Which is the True Church, Part 2 · Chapter 2
The Answer to W. J's third Chapter.
He begins that which he calls his third Chapter, pap. 88, 89. with again repeating his Sect. 1.Question thus; [Were they all united in the profession of one and the same Faith, and Unity of external Communion; without those two it's impossible to be united in Christ.]
Answ. I am afraid these Repetitions will tire the Reader, I have proved them united in one Faith, even the Christian Faith; and in one External Communion in much more of it than is essential to Christianity, viz. in one Baptism, the Lord's Supper, prayer, praise, thanksgiuing, confession of sins, preaching and reading the Word of God, observation of the Lord's Day, &c. without differing in any thing inconsistent with the Unity of the Body of Christ: But if by the ambiguous word of [Unity of External Communion] you should mean either that they must meet all in one place, or be all under one Pastor, these you before disowned: And if you mean that they must all have one Book of Liturgie, you know that so had not your Roman Church of above 600 years at least, nor yet the Eastern Churches, nor any considerable number of them; every Bishop making his Lyturgie, or Prayers, as he saw meet.
If you mean that they must have no differences in any Word, or Ceremony; and that all are of several Churches, (or half of no Church,) who differ about Meats, Drinks, Days, &c. I shall not believe you while I believe the Scripture, (Rom. 14. and 15. 1 Cor. 8. Iam. 3. &c.) nor till I renounce Humanity, or believe that Men of several Complexions, Statures, or Languages, may not yet be all truly Men! They that bring it to that, that I am no Christian if I eat not Fish in Lent rather than Flesh, may Unchristian me next if I eat not my Bread without Cheese, or my Cheese without Bread; or if I take not the Pope for my Apothecary, or Physitian. Lay by the Sword, and Racks, and Fires, and the World will soon laugh down your arrogant Tyranny.
I demanded his Proof that ever there was a Papist, or almost, one Church of Papists in the World for 400 years after Christ? And he tells me, that [the Oration of Pope Celestine's Sect. 2.Legates in the Council at Ephesus proveth it; and though that Council was celebrated 430, yet in a moral consideration that passeth for 400, &c.]
Answ. What cannot the Iesuits Morals make good? By them 430 years is within the 400. And by them a Speech of the Pope's Legates goeth for proof of the Judgment of the Council: But what was that Speech it self? First, Note that the Council was called by Theodosius the Emperour, and not by Celestine, sending his Literae Augustales to all the Metropolitans, commanding them to appear at Ephesus. 2. That Cyril, and not Celestine, was sent to at first for help, from the Church at Constantinople. 3. That Cyril presided: And whereas the Papists feign that he did it as the Pope's Substitute, the Councils Letters to the Emperour expresses, that the Pope's three Legates were the Men that represented his Person, (Bin. p. 756.) And that they commended to Theodosius the Judgment of the Pope, but as the signification of common consent. 4. And when all is done, these words of Philip, a Roman Presbyter, is all that this great boast is of, [Thanking them for so receiving the Pope's Letters,]—[Non enim ignara est vestra beatitudo totius fidei 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. Nestorius, &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 Jury to the rest, would say the same words: But he intimateth that the Pope is Peter's Successor. True, he so supposed him as a Bishop, but not as an Apostle, and therefore not in equality of Power: And common 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 Sect. 3.Churches of Ethiopia, India, the outer Armenia, &c. that were not under the Popes jurisdiction, he faith, I must mean that they were never under it; for if they were under him in any Age, and for any time since Christ, you can never make them an instance of those who were perpetually in all Ages a visible Congregation of Christians not acknowledging the Popes Supremacy.
Ans. And yet this same man said before, that he did not put me to prove that in all Ages they did not own the Pope, but that they that own him not now had been a Church any other way truly united: who can answer him that saith and unsaith, and changeth his Cause as the occasion tempteth him? I have oft told him, 1. I prove that the extra-imperial Churches never were subject to the Pope, unless when any of them by conquest fell under the Empire, or on such an odd accident in some singular instance which I have enumerated in my Naked Popery. 2. And that no Church in the whole World owned him as the Bishop of all the World for above 400, if not above 600 years. 3. And that those that owned him not (as Britain) at the first, and owned him after and disowned him again, were still Christian Churches united in Christ.
But the man is loth to understand, and pag. 91. saith [You mean all other extra-imperial Nations or some: If all I find the quite contrary; for the Gothes, successively Inhabitants of Spain, never acknowledged themselves Subjects of the Empire, who yet are now subject to the Roman Bishop, and consequently were and are sometime under him.
Ans. I have oft and plain enough told you my meaning: This is very cautelously written: 1. If the Gothes in Spain were not subject to the Empire, the old Inhabitants were before the Gothes conquered them, and the Gothes themselves, when by Theodosius's leave they dwelt in Thrace and near it. And though the Gothes became their Masters, they did not exterminate all the Inhabitants, who had been used to some subjection to the Pope. 2. Yet how little Spain then depended on the Pope is known even by the current of all the Gothick Councils, the Toletane, Hispalense, &c. where their Kings called them, and were oft present, and made certain parts of their Canons, and were over and over magnified, and Canons made for their honour and security, and the due election of Successors, when there was not a word of subjection to the Pope. 3. And you do well in affirming no more but that Spain is now and therefore sometime under the Pope; that they are now so indeed, their Inquisition witnesseth, nor was it ever in my thoughts to deny it. But what of that?
… He addeth, [And the Swedes and Danes, though now they reject all obedience to him, yet in the year 1500 they acknowledged him, &c.]
Ans. Very true; and what of all this! no doubt but long before 1500 the Pope got possession of the Western Churches; we doubt not of it.
But he tells me that to maintain my Cause, I must shew that all the extra-imperial Churches were from under the Pope.
Ans. My 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 institution; and that the Councils and Emperours never pretended to give or acknowledge any more. Nor did the Councils themselves, and all the Patriarchs, pretend to any more, nor dream of Governing all the World. 3. That the Churches that were from the beginning without the Empire, were none of them subject to the Pope for above 400 if not 500 or 600 years. 4. That the Empire of Abassia, and all the Eastern and Southern extra-imperial Churches (Persia, India, &c.) were never under the Pope to this day, save that the Portug…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 under him for some time (as Britain) were divers of them from under him before and after.
And yet that the Reader may not mis-understand the matter and this mans importunity, I must repeat the exceptions laid down in my Naked Popery pag. 106. 107. and tell him what I grant him.
1. Some Cities that were near to Scythia and Persi… ▪ had Bishops to whom some Neighbour Scythians and Persians might be voluntary Subjects.
2. Some Cities and Countries were sometime under the Roman Power, and sometimes under the Enemies: (Persians, Parthians, Armenians, Gothes, Vandales, (as Africa, &c.) when they were of the Empire their Bishops came to Councils; and when they were under Heathen or Arrian Princes they took it for their calamity, and were glad of any Communion with the Imperial Churches, and the Honour and countenance of their Relation; and it's like would come among them if they could.
3. Some Bishops that lived in Heathen or persecuted Countries, in distress were glad to seek Countenance and help from the Roman power; as the Britains did from France, and a Basil and the Eastern Bishops did from the West in Valens his persecution, while yet they took them not for Governours. And some weak Princes that lived near the Roman Empire were glad of their Friendship and afraid of their Enmity, and were willing to hold a communion with them in Religion, in which their Clergy should have some dependance on Rome, which was the case of the Saxons in and after Gregory the first's days.
4. Some Western Countries that were converted from infidelity by some Preachers subject to the Pope became themselves subjects to that Seat as their Converters, and in obedience to them that first prevailed with them, which was partly the case of the Saxons, and of some Countries of Germany, and Sweden, Denmark, Poland, &c.
5. Lastly, when the Eastern Empire and Churches forsook the Church of Rome, the Pope received a great diminution in the extent of his Primacy (the East that forsook him being about twice as big as those that remained under him) but withal a great Intensive increase of his power; for shortly after he claimed the Government of all the World as Universal Bishop, not only of the Empire, but the Earth. And after that many that were his Subjects owned him in that relation: And since then, I deny not but that many Princes, without the Empire, have been his Subjects: yea he purposely broke Germany and Italy into many small Principalities, and free Cities, that they might not be strong enough to resist his claim.
If all these Concessions will do them any good, let them make their best of them. I must intreat the Reader to remember hence-forward what is our difference, and not to expect that I repeat this over and over again when his words invite me to it.
Pag. 91. he saith [The Indians were not always extra-imperial, for in the year 163. they Sect. 6.subjected themselves to Antonius Pius. And so the Armenians 572. being greivously persecuted for the Christian Faith by the Persians, they rendered themselves Subjects to the Roman Empire. And 1145 they and the Indian Christians subjected themselves to the Pope, and again 1439, and so remain at the present.]
Ans. 1. This maketh against you rather than for you: If your Kingdom extended not so far as the Empire. But indeed these are impertinent words. As it was but a small part of the Indies that ever was under the Heathen Romans, so it is not their Empire that I speak of, but the Christians: for before 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 Historical Assertion. 2. Again, I tell you, that is no question; but whether those that now are none of your Subjects were in all Ages Christians. 3. You have not yet proved that there was one Papist in the World for 400 years.
You add, [For each of them at one time or other became the same Congregation to that, by subjecting and conforming themselves to the Bishop of Rome.
Ans. As true as the Turk is subject to you: If some little of the Indian, were subject to a Heathen Antonius, doth that prove that they and all the Christians there were subject to Constantine, or to the Pope, when they revolted? And when was Ethiopia and Persia subject to you? And why do you not blush to say that the. Armenians are now subject to you? You are like to be good Deliverers of Traditions to us, and Infallible Decreers, and Deciders of Controversies, that stick not at such notorious fictions? If you had said that England, Scotland, Sweden, Denmark, are your Subjects, the falshood had some more pretence, because you have some among them all.
I next noted, That these Churches profess it to be their Tradition that the Pope was never their Sect. 7.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 conclude that they suppose their Tradition to be against the Papacy, or that they are Sots; and that these two are their Principles, all the Historical notice that we have of those Countreys by Travellers, Merchants, and Writers, Papists, Greeks, and Protestants assure us; deny it as impudently as you will, I will not tire the Reader with needless History.
I next added, that [No History or Authority of the least regard is brought by your own Sect. 8.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 Sect. 9.Acts of Subjection; which Church-History must needs have contained, if it had been true that they were your Subjects.
He replyeth, [Is not Genebrard a Witness that Pope Eugenius wrote to the Emperour of Ethiopia 1437 to send Legates to the Council of Ferrara as the Greek Emperour had decreed to do, to whose Letters and Legates David their Emperour sent a respectful answer, and accordingly sent some of his Church to that Council, as appears by the Acts of the Council, and that 1524 the said David and Helena his Empress promised obedience to the Bishop of Rome Pope Clem. 7.]
Ans. I had rather you had called Father Parsons, or Campion, or Garnet, your credible Witness than Genebrard, a late railing Falsifier. Such Tales as these be meet for the Ears of none but such as would believe you if you swore that all the Iews and Turks are Christians. Do you think that your obtruding such abominable Forgeries, commonly known by the Learned to be such, and confessed by your own Writers, will not increase our alienation from you? Did you ever read the subscriptions of that Council when you say that the Acts declare that some of the Ethiopian Church were there? Why did you not name them? Do we not know how long a Journey it is to Abassia, and how much more time the Pope must have had to have sent a message to the Emperour there and received an answer, than the sudden calling of the Council at 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 Council 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 besides Sect. 10.the Acts of the Florentine Council, that say that the Armenians and Indians acknowledge the Soveraignty of the Roman Bishop through the Whole World.
Answ. 1. Though he names but his own late Partners, yet he citeth not a word, page, or book of any one of them. If any one of them have so gross a Fiction, it is no more honour to them than to himself: But the Council of Florence, (in whose Acts I should as soon look to find a Fiction as in any, being a packt Anti-Council of a villainous deposed Pope,) hath no such word in any of my Books, but only that which I cited of a forged too late coming of an Armenian. And even their own Fiction talks not of his (much less the Indians) acknowledgment of the Pope's Soveraignty over the whole World.
He next addeth, [And as to more ancient times gives not the Arabick Translation of the first Sect. 11.Council of Nice a clear Witness, that the Ethiopians were to be under the Iurisdiction of the Patriarch of Alexandria, and he under that of Rome?]
Answ. I do not wonder that you use to lead the ignorant in your Disputes into a Wilderness, or Wood of History, under the Name of Antiquity and Tradition, when you know your own Refuges. Reader, the famous Council of Nice hath been predicated, and appealed to, and gloried in by almost all Parties save the Arrians, for many hundred years after it was celebrated; and the Affrican Bishops (of whom Austin was one) had a long Contest with divers Popes (for about twenty years) about the true Copy of the Canons: And now the other day comes one Alph. Pisanus, and tells us that he hath found a Copy of them in Arabick; and this tells you of the Ethiopians being under Alexandria, by Canon, and forty things more that were not in the Canons which the Church had for above a thousand years: and this is very good Authority with a Papist. And so they can yet determine what shall be in any ancient Council, or Father; as if they had the doing of all themselves. It is but saying, we have found an old Paper that saith so. Why then do you not receive Eutychius Alexandrinus's Reports of that Council, (published by Selden,) which tells us other improbable things of it, but hath far more appearance of Antiquity than your new-found Canons?
Next I noted that [Their absence from General Councils, and no invitation of them thereto, (that was ever proved,) is sufficient Evidence.]Sect. 12.
To this he saith, [I intend to make a particular Tract to prove this, and to evidence the falsity of your Allegation, from undenyable Testimonies of classic Authors, and from the ancient Subscriptions of the Councils themselves.]
Answ. A fine put-off; I do not believe you dare attempt it, for fear of awakening the World to the consideration of this notorious Evidence against you: It is now above sixteen years since our writing, and yet I hear not of your Book. But the Reader need not stay for it; let him but peruse the Subscriptions in your own Volumes of the Councils, Crab, Surius, Binius, Nicolinus, and judge whether all the Christian World without the Empire were ever summoned to General Councils, were present at them, or judged by them; any Bishops put in, or out by them; and judge as you see proof.
Next I noted that [Their ancient Lyturgies have no Footsteps of any subjection to the Pope, though the Papists have corrupted them; which in a Digression I shewed out of Usher de succes. Sect. 13.Eccles. in that instead of Hic panis est Corpus meum in the Ethiopick Canon Universalis, they have put Hoc est corpus meum.]
To this he replyeth, pag. 96. No more doth the Roman Missal, nor that of France, o Spain witness their subjection to the Pope.
Answ. That's strange that you have suffered so much of the old form unchanged. Gregory that denyed the Title of Universal Bishop was the chief Author, and the claim of the Monarchy of all the Earth was then but in the Egg, (even after 600 years,) and came not into the open World till about the time that Mahomet came; else undoubtedly your Lyturgick Commemorations and Prayers would have had some mention of the Universal Bishop, as well as our Prayers mention the King and Bishops; (especially when it was then the Custom to record and commemorate all the Patriarchs, and greatest Prelates;) and the Imposition would have come forth as by his Authority, as the Trent symbolical Oath doth; and as our Lyturgie doth by Authority of the King, and Parliament, and Convocation. Surely this is much against you.
Because he knew not the Scholiastes mentioned by Usher, he questioneth his Citations about the change of the Ethiopick Lyturgie.
I next added that [Constantin's Letters of Request to the King of Persia for the Churches there, (mentioned by Eusebius in Vit. Const.) do intimate that then the Roman Bishop Ruled not Sect. 4.there.]
To this he saith, [Why so? The Pope might command, and the Emperour intreat.]
Answ. 1. This sheweth that the Emperours who used to call Councils, called none out of Persia; for they had no Power there. 2. And withal, Why is there not a Syllable in any Church-History, or credible Author, (that we have heard of,) that mentioneth that ever the Pope sent one Command into Persia; or that ever he corrected, suspended, or deposed any Bishop there, or excommunicated any there; (though indeed that had been no sign of Governing Power, seeing an equal may renounce Communion with an equal Heretical Society, or Person.) Why is there no mention that ever any General Council did any of this? No, nor ever took any such exterior Churches into their care, any otherwise than as Neighbours to help them; nor never made any one Governing Canon for them? And I pray you, How would the Persian King that must be intreated by Constantine, have taken it to have the Religion of his Kingdom under the Command of one of Constantine's Subjects? But you have the affirmative, let us see your proof that ever the Pope Governed the Persian Churches.
Next I noted that [Even at home here the Scots and Britains obeyed not the Pope, even in the days of Gregory, (above 600) but resisted his changes, and refused Communion with his Ministers.]
To this he replyeth, [That, 1. This was their errour, as our disobedience now is; and Beda so chargeth it on them, that it followeth not that they had never been under the Pope. 2. That they also held that which was condemned as a Heresie, at Nice; yet it followeth not that they were not under that Council's Authority. 3. They also refused Communion with the English Converts.]
Answ. These words signifie what you would have us believe; but let us try what more: 1. Seeing you can bring no word of proof that ever they had been subject to the Pope before: And, 2. Seeing they were found utterly Aliens to his subjection: And, 3. Seeing they were found in possession of Opinions, and Customs quite contrary to the Pope's: 4. And seeing they pleaded Tradition for this: 5. And seeing they renounced Communion with those that came to subjugate them: And, 6. Seeing the Pope's Ministers never pretended to any ancient possession in pleading with them, (as you may see in Beda:) 7. And seeing we read in Beda, Gildas, and others, that they had heretofore made use of the assistance of the French Church (by Germanus and Lupus) as more Neighbours, without any mention of subjection to Rome: Let the Reader that careth what he believeth, now judge whether ever the Scots and Britains were before subject …o the Pope.
2. It is false that the Council of Nice condemned their Easter-practice as a Heresie, though they united on a contrary resolution. And as it is certain that that Council had no authority out of the Empire, and so not over Britain when it was out of the Empire; so this British Custome plainly intimateth that Britain had not received the decrees of that Council.
3. That they refused the Communion of the English as half-Papists, it is no great wonder: And yet I remember no proof of that at all in Beda, but only that taking the English for Pagan-Tyrants that conquered and opprest them, they refused to join with Augustine the Monki in preaching to them: It's like taking it for a hopeless attempt in them that were odious to them, and open Enemies, and not to be trusted.
Next I recite the words of their Reinerius Cont. Waidens. Catal. Bibl. Pat. To. 4. p. 773. Sect. 16.[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 Gregory the Seventh be the Expositor of St. Paul, no doubt but St. Paul shall be for the power of Popes to depose Kings and Emperours: If Innocent the Third be his Expositor, no doubt but by [Bread] 1 Cor. 11. he meaneth [no Bread] and by [this Cup] [no Wine.] And I confess there is greater reason that you should be the infallible Expositors of Reynerius than of Christ or Paul; for he was more your own and under your Government. But this Reynerius was an unhappy speaker, and if he were here I would ask him, 1. Why do you speak in such a manner as any ordinary Reader would think that you speak de jure & de facto, and yet mean de facto only? 2. Why speak you so as an ordinary Reader would think that you spake 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 subjection; 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 exposition.
Next I mentioned the Canon of the Council of Calcedon which saith, that the Fathers (in Council) gave Rome the preheminence, &c. He replyeth, that 1. [The Greek word is Sect. 17.not foreign, but it is foreign, 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 foreign may have a signification as remote from [do…ation] as foreign, 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 sometimes that it was the Seat of Peter, and sometimes of Peter and Paul, and sometime they mention Paul alone; and cry, (as at Ephesus) Magno Paul… Cyrillo! Magne Paulo Celestino—But note that they give often the same reason for the Patriarchal honour of Antioch, (that it was Sedes Petri,) and therefore never took this to be either the Foundation of the Right, or the chief determining Motive of the Constitution.
He addeth that, [else it had been a contradiction when the Fathers say that Dioscorus had extended his Felony against him, to whom our Saviour had committed the charge and care of his Vineyard] that is, of the whole Catholick Church.
Ans. 1. No doubt but they acknowledged that Christ committed the care of his Vineyard to Peter, and every one of the Apostles, and to all Bishops as their Successors, though not in Apostleship; and they acknowledged Rome the primate in the Empire: and when Dioscor us undertook to excommunicate Leo, they supposed that he transgressed the Laws of the imperial Church; and therefore Anatolius in the Council, when the Indices said that Dioscor us condemned Flavian for saying Christ had two Natures, answered, That Dioscorus was not condemned propter fidem, but for excommunicating Leo, and for not appearing when he was sent for. 2. Is here any word that saith that the Pope was Soveraign of all the Earth? Doth not the Council in that very Letter to Leo, say that the Emperour had called the Council, not ascribing it to any Authority of the Pope. And also that the saying, Mat. 28, Go, teach all Nations, &c. was delivered to them (which is the care of the vineyard) and not only to the Pope, Quam nobis olim ipse salvator tradidit ad salutem.
But saith W. I. [The true reason why this Canon mentioneth rather the Imperial Authority of that City, than the right from St. Peter, was because it suited better with the pretensions of Anatolius Sect. 1….Bishop of Constantinople and his Complices for the elevaton of that Sea than any other, for they had no other, &c.
Ans. It's true: But did Anatolias and his Complices, that is, the Council, speak sincerely and truly here, or falsly? If truly, that's all that I cite them for; If falsly, as worldly, unconscionable men that were setting up themselves, why hoast we of General Councils? even of this, and of their words to Leo? How can we tell when to trust them? and whether they that subscribed against Flavian at Ephes. 2. and after cryed omnes peccavimus, at Calcedon, when they were under a Martian, and not Theodosius, would not have acquit Dioscorus, and condemned Leo and Elavian again, if another Theodosius had come. But if they were credible believe them.
But he tells us that a Law of Theodosius and Valentine put both reasons together, &c.
Ans. I told you in what sense even now, even as they put the name of Peters Seat as a reason Sect. 1….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 Phaebamnon, Bishop of the Copti, to subscribe to the first Council of Ephesus? How came the Circular Letter written by Eusebius Caesar Palest. in the name of the Council, to be directed to all Bishops, and in particular to the Churches throughout all Persia, and the great India? Lastly, if those Bishops were not called to Councils why do Theodoret, Marianus, Victor, Eusebius, Socrates, all of them affirm, that to the Council of Nice were called Bishops from all the Churches of Europe, Africa, and Asia, [and he citeth the places in the Margin.]
Ans. 1. Here is but two Councils named in which such invited Bishops are pretended to have been; the subscriptions to the rest for many hundred years afforded him no such pretence, no not as to one Country in the World.
2. To the Council of Nice there subscribed (unless you will believe Eutychius Alexandrinus, the Presbyterians Friend, that tells you of strange numbers) but 318, as full Testimony confirmeth. And 3. I desire the Reader to note that these subscriptions have no certainty at all. The Copies of Crab, Binnius, Pisanus, &c. disagree one from another. And Crab giveth the Reader this note upon them p. 259. that [the Collector must be pardoned if he erre in the assignation or conscription of Bishops or Bishopricks, especially beyond Europe, for …hough they were four old Copies that he used, yet they were every one so depraved, that the Collector was wearied with the foolish and manifold variations; for never a one of them agreed with the rest.] This is our notice of the subscriptions; and as I said Eutychus 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 Armenia.
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 Scripture. But if they had a Bishop at the Nicene Council, it is evident that he was in the Empire; for the Gothes then dwelt in Walachia, Moldovia, and Poland, and were no other than the Sauromatae, that Eusebius, tells us Constantine had Conquered, and tells us how; even by helping the Masters whom the Servants by an advantage of the War had dispossest so that your Instance of Theophilus Gothiae, as without the Empire, is your errour. Myraeus calls part of France, Gothia. Saith Marcellinus, Comes eodem anno, (of Thodos. 1. after the Council Const. 1.) Universa gens Gothorum Athanaricho Rege defuncto Romano sese imperio dedit: This was a great addition. But here Pisanus helps us out, and saith, Hunc Eusebius Pamphylus Scytam dixit in vita Constantini; & Metaphrastes addeth 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 Council; (not the Pope:) And that he wrote Letters to the Bishops, to summon them to appear at the Council: And who will believe that he wrote his Summons to the Subjects of other Kings? Or if he had, What's that to the Pope? If Ioh. Persidis were not a Roman Subject, that word [he was present] seemeth to distinguish his voluntary presence from the Summons of others. But saith Euseb. 16. cap. 6. Writs of Summons were sent into every Province: And the Persian and Armenian Provinces are here named with the Bishops. Those that have leisure to search into the Roman History may find what Skirt of Persia, and what Part of Armenia were in the Empire in those times; and it's notable, that when these Bordering Parts were lost, these Bishops were never more at any General Council; neither at Ephesus, Constantinople, Nice 2. &c.
And Eusebius there tells us, as the reason why some came came from the remotest Countries, viz. some did it out of a desire to see the (famous first Christian) Emperour, and some out of a conceit, that a Universal Peace should be established: And so Ioh. Persidis might come with the rest.
And though I find not Pisanus's words of Theophilus in Eusebius, I find ibid. l. 4. c. 5. That it was no wonder that even a Scythian Bishop should be at this, and other Councils: For though Rome had formerly been so far from conquering the Scythians that they paid them Tribute, yet Constantine disdaining to pay them Tribute, Conquered Scythia, and after that Sauromatia also: The Indians, Blemayans, Ethiopians, and Persians, sent honourable Embassies and Presents to Constantinople, (c. 7.) as Neighbours; but he was far from summoning their Subjects to his Council, but wrote his Letter to the King of Persia only to favor them at home.
Judge now whether here be a word of summoning any one Bishop out of the Empire? or a word of the Pope's summoning them, but the contrary? or any certainty that any …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 Sect. 23.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 Empire. 4. How ill it would have been taken to have summoned, or called the Subjects, before he had requested their Princes to send them? Certainly Constantine would have written to their several Princes, and not first to them. 5. His Letters to the King of Persia for the Churches there, shew this, in which yet he never presumed so far as to desire that they might come to his Councils. 6. No History mentioneth any such thing, as any summons to any one extra-imperial Bishop. 7. And to end all doubts, the Subscriptions shew that they were not there; shall we not believe your own Books, and our own Eyes?
He citeth Theodor. l. 1. c. 7. I suppose he meaneth his Eccles. Hist. for in that he mentioneth the calling of the Council; but hath not a word of what this Man doth cite him for: But cap. 25. he saith that [Europae totius, & Africae, quin etiam maximae partis Asiae imperio potitus est Constantinus:] Yet this is too largely spoken. Socrates hath no such words besides his Recitation of the words of Eusebius: Eusebius indeed saith, That the Bishops were called out of all these Provinces, and who ever questioned it! Not a Syllable in any of his cited Authors of any Call, or Summons, to any one Man out of the Empire. These are the Foundations of the Roman Monarchy.
But I had almost over-past his mention of Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine's Circular Letter, writ in the Name of the Council, to be directed to all Bishops; and in particular, Sect. 24.to the Churches through all Persia, and the Great India.
Answ. 1. If it had been the Pope's Letter, it would with these Men have proved his Soveraignty of the Earth: But alas, it was Eusebius's Letter.
2. It's strange, if Eusebius were as great an Arrian as you commonly suppose him, that the Council should chuse him to write the circular Letter, and that you had not feigned that he did it as the Pope's Vicat.
3. If writing a Letter would prove a Governing Power, I would write a Letter to Rome presently, that I might be the Governour of the Pope; and then I would command him to lay by his Ambition, and recall his rebellious and bloody Decrees, and to let the Christian World have peace.
4. But the man tells me not by one word, where to find any such Epistle of Eusebius; In Eusebius there is none such; nor in Socrates; nor in Theodoret, nor in the common Histories of the Councils: whence is it that W. I. fished it out? At last I found in Pisanus, his new-invented History of that Council, the Title of Circularis Epistola Scripta ab Eusebio. But not a word that it was written to the Churches of Persia or India, nor any other by name, much less without the Empire; nor a word that it was written by him in the name of the Council. All these are W I's forgeries. But the words and Margin open all the matter▪ Socrates and others tells us that Eusebius having staggered in the beginning of the Council (and being as you commonly say an Arrian) when he saw how things would go, subscribed to the Council, and lest his own Flocks should censure him or differ from him, he wrote in his own name a Letter only to his own flock, giving them the reason and sence of his subscription; and indeed he seemeth therein to prevaricate, and to give an Arrian sence of the word] foreign [saying] To be of one substance with the Father, signifieth no other thing, than that the Son of God was in nothing like the rest of the Creatures, but altogether like to the Father alone that begat him, nor begotten of any other than of the Fathers substance and essence; to which thus set forth right and reason required that we should condescend.] This prevaricating Letter to Caesarea the Author of Pisanus Story, calleth [a Circular Letter] ignorantly, and W. I. added the rest; and thus these men 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 pretension…, 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.)