congregations, &c. I told him again, that we are for no congregations distinct from Christians, as such. To which he replyeth again. 1. That no hereticks say they depart from the Church as Christian. Answ. But if they do so, it's no matter though they do not say so. Whoever departeth from the Church for somewhat Essential to Christianity departeth from it as Christian: but you say your self that all hereticks depart from the Church for somewhat Essential to Christianity: Ergo, &c.

Object, Then they are Apostates. Answ. Apostates in the common sense are those that openly renounce Christianity in terms, as such, but those that renounce any essential part are Apostates really, though but secundum quid, and no•…•… the usuall sense.

2. He intreateth me to name him the first Pope that was the Head of the whole Church in the world. Answ. 1. There never was any such; for the whole Church never owned him, Abussia, Persia, India, &c, never was governed by him to this day; and not past a third or fourth part is under him now. 2. But I must name the first that claimed it: had I lived a thousand years at every Popes elbow I would have ventured to conjecture; but it is an un∣reasonable motion to make to me that am not 70 years old. I must confess my ignorance, I know not who was the first man that was for the Sacrament in one kind only (without the cup;) nor who first brought in praying in an unknown tongue, or Images in Churches; nor who first changed the custome of adoring without genuflexion on the Lords dayes. I leave such Taskes to Polydore Virgil de Invent. rerum. Little know I who was the first proud Pope, or Heretical, or Simoniacal, or Infidel Pope; it satisfies me to know that 1. It was long otherwise, 2, And that it came in by degrees (nemo repentè sit pess•…•…mus.) 3. And that it should not be so.

The rest of his charge against the Greeks, &c. requireth no answer; instead of doing it, he tells me he has proved there must be governours of the whole Church; which if he had done, as to any Universal Head, he might have spared all the rest of his labour.

§. 26. I thought a while that he had answered all my book, but I find that he slips over that which he had no mind to meddle with, and among others these following words, (you may judge why.)

P. 115. Many of the Greeks have been of brotherly charity to our Churches of late: Cyril, I need not name to you, whom your party procured murdered for being a Protestant. (A worthy Pa∣triarch of Constantinople, who sent us by Sir Tho. Roe, our Alexandrian Sept. and whose con∣fession is published. And why is not He as much the Greek Church as Ieremias?) Meletius, first Patriarch of Alexandria, and then of Constantinople, was highly offended with the fiction of a submission of the Alexandrian Church to Rome, (under a counterfeit Patriarch Gabriel's name) and wrote thus of the Pope in his Letters to Sigismund King of Poland An. 1600.

Perspi∣ciat Mojestas tua nos cum majoribus, &c. Your Majesty may see that we with our Ancestors are not ignorant of the Roman Pope (whom you pray us to acknowledge) nor of the Patriarch of Constant. and the rest of the Bishops of the Apostolical Stats. There is one universal Head, which is our Lord Iesus Christ. Another there cannot be, unlesse it be a two-headed body, or rather a mon∣ster of a body. You may see, most serene King, (that I may say nothing of that Florentine Coun∣cil, as a thing worthy of silence) that we departed not from the opinions and traditions of the

East and West which by seven General Councils they consigned, and obsigned to us; but that they departed, who are daily delighted with novelties.

In the same letter he commendeth Cyril, and what can a Protestant say more against the Vice-Christ and your novelties, and the false pretended submission of the Greeks.

So much to that which he calleth his First part of his Book.

An Answer to W. J's second Part of his Reply.

§. 1. IN this which he calls his Second Part there is so much of meer words, or altercation, and of his false interpretation of some particular histories and citations, that should I answer it fully, it would be a great snare to the Reader. 1. To weary him. 2. To lose the matter in controversie in a wood of words. 3. And to suppose us both to strive about circumstances, and so to cast it by, that I shall not lose so much of my time to so ill a pur∣pose. All that I desire of the Reader that would have a particular answer, is, 1. That he remember the answer that is already given to much of it. 2. That he observe that almost all his citations signifie no more, than 1. That both the Romans and other Patriarchs were long striving who should be the greatest, and therefore intermeddling with as many busi∣nesses as they could. 2. That the supream Church-power being then placed by consent and by the Emperors in Councils, the five Patriarchs ought to be at these Councils when they were Universal, as to the Empire. 3. That Rome had the first place in order of these Patriarchs or Seats. 4. That the eastern Bishop when opprest by Arrlans and persecutions, did fly for council and countenance to the Roman Emperors who held orthodox, and to the Roman Bishops as the first Patriarchs, and as having interest in the Emperors: he that was one of the greatest, might help the oppressed to some relief, having an orthodox Em∣peror; by which means Constantius was constrained, and Athanasius restored; by the threatning of a war by the western Emperor, and not by the authority of the Pope. And the like aid was oft sought from Alexandria and Antioch. 5 That this man and the rest of them straineth all such words as sound any respect to the Bishop of Rome, any reverence of his place and judgment, any counsel that he giveth to any, any help that any sought of him, as signifying his Government of all the Empire. 6. That he feigneth all such interest or power in the Empire to be a Monarchical Government of all the world †. 7. That he to these ends leadeth men into verbal quarrels about the sense of many passages in history and fathers, where he knoweth that the vulgar cannot judge, nor any that are not well versed in all those books, which most preachers themselves have not sufficient leisure for. 8. That contrary to the notorious evidence of histories, he maintaineth that no Councils were called without the authority of the Roman Bishop, when the Emperors ordinarily called them, by sending to each Patriarch to summon those of his circuit to such a place, and the Bishops of Alexandria and Constant. had more hand in calling them till 700 or 800 if not much longer than the Pope had. 9. If the Reader can trie all our passages here about, by the books themselves (not taking scraps, but the main drift of Church-history) and the particular authors, I will desire no more of him than to read them himself; if not, nei∣ther 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 sovereign∣ty, when they excommunicated him, (and the Emperor and •…•…ivil Officers bare Dioscorus.) He doth over and over tell me how I defend Rebels against a Sovereign, and I have laid a Prin∣ciple emboldening all Rebels to depos•…•… 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 re∣stored 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 de∣clining of the Empire. Or 4. when they that had been used in the Empire to the canoni∣cal 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 borea∣le latus maris Euxini incolentes, prius Getae, teste D. Isidor. li. 9. De quibus Auson. Horum metropo∣lis 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; ano∣ther 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 Pro∣vince 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.

Answ. And what of that? 1. Is it not said, that they were of the Province of Scythia? And 2. Doth not Euseb. in vit. Const. tell you when Scythia (that is part of it) was con∣quered by Constantine? And Tomis was known to be in the Empire: It was a City of the Inferiour Mysia, where Ovid was Banished, and by Socrates made the sole Bishoprick of Scythia then.

Binnius desireth pardon if the Subscriptions be not true, so little certainty is here pre∣tended. And what Crab saith, I before cited, the 4 or 5 Copies so greatly disagreeing.

§. 9. V. Saith W. I. And Etherius Anchialensis: now Anchialos, is a City in Thracia, not far from Apollonia.

Answ. 1. There's no mention in Crab or Binnius of Etherius Anchialensis, but of Aetherius Tersonitanus or Tonsonitanus; and of Sabastianus Anchialensis. 2. And if there were three from Scythia (which is not likely, because Socrates said they had none but of Tamis,) this was one of them. 3. And doth not this Man well prove the Pope and Councils Power to extend beyond the Empire, when he instanceth in such a City of Thracia, where Constan∣tinople it self was? But whether it was the Bishop of Anchialos, an Arch-Bishoprick on the side of the Euxine Sea, called Kenkis by the Turks; or else Anchiale, a City of Cilicia, thought by Stephanus to be Tarsus, by Pliny to be near it (though the first is likeliest) it's known that both were in the Empire.

§. 10. VI. He next comes to Ephes. 1. Concil. And there we have again Phebaemon Cop∣torum Episcopus.

Answ. Reader, pardon my repeated detection of his repeated Errors. 1. It is in Crab or Binnius, Copti; which I have told you was a City of the Province of Thebais: And those now called Copti are Egyptians; yea, Binnius, p. 741. reciting the very words of every Bishop at that Council, saith, Phaebaemon Coptorum Thebaidis Episcopus dixit. And was not Thebais in the Empire? The Copti's now are supposed so called from the City Coptos.

§. 11. VII. His next instance is, Theodulus Esulae, Episc. Anciently a City of Arabia.

Answ. There is no such Man as Theodulus in the first subscriptions in Crab or Binnius; nor no such place as Esula: But Binnius hath Ampela, aliàs Abdela Helusae; and after, p. 742. Theodulus Elusae: and p. 758. Helusae. In the recitation in Concil. Chalcedon, of the Ephesia•…•… Subscriptions, it is Theodulus Ticeliae civitatis Ep. so little certainty is here.

2. Esulae is in Italy, and Esula is Isola, a City of Greece on the Borders of Calabria: See Ferrarius, that there were divers Eleusa's within the Empire.

§. 12. VIII. His next is, Theodorus Gadarorum, Episcopus: Of that Name is a City in Cava Syria.

O happy proof of the Popes Universal Monarchy and Councils! It is Chadarorum in Bin∣nius: But Gadara or Gadora, is indeed a City of Coelosyria, where Christ gave the Devil power over the Swine: And did not this Learned Man know that the Gadarens were within the Empire?

§. 13. IX. Next he cometh to the Council of Chalcedon, and there begins with Antipa∣ter Bostrorum Episc. which he saith, is in Arabia, ut suprá.

Answ. Ut suprà, what was said of it before? He dreamed of Bosphorus somewhere far off before, and now it's Bostrorum. But there is no such Man as I can find mentioned in Crab or Binnius: But there is Constantinus Episcopus Bostrorum, Subscribing for himself and thirteen Bishops under him: The first is the Bishop of Gerassa, a Town near the Lake of Genasaret, under this Arch-Bishop. And doth not this great Disputer know that the Arch-Bishop of Bostra was in the Empire, though it were in Arabia Petraea? And was the City where the Emperour Philip was Born, and called thence Philippopolis; and, as Ferrarius saith, was for∣merly under the Patriarch of Antioch, but after under him of Ierusalem? Such is the Histo∣rical proofs of the Roman Universality.

§. 14. X. The next cited, is Olympius Scythopoleos, which is a City of Scythia in Coelo∣syria.

Answ. 1. There is no such Man that I can find in Binnius, who hath the largest Cata∣logue: There be divers Olympii, but none Scythopoleos. But there is twice Olympius Sozo∣poleos, which, it's like, was the Man, as being the nearest Name; of which Name there was one in Pisidia under Antioch; and another in Thrace under Adrianople.

2. But the Bishop of Scythopolis may be found in some Councils: And where is that? In Palestine by the Lake Genasareth, but forty seven Miles from Ierusalem, and sixteen from Samaria, an Arch-Bishops Seat, under the Patriarch of Ierusalem. Here is another of his Proofs.

§. 15. XI. The next is, Eustathius Gentis Saracenorum, of Saraca: There is a City so called in Arabia faelix.

Answ. And what then? Must the word [Gen•…•…s Sarra•…•…orum] prove that he was out of the Empire, when part of Arabia † was in it? But saith Perrarius, Horuin •…•…bs in consilio Gal∣•…•… membratur; sed in Palestina idque ratione vio•…•…nitatis, ob quam idem •…•…pens diversis re∣gionibus confinibus attribui consuevit. And was Palestine without the Empire? You see I cite none to shame your falshood, but your own Writers.

§. 16. XII. The next is, Constantinus Episcopus Bostrorum in Arabia ‖ faelix.

Answ. Memoria faelix was greatly wanting to him, to forget so suddenly that he had just before cited a false named Bishop of the same City; and now he giveth us the true one as another Man: Sure a Papist doth not believe that one City had two Bishops at that Council. I shewed you before that Bostra ¶ was in the Empire.

§. 17. XIII. Yet there is one more, and that is, Subscribit quidam pro Giaco Gerassae Episcopo. Gerafa is a City of Coelosyria.

Answ. I mentioned him before I noted your instance. And is he therefore out of the Empire because in Coelosyria? An excellent collection. I told you out of Ferrarius, that it is by the Lake of Gennasareth, under this Arch-Bishop of Bostra: And surely that was as un∣doubtedly in the Empire, as Ierusalem was.

§. 18. And now I have done with all his strange proofs, that Extraimperial Bishops were at the four first General Councils (or any long after) and consequently that the Pope is the Monarchical Bishop of all the World, and not a National Primate only. And if a Man can tell me where to find a cause so betrayed by the shameful failing of so great a Hector, I am yet to learn it. And this is the Man that before promised us a peculiar Treatise to prove this very thing; but instead of it, was fain shamefully to put us off with thirteen Names, without one proof, but gross Mistakes.

§. 19. But I will say more for him than he hath said for himself: When I read an odd E∣pistle in Crab and Binnius of the Nestorians at the Ephesine Council to Callimones the King, as commanding them to meet at Ephesus, and as a very Christian Prince: I wondred who it was, having never read of any such King of Persia; and began to suspect that the King of Persia might send some Ioh. Persidis also thither. But I found neither Name, nor Character, nor History, nor the Cities of the Oriental Bishops named encouraged me to any such thoughts. But at last Binnius himself, and his Author helpt me out of my Ignorance; saying, per Cal∣limorem Persidis Regem Theodosium designant. Appellant autem eum ob id hoc nomint, quod Per∣sus debellassit, religionemque ibidem per tyrannidem extinctam, restituisset. And having thus done the main business, I think it needless to add to what I said before to his citations of contests in the Empire.

§. 20. Only about this one Council of Ephesus, which he mentioneth; I desire the Rea∣der to note a few particulars. 1. That it is expresly said to be called by the Emperour Theodosius II. 2. That the Emperour Governed it, both by sending Officers to oversee them there, and by determining of the Effects. 3. That no Patriarch had so little to do in it as the Bishop of Rome. 4. That Cyril presided as Rome's Vicar, is an untrue pretence. 5. The Synod as such ruled the greatest Patriarchs, though Cyil's Interest, vehemency, and copious Speech did prevail. In the beginning in Crab, p. 587. you shall find such a Man∣date as this: to Philip the Presbyter Pope, Coelestines Vicar (and therefore Cyril was not his Vicar) and to Arcadius, Iuvenal, Flavian, and other Bishops their Legates, to Constanti∣n•…•…le. Ante omnia sciat Sanctitas vestra quod cum Johanne Antiocheno & cum Apostarum Consilio communionem nullo modo habere debeatis (and after more Instructions) Permittimus vestrae Sanctitati his factis polliceri quidem ipsis communionem, &c. If the Bishop of Rome had but given such Mandates and Permissions to them, as they did to his Vicar and others, it would have been taken for a proof of his Government over them.

5. That it was to the Emperour that they sent Legates, and not to Rome, and that for the effectual Judgment which Party should prevail: The Orientals say, in their first Petition, Nostrae preces sunt 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Iudicium 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pitate accipiamus: And both sides sollicited him long hereto; but he kept both at Chalcedon, and would not let them so much as come long into the City, to avoid their contentions.

6. That what was done at last, as to decision and depositions, was done by the Empe∣rour: He commanded the Deposition of the Leaders of both Parties at first, thinking that the way to Peace, viz. Nestorius, Cyril, and Memnon. In the second Petition of the Orientals,

it's said, Advenit ru•…•…us magnificentissimus magister Johannes, qui tunc comes omnium largitio∣num, significantes quod à vestra majestate trium depositiones decretae sunt, tollend aque è medio sub∣•…•…ta offendicula, solamque fidem in Nice•…•… expositum à Sanctis & beatis patribus ab omnibus con∣firmandam. And accordingly Iohan. Comes did put them all out, till the Emperours mind changed upon second thoughts, and rejected Nestorius alone.

7. That these Oriental Bishops were all his Subjects as they oft profess; as in their third Petition in •…•…rab, pag. 592. Non illorum tantum sed & noster Rex •…•…s: Non enim parva porti•…•… Regni tui est Oriens in qua semper recta sides resulsit, & cum hâc etiam alia Provinciae & Dio∣ceses è quibus Congregati fuimus.

8. This Iohan. Comes, in his Letters to the Emperour, giveth such an Account of the Fury and Contentiousness of some of the Bishops, especially of Cyrils Orthodox-party, and of their fierceness and fighting one with another, as should grieve the heart of a Christian to read it. And had not he and Candidianus kept the Peace, and Ruled them (more than the Pope did) the two Councils (for two they were) might have tryed who should pre∣vail by Blood Cyril's Council Accused Nestorius for keeping Souldiers about him, and not Ap∣pearing, Iohn's Council (which was for Nestorius) Accuse the Egyptian (meaning Cyril) for Heresie, Turbulency, setting the World together by the Ears, raising Seditions in the Church, and expending that Money which was the Poors in maintaining Souldiers to strength∣en them, Petit. 3. Crab. p. 592.

§. 21. And that the Pope Governed not out of the Empire, nor any of the Patriarchs or Christian Prince then, is intimated in these words of the Orientals first Petition; having praised him for propagating Religion in Persia (by the Sword) You may not send two Religi∣ons into Persia, O King; and while we are at Discord among our selves, our matters will not seem great (or be much esteemed) there being none among them to be the Iudges (or to Judge) nor will any Communicate in two sorts of words and Sacraments: So that the Persians were not Subject to the Imperial Church Judicatories, when it's said, There is none among them to Iudge (or determine) which of the two Faiths is right.

§. 22. And whereas he layeth so much on the Council of Chalcedons applauding Pope Leo's Letter, it is notorious that in all these Councils that were militating party against party, every side magnified them that were for them, and strengthened them; (as at Ephesus one cryeth up Cyril, and the other Iohn, &c.) Yet even those Bishops are sain to Apologize for Receiving his Letter; it being Objected, that his Epistle was an Innovation; saying, Let them not Accuse to us the Epistle of the Admirable Prelate of the City of Rome, as an Offence of Innovation; but if it be not agreeable to the Holy Scriptures, let them Reprove (or confute) it: If it be not the same with the Iudgment of the former Fathers, if it contain not an Accusation of the Impious; if it defend not the Nicene Faith, &c. So that they rested not on the Au∣thority of the Author, but the Truth of the Matter, which was to be exposed to Tryal.

§. 23. Note also, That whereas the great Proof of the Papal Monarchy, is, that Rome is called oft, Caput Mundi, & omnium Ecclesiarum, & sedes Petri: That Nazianzene oft cal∣leth Constantinople, Caput totius mundi; and it's usual for Councils to call Ierusalem, Mater omnium Ecclesiarum; as Constant. Consil. 2. Bin. p. 529. Aliarum omnium Mater. And Anti∣och is ordinarily called, Sedes Petri, and the City Theopolis. Theodoret saith, That Iohn, chosen Bishop of Antioch, Ad primatum Apostolicum suffragiis delectus fuit. Hist. l. 3. c. 17.

§. 24. Note, That whereas W. I. maketh himself Ignorant, that ever any Council was called without the Pope; and they pretend that his Vicars presided in them, almost all the General Councils for six or seven hundred Years, are Witnesses against them: And of the first General Council at Const. Binnius Notes say (p. 515.) Damas•…•…m Pontificem neque per se, neque per suos Legatos eidem praefuisse fatemur.

§. 25. But there is yet another part of our work behind: W. I. will next prove, That the Fathers of those General Councils, in all their Decrees, Constitutions, and Canons, intended to Oblige all Christians through the whole World, and thereby demonstrated themselves to have Iu∣risdiction of the whole Church; and never so much as insinuated, that their Authority was limited within the Precincts of the Empire.

Answ. 1. I have proved the contrary at large already. 2. They might well commend their Decrees or Judgments to all Christians, on two accounts. 1. For Concord sake; it being desirable that all Christians should, as much as may be, be of one mind and way. 2. Ratione

rei decret•…•…: And so all Churches are bound to receive the same Truth that one is bound to, If the Bishop of the poorest City Excommunicate a Man justly for Heresie, all the Bi∣shops in the World that know it, are bound to deny Communion to that Man; (and so Cyprian commended the Bishop of Rome for denying Communion to Felicissimus;) partly because they are bound to keep Concord with all Christians, and Order; and partly, because they are bound to avoid Hereticks: And yet such a Bishop is not Governour of all other Bishops; (nor Cyprian▪ of the Bishop of Rome.) But let us hear your Proofs.

§. 26. I. Thus (saith W. I.) the Council of Ephesus saith, Their Decrees were for the good of the whole world.

Answ. I do not mean to search so large a Volumn to find where, seeing you tell me not where. When as he is unworthy to be Disputed with that knoweth not, how commonly then the Roman Empire was called Totus Orbis; and even the Scripture saith, That all the World was Taxed by Augustus. How oft doth Nazianzene complain, that the Bishops and Councils had distracted and divided the whole World? And also, that all that is for the good of the whole World, is not an Act of Government of the whole World; e. g. The Works of Augustine, Chrysostome, &c.

§. 27. II. Saith he, Thus the Council of Chalcedon, Act. 7. declareth the Church of An∣tioch to have under its Government Arabia.

Answ. But do you think that no part of Arabia was in the Empire? Look but in the Maps of the Empire, if you have no other notice. And you will be put hard to it, to prove that they meant the rest of Arabia.

§. 28. III. And act. 16. c. 28. (saith he) That the Bishop of Const. should have under him certain Churches in Barbarous Nations, which you must prove to have been under the Empire.

Answ. 1. I thought you must have proved, that it was out of the Empire; who undertook to prove it as you affirm it? 2. But seeing Papists lay Mens Salvation upon such skill in History, Cosmography, and Chronology, which this great Disputer had so little of him∣self, we must study it better for the time come: And I did fully prove to you before, that the Sauromat•…•…, many of the Scythians and Goths were conquered, and in the Empire; and Barbarians were in the Empire.

And by the way Note, 1. That this •…•…uncil of Chalcedon, even writing to Leo Bishop of Rome, tell him, That They were called by the Grace of God and Sanction of the most Pious Emperours, not mentioning any call of Leo's. 2. That the Emperour Martian, in his De∣cree against Hereticks, and for this Council, saith, All Men must believe as Athanasius, Theo∣phylus, and Cyril believed (not naming the Bishop of Rome;) and that Cyril, Praefuit Con∣cilio Ephesino, not saying that the Bishop of Rome did it, or Cyril, as his Vicar: And that the Council-Bishops, contemptuously against the Romans, cryed out, They that gain-say, let them walk to Rome; and stood to their last Canon against the Popes dissent.

§. 29. IV. Next he saith, Nicephorus, l. 5. c. 16. saith, That Leo the Emperour Wrote to the Bishops of all Provinces together (Circularibus per Orbem literis ad Ecclesias missis, Leo haec sic ad omnes Episcopos misit) which he accounts were above a thousand, to have them sub∣scribe to the Council of Chalcedon.

Answ. Some Men perceive not when they consute themselves. 1. I tell you, Totus Orbis was a common Title of the Empire. 2. Had Leo any power out of the Empire? His commands shew that they were his Subjects that he wrote to. 3. Were any called, or wrote to under the Name of Provinces, but the Roman Provinces? 4. Do you think that there were not more than a thousand Bishops in the Empire? Yea, many thousands (if poor Ireland had as many hundred as Ninius speaks of.) 5. But remember hence, that if all Bishops were written to, then the Bishop of Rome was written to, to Subscribe the 28 Canon of the Coun∣cil of Chalcedon; which he refused▪ (as Papists say.)

But indeed the Epistle that Niceph. there mentioneth, c. 16. was but to enquire of all the Bishops, whether they stood to the Council of Chalcedon or no, and what Bishop of Alex∣andria they were for, to save the calling of a new Council; and it is plain▪ he wrote only to his Subjects.

§. 30. V. Next he saith, The Bishops of the second Armenia, which seem to have been out of the Empire, wrote an Answer; and Adelphus, Bishop of Arabia, Subscribes, among▪ the rest, to this Epistle.

Answ. 1. He tells me •…•…ot where to find any of this. In Nicephorus, there I find it not▪ 2. But if he know not that part of both the Armenias were Roman Provinces, he may see it in the Titles of the Nicene Council, and in the Maps and Histories of the Empire: And of Arabia I spake before.

§. 31. VI. He saith, The Bishop of the second Messia, which you must prove to have been then under the Empire, writ that the Council of Nice delivered the Faith, toti terrarum Orbi, and style the Bishop of Rome the Head of Bishops, and that the Council of Chalcedon was ga∣thered by Pope Leo's Command.

Answ. Here is neither Matter nor Authority worthy an Answer. 1. He citeth no Author for what he saith. 2. Whether he meaneth Messua, or Messia, or Messina, they were all in the Empire: But what he meaneth I know not. Since I find in his Errat. [Messia r. Toti] But where, or what Toti meaneth, my Cosmographers tell me not: If it be Tottaium that he meaneth, it was a City of Bithynia under the Arch-Bishop of Nice.

But it seems he durst not say it was in the Empire, but instead of proving it in, I must prove it out, without knowing Place or Author. 2. He that yet understandeth not the Ro∣mans Terrarum Orbem, and he that reading History, can believe that Pope Leo called the Council at Chalcedon, is not to be convinced by me, if he maintain that the Turks called it.

He tells us (out of no cited Author) of an Epistle subscribed by Dita, Bishop of Odyss•…•… in Scythia, which I have nothing to do with, till I know the Epistle: But he should have known that Odyssus is a City of Mysia, near the Euxine Sea, within the Empire.

§. 32. VII. His last Instance is considerable, viz. Of the Bishops of Spain, France, and Germany. To which I say, 1. That none but Rome much medled in the Empire after their Conquest: Nor Rome much in comparison of Alexandria, Constantinople, and Antioch. 2. I easily confess, that those Churches within the Empire had been settled in their several powers by the Councils at Nice and Const. did plead the same Canonical Settlement to keep their possession when they were conquered. And that e. g. Rome under Theodorick and other Arrians, was willing to keep their Relation to the Orthodox Churches of the Em∣pire, for their strength: And Neighbours that were under Heathens or Arrians, were glad of a little countenance from Councils of great Bishops in the Empire (as Basil and the Ea∣sternes under Valens, were from the West, without Subjection to the Pope.)

§. 33. Pag. 116. After some trifling Quibbles, he Answereth my Charge, That their Church is not one, but two; having at times two Heads: The Pope to some, and a Coun∣cil to others.

To this he saith, 1. That this belongs to them that take Councils to be above the Pope, and not to him, who is of a contrary Opinion.

Answ. It is to your Party in general: I did not say, that W. I. was two Churches; but that those called Papists are so.

2. He saith, That they also can answer me with a wet finger; for the Pope is in the Council, and not excluded.

Answ. Such wet-fingerd Answers serve to deceive the Ignorant. The Question is not of the Popes Natural Person, but of his Political: Two summa potestates make two Polities. The Pope in a General Council is not the summae potestas, if a Council be above him, and may Judge and Depose him. To be a Member of a Council that hath the Sovereignty, is not to have the Sovereignty: Did you not know this?

§. 34. I urged him as his proper work, to answer these Questions: Whether the Church, of which the Subjects of the Pope are Members, hath been Visible ever since Christ's days on Earth? And therein, 1. Whether the Papacy, that is, their Universal Papal Government over▪ all the Earth, hath so long continued? 2. Whether all the Catholick Church did still submit to it? 3. Whether those that did submit to it, took it to be necessary to the Being of the Church, and Mens Salvation, or only to the more Orderly and Better being.

But he would not be driven to touch at any of these, or prove the perpetual Visibility of

the 〈◊◊◊〉〈◊◊◊〉. And 〈◊◊◊〉〈◊◊◊〉 over my last 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 over many of his Im∣•…•…, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that I refer him but to the p•…•…sing of the Histories which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 co•…•…th, with the General Answers which I have before given: And he will find, 1. That the Pope was but a National Primate. 2. And that by Humane Institution. 3. And under a General Council. 4. Striving upon every Advantage to be greater. 5. Under the power of Princes. 6. And when he lost his power over all the other four Patriarchs, the West falling from the Empire, he sought to bring the Western Princes under him, and claimed a Government over all the World.

Notes

• Sect. 1.
• Sect. 2.
• Sect. 3.
• Vid. Liber. Breviar.
• Sect. 4.
• Sect. 5.
• Sect. 6.
• And in Rev. 21. the new Jerusalem was built on the twelve A∣postles as twelve precious stones.
• Sect. 7.
• Sect. 8.
• Vid. S. Clar. ubi sup.
• Sect. 9.
• Sect. 10.
• Sect. 1.
• Sect. 2.
• Sect. 3.
• Sect. 4.
• Sect. 5.
• Sect. 6.
• Sect. 7.
• Sect. 8.
• Sect. 9.
• Smiglecii Log. p. 1. disp. 5•…•… qu. 9. pag. 201. Resp. Illam definitionem Accidentis (potest abesse, &c.) non intelligi de se∣paratione reali accidentis (etiam quinti praedicabilis) a subjecto, sed de separatione per intellectum. Quare potest esse accidens realiter inseparabile a subjecto, & neces∣sario convenire subjecto, & ta∣men per intellectum erit separa∣bile, & poterit abesse a subjecto salva subjecti essentia, &c. vid. caetera.
• Sect. 10.
• Sect. 11.
• The way by which men come to be∣lieve.
• Sect. 13.
• Sect. 14.
• Sect. 15.
• Sect. 16.
• Sect. 17.
• Of Christ as the Head, whe∣ther visi∣ble, and whether a more visi∣ble Head be necessa∣ry.
• Sect. 1.
• Of our de∣parture from the Romans possessed power.
• Sect. 3.
• Sect. 2.
• More of the visibility of Christ.
• Whether Pastors are Essential parts of the Church Universal.
• Sect. 5.
• Sect. 6.
• Sect. 7.
• Sect. 8.
• Sect. 9.
• Sect. 11.
• Sect. 1.
• Sect. 2.
• Sect. 3.
• Sect. 6.
• Sect. 7.
• Sect. 8.
• Sect. 9.
• Sect. 10.
• Sect. 11.
• Sect. 12.
• Sect. 13.
• Sect. 4.
• Sect. 16.
• Sect. 17.
• Sect. 1•…•….
• Sect. 1•…•….
• Sect. 23.
• Sect. 24.
• Sect. 1.
• Sect. 2.
• Sect. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• Sect. 9.
• Sect. 10.
• Sect. 11.
• Sect. 1.
• Sect. 2.
• Did not the Arrian Goths live out of the Empire in Power?
• The Transla∣ter of Ni∣cephorus at the story of Faelix & Acaci∣us's damning each other, addeth these useful citations in the Margin: In Ecclesiasticis censoriis & ex∣communicationibus, causa imprimis valet, Origen. Cum aliquis exit à veritate, à timore De•…•…, à fide, à Charitate, exit de castris ecclesi•…•…, etiamsi per Episcopi vocem minim•…•… abjiciatur; sicuti è contrario aliquis non recto judicio soràs mittitur: Sed si ante non exivit, id est si non egerit ut mereretur exire, nihil laeditur: Interdum n. qui •…•…orà mittitur, intus est: Et qui foris est, intus videtur retineri. 24 Qu. 3. August. Custodi intus innocentiam tuam, ubi nemo opprimit causam tuam; praevalebit in te falsum testimonium, sed apud homines; non apud Deum, ubi causa dicenda est: Quando Deus erit Iudex alius testis quàm Consci∣entia tua non erit: Inter justum judicem & Conscientiam tuam, noli timere nisi causam tuam. 11. q. 3. Quid obest homini quod ex illa tabula vult eum delere humana ignorantia, si de libro viventium non deleat iniqua Conscientia. August. ib.
• If a just Law should say, let e. g. an Arrian be anathe∣matized, a man must be lawfully convict, and judg∣ed an Ar∣rian, and personal∣ly senten∣ced: when it is said, Let such be ex∣commu∣nicated ipso facto vel ipso: jure, the •…•…ct must be prov∣ed, and a declara∣tory sen∣tence is necessary to the subject's obligati∣on, to a∣void such.
• †

  The Pragma∣tic. Ferra∣riensis saith, Im∣peratores conferre∣bant om∣nia bene∣ficia per universum orbem. Is it any doubt what the orbis uni∣versus was?
• Of the Emperor Arcadius acts for Gothes and Scy∣thians. See Theo∣doret. Hist. l. 5. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 30. 31. And Ni∣•…•…horus •…•…ith li. •…•…4. c. 56. Theodosii •…•…unioris 19. an∣num im∣perantis permissu, in siniti∣mâ Thra∣ciae regio∣ne habi∣tarunt. per 50 annos. And li. 11. c. 48. when the Hunns drove the Gothes •…•…ut of •…•…heir Country, Valens •…•…ave •…•…em a place in •…•…ract.
• Myraeus tells you the nine Bishops under Scythopo∣lis, vulgo Bethsan, Urbs in Iudeae & Galileae confinibus, ad Iorda∣nem fluvi∣um, nobi∣lis exsti∣tit, saith he, p. 23.
• †

  Niceph. l. 16. c. 43. Arabes ser∣vitutes conditio∣nes à Ro∣manis ac∣cepisse.
• ‖

  Remem∣ber that Histori∣ans (So∣crates, Zo∣zomene, Niceph, &c tell us, that the Arabians had Bi∣shops in the Villa∣ges, and therefore great numbers.
• ¶

  See in Myraei Natiti. Epis. the nineteen Bishops under Bo∣stra, pag. 26.
• Persidis Regem is not in •…•…rah.