the Scholiastes and where they are to be found For the matter it self it seems I must needs tell you very improbable both because the Scripture it self hath hoc and not hic panis and were it not a great boldness in a whole Church to consent to the changing of Christs words of Institution in this divine Sacrament and foisting in others in place of them nor see I any reason why the Ethiopique Church in particular should do it when in the very same Liturgie it delivers cleerly the change of bread into Christ Body effected in the consecration of the divine Mysteries Canon universalis Aethiop Hoc est corpus sanctum honoratum Vitale domini salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi quod datum est in remissionem peccatorum vere sumentibus ipsum Hic est sanguis Domini salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi sanctus honoratus ac vivificus qui datus est in remissionem peccatorum advitum consequendam voce sumentibus eum Dicit intra divinum sacramentum esse corpus quod assumpsit ex Maria Virgine Eâ—â— supra dicit Sacerdos hoc est corpus meum Respondet populus Amen Amen Amen hoc est vere corpus tuum Dein dicit sacerdos Hic est calix sanguinis mei qui pro nobis effundetur pro redemptione multorum c. Baxter Num 57. Constantines letters of request to the King of Persia for the Churches there which Eusebius in vitâ Constantini mentioneth do intimate that then the Roman Bishop ruled not there Iohnson Num. 57. Why so Might not the Roman Bishop rule there though the Emperour did not The King of Persia as not Subject to the Emperour was not to be commanded but entreated by him but might not that stand with the Authority of the Roman Bishop over that Church May not the King of France intreat the King of Spain to send his Bishops to a general Council though both of them acknowledge the Popes Authority over them and the Churches in their respective Kingdomes Call you this an Argument Baxter Num. 58. Even at home the Scots and Brittains obeyed not the Pope nor conformed about Easter-Observation even in the dayes of Gregory but resisted his changes and refused Communion with his Ministers Iohnson Num. 58. No more do you conform to him now follows it thence that he never exercised authority over the Church in this Nation Will you draw a consequence from the disobedience of a Subject to the want of power in a Superiour Was not this very error ascrib'd to them by Venerable Bede Beda Histor. Ang. lib. 2. cap. 2. and here acknowledged by you condemned as an Heresie in the Council of Nice and may you not as well argue thus even against your own principles Those Brittains and Scots conformed not about the Easter-Observation prescribed in the Council of Nice therefore they acknowledged no subjection to the authority of that Council Ergo That Council never had authority over them And as to Communion with his Ministers See V. Bede Hist. Angl. l. 2. cap. 2. Bede tells you they refused also to communicate with the English who were then converted or to help towards their conversion were they also justifiable in this Or had they any right in Christian charity to refuse it Baxter Num. 59. I have already elsewhere given you the testimony of some of your own Writers as Reynerius contra Waldenses Catal. in Bibliothecâ patr Tom. 4. pag. 773. saying The Churches of the Armenians and Ethiopians and Indians and the rest which the Apostles converted are not under the Church of Rome Iohnson Num. 59. 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 has been done at one time or other This Author says not these Nations were never under the Church of Rome even as you cite him but are not now for the present under him Know you not that many things have been heretofore which are not now Thus I have shewed you and doubt not but you see it the weakness of the first eight points of your Reasons I come now to the ninth which requires a deeper and larger discussion as being a main point in your Novel Divinity Baxter Num. 60. I have proved from the Council of Chalcedon that it was the Fathers that is the Councils that gave Rome its preheminence Iohnson Num. 60. Sir I take the boldness to tell you that you have proved nothing nothing at all of that matter what you say in your second part of the 28 Canon of the Council of Chalcedon proves not what you say here though that Canon were admitted of which more hereafter For the Greek word is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gave to or conferred upon Rome those priviledges but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exhibited or deferred to them to Rome as ever before due unto it by right of the Apostolick Sea of S. Peter established there And though the Canon alledge for the reason of this the Imperial power of that Citie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it was the Imperial City yet it neither says as you would infer from it that this was the sole and compleat reason no nor the chief neither of Romes preheminence but one amongst some others Nor can it be understood to be the sole reason without imputing a contradiction to the Council For those Holy Fathers in their Epistle to St. Leo Pope affirm Conc. Calced in relat ad Leonem That Dioscorus had extended his Felony against him to whom our Saviour had committed the charge and care of his vineyard that is the whole Catholique Church when that wicked Heretick presumed to excommunicate St. Leo. Now the true reason why this Canon mentions rather the Imperial Authority of that City then the right from St. Peter was because it suited better with the pretensions of Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople and his complices for the elevation of that Sea then any other because Constantinople had no other prevalent plea for its preheminence save the Imperiality of Constantinople Now that this reason of the Imperial seat at Rome is no way exclusive of the right from S. Peter is evident from the conjoyning them together by the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian in their Laws made six years before the Council of Chalcedon whereof the Fathers of that Council cannot be supposed ignorant where they say thus Vâ—â—de infra Three things have established the Primacy of the Sea Apostolick the Merit of S. Peter who is the Prince of the Episcopal Society the Dignity of the City and Synodical Authority Where the original and prime ground is the Merit of S. Peter the other two are subsequent and subservient For therefore the Imperial Throne is given as a reason because St. Peter thought it convenient that the Highest Spiritual Authority should be placed in that City which had highest Temporal Power as also Alexandria was anciently
wonder you being a Scholar should perswade your self any prudent man will be moved by your may bees upon no other ground then that you say them without proof If you have such instances alleadge them if you alleadge them not say nothing of them 't is not for your credit thus to trifle in serious matters Mr. Baxter Num. 205. And if the fact were not proved yet the forbearance proves not the want of power William Iohnson Num. 205. But sure if it can be proved a man of your learning can prove it and then why have you not done it is it not a shrewd sign there was no such power when there can be given no instance in so many hundred years that it was ever brought into practice you know frustra datur potentia quae nunquam reducitur in actum and if such a power whereof you say many instances may be given had ever been sure it was either frustraneous and thereby not from God or fome steps of the exercice of it would have appeared in antiquity We speak not here of what is or is not in it self unknown to us but of what can be proved to have been and that must appear by the acts and exercise of such a power recorded in some ancient Authors or Records CHAP. V. Theodosius St. Leo. ARGUMENT NUm 205. Many instances of Bishops restored out of the Empire by the Bishop of Rome Num. 206. St. Leo's affirming the Popes power in calling General Councils to come from divine Institution Num. 116. Mr. Baxter misreports his Adversaries argument and then esteems what he himself hath done ridiculous Num. 217. Pulchelius for pulcheria ibidem Her letter about Anatolius his sending the Confession of his Faith to Leo miserably misconstrued by Mr. Baxter Mr. Baxter Num. 206. 3. I deny your unproved assertion that the Bishop of Rome singly restored all the Church over it is a meer fiction How many restored he out of the Empire Or in the Empire out of his Patriarchate but swasorily or Synodically William Iohnson Num. 206. Very many Such were all those Bishops who about the year 400. in Spain in France anno 475. in England anno 595. in Germany anno 499. and other Western and Northern Kingdoms which were taken either from under the command of the Romane Emperours or were never under it who were restored by the Bishop of Rome's authority when wrongfully deposed from their Sees addressing themselves to him and requiring justice from him whereof all Ecclesiastical Histories of those Nations are full of instances And in more antient times whilst the Emperours were Heathens the cause of the Pope's authority out of the Western Patriarchate could not be the subjection those Bishops had to the Emperour of Rome but must have been derived from a spiritual authority instituted by Christ himself For neither had there been any General Council in those times to invest Rome in that authority nor can it be ever proved from antiquity that it was given him by the unanimous consent of all Bishops otherwise then as supposing it still due to him before their respective times by the power granted by our Saviour to St. Peter and his lawfully Successors as I have already affirmed the Bishop of Rome to have received all the Primacy you esteem him to have from a Council as shall be proved hereafter And I press you to produce any authority in those times which witnesseth it was originally given him by consent Now that the Bishop of Rome exercised jurisdiction over the Eastern Bishops in St. Victor's time and over Firmilian and those of Cappadocia in Pope Stephens time is so evident that it cannot be denyed See St. Irenaeus Nor will it avail to say those instances of France and Spain c. were in latter times And St. Cyp. in his Epistles to Pope Stephen where we dispute about the four first ages for if in all those ages it had been a common known tradition that the Pope had no jurisdiction of the Verge of the Roman Empire that tradition would have been publiquely and universally received in the years 500. and 600. even to the first erection of those new Kingdoms in the West and North And Vincentius Lirinensis infra citandus so that every one would have known they were no longer bound to be under the Roman Bishop then whilst they were under the Roman Empire because all knew in your novel supposition that the jurisdiction of the Pope extended no farther then the Roman Empire Why then did those Kings and all the Bishops and Churches in their Kingdoms esteem themselves as much obliged to the obedience of the Bishop of Rome after they were freed from the command of the Roman Emperour as they were before and never alleadged any such reason as you have invented of the Popes authority limited to the precincts of the Roman Empire to plead thereupon his not having any longer jurisdiction over them as being now no subject of that Empire What I say therefore is no fiction but a solide and manifest truth that he had authority of restoring Bishops wrongfully deposed all the Church over even out of the Empire but yours is a pure fiction to assert that as a publick tenet and practice which was manifestly unknown to those either of the four first or any subsequent ages coined lately from your own brain upon which I pray God heartily it lie not heavy one day as novelties in Religion use to do upon the heads of their first Inventors What you say of swasorily and Synodically I have above clearly confuted by shewing that the Councils of neighbouring Bishops in Italy were only assistants to the Pope but could have no juridical power over the whole Church or in parts remote and without the Western Patriarchate Now to what you usually presse of Ethiopia Persia outer Armenia c. that no instance can be given of any Bishop of those Churches restored by the Popes authority I answer that I can prove as effectually by instances their restoration by the Pope as you can prove them to have been restored by their own Primates Metropolitans Provincial Councils or Collections of Bishops within their own Charters nay as you can shew that any of them were restored The reason therefore that no such instance is given in the primitive times is not as you imagine and would impose upon your Reader that none of them were subject to the Pope but because there is no Records or mention in Ecclesiastical History that any were restored either by this or any other authority and if there be produce them The reason whereof is because the Roman Emperours then Heathens permitted no publique correspondence of those who were out of the Empire being their enemies with those who were within it and after the Christian Emperours being in war with those barbarous Nations refused to admit unlesse upon very urgent occasions such correspondences nor have we extant any authentick Authors of those Provinces who have
recorded the Histories and transactions of the said Churches so that 't is unknown to us what either passed betwixt them and the Bishop of Rome or amongst themselves Mr. Baxter Num. 207. Your next instance of Theodosius his not permitting the Council at Ephesus to be assembled and his reconciling himself to the Church is meerly impertinent We know that he and other Princes usually wrote to Rome Constantinople Alexandria c. Or spoke or sent to more then one of the Patriarcks before they called a Council William Iohnson Num. 207. You still seek diversions to avoid the difficulty The question is not now whether Theodosius and other Emperours did or might write to other Patriarcks about the celebration of Councils as well as the Roman but it is this whether they wrote in the same manner to them as they did to him that is as Pope Leo witnesses epist. 15. that he Theodosius bare this respect to the divine institution that he would use the authority of the Apostolick Sea for the effecting of his holy disposition And this was celebrating that Council the 2d of Ephesus which as then appeared to the Pope to be good and holy Finde me such a sentence of his writ by Theodosius or other Emperours to any of the Patriarcks beside the Roman that their authority was necessary according to divine institution for the celebrating of a general Council and you will have done something without which you trifle Mr Baxter Num. 208. You cannot but know that Councils have been called without the Pope William Iohnson Num. 208. Truly if you speak of lawful general â—â—ouncils I am so unknowing that I know it not supposing there were a known undoubted Pope in the Church as there was in Theodosius's time and I fear I shall be so dull that you will not be able to make me know it I am sure yet you have not gone about it and I presse you to nominate any such lawful general Councils call'd without the B. of Romes consent and authority Mr. Baxter Num. 209. And that neither this nor an Emperours forsaking his errour is a sign of the Popes universal Government William Iohnson Num. 209. Take the context of my proofs along with you which you conceal here and you confess this demanding the Popes authority as necessary to the celebration of a general Council and in that giving respect to divine restitution is a sign of his universal government seeing general Councils as I have proved are representatives not of the Empire but of the whole visible Church And Theodosius his pennance whereof one effect was that he required the confirmation of Anatolius in the Sea of Constantinople from Pope Leo and thereby attested his power over that Patriarck and a simili over all the rest he shewed himself to believe that the Roman Bishop was supream governour of the universal Church Mr. Baxter Num. 210. That Emperour gave sufficient testimony and so did the Bishops that adhered to Dioscorus that in those dayes the Pope was taken for fallible and controulable when they excommunicated him William Iohnson Num. 210. No more then the Clergy of Sweden would shew it now if they ventured so far as to excommunicate the Pope Is think you authority overthrown or rendred or argued null because it is opposed and contemned by Rebels you shew in this what your spirit is and how inconsistent with true Government when you make the contempt of Rebels an argument that all whom they reject have no lawful power over them a thing seasonable enough when you wrote this having then rebellious times and persons well suiting with it but yet demonstrative what you thought then and may still be esteemed one of your principles But I wonder much you were so venturous as to let it passe the print and see light since the happy return of our most gracious Soveraign For think you men are so blind as not to see this consequence that if Hereticks outing and contemning the authority of a Catholique Bishop as Dioscorus an Eutychian and his party did that of Leo be a good argument as you make it to prove he had no authority over the Church nor over Dioscorus who excommunicated him you must also hold that a publique Rebel's deposing a Soveraign is a good argument to justifie the fact and to prove that Soveraign had no authority over him Or if you your self dare not go so far you have laid a principle emboldning all Rebels to do it Mr. Baxter Num. 211. But when you cite out of any Author the words that you build on I shall take more particular notice of them William Iohnson Num. 211. I have cited them out of St. Leo and expect your answer Mr. Baxter Num. 212. Till then this is enough with this addition that the Emperours subjection if he had been subject not to an Ambrose or other Bishop but only to Rome would have been no proof that any without the Empire were his subjects no more then the King of Englands subjection to the Arch-bishop of Canterbury would have proved that the King of France was subject to him William Iohnson Num. 112. You flie again the difficulty I make not this argument the Emperour was subject to the Pope in spirituals Ergo all those Christians who were Extra-Imperial were also subject to him This is no argument of mine but your imposition My argument is this The Emperour and all Christians within this Empire were subject to the Pope as to St. Peters Successor and Supream Pastor of the whole flock and Vineyard of Christ by Christs institution Ergo all Extra-Imperial Churches were also subject to him Now this to have been the reason of their subjection is evident both from St. Leo's Epistle lately cited concerning Theodosius and from the Council of Chalcedon treated by me hereafter and from the command of Martian and all the other declaratives of the Bishop of Romes supereminent authority delivered and received in antiquity where not so much as any one of them hath chained it up within the circuit of the Roman Empire or given that for a measure or reason of his power and it still remained in full force in such Kingdoms as were taken by Christians from the Roman Emperors who as I have said never affirmed their freedom from the Emperours command to have franchised them from the Bishop of Romes authority Whence is clearly answered your parity in the Kings of Englands subjection to the Bishop of Canterbury for the Kings of England never subjected themselves to the Bishop of Canterbury as to the Supream visible Governour in spirituals of the whole Catholique Church no not as to one who had any jurisdiction out of England at all Mr. Baxter Num. 112. Your twelfth proof from the Council of Chalcedon is from a witness alone sufficient to overthrow your cause as I have proved to you This Synode expresly determineth that your Primacy is a novel humane invention that it was given you by the Fathers because Rome
determinate congregation they were In your Num. 3. you tell me in the former ages till one thousand there were near as many or rather many more A fair account But in the mean time you nominate none much less prosecute you those with whom you begun Num. 4. You say in the year six hundred there were many more incomparably What many what more were they the same which you nominated in the beginning and made one Congregation with them or were they quite different Congregations what am I the wiser by your saying many more incomparably when you tell me not what or who they were Then you say But at least â—â—or four hundred years after Christ I never yet saw valid proof of one Papist in all the world that is one that was for the Popes universal Monarchy or vice-Christ-ship What then are there no proofs in the world but what you have seen or may not many of those proofs be valid which you have seen though you esteem them not so and can you think it reasonable upon your single not-seeing or not-judging only to conclude absolutely as you here do that all have been against us for many hundred years In your Num. 5. You name Ethiopia and India as having been without the limits of the Roman Empire whom you deny to have acknowledged any Supremacy of power and authority above all other Bishops You might have done well to have cited at least one ancient Author for this Assertion Were those primitive Christians of another kind of Church-order and Government then were those under the Roman Empire * But how far from truth this is appears from St. Leo in his Sermons de natali suo where he saies Sedes Roma Petri quicquid non possidet armis Relâ—â—gione tenet and by this That the Abyssines of Ethiopia were under the Patriarch of Alexandria antiently which Patriarch was under the Authority of the Roman Bishop as we shall presently see When the Roman Emperors were yet Heathens had not the Bishop of Rome the Supremacy over all other Bishops through the whole Church and did those Heathen Emperors give it him How came St Cyprian in time of the Heathen Empire to request Stephen the Pope to punish and depose the Bishop of Arles as we shall see hereafter Had he that authority think you from an Heathen Emperor See now how little your Allegations are to the purpose where you nominate any determinate Congregations to satisfie my demand I had no reason to demand of you different Congregations of all sorts and Sects opposing the Supremacy to have been shewn visible in all ages I was not so ignorant as not to know that the Nicolaitans Valentinians Gnosticks Manichees Montanists Arians Donatists Nestorians Eutychians Pelagians Iconoclasts Berengarians Waldensians Albigenses Wicleffists Hussits Lutherans Calvinists c. each following others had some kind of visibility divided and distracted each to his own respective age from our time to the Apostles in joyning their heads and hands together against the Popes Supremacy But because these could not be called one successive Congregation of Christians being all together by the ears amongst themselves I should not have thought it a demand beseeming a Scholar to have required such a visibility as this Seeing therefore all you determinately nominate are as much different as these pardon me if I take it not for any satisfaction at all to my demand or acquittance of your obligation Bring me a visible succession of any one Congregation of Christians of the same belief profession and communion for the designed time opposing that Supremacy and you will have satisfied but till that be done I leave it to any equall judgement whether my demand be satisfied or no. You answer to this That all those who are nominated by you are parts of the Catholick Church and so one Congregation But Sir give me leave to tell you that in your principles you put both the Church of Rome and your selves to be parts of the Catholick Church and yet sure you account them not one Congregation of Christians seeing by separation one from another they are made two or if you account them one why did you separate your selves and still remain separate from communion with the Roman Church Why possessed you your selves of the Bishopricks and Cures of your own Prelates and Pastors they yet living in Queen Elizabeths time and drew both your selves and their other subjects from all subjection to them and communion with them Is this dis-union think you fit to make one and the same Congregation of you and them Is not charity subordination and obedience to the same state and government required as well to make one Congregation of Christians as it is required to make one Congregation of Common-wealths men Though therefore you do account them all parts of the Catholick Church yet you cannot make them in your principles one Congregation of Christians Secondly your position is not true the particulars named by you neither are nor can be parts of the Catholick Church unless you make Arrians and Pelagians and Donatists parts of the Catholick Church which were either to deny them to be Hereticks and Schismaticks or to affirm that Hereticks and Schismaticks separating themselves from the communion of the Catholick Church notwithstanding that separation do continue parts of the Catholick Church For who knows not that the Ethiopians to this day are * See Rosse his view of Religions p 99 489 492 c. Where he says that they circumcise their children the eighth day they use Mosaical Ceremonies They mention not the Council of Calcedon because saies he they are Eutychians Jacobites and confesses that their Patriarch is in subjection to the Patriarch of Alexandria c. See more of the Chofti Jacobites Maronites c. p. 493 494. where he confesses that many of them are now subject to the Pope and have renounced their old errors Eutychian Hereticks And a great part of those Greeks and Armenians who deny the Popes Supremacy are infected with the Heresie of Nestorius and all of them profess generally all those points of faith with us against you wherein you differ from us and deny to communicate with you or to esteem you other then Hereticks and Schismaticks unless you both agree with them in those differences of Faith and subject your selves to the obedience of the Patriarch of Constantinople as to the chief Head and Governour of all Christian Churches next under Christ and consequently as much a Vice-Christ in your account as the Pope can be conceived to be See if you please Hieremias Patriarch of Constantinople his Answer to the Lutherans especially in the beginning and end of the Book Acta Theologorum Wittebergensium c. and Sir Edwyn Sands of this Subject in his Survey p. 232 233 242 c. Either therefore you must make the Eutychians and Nestorians no Hereticks and so contradict the Oecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon which condemned them as
which he presently did and many other Eastern Bishops unjustly accused by the Arians aforesaid had recourse to Rome with him and expected there a year and half All which time his Accusers though also summoned appeared not fearing they should be condemned by the Pope and his Council Yet they pretended not as Protestants have done in these last ages of the Kings of England That Constantius the Arian Emperour of the East was Head or chief Governour over their Church in all Causes Ecclesiastical and consequently that the Pope had nothing to do with them but only pretended certain frivolous excuses to delay their apearance from one time to another Where it is worth the noting that Iulius reprehending the said Arian Bishops before they published their Heresie and so taking them to be Catholicks for condemning S. Athanasius in an Eastern Council gathered by them before they had acquainted the Bishop of Rome with so important a cause useth these words An ignari estis hanc consuetudinem esse ut primum nobis scribatur ut hinc quod justum est definiri possit c. Are you ignorant saith he that this is the custome to write to us first That hence that which is just may be defined c. where most clearly it appears that it belonged particularly to the Bishop of Rome to passe a definitive sentence even against the Bishops of the Eastern or Greek Church which yet is more confirmed by the proceedings of Pope Innocent the first about 12. hundred years since in the case of S. Chrysostome Where first Saint Chrysostome appeals to Innocentius from the Council assembled at Constantinople wherein he was condemned Secondly Innocentius annuls his condemnation and declares him innocent Thirdly he Excommunicates Atticus Bishop of Constantinople and Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria for persecuting S. Chrysostome Fourthly after S. Chrysostome was dead in Banishment Pope Innocentius Excommunicates Arcadius the Emperour of the East and Eudoxia his wife Fifthly the Emperor and Empress humble themselves crave pardon of him and were absolved by him The same is evident in those matters which passed about the year 450. where Theodosius the Emperour of the East having too much favoured the Eutychian Hereticks by the instigation of Chrysaphius the Eunuch and Pulcheria his Empress and so intermedled too far in Ecclesiasticall causes yet he ever bore that respect to the See of Rome which doubtless in those circumstances he would not have done had he not beleeved it an Obligation that he would not permit the Eutychian Council at Ephesus to be assembled without the knowledge and authority of the Roman Bishop Leo the first and so wrote to him to have his presence in it who sent his Legats unto them And though both Leo's letters were dissembled and his Legate affronted and himself excommunicated by wicked Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria and president of that Conventicle who also was the chief upholder of the Eutychians yet Theodosius repented before his death banished his wife Pulcheria and Chrysaphius the Eunuch the chief favourers of the Eutychians and reconciled himself to the Church with great evidences of sorrow and pennance (m) Concil Chalced. Act. 1. Presently after An. 451. follows the fourth General Council of Chalcedon concerning which these particulars occur to our present purpose First Martianus the Eastern Emperour wrote to Pope Leo That by the Popes Authority a General Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to chuse Secondly both Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople and the rest of the Eastern Bishops sent to the Legats of Pope Leo by his order the profession of their faith Thirdly the Popes Legats sate in the first place of the Council before all the Patriarchs (n) Concil Chalced. Act 3. Fourthly they prohibited by his order given them That Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria and chief upholder of the Eutychians should sit in the Council but be presented as a guilty person to be judged because he had celebrated a Council in the Eastern Church without the consent of the Bishop of Rome which said the Legats never was done before nor could be done lawfully This order of Pope Leo was presently put in execution by consent of the whole Council and Dioscorus was judged and condemned his condemnation and deposition being pronounced by the Popes Legats and after subscribed by the Council Fifthly the Popes Legats pronounced the Church of Rome to be * Which could not be by reason of the Sanctity and truth which was then in it for the Church of Milan and many others in France Africa and Greece were also then pure and holy and yet none have this title save the Church of Rome In the time of Iustinian the Emperour Agapet Pope even in Constantinople against the will both of the Emperour and Empress deposed Anthymus and ordained Mennas in his place Liberat. in Breviario cap. 21. Marcellinus Comes in Chronico Concil Constantin sub Menna act 4. And the same S Greg. c. 7. ep 63. declares that both the Emperour and Bishop of Constantinople acknowledged that the Church of Constantinople was subject to the See of Rome And l. 7. Ep. 37. Et alibi pronounceth that in case of falling into offences he knew no Bishop which was not subject to the Bishop of Rome Caput omnium Ecclesiarum the Head of all Churches before the whole Council and none contradicted them Sixtly all the Fathers assembled in that Holy Council in their Letter to Pope Leo acknowledged themselves to be his children and wrote to him as to their Father Seventhly they humbly begged of him that he would grant that the Patriarch of Constantinople might have the first place among the Patriarchs after that of Rome which notwithstanding that the Council had consented to as had also the third General Council of Ephesus done before yet they esteemed their grants to be of no sufficient force untill they were confirmed by the Pope And Leo thought not fit to yeeld to their petition against the express ordination of the first Council of Nice where Alexandria had the preheminence as also Antioch and Hierusalem before that of Constantinople Saint Cyril of Alexandria though he wholly disallowed Nestorius his doctrine yet he would not break off Communion with him till Celestinus the Pope had condemned him whose censure he required and expected Nestorius also wrote to Celestine acknowledging his Authority and expecting from him the censure of his doctrine Celestinus condemned Nestorius and gave him the space of ten daies to repent after he had received his condemnation All which had effect in the Eastern Church where Nestorius was Patriarch of Constantinople (o) S. August Tom. 1. Epist. Rom. Pontif. post Epist. 2. ad Celestinum After this Saint Cyrill having received Pope Leo's Letters wherein he gave power to Saint Cyril to execute his condemnation against Nestorius and to send his condemnatory letters to him gathered a Council of his next Bishops and sent Letters
and Articles to be subscribed with the Letters of Celestine to Nestorius which when Nestorius had received he was so far from repentance that he accused St. Cyril in those Articles to be guilty of the Heresie of Apollinaris so that St. Cyril being also accused of Heresie was barred from pronouncing sentence against Nestorius so long as he stood charged with that Accusation Theodosius the Emperour seeing the Eastern Church embroiled in these difficulties writes to Pope Celestine about the assembling of a general Council at Ephesus by Petronius afterwards Bishop of Bononia as is manifest in his life written by Sigonius Pope in his Letters to Theodosius not only professeth his consent to the calling of that Council but also prescribeth in what form it was to be celebrated as Firmus Bishop of Cesarea in Cappadocia testified in the Council of Ephesus Hereupon Theodosius sent his Letters to assemble the Bishops both of the East and West to that Council And Celestine sent his Legats thither with order not to examine again in the Council the cause of Nestorius but rather to put Celestines condemnation of him given the year before into execution S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria being constituted by Celestine his chief Legate ordinary in the East by reason of that preheminency and primacy of his See after that of Rome presided in the Council yet so that Philip who was only a Priest and no Bishop by reason that he was sent Legatus à Latere from Celestine and so supplied his place as he was chief Bishop of the Church subscribed the first even before S. Cyril and all the other Legats and Patriarchs In the sixth Action of this holy Council Iuvenalis patriarch of Hierusalem having understood the contempt which Iohn patriarch of Antioch who was cited before the Council shewed of the Bishops and the Popes Legats there assembled expressed himself against him in these words Quod Apostolica ordinatione Antiqua Traditione which were no way opposed by the Fathers there present Antiochena sedes perpetuo à Romana diregeretur judicareturque That by Apostolical ordination and ancient Tradition the See of Antioch was perpetually directed and judged by the See of Rome which words not only evidence the precedency of place as Dr. Hammond would have it but of power and judicature in the Bishop of Rome over a Patriarch of the Eastern Church and that derived from the time and ordination of the Apostles The Council therefore sent their decrees with their condemnation of Nestorius to Pope Clestize who presently ratified and confirmed them Not long after this in the year 445. Valentinian the Emperour makes this manifesto of the most high Ecclesiastical authority of the See of Rome in these words Seeing that the merit of S. Peter who is the Prince of the Episcopal Crown and the Dignity of the City of Rome and no less the authority of the holy Synod hath established the primacy of the Apostolical See lest presumption should attempt any unlawful thing against the authority of that * See this at length in Baronius in the year 445. See for then finally will the peace of the Churches be preserved every where if the whole universality acknowledge their Governour when these things had been hitherto inviolably observed c. Where he makes the succession from S. Peter to be the first foundation of the Roman Churches primacy and his authority to be not only in place but in power and government over the whole visible Church And adds presently that the definitive sentence of the Bishop of Rome given against any French Bishop was to be of force through France even without the Emperors Letters Patents For what shall not be lawful for the authority of so great a Bishop to exercise upon the Churches and then adds his Imperial precept in these words But this occasion hath provoked also our command that hereafter it shall not be lawful neither for Hilarius whom to be still intituled a Bishop the sole humanity of the meek Prelate i. e. the Bishop of Rome permits neither for any other to mingle arms with Ecclesiastical matters or to resist the commands of the Bishop of Rome c. We define by this our perpetual decree that it shall neither be lawful for the French Bishops nor for those of other Provinces against the ancient custom to attempt any thing without the authority of the venerable Pope of the eternal City But let it be for a law to them and to all whatsoever the authority of the Apostolick See hath determined or shall determine So that what Bishop soever being called to the Tribunal of the Roman Bishop shall neglect to come is to be compelled by the Governour of the same Province to present himself before him Which evidently proves that the highest Universal Ecclesiastical Judge and Governour was and ever is to be the Bishop of Rome which the Council of Chalcedon before mentioned plainly owned when writing to Pope Leo they say * Epist. Concil ad Leon. Pap. Act. 1. sequ Thou governest us as the head doth the members contributing thy good will by those which hold thy place Behold a Primacy not only of Precedency but of Government and Authority which Lerinensis confirms contr Haeres cap. 9. where speaking of Stephen Pope he saies Dignum â—â—t opinor existimans si reliquos omnes tantum fidei devotione quantum loci authoritate superabat esteeming it as I think a thing worthy of himself if he overcame all others as much in the devotion of faith as he did in the Authority of his place And to confirm what this universal Authority was he affirms that he sent a Law Decree or Command into Africa Sanxit That in matter of rebaptization of Hereticks nothing should be innovated which was a manifest argument of his Spiritual Authority over those of Africa and à paritate rationis over all others I will shut up all with that which was publickly pronounced and no way contradicted and consequently assented to in the Council of Ephesus one of the four first general Councils in this matter Tom. 2. Concil p. 327. Act. 1. where Philip Priest and Legat of Pope Celestine says thus Gratias agimus sanctae venerandaeque synodo quod literis sancti beatique Papae nostri vobis recitatis sanctas chartas sanctis vestris vocibus sancto capiti vestro sanctis vestris exclamationibus exhibueritis Non enim ignorat vestra beatitudo totius fidei vel etiam Apostolorum caput esse beatum Apostolum Petrum And the same Philip Act. 3. p. 330. proceeds in this manner Nulli dubium imo saeculis omnibus notum est quod sanctus beatissimusque Petrus Apostolorum Princeps caput Fideique columna Ecclesiae Catholicae Fundamentum à Domino nostro Jesu Christo Salvatore generis humani ac redemptore nostro claves regni accepit solvendique ac ligandi peccata potestas ipsi data est qui ad hoc usque tempus ac
the first Earl of England should pronounce a penal sentence against those who respectively are inferiour only in place and precedency to themselves would it not be judged profoundly ridiculous Baxter Num. 75. But if both these were proved that Ethiopia was under Alexandria and Alexandria under Rome I deny the consequence that Ethiopia was under Rome for Alexandria was under Rome but secundum quid and so far as it was within the Empire and therefore those without the Empire Non-proof 8. that were under Alexandria were not therefore under Rome Iohnson Num. 75. Your ground is untrue for I have proved Alexandria to have been absolutely and totally under Rome in the example of Dionysius Anno 263. which was before the conversion of Constantine and before any Council through the whole Empire could be assembled and that in the Nicene Council there was no restriction of that Patriarchal Sea to the Precincts of the Empire Con. Nicen. cap. 6. nor of the Roman Sea to Alexandria as comprehending only the Imperial Provinces prove any such limitation was made there Now if before the Council of Nice and before the Church was under Christian Emperors Rome had such power over Alexandria c. and that proceeded not from the Institution of Christ shew as you are obliged when how and by whom that power was given to it in those times Baxter Num. 76. And if it could as it never can be proved of Abassia what is that to all the other Churches in India Persia and the re rest of the World Iohnson Num. 76. Yes 't is very much for it sounds an Argument à paritate rationis that seeing no considerable reason can be given why one Extra-Imperial Province should be subject to Rome more then all the rest if one be proved subject all others must be supposed to be so unless some particular reason can be alledged why this was subject more then the rest For till that be done there can no reason be given why any of the Extra-Imperial Churches were subject to the Roman Bishops save this that he was Governour over all the Churches and Bishops in the world and consequently as much over all Extra-Imperial as over all Imperial Churches Baxter Num. 77. Sir If you have impartially read the Ancient Church-History and yet can beleeve that all these Churches were then under the Pope despair not of bringing your self to beleeve any thing imaginable that you would have to be true Iohnson Num. 77. 'T is your pleasure to say so I shall be moved to beleeve you when you convince ' me by reason but your bare word without reason Non-proof 9. has no poise at all with me nor I think with any one who is led by reason Baxter Num. 78. Your next Question is When the Roman Emperors were yet Heathens had not the Bishops of Rome Supremacy over all other Bishops through the whole Church Answ. No they had not nor in the Empire neither Prove it I beseech you better then by questioning If you askt Whether men rule not Angels Your Question proves not the Affirmative Iohnson Num. 78. I do not nakedly ask the Question but prove what I say by an Instance as you presently acknowledge Baxter Num. 79. But you ask again Did those Heathen Emperours give it him Answ. 1. Power over all the Churches none ever gave him till titularly his own Parasites of late 2. Primacy of meer degree in the Empire for the dignity and many advantages of the Imperial seat the Bishops of the Empire gave him by consent Blondel de Primatu gives you the proof and reason at large yet so as that small regard was had to the Church of Rome before the Nicen Council as saith your Aeneas Silvius Pope Pius the second Iohnson Num 79. But I have now proved the power and Authority of the Roman Bishop to be over all Nations that were Christian in the instances given above If therefore the power he had were given him by the Emperors they must have given him power over all Churches which no Emperor could do as having no Authority over Extra-Imperial Churches Whence follows evidently the power he had could not have been given him by the Emperours And as little could that of precedency even over the Empire have been given him before the Nicene Council by the Bishops within the Empire for there is no step in antiquity of any such gift and if there be shew when and by whom it was first given him Nor were that admitted would it satisfie the difficulty for the Bishop of Rome had precedency not only over all the Bishops within the Empire but through the whole Christian world for so is Blondel forced to acknowledge page 14. and page 528. I would gladly have some evident proof from Antiquity that the word Primacy put absolutely or alone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Primate in the Ecclesiastical signification signified a precedencie only of meer degree or place and not a true Authority and Jurisdiction over those in relation to whom one is said to have primacy or â—â—o be Primate Run over all those who had the dignity of Primate in ancient times and name any one who in vertue of that Primacy had not true Ecclesiastical Authority over others in relation to whom he had that Primacy Do not both yours and ours think they defend and oppose sufficiently the Roman Bishops Authority asserted by Catholicks when they call it in Latine Primatus Romani Pontificis the Primacy of the Roman Bishop Has not Bellarmine and Stapleton of ours Whitaker Chamler and Blondel of yours with many others disputed that question largely under the name of Primatus or Primacy Blondel p. 527. acknowledges this to be the common and ordinary signification and produces one only instance where primacie is taken for precedency of place onely and there it is not put absolutely but with this Adjunct Primacy of honour by age Primance d'honeur par l'age Should you affirm that the Bishop of Canterbury in quality of Primate had only a meer primacy of degree or locall precedency and no authority conferred upon him by force of his primacy had he not reason to be highly offended with you Seeing therefore in the Council of Chalcedon reciting the forenamed Canon of Nice it is affirmed that the Sea of Rome had ever the Primacy Ecclesia Romana sâ—â—mper habuit primatum and seeing no adjunct or limitation is given there that the word Primacy is not taken in the usual Ecclesiastical signification to wit for a primacy in authority and jurisdiction it must be understood in the usual signification There was indeed anciently a precedency of place amongst the other Patriarchs Primates and Metropolitans but were any of them for that reason termed their Primates or said to have Primacy in relation to those before whom they sate in the Councils or before whom they took place in all publick Assemblies You will not fail I hope to bring such clear
the breach Mr. Baxter Num. 119. But you say that when I have made the best of those Greeks Armenians Ethiopians Protestants I cannot deduce them successively in all Ages till Christ as a different Congregation of Christians from that which holds the Pope's Supremacie which was your Proposition Reply I have oft told you we owne no universal Informing Head but Christ in Respect to him I have proved to you that it is not my Interest or designe to prove us or them a different Congregation from you as you are Christians nor shall you tempt me to be so uncharitable as to damn or unchristen all Papists as far as you do others incomparably safer and better then your selves William Iohnson Num. 119. This is answered above no Heretick ever professed to separate from the Church as it is Christian for in so doing he must professe himself to be no Christian which no Heretick ever did yet for by professing himself no Christian he falls into the sin of Apostacie and becomes not an Heretick but an Apostate Mr. Baxter But as you are Papal and set up a new informing Head I have proved that you differ from all the ancient Churches but yet that my Cause requireth me not to make this proof but to call you to prove your own universal succession William Iohnson I have shewed above there must be alwayes some who Exercise visible Government as ordinary Governours of the whole Church and seeing a general Council is not the ordinary way of Governing the Church there must be some one who is supreme in visible Government over the whole Church this I affirm to be the Bishop of Rome and seeing there must be some one and you confesse the Roman Bishop to be the highest in place and honour me thinks even in your principles he has a stronger claim to be supream in authority also then any one singular person through the Church now if we set up the Pope as a new informing head over the whole Church as you say we do I should be much obliged if you would please to nominate the first Pope whom we set up as such a head who they were that set him up and who withstood it as a noveltie you cannot in your principles alleadge Boniface the third for the having his title as you pretend from Phocas and Phocas having no power out of the Empire could not give him any authority over the extra-imperial Pormies no not so much as precedency in place over all the extra-imperial Bishops for what reasons had they to conform themselves to the Emperours orders who had no authority over them and consequently not over the whole Church nor was the Emperour so foolish to give more then he had power to give now that Popes before Boniface's time had jurisdiction over the whole Empire you are forc't to acknowledge divers times in your reply not being able otherwise to resolve my arguments Phocas therefore neither made nor could make Boniface head over the whole Church nor was he the first who set him up over all the Churches within the Empire oblidge me therefore in nominating to me the first head so set up in your rejoynder to this I have no obligation to prove my succession my argument presses you to the proof who though you made a bold essay to produce one Congregation of Christians perpetually visible either denying and opposing the Popes universal supremacy or at least of such a nature in Church government as rendered it inconsistent with it and in this your present reply p. 92. you undertake the proof of such a visible Congregation distinct in all ages from that which hold the said supremacy yet being told by your adversary that none of the particular Congregations instanced and nominated by you in your former answer were perpetually visible as distinct from that which held the Popes supremacy in those two paragraphes you recoile and manifestly give up your cause as not being able to perform what you first undertooke Mr. Baxter Num. 120. You adde your reason because these before named were at first involved in your Congregations and then fell off as dead branches Reply this is but an untruth in a most publique matter of fact William Iohnson Num. 120. This is your bare affirmation without proof you nominate p. 23 your edit the Armenians Greeks Ethiopians Indians Protestants and no more Now it is evident by what I have said above that the first Protestants before their change were of that Congregation which held the Popes supremacy the Armenians and Greeks consented to it in the council of Florence the Ethiopians and Indians I have proved to have reconciled themselves to the Bishop of Rome since he publickely exercised and claimed the said supremacy ergo no one of those nominated by you no nor all together have been a perpetually visible Congregation distinct from that which held the Popes supremacy Mr. Baxter Num. 121. All the truth is this 1. those Indians Ethiopians Persians c. without the Empire never fell from you as to subjection as never being your subjects prove that they were and you have done a greater wonder then Baronius in all his annals William Iohnson Num. 121. I have proved it out of the Arabick edition of the nicene canons and from that very text of the council of Calcedon cap. 28 c. which you use against us Mr. Baxter Num. 122. The Greeks and all the rest within the Empire without the Roman Patriarchate are fallen from your communion if renouncing it be a fall but not from your subjection having given you but a primacy as Nilus shews and not a governing power over them William Iohnson Num. 122. You your self in the insueing replyes acknowledg a governing power over the Churches through the whole Empire and consequently over Constantinople nay you cannot deny the fact of Agapeâ—â— over Anthymus Bishop of Constantinople nor of Celestin over Nestorius c. you are therefore as much obliged to answer Nilus his argument as I am and Bell hath saved us both a labour of answering him 't is true according to what you say of being subject the Greeks hold now a subjection to the Pope and sure if they professe subjection to him they must professe themselves to be his subjects now according to you subjection may signifie no more then to be inferiour to another in place and every subject has a superiour to whom he is subject ergo they professe the Pope to be their superiour which gives him even in your principles at least a precedency before them but Nilus never granted they were in any proper sense subject to the Pope but only inferiour in place to him seeing therefore S. Gregory as we shall see hereafter declares the Bishops of Constantinople and all other Bishops in the Church to be subject to him and his sea and the Greeks now acknowledge no subjection to him it is manifest they are not only fallen from communion with him but also from their
letters writ flatly to him that he knew no John Bishop of Alexandria but had taken Petrus Mogas as Bishop of Alexandria into his communion and that without Simplicius for the Churches unity at the Emperours command William Iohnson Num. 125. It was indeed Ioannes Thalaida chosen Bishop of Alexandria but presently disturbed by Zeno the Emperour through Acacius his meanes and Petrus Mogas setled in his place by the Emperours authority and by Acacius Bishop of Constantinople this Ioannes Thalaida being a Catholick Bishop appealed as Liberatus saith and you acknowledge to Simplicius being dead before Iohn arrived at Rome Pope Felix his successor received the appeal and gathered a council upon it sent Legates and redargvitory letters to Zeno and Acacius where in his letter to Zeno he exhorted him to send Acacius to Rome according to the Ecclesiastical lawes and cited Acacius a fauourer of Hereticks to hasten thither to defend himself against the depositions of Ioannes Thalaida and to answer juridically to the objections made by his accuser and then to have his cause tryed in judgement this is the history By the way I wonder much to hear you say that Iohn Bishop of Antioch dyed in Sixtus the fift's time when as all the world knowes this Iohn of Antioch flourished in the year 1585. surely that Iohn must have been a notable old man of eleven hundred and odd years at least Mathuselah was nothing to him and which is yet a greater miracle he must have lived above a thousand years after he was dead I should have taken no notice at all of this for I know you would have said Sixtus the third but only to let you reflect how carefull you ought to have been in your own accounts Names and Figures when you are so punctual to note every smal slip in the writings of your adversary I might also have noted your errour in affirming this Iohn of Antioch dyed an 436. citing Baronius for it whereas Baronius as abreviated by spondanus sayes expresly he dyed Anno 440. But I have no reason to pass in silence your not informing your Reader what Zeno Acacius Petrus Mogas Petrus Fullonis Iohn Thalaida and Calendion were you say Zeno expelled Iohn Thalaida that Acacius disowned him and acknowledged Petrus Mogas as Bishop of Alexandria and thence inferre how little regard Acacius made of our Pope by which obsurdity in writing your ignorant Reader may well suppose that Zeno was a good Christian Emperour Acacius and Petrus Mogas found Catholick Bishops Iohn and Calendion turbulent intruders or Schismaticks whereas you could not but know seeing you profess to read the Aâ—â—thours you quote that Zeno Acacius Petrus Mogas Petrus Fullonis and their abbetters were either Hereticks or first favorites secretly and after publickly of the Eutychian heresie and the cheif of them were after by a sentence given of Pope Felix excommunicated and deprived of Episcopal dignitie and jurisdiction as I have proved above whereas Iohn Thalaida and Calendion were most Orthodox and Catholick Bishops quietly and canonically elected and installed the one in the sea of Alexandria and the other in that of Antioch which had it been declared as all open and fair dealing required it had proved rather a credit then a disadvantage to the Roman sea to have been opposed by such notorious Hereticks and Schismaticks as those were and appealed to by Thalaida and Calendion Catholick and lawful Bishops Mr. Baxter Num. 126. Here you see how little regard Acacius made of your Pope and that the appeal was but to procure his letters to Acacius which did him no good William Iohnson Num. 126. I am glad to see how Hereticks and Favourers of hereticks have still contemned the authority of that Sea but I see not that the appeal was only to procure the Popes letters to Acacius for it was also to summon Acacius to answer Iohns accusations against him at Rome and there to trie his cause in judgement with him now that nothing was effected by this was only Acacius his pertinacy for which he is condemned by all the Catholick writers of his proceedings in those times and not one of them blame Simplicius or Felix as exceeding the limits of their authority in sentencing and deposing Acacius and his adherents as we have seen he did produce in your next those authours who speak against it in their times Mr. Baxter Num. 127. But do you in good earnest think that all such addresses or appeales are ad superiorem judicem what more coÌ„mon then to appeal or make such addresses to any that have advantages of interest for the releif of the oppressed young men appeal to the aged in controversies and the lesse learned to the more learned and the poor to the rich or to the favorites of such as can relieve them Johns going first to Antioch was no acknowledgement of Superiority William Iohnson Num. 127. Yes I think so in very good earnest and when you shall have fixt your second thoughts upon what past in this affaire I doubt not but your own ingenuity will induce you to think so too 't is not every appeal made from any tribunal or Judge to another who hath power to summon the defendant and to pronounce sentence against him in case of not appearance to defend his cause a strict and juridical appeal to a higher Court or Tribunal was not this appeal such I know when you consider the letters and sentence given by Felix against Acacius you neither will nor can deny it whence appeares how far your instances of improper and nominal appeales are from the present matter Should a poor Peasant of Northumberland being wronged by some inferiour persons having the Lord Mayor of London his friend appeal to him and require of him that he cite those Judges to appear before him and in case they did refuse to appear pronounce sentence against them and deprive them of their offices lands and possessions would it not be highly ridiculous seeing therefore such a proceeding as this was held by virtue of this appeal of Iohn Thalaida and no Catholick of those times ever condemned Felix for doing it nor Iohn for requiring it as is most evident it was an appeal or complaint as Baronius affirms to an higher Judge Now seeing an appeal made from one Judge to another as all solemn and proper appeals are made and understood in law must be from a lower to a higher Judge and the word appeal as all other words must be taken in a proper sense where nothing constraines us to take it improperly it is most manifest that this appeal must be understood to have been made to a higher Judge then were those who deposed Thalaida Mr. Baxter Num. 128. But of this I must referre you to a full answer of Blondel against Perron de Primatu in Ecclesia cap. 25. sect 76. where you may be satisfied of the vanity of your instance William Iohnson Num. 128. I could wish you had alleaged Blondels reasons for by
read that Epistle and had thought that any others would be induced by your words to read it William Iohnson Num. 161. This is a strange way of answering I cite not St. Basil as it comprises those matters which treated in regard of himself or of the Western Bishops but only as it contains his testimony of Eustathius having been restored to his Bishopprick by force of the letters of Liberius which he clearly witnesses Now that this was done not by way of recommendation only and testification of his profession of the Catholick Nicene faith in consideration whereof he desired he might be restored to the Bishoppricks is manifest seeing he actually restored him by an absolute command For you to alleadge other passages of a different nature and nothing contrary to what I say and unfit to shew the thing I cite to be untrue is a meer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 why trifle you thus answer the wordes of St. Basil relating to Eustathius and Liberius It is not proofs from your key that I expect here but answers to my Arguments non proof 18. Your branding Liberius with the note of an Arian without proof is as easily rejected by me as said by you what had such a parenthesis as that to do in the argument But I see it is hard to hide rancor where it is excessive For being universal authority drawn from these and the like instances is of force by an argument a paritate Rationis What reason can be alleadged why Pope Liberius should command the restauration of Eustathius a Bishop of the Eastern Patriarck save this that he had power to restore any one wrongfully ejected through the whole Church You assert that all the preheminence he had given him over all the Bishops within the Empire was no more then a Primacy of place and precedency how then came he to have a Primacy of authority and jurisdiction over all the imperial Bishops to judge condemn and restore them shew me who gave him that imperial power this you never resolved in your whole book and I know the reason you could not resolve it into any other grant then into that of Christs institution from the Council of Nice it could not be both because that Council according to your principles rather restraines his power to the Western Churches then extends it into the wole Empire and the Popes exercised power through the wole Empire long before the Council of Nice so that neither that nor any other subsequent Council could give it him nor could the Christian Emperours give him that power for he exercised it long before the Emperours were Christians both in the East and West nor did the the primitive Bishops through the whole Empire give it him for there is no proof in antiquity of any such grant ergo there is no appearance that any such authority was given to the Bishops of Rome from any save Christ himself Now Christ never restrained the power he gave him to the Empire but rather intended it to the whole Church and if he did restrain it shew where and how Mr. Baxter Num. 162. Your seventh proof is from Chrysostome who you say expresly desireth Pope Innocent not to punish his adversaries if they do repent Chrys. Epist. 2. ad Innoc. Reply you much wrong your soul in taking your religion thus on trust some book hath told you this untruth and you beleive it and its like you will perswade others of it as you would do me There is no such word in the Epist. of Chrysostome to Innocent nor any thing like it William Iohnson Num. 162. Either you or I must be in a mighty errour I affirm those very words are in you accuse me of taking things on trust and thereby deceive my self and others and you flatly deny there is any such word in the Epistle of St. Chrys. to Innocent or any thing like it in which Epist. 1 ad Innocentium I again affirm those words are and refer my self to the inspection of the Greek and Latine copies where St. Chrysostome intreates Pope Innocent that in case his opposers would put a remedy to their crimes and Illegalities they might not be punished Mr. Baxter Num. 163 Your eight proof is this the like is written to the Pope by the Council of Ephesus which no doubt you mean is in Binius enough to make a considerable volume and divided it into six tomes and each of those into Chapters and not into acts and if you expect that I should read six Tomes in Folio before I can answer your several sentences or shredds you will put me on a twelve moneths to answer a few sheets of paper If you mean by p. 2. Tom. 2. and by Act. 5. cap. 5. then I must tell you there is not a word of that you say nor like it only there is reference to Celestines and Cyrils Epistles and Celestine in his Epistle recited Tom. 1. cap. 17. threatens Nestorius that if he repent not he will excommunicate him and they will have no communion with him which others did as well as he but not a word of John Bishop af Antioch there nor can I finde any such time in the fourth â—â—ome where John's cause is handled Indeed the notes of your historians divide the Council into sessions but in his fift session there is nothing of John but of Nestorius and in the fourth session John and his party excommunicate Cyril Memnon and others and it was the Council that suspended first and after excommunicated John and it is the Emperour to whom he appeales William Iohnson Num. 163. Had I been sufficiently informed before I writ this answer you had no other edition of the Council then that of Binius I should easily have framed my citations according to that to save you the labour of turning volums over but how should I know that before you told it me I had reason to suppose that you who are and have been for many years so famous a writer of controversies had the Council ready in all sorts of Editions so that none could fall amisse to you If therefore you please to peruse in the Ed of Paul quintus you shall finde the words cited by me conc Ephes. 1. p. 2. Act. 5. in relatione ad Celestinum where writing of Iohn Bishop of Antioch to Pope Celestine the Fathers reserve or remit him to the judgement of Celestine in the interim had provisionally declared him excoÌ„municate deprived him of sacerdotal power whereby it appears how the Council excomunicated him and not only that but declared him also deprived of sacerdotal power Now seeing they reserve this very sentence to the Popes further censure It is manifest they both prefer his sentence before their own and that the sentence was not only negatively to avoide him or not communicate with him but positively to deprive him of the commuion of the faithful which alwayes argues superiority in power as we have seen above in Acatius and tooke the
in Councils that presided did govern them Mr. Baxter Num. 260. We must have new Grammars and Dictionaries to understand your translations Who ever said before you that praeesse signifies to go before I was alwayes taught and I think you too or you had a Sir Iohn lack-Latin for your Master that esse signifies to be and not to go and so praeesse is to be before or above another and not to go before them A servant may go before his Lady to usher her can it therefore be said praeest Dominae a horse goes before the Cart can you therefore say praeest currui We read Gen. 1. v. 16. that God made the Sun ut praeesset diâ—â—i would you translate that it might go before the day and v. 26. he gave power to man ut praeesset piscibus maris volucribus caeli c. will you translate that he might go before the beasts of the Earth and the birds of the Air and the 1. Tim. 3.5 si quis quis autem Domui suae praeesse nescit if any know not how to go before his family c. But to be more serious I challenge you to give me any one instance where praeesse signifies not to govern others as I translate it either in Scripture or antiquity Indeed Sir you are a worse Critick then you are a Controvertist I say not therefore 't is you who mistake it that to go before must be to govern but that praeesse aliis to govern them which all the world sayes with me Whence also that if Aurelius in quality of Primate in Africa did praeesse conciliis he also governed them as did anciently the Primate of England the Councils in England Mr. Baxter Num. 261. It was but benevolentiam praetulisse that they acknowledged and that the Magistrates not only presided indeed but did the work of Iudges and Governours is expresse in the Acts it s after wrote in that Epistle Haec sunt quae tecum qui spiritu praesens eras complacere tanquam fratribus deliberasti qui pene per tuorum vicariorum sapientiam videbaris à nobis effecimus William Iohnson Num. 261. Will you venture to Criticize again after your late foyle know you not that the Greek language is ful of courteous and friendly expressions it was indeed Leo's good will to send his Legates with their instructions to them but was it therefore no act of power and authority is it not benevolentia Principis to confer new honours upon his well deserving subjects seems it not therefore to be an act of Royal power over them who denies the Magistrates did the work of Judges but still in their kind and within their Sphere to see good order justice and peace observed amongst the Bishops But prove if you can they ever as Judges gave their suffrages and votes together with the Bishops in definitions of faith or framing Ecclesiastical decrees Mr. Baxter Num. 262. And haec à tua sanctitate fuerunt inthoata and yet qui enim locum vestrae sanctitatis obtinent iis ita constitutis vehementer resistere tentaverunt from all which it appeareth that he only is acknowledged to lead the way and to please them as his brethren and to help them by the wisdom of his substitutes yet that the Council would not yeild to their vehement resistance of one particular William Iohnson Num. 262. These consequences I understand as little as I do your translations I beseech you in your next draw something against my assertion from them Mr. Baxter Num. 263. But I have told you oft enough that the Council shall be judge not in a complemental Epistle but in Can. 28. where your Primacy is acknowledged but 1. as a gift of the Fathers 2. And therefore as new 3. For the Cities dignity 4. And it can be of no farther extent then the Empire the givers and this Council being but the members of that one Common-wealth so that all is but a novel Imperial Primacy William Iohnson Num. 263. This is already answered in part and shall be more fully when we come to it Mr. Baxter Num. 264. And for the words of Vincentius Lyrinensis c. 9. what are they to your purpose quantum loci authoritate signifieth no more then we confess viz. that in those times the greatness of Rome and humane ordination thereupon had given them that precedency by which their loci authoritate had the advantage of any other Seat Or else they had never swelled to their impious usurpation William Iohnson Num. 264. I see here you are as skilful in Chronologie as you are in Criticismes know you not that Vincentius speaks of St. Stephen Pope and Martyr who sate in the year 258. till 260. in whose time the temporal greatness of Rome served for nothing but to render its Bishops objects of tyranny and subjects of torments nor was there then any humane ordination at all either from general Councils or Christian Emperours from whom only you derive it for it was many years before them both which notwithstanding this ancient Catholique author sayes that even then in those purest times the Roman Bishop surpassed all other Bishops loci authoritate not in precedency only but in authority of his place Now I hope you will tell us in your next who if not our Saviour gave that Soveraign authority to the Bishop of Rome in those dayes Should one say the Lord Mayor of London surpasses all those of the City in the authority of his place signifies no more then that in publique meetings he is to take place of all the other Aldermen c. without any governing power over them would any rational man think he speaks sense Mr. Baxter Num. 264. I have plainly proved to you in the end of my safe Religion that Vincentius was no Papist William Iohnson Num. 265. I am subject to believe your proofs there wil be much like those which I lately examined in your Key The question is not now of what Religion Vincentius was but whether in this place he gave an unanswerable testimony of the Popes Supremacy I am sure the answer you have given to it is fallacious not distinguishing the time wherein Vincentius writ from the time whereof he writes in that Chapter and it is no less untrue and inconsistent in it self your constituting humane ordination for the Popes authority when there was none Mr. Baxter Num. 266. But you draw an argument from the word sanxit as if you were ignorant that bigger words then that are applyed to them that have no governing power Quantum in se sanxit he charged them that they should not innovate And what is it P. Stephen that is the Law-giver of the Law against unjust innovation did not Cyprian believe that this was a Law of Christ before Stephen medled in that business what Stephen's authority was in those dayes we need no other witnesses then Firmilian Cyprian and a Council of Carthage who slighted the Pope as
reason why that was subject rather then all the rest I convince by that the subjection of all now it is evident that both the Churches of Spain and France Brittaine and Ireland of France and Germany even when divided from the Roman Empire were as subject to the sea of Rome as were those which remain'd united to the Empire And the ancient historians writing upon the Council of Nice affirm as I have observed that the Bishops of all the Churches in Europe Affrica Theod. l. 1. c. 7. Mar. Victor advers Arium l. 1. Euseb. l. 3. de vita Const. c. 7. Socrat. l. 1. cap. 5. and Asia were call'd to it and consequently from all the Countries excepted by you save India if you account that in America now if they all were call'd to the Council of Nice there must have bin some who had authoritie to call or summon them that was not the Emperour for he had no power out of the Empire ergo it must have been some spiritual power over them but none can be thought with any probability to have that power save the Patriarks and those were all resident within the Empire ergo some spiritual Governour within the Empire had power out of the Empire if so then he who is now suppos'd to have precedency before all the rest is the most likely to have had that power or the others at least who were under his power 42. But to shew unanswerably the universal power of the Roman Bishop as he is successor of St. Peter over the whole Church first the most ancient Fathers of the 4. first ages deferr'd to St. Peter the care and power over the whole Church even over the Apostles themselves Thus in the first age St. Clements (a) Epist. 1. stiles St. Peter the first or chief of the Apostles (b) Epist. ad Rom. St. Ignatius that the Roman Church preceded or was the chief without any limitation to the Empire (c) De divino no. post medium St. Denis calls St. Peter the supream and most ancient summitie of the Divines 43. In the second age (d) In orat de consummatione mundi St. Hippolitus calls St. Peter the rock of faith the Doctor of the Church and the chief or first of Christs disciples (e) Hom. 5. in Exod. lib. 5. in Iohan. hom 17. in Lucam in ep ad Rom. Origen that he is the Rock upon which the Church is built and the first of the Apostles and that Christ had delivered unto him the supream charge in feeding his sheep (f) De veritate Eccles ep 55. ad Corn. ep 7. ad Ianuar. ep 52. ad AntonianuÌ„ St. Cyprian that St. Peter received the charge of feeding Christs sheep that the Church was built upon him that the primacy was given to Peter ut una Christi Ecclesia Cathedra una constitueretur (g) hom de resurrectione St. Eusebius of Alexandria that the Church was built upon the faith of Peter (h) In Chronicis an 44. lib. 2. histori Eusebius Cesariensis intitles St. Peter the first Bishop of the Christians and that the providence of God had made Peter Prince of the Apostles And to (i) Lib. 2. hist. Eccle c. 24. shew even in time of the Heathen Emperours this supream Authority of the Roman Bishop was so notorious in the world that it was known even to them he relates that there being strife in Antioch who of the Pretendents to that Bishoprick had right to possess the Bishops house that it should be deliver'd to him whom the Christians of Italy and the Roman Bishop decreed it was to be given The Nicen Council in the 39. Canon according to the Chaldaick Edition sent into Portugal an 1605. the 11 of November from Franciscus Ross Bishop of Angomala in the Mountains of St. Thomas sayes thus Ita ille cujus principatus Romae est Petro similis authoritate par Patriarcharum omnium dominatum Principatum obtinet Huic sanctioni siquis repugnaverit obsistere ausus fuerit totius Synodi decreto anathemati subjicitur So he whose principality is at Rome like to Peter and equal to him in authority hath the dominion and principality over all the Patriarchs whosoever repugnes against this Decree and shall dare to resist it shall be excommunicated by the decree of the whole Council St. Athanasius calls Marcus Bishop of Rome (k) Ep. ad Marcum the Bishop of the universal Church and after calls the Church of Rome the mother and head of all Churches and promises obedience to it and stiles it the Apostle-ship and in another Epistle (l) Ep. nomine Episc. Aegyp Thebaidis Libiae ad Filicem papam affirmes that their predecessors had ever receiv'd help from the Roman Sea nay even ordinations points of doctrine and redresses That they had recourse to that sea as to their mother they confess they were committed to him and a little after they profess they would not presume without acquainting the Bishop of Rome to conclude any thing the Ecclesiastical Canons commanding that in causes of high concern Majoribus causis that is causes betwixt Bishops about heresie or belonging to the whole Church they should determine nothing without the Roman Bishop and our Lord hath commanded the Bishops of Rome who are placed in the very top of greatness to have the care of all Churches and that the judgement of all Bishops is committed to the Bishop of Rome and that it is decreed in the Council of Nicâ—â— that without the Roman Bishop neither Councils were to be celebrated nor Bishops condemned that the Roman sea was established firm and moveable by Christ our Saviour St. Hilarius (m) in psal 131. calls St. Peter the foundation of the Church the dore-keeper of the Kingdome of heaven and that judge in the judgement of the earth St. Epiphanius (n) In Anchorato inter initium medium that St. Peter was the first of the Apostles establish'd by our Saviour and the firm rock whereupon the Church of God is built and that God (o) heresi 51. circa medium made choise of St Peter to be the head of his Disciples St. Ambrose (p) In luce 24. post medium that our Saviour left St. Peter as the vicar of his love (q) l. 3. de sacer c. 1. St. Ambrose desir'd in all things to accord with the Roman Church and relates that (r) orat de obit Satiri fratris post medium Satyrus his brother demanded of a certain Bishop to have a tryal of his Faith whether that Bishop were of the same minde with the Catholick Bishops that is to say with the Roman Church St. Optatus (s) l. 2. contr Parmen non longe ab initio Melevitanus writing against Parmenian the Donatist sayes thus Igitur negare non potes scire te in urbe Roma Petro primo Cathed am Episcoâ—â—alem esse collatam in qua sederit omnium
is not directly alledged to prove an universal Monarch as you say but to prove an uninterrupted continuance of visible Pastors that being only affirmed in the proposition which I prove by it 2. This is already answered I stand to the judgement of any true Logician nay or expert Lawyer or rational person whether a Negative proposition be to be proved otherwise then by obliging him who denies it to give an instance to infringe it Should you say no man hath right to my Benefice and Function in my Parish save my self and another should deny what you said would not you or any rational man in your case answer him that by denying your proposition he affirmed that some other had right to them and to make good that affirmation was obliged to produce who that was which till he did you still remained the sole just possessor of your Benefice as before and every one will judge that he had no reason to deny your assertion when he brought no proof against it This is our case The Contradiction which you would draw from this against my Nego Concedo c. exacted from the Respondent and nothing else follows not For that prescription is to be understood that the Respondent of himself without scope given him by the opponent was not to use any other forms in answering but if the opponent should require that the respondent give reasons or instances or proofs of what he denies that then the Respondent is to proceed to them And this is most ordinary in all Logical Disputations where strict form is observed and known to every young Logician Instances therefore demanded by the opponent were not excluded but only such excursions out of form as should proceed from the respondent without being exacted by the opponent You say though I make a Negative of it I may put it in other terms at my pleasure But the question is not what I may do but what I did I required not an Answer to an Argument which I may frame but to that which I had then framed which was expressed in a negative proposition You tell me if I prove the Popes universal Supremacy you will be a Papist And I tell you I have proved it by this very Argument That either He hath that supremacy or some other Church denying that he hath alwaies had it hath been always visible and that Church I require should be named if any such be and whilest you refuse to name that Church as here you do you neither answer the Argument nor become a Papist You say I affirm and I must prove I say in the Proposition about which we now speak I affirm not so must not prove and you by denying it must affirm so must prove You prove it is not your part here to prove because the Popes Supremacy could not be denied before it was affirmed and you must be obliged to prove that deniall I oblige you not to prove a continued visible Church formally and expresly denying it but that it was of such a constitution as was inconsistent with any such supremacy or could and did subsist without it which is an Affirmative You affirm that because I say you cannot be saved if you deny that Supremacy and you say that I may be saved though I hold it therefore you are not bound to prove what I reprove but I to prove my negative proposition But this would prove as well that a Mahumetan is not bound to prove his religion to you but you to prove yours to him because you say he cannot be saved being a Mahumetan and he says that you may be saved being a Christian. See you not that the obligation of proof in Logical form depends not of the first Position or Thesis but must be drawn from the immediate proposition affirmative or negative which is or ought to be proposed To what you say of an Accident and a corrupt part I have already answered To what you say of a Vice-king not being necessary to the constitution of a kingdom but a king and subjects only is true if a vice-king be not instituted by the Full power of an absolute Authority over that kingdom to be an Ingredient into the essence of the Kingdom in the Kings absence But if so constituted it will be essential now my proposition saith and my Argument proves that by the Absolute Authority of Christ Saint Peter and his Successors were instituted Governors in Christs place of his whole visible Church and whatsoever Government Christ institutes of his Church must be essential to his Church You see now the Disparity You insist to have me prove a Negative and I insist to have you prove that Affirmative which you fall into by denying my Negative and leave it to judgement whose exaction is the more conform to reason and Logical form But if I prove not here say you the whole Catholick Churches holding ever the Popes Supremacy you shall take it as a giving up my cause I tell you again that I have proved it by this very Argument by force of Syllogistical form and it is not reasonable to judge that I have given up my cause if I prove not again what I have already proved Your taking upon you the part of an Opponent now is you know out of Season when that is yours mine shall be the Respondent AT length you give a fair attempt to satisfie your Obligation and to return such an Instance as I demanded of you But you are too free by much in your offer I demand one Congregation and you promise to produce more then an hundred But as they abound in the number so are they deficient in the quality which I require I demand that the Answerer nominate any Congregation of Christians which always till this present time since Christ hath been visible c. and you tell me of more then an hundred Congregations besides that which acknowledges Saint Peter c. whereof not any one hath been all that designed time visible which is as if I had demanded an Answerer to nominate any Family of Gentry which hath successively continued ever since William the Conquerour till this present time and he who undertakes to satisfie my demand should nominate more then a hundred Families whereof not so much as one continued half that time You nominate first all these present the Greeks Armenians Ethiopians besides the Protestants These you begin with Now to satisfie my demand you must assert that these whom you first name are both one Congregation and have been visible ever since Christs time This you do not in the pursuit of your Allegations For Numb 2. you nominate none at all but tell me that in the last age there were as many or more What were these as many or more were they the same you nominated first or others I required some determinate Congregation to be nominated all the while and you tell me or as many or more but say not of what
such and the consent of all Orthodox Christians who ever since esteemed them no other or you must make condemned Hereticks parts of the Catholick Church against all antiquity and Christianity And for those Greeks near Constantinople who are not infected with Nestorianism and Eutychianism yet in the Procession of the Holy Ghost against both us and you they must be thought to maintain manifest Heresie it being a point in a fundamental matter of faith the Trinity and the difference betwixt those Greeks and the Western Church now for many hundred of years and in many General Councils esteemed and defined to be reall and great yea so great that the Greeks left the Communion of the Roman Church upon that difference alone and ever esteemed the Bishop of * See Nilus on this Subject Rome and his party to have fallen from the true faith and lost his ancient Authority by that sole pretended error and the Latins always esteemed the Greeks to be in a damnable error in maintaining the contrary to the doctrine of the Western or Roman Church in that particular And yet sure they understood what they held and how far they differed one from another much better then some Novel Writers of yours who prest by force of Argument have no other way left them to maintain a perpetual visibility then by extenuating that difference of Procession betwixt the Greek and Latin Church which so many ages before Protestancy sprung up was esteemed a main fundamental error by both parts caused the Greeks to abandon all subjection and Communion to the Bishops of Rome made them so divided the one from the other that they held each other Hereticks Schismaticks and desertors of the true Faith as they continue still to do to this day and yet you will have them both parts of the Catholick Church But when you have made the best you can of these Greeks Armenians Ethiopians Protestants whom you first name you neither have deduced nor can deduce them successively in all ages till Christ as a different Congregation of Christians from that which holds the Popes Supremacy which was my Proposition For in the year 1500. those who became the first Protestants were not a Congregation different from those who held that supremacy nor in the year 500 were the Greeks a visible Congregation different from it nor in the year 300. were the Nestorians nor in the year 200. the Eutychians a different Congregation from those who held the said Supremacy But in those respective years those who first begun those Heresies were involved within that Congregation which held it as a part of it and assenting therein with it who after in their several ages and beginnings fell off from it as dead branches from the tree that still remaining what it ever was and only continuing in a perpetuall visibility of succession Though therefore you profess never to have seen convincing proof of this in the first 400 years and labour to infringe it in the next ages yet I will make an Essay to give you a taste of those innumerable proofs of this visible consent in the Bishop of Romes Supremacy not of Order only but of Power Authority and jurisdiction over all other Bishops in the ensuing instances which happened within the first 400 or 500 or 600 years (a) Liberatus in Brev. c. 16. Iohn Bishop of Antioch makes an Appeal to Pope Simplicius And Flavianus (b) Epist. praeambula Concil Chalcedon Bishop of Constantinople being deposed in the false Council of Ephesus immediatly appeals to the Pope as to his judge (c) Concil Chalcedon Act. 1. Theodoret was by Pope Leo restored and that by an (d) Concil Chalcedon Act. 8. appeal unto a just judgement (e) S. Cyprian Epist. 67. Saint Cyprian desires Pope Stephen to depose Marcian Bishop of Arles that another might be substituted in his place And to evince the supream Authority of the Bishops of Rome it is determined in the (f) Concil Sard. cap. 4 cited by S. Athan. Apol. 2. page 753. Council of Sardis That no Bishop deposed by other neighbouring Bishops pretending to be heard again was to have any successor appointed untill the case were defined by the Pope Eustathius (g) St. Basil Epist. 74. Bishop of Sebast in Armenia was restored by Pope Liberius his Letters read and received in the Council of Tyana and (h) St. Chrysost. Epist. 2. ad Innocent Saint Chrysostome expresly desires Pope Innocent not to punish his Adversaries if they do repent Which evinces that Saint Chrysostome thought that the Pope had power to punish them And the like is written to the Pope by the (i) Concil Ephes. p. 2. Act. 5. Council of Ephesus in the case of Iohn Bishop of Antioch (k) St. Athanas. ad Solit. Epist. Iulius in lit ad Arian ap Athan. Apol. 1. pag. 753. Theodoret lib. 2. cap. 4. Athanas. Apol. 2. Zozom lib. 3. cap. 7. The Bishops of the Greek or Eastern Church who sided with Arius before they declared themselves to be Arians sent their Legates to Iulius Bishop of Rome to have their cause heard before him against S. Athanasius the same did S. Athanasius to defend himself against them which Arian Bishops having understood from Iulius that their Accusations against S. Athanasius upon due examination of both parties were found groundless and false required rather fraudulently then seriously to have a fuller Tryal before a General Council at Rome which to take away all shew of excuse from them Pope Iulius assembled Saint Athanasius was summoned by the Pope to appear before him and the * The Appeal of Theodoret from that Council as to his judge is so undeniable that Chamier is forced to acknowledge it Tom. 2. l. 13. â—â— 9. p. 498 and the whole Council of Calcedon acknowledged the right of that Appeal restoring Theodoret to his Bishoprick by force of an Order given upon that Appeal by Leo Pope to restore him Concerning Saint Athanasius being judged and righted by Iulius Pope Chamier cit p. 497. acknowledges the matter of fact to be so but against all antiquity pretends that judgment to have been unjust Which had it been so yet it shews a true power of judging in the Pope though then unduly executed otherwise Saint Athanasius would never have made use of it neither can it be condemned of injustice unless Saint Athanasius be also condemned as unjust in consenting to it Nicâ—â—ph lib. 13. cap. 34. Chamier cit p. 498. says other Bishops restored those who were wrongfully deposed as well as the Pope Which though it were so yet never was there any single Bishop sâ—â—ve the Pope who restored any who were out of their respective Diocess or Patriarchates but always collected together in a Synod by common voice and that in regard only of their neighbouring Bishops whereas the Bishop of Rome by his sole and single authority restored Bishops wrongfully deposed all the Church ever Council in Judgement
Church be true or false that 's stated in the Argument but whether it be in a matter Accidental or Essential Now I affirm that nothing which Christ hath Instituted to be ever in the Church is Accidental to the Church for every Accident is separable from the Subject without destroying the Subject whose Accident it is But what Christ ha's Instituted to be ever in his Church is inseparable from it Mat. 19.6 for Quae Deus conjunxit homo non separet Those things which God hath conjoyned man must not separate In the mean time you fairly acknowledge your instances were not home to the present purpose because not in matters Instituted to be perpetual by one of that Authority whose Institution no man can change and consequently not necessary to be ever in those Nations or Commonwealths to whom you ascribe them Baxter Num. 17. For 1. The holding it alwayes done and that of Christs Institution may be either an Accident or but of the Integrity and ad bene esse yea possibly an errour Iohnson Num. 17. If of the Integrity then not Accidental for no Integral part is an Accident to the whole So you yield up your cause and acknowledge your errourâ—â— and 't is laudable in you The question is not what you might have done but what you did your instances given fell short and were plainly fallacious I have already shew'd that nothing can be an Accident to the Church which Christ hath instituted to be ever that is perpetually in the Church and consequently the Churches holding any thing to be so if true is Essential to the Subsistance 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 Baxter Num. 18. And I might as easily have given you instances of that kind Iohnson Num. 18. Had you more fully reflected upon your Adversaries words you might have done many things more pertinently then you have done them but here again you acknowledge your error in alledging instances which were not to the purpose But your Readers and I should have been much more satisfied had you amended what you acknowledge to be a fault and brought at least in this your last Reply those instances which you say here you might have given then Be sure therefore in your next to produce instances of Accidentals in such things as Christ hath instituted to be ever in his Church whereby it may appear that this Roman acknowledgment whether true or false is accidental to the true Church So that the acknowledgment of it by all those to whom it is sufficiently propounded is necessary to make them parts of the true Church and the denial of it when so propounded hinders them from being parts of it Baxter Num. 19. To your third Syllogism I reply 1. When you say your Church had Pastors Fallacy 5. as you must speak of what existed and universals exist not of themselves so it is necessary that I tell you how far I grant your Minor and how far I deny it Iohnson Num. 19. What though universalls exist not of themselves may not therefore a Logician expresse things which have existed in an abstract or universal term Is not this a true Logical Proposition Ever since Adam there have been parents and children in the world though the terms abstract from lawful and unlawful from male or female children would you carp at this Proposition as you do here at mine because universalls exist not of themselves or go about to distinguish different sorts of children or parents as you do Pastors here to find out the true meaning of that Proposition No man sayes or need to say in such Enunciations that universalls exist but expresses particulars which have existed by abstract and universall terms Baxter Num. 20. My Argument from the Indians and others is not solved by you For 1. You can never prove that the Pope was preached to the Iberians by the captive maid Fallacy 6. nor to the Indians by Frumentius 2. Thousands were made Christians and Baptized by the Apostles Three non-proofs without any preaching or profession of a Papacie Acts 2. pasâ—â—im 3. The Indians now converted in America by the English and Dutch hear nothing of the Pope nor thousands in Ethiopia 3. Your own doe or may baptize many without their owning the Pope who yet would be Christians And a Pastor not known or beleeved or owned is actually no Pastor to them Iohnson Num. 20. To all these Instances I answer They conclude nothing against my Assertion for 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 beleeve it implicitely in subjecting themselves to all those whom Christ hath instituted to be their lawfull Pastors and when the Bishop of Rome is sufficiently proposed to them to be the supream visible Pastor of of those Pastors upon earth that then they obstinately reject not his authority To your first instance of the Captive maid and Saint Frumentius I answer we can prove as much at least that to have been preacht to them as you can prove either Justification by Faith only or any other particular point of your doctrine to have been preacht to them And both of us must say that all important Christian Truths both for particular persons and Churches were delivered to those people and till you have evinced this of Supremacy to have been none of those it is to be supposed it was sufficiently declared to those Nations At least in explicating the Article of the Catholike Church to them they must be supposed to have told them it consisted of Pastors and people united and that the people were to obey all their lawful Pastors in which doctrine the Pope is implicitely included To your second from Acts 2. The Scripture relates not there all that S. Peter said but affirmeth vers 40. that he gave testimony to them in many other words And who can tell whether amongst the rest that of his Supremacy might not have been sufficiently intimated to them However it appears by the Text vers 37. that the people addrest themselves first and in particular to S. Peter before all the rest of the Apostles as the prime amongst them and he who first preacht the Gospel to them Prove the English and Dutch Convertites converted by Protestants if you mean those as you must do if your argument have any force to be instructed in the true Faith and then your Instance will have some force prove those of Ethiopia to be Orthodox and Catholick Christians To what purpose produce you instances which are assoon denied as they are proposed Your last touches only particular persons which I have shewed are not obliged to know this expresly to be of the Church the Pope is their true pastor and so
it in your Edition p. 35. But why do you refer what I admit not I say not that every Opponent may come to a Negative at his pleasure as you make me say but when that Negative is deduced by force of Syllogistical form and denied by the Respondent in a matter proveable by instances as this is I affirm and desire it should be sent to both our Learned Universities that he who denies the universal Negative is obliged in Logical process to give some instance to the contrary and that there is no other means to prove that Negative but by infringing the instances which the Respondent produces against it For if the Opponent go to prove his universal negative by Induction viz. in my present Minor But no Congregation of Christians hath been alwayes visible save those which acknowledge St. Peter c. he must come at last to this Such a Congregation is neither that of the Arrians nor of the Eutychians nor of Nestorians nor any other Congregation that can be named Then if the Respondent deny that Proposition and affirm there is some nameable he is obliged to tell which it is otherwise it is impossible to make progress in the Argument which way of arguing notwithstanding is most Logical and usually practised amongst Learned Disputants Baxter Num. 25. We are all agreed that Christianity is the true Religion and Christ the Churches universal Head and the Holy Scriptures the Word of God Papists tell us of another Head and Rule the Pope and Tradition and Iudgement of the Church Protestants deny these Additionals and hold to Christianity and Scripture onely our Religion being nothing but Christianity we have no controversie about their Papal Religion superadded is that which is controverted They affirm 1. the Right 2. the Antiquity of it We deny both The Right we disprove from Scripture though it belongs to them to prove it The Antiquity is it that is now to be referred Protestancy being the denial of Popery it is we that really have the Negative and the Papists that have the Affirmative The Essence of our Church which is Christian is confessed to have been successively visible But we deny that theirs as Papal hath been so and now they tell us that it is Essential to ours to deny the Succession of theirs and therefore require us to prove a Succession of ours as one that still hath denied theirs Now we leave our Case to the Lawyers seeing to them you make your Appeal 1. Whether the Substance of all our Cause lie not in this question Whether the Papacy or universal Government by the Pope be of Heaven or of Men Fallacy 8. and so Whether it hath been from the beginning which we deny and therefore are called Protestants and they affirm and are therefore called Papists 2. If they cannot first prove a Successive visibility of their Papacy and Papal Church then what Law can bind us to prove that it was denied before it did arise in the world or ever any pleaded for it 3. And as to the point of Possession I know not what can be pretended on your side 1. The possession of this or that particular Parish Church or Tythes is not the thing in question but the universal Headship is the thing But if it were yet it is I that am yet here in Possession and Protestants before me for many Ages Successively And when possessed you the Head-ship of the Ethiopian Indian and other Extra-Imperial Churches never to this day No nor of the Eastern Churches though you had Communion with them 2. If the question be who hath possession of the universal Church we pretend not to it but onely to a part and the soundest safest part 3. The Case of Possession therefore is Whether we have not been longer in Possession of our Religion which is bare Christianity then you of your super-added Popery Our Possession is not denied of Christianity yours of Popery we deny and our denial makes us called Protestants Let therefore the reason of Logicians Lawyers or any rational sober man determine the case whether it do not first and principally belong to you to prove the visible Succession of a Vice-Christ over the universal Church Iohnson Num. 25. Fair and softly Sir you are run quite out of the field and have lost your self I know not where The present question is not who is to prove the universal and perpetual Supremacy of the Roman-Bishop See you not that I have already undertaken the proof of that in this present Argument The question at present is nothing but this when I have brought the Argument to this Head that no other Congregation of Christians can be named perpetually visible save that which acknowledges the Roman Supremacy and you deny that negative Proposition of mine whether you be not obliged upon that denial to name some Congregation which has been perpetually visible beside it This and this onely is that which I referr'd and still refer to the the judgement of the Learned as to your Case when it comes in season it shall be resolved This onely ex abundanti for the present whatsoever may be or not be of the Indians and Ethiopians c. which shall hereafter be examined You who confess the Pope to have been constituted Part 2. at least by the Churches grant Patriarch of the West and thereby to have acquired a lawfull Supremacy over the Western Churches and consequently over that of England and was in full and quiet possession of that Right when your first Protestants began to reject it you I say cannot deny those first Protestants at least to have been obliged by reason of that possession to bring convincing proofs that it was unlawfull which notwithstanding you must hold impossible to be done because you hold that Patriarchal power over them to have been lawfull Now what obligation falls upon you as maintaining successively so wrongfull a cause I leave to your consciences to determine Nay it is most evident in time of the first breach with the Roman Bishop he was in as quiet possession of Supremacy over the English Church in quality of Supreme visible Pastor over the whole Church as he was in quality of the Western Patriarch for the English obeyed him as Supreme over all and not as Patriarch of the West onely as appears by thousands of testimonies extant in our National Councils Doctors Bishops Historians Records Decrees c. Therefore those who dispossest him of that possession were bound either to have demonstrated it undeniably to be unlawfull or to have procured a definitive Sentence against him by such as had full Authority to judge him that his possession was unjust neither of which either hath been done nor can ever be done Baxter Num. 26 As to your contradictory impositions I reply 1. Your exception was not exprest and your imposition was peremptory Iohnson Num. 26. But I supposed my Adversaries to be Logicians and stood not in need to be instructed
31. To what I say of an Accident and a corrupt part you say you have answered and do but say so having said nothing to it that is considerable Iohnson Num. 31. Let the Reader judge that by what hath been said on both parts Baxter Num. 32 Me thinks you that make Christ to be corporally present in every Church in the Eucharist should not say Fallacy 8. That the King of the Church is absent Iohnson Num. 32. Why dally you thus to amuse your Reader you know we we dispute now of a proper visible presence Such as is not that in the Eucharist Baxter Num. 33. But when you have proved 1. That Christ is so absent from his Church that there 's need of a Deputy to Essentiate his Kingdom and 2. That the Pope is so deputed you will have done more then is yet done for your cause Iohnson Num. 33. I have proved that Christ instituted S. Peter and his Successors to govern visibly his whole Universal Church on earth in all ages and that nothing so instituted is accidental to his Church and you have not yet given any instance to infringe it so that my proof stands in full force against you till it be answered I presse you therefore once more to give an instance of something which has been ever in the visible Church by Christs Institution and yet is accidental to his Church Baxter Num. 34. And yet let me tell you that in the absence of a King it is only the King and Subjects that are Essential to the Kingdome the Deputy is but an Officer and not essential Iohnson Num. 34. 'T is so indeed de facto but suppose as I do that a Vice-King be by full Authority made an Ingredient into the Essence of the Kingdome See my words Baxter p. 38. then sure he must be essential 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 I wonder you look no deeper then to the Superficies nor consider what inconveniences follow against your self by your replies for what true Christian ever yet denied that either Bishops or Presbyters or both though they are all Christs Officers and Deputies are essential to Christs visible Church Baxter Fallacy 6. The word ever left out the thiâ—â—d time Num. 35. Your naked Assertion That whatsoever Government Christ instituteth of his Church must be essential to his Church is no proof nor like the task of an Opponent Iohnson Num. 35. My Assertion is of force till you produce some instance of perpetual Church Government instituted by our Saviour which is not Essential to his Church which you neither have done nor can you do it And certainly when any Common-wealth is instituted in such a determinate kind of perpetual Government by one of so eminent Authority that no other hath power to change that Institution as it passes in our case the government which he instituted is not accidental to that Common-wealth so far that it will be no longer the Common-wealth instituted by him when the Government is changed Baxter Num. 36. The Government of Inferiour Officers is not Essential to the Vniversal Church no more then Iudges and Iustices to a Kingdom Iohnson Num. 36. Your Assertion is not true for Iudges and Iustices may be changed into other Officers by the Supream authority whereas none have power to change the Officers which Christ hath instituted to be perpetual in his Church Again even in Common-wealths and Kingdoms though these determinate Officers are not essential to them yet it is essential to have some inferiour Officers seeing it is impossible that the Supream Magistâ—â—ate should govern the whole Common-wealth immediatly by himself Baxter Num. 37. And yet we must wait long before you will prove that Peter and the Pope of Rome are in Christs place as Governours of the Universal Church Iohnson Num. 37. I have proved it and my proof is good till it be convinced that you have answered my Argument Governours they are but under Christ and no farther then to a visible government of the universal Militant Church Baxter Num. 38. Sir I desire open dealing as between men that beleeve these matters are of eternal consequence I watch not for any advantage against you Though it be your part to prove the Affirmative yet I have begun the proof of our Negative but it was on supposition that you will equally now prove your Affirmative better then you have here done I proved a visible Church successively that held not the Popes Vniversal Government Do you now prove That the Universal Church in all ages did hold the Popes Universal Government which is your part or I must say again I shall think you do but run away and give up your cause as unable to defend it I have not failed you do not you fail me Iohnson Num. 38. Sir All that I contend is that my Argument sent to you and the Answer to it promised and assayed by you be respectively accomplished by us both when that is done I shall refuse no reasonable Propositions and shall endeavour to give you all possible satisfaction But give me leave to tell you till that be done I shall take it for an Effugium from you and and so I think will all rational men to set upon a new work before the old be finisht For by this means we shall bring nothing to an Issue but still flit superficially from one difficulty to another without bringing any thing to a period and thereby both lose our time and credit Let us first follow this close and when we are come to an end we shall be ready to begin another It is not for the present the proof of the perpetual visibility of your Protestant Church in particular which is aimed at for answer to my Argument Be it that or any other Independent of the Bishop of Romes authority 't is all one for solution of the Argument The force of my discourse consists in this No Congregation of Christians has been perpetually visible save that which acknowledges the Popes Supremacy Ergo No Congregation of Christians is Christs true Church save that Now this Argument presses all Congregations of Christians whether Ancient or Modern not acknowledging that Supremacy as much as Protestants and if any of them can be proved to be perpetually visible the Argument is solv'd So that the Argument is not directed particularly against Protestants but as well against Grecian Schismaticks Eutychians Nestorians Montanists c. as against them and had it fallen into their hands as it did into yours the proving their visibility though yours had not been proved would have given satisfaction nay if you had shewed the perpetual visibility of any others as you have assayed to do of yours you had given an equal satisfaction to the Argument But seeing you have pitcht upon the visibility of your Protestant
First General Councils An obscure Authority obscurely cited from Bishop Usher n. 5â—â— 58. He draws an Argument for no-subjection due to the Pope from the disobedient Acts of Schismaticks and Hereticks against him n. 60. The 28. Canon of Chalcedon though admitted proves not Mr. Baxter's Assertion ibidem What is meant by the Merits of S. Peter when they are alledged by Ancient Fathers as the prime Ground of the Popes Supremacy Baxter Num. 47. You ask were they different Congregations Answ. As united in Christ they were one Church but as assembling at one time or in one place or under the same guide so they were not one but divers Congregations Iohnson Num. 47. You answer not the question for they might be in different places and times and under several guides and yet be one and the same Congregation as appears in the succession and extension of the Catholick Church The question I demanded is this were they all united in the profession of one and the same Faith and unity of External Communion without these two it is impossible to be united in Christ as I shall prove hereafter Baxter Num. 48. That there were any Papists of 400. years after Christ do yo prove if you are able My Conclusion that all have been against you for many hundred years must stand good till on prove that some were for you Yet I have herewith proved that there were none at least that could deserve the name of the Church Iohnson Num. 48. I have proved there were some in citing the Orat on of the Legates from Pope Celestine in the first Ephesine Council who you grant were for us and if they were for us then all were not against us for so many hundred years See Baxt. p. 23. for you speak there of the first 400. years Now though that Council was celebrated in the year 430. yet both that in a moral consideration passes for 400. and those Legates witnessing what they said to have alwayes been known to every one notum omnibus c. give an Authentical Testimony that it was alwayes acknowledged as a Christian Truth in and through the Church and consequently within the first 400. years No nor was the Council of Ephesus nor any part of it then against us For if they had they would have at least some of them contradicted that which they had in your supposition esteemed so manifest an untruth and contrary to the liberty and jurisdiction of all other Bishops and Churches as imposing upon them a Superiour and Judge who had no lawfull Authority over them Baxter Num. 49. Do you think to satisfie any reasonable man by calling for positive proof from Authors of such Negatives Iohnson Num. 49. I demand no proof of a Negative prove I demand it My demand is to shew any one Congregation of Christians always visible since Christ till now See Baxt. p. 5. beâ—â—de that which acknowledged the Popes Supremacy which is an Affirmative Baxter Num. 50. Yet proof you shall not want such as the nature of the point requireth viz. That the said Churches of Ethiopia India the outer Armenia and other Extra-Imperial Nations were not under the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome Iohnson Num. 50. I suppose you mean by were not under c. were never under the Bishop of Rome otherwise your instance proves nothing for if they were under him in any age and for any time since Christ you can never make them to be an instance of those who were perpetually in all Ages a visible Congregation of Christians not acknowledging the Popes Supremacy for in that Age wherein they were subject to him they did acknowledge it Baxter Num. 51. You find all these Churches or most of them at this day that remain from under your Iurisdiction and you cannot tell when or how they turned from you If you could it had been done Iohnson Num. 51. I neither find it nor can find it till you tell me which were these Extra-Imperial Churches you mean when you say other Extra-Imperial Nations Mean you all other or some other If all I find the quite contrary For the Goths successively inhabitants of Spain never acknowledged themselves Subjects to the Empire who notwithstanding are now subject to the Roman Bishop and consequently were and are for some time under him And the Suedes and Danes which pretend to proceed from the Goths Vandals c. though now they reject all obedience to him yet in the year 1500. they all acknowledged themselves to be his Subjects in Spirituals and that for many hundred of years together Well then I find not all Extra-Imperial Churches from under the Popes Jurisdiction and some who are I can and do find when and how they turned from him It was about the year 1520. by occasion of the Lutheran Heresie as all the world knows If you mean onely some of those other Extra-Imperial Churches when you have told me which are those some you shall have an Answer In the interim give me leave to tell you that to maintain your Novelty you must shew all Extra-Imperial to have been exempt for if any one were not all might have been subject nay were to have been so à paritate rationis As to the Indians they were not alwayes Extra-Imperial For in the year 163. they subjected themselves to the Roman Emperour Antoninus Pius Euseb. in Chronic Anno 22. Anton. Eutrop. lib. 8. Evagr. Id. c. 7. The Armenians that were Christians were not alwayes Extra-Imperial For in the year 572. being grievously persecuted for the Christian Faith by the Persians they rendred themselves Subjects to the Roman Emperour Nor were they always a separate Congregation from those who acknowledged the Spiritual Soveraignty of the Roman Bishop â—â—n Flor. in literis unionis de Armenorum concordia Vide Plat. Naucler Volaterranum Chalcond Emilium Onuphrium Genebrard de Concilio Flor. See Iovius Gen. Maseus Iâ—â—rriâ—â— in anno 1524. For in the year 1145. they and the Indian Christians subjected themselves to him and again Anno 1439. and so remain for the present Nor were the Ethiopians in all ages a different Congregation from the Romane For Anno 1524. the Emperour and High Priest David promised obedience to the Sea Apostolick And Claudius his Successor did the like Anno 1557. Now let us review the force of your instances You undertook to shew in Answer to my Minor some visible Congregation beside that which acknowledges the Popes Supreme power in all Ages since Christ. To prove this you nominate onely the Indians Ethiopians Armenians Now no one of these Three have been in all Ages a visible Congregation beside that of Rome for each of them at one time or other became the same Congregation to that by subjecting and conforming themselves to and with the Bishop of Rome as I have proved You assert that these Three are and ever were Extra-Imperial Nations and upon that score in your principles independent of the Roman Bishop
declared the second Patriarchate by the Decree of the Nicene Council because it was the second Seat in the Empire and Antioch which was the third was likewise appointed to be the third Patriarchate and other eminent Cities according to their greatness and precedency in the Empire had the dignity of Primacy and Metropolitane Seas for by this means Church-government was more sweetly and peaceably instituted and maintained both to the satisfaction of the Cities themselves of the temporal Governours and of spiritual Pastors It was say you not the Dignity and Authority of St. Peter Nâ—â—w Sâ—â—ct but the Merits of Vertue and Sanctity which was alledged in hâ—â—se and â—â—hâ—â— like Texts as ground of the Supereminency of his Sea aâ—â— Rome for still they press meritis Beati Petri by the merits of St. Peter I am glad to hear you against your own Tenets acknowledge merits of Saints to haâ—â—e been delivered by the Authority of so great a stream of Antiquity in these purer Ages but it seems withal you were sore press'd for an Answer when you could find no other but what is so disadvantageous to your Cause And that which is yet worse it cannot serve your turn neither For if those Ancients mean't by merita B. Petri the merits of his Sanctity and grounded the Primacy of his Sea in them it must have been undoubtedly known to them that St. Peter was a greater Saint and of a life more meritorious then either S. Paul or S. Iohn Evangelist or S. Andrew or any of the other Apostles of which none of these had any certainty at all much less was it a thing received in the Church that S. Peter had a higher degree of Sanctity then any of his fellow-Apostles prove there was any such perswasion Nay it would probably have been esteemed a temerity a very great curiosity to have preferr'd the sanctity of any one amongst them before all the rest But I wonder much you observed not the manner of speaking of those holy Fathers and grave Authors who give it clearly enough to be understood what Merits they meant For had they been of your opinion they should have added by way of explication Meritis Beati Petri qui sanctissimus erat inter omnes Apostolos by the Merits of S. Peter who was the holiest amongst all the Apostles But to shew they understood not that but the Merits of Dignity and Authority they usually add this clause Meritis Beati Petri qui Princeps est omnium Apostolorum by the Merits of S. Peter who is the Prince of all the Apostles which speaks manifestly a merit or worth of Authority And it were very strange to regulate the Authority of Episcopal Seas by the personal merits of their first Institutors both because that is without an express revelation a thing known to God onely and would occasion a thousand contentions about the precedency of Bishops every one being desirous to esteem the Apostle of his City or Nation the greater Saint and because there never was in Ancient times any such reason given for the precedency of Episcopal or Apostolical Seas if there were shew it nor was any of the other Apostles successors preferred before the rest upon pretence that his merits and sanctity was esteemed greater then that of others Baxter Num. 61. But those Councils gave the Pope no preheminence over the Extra-Imperial Nations Iohnson Num. 61. If he had it before what needed they to give it him or how could they give him what was due to him by Christs Institution But supposing Argumentandi gratiâ not granting that they had had power to confer these priviledges upon S. Peters Sea how do you prove they did not de facto give them to him and thereby gave him power over those Extra-Imperial Nations You prove it thus Baxter Num. 62. For 1. Those Nations being not called to the Council could not be bound by it Iohnson Num. 62. Were they not called sure then they came without calling for there they were For had they not been there 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 Vide Act. Conc. Nicen. et Ephes. How came Phoebamnon Bishop of the Copti to subscribe to the first Council of Ephesus How came that Circular Letter writ by Eusebius Bishop of Caesaria in Palestine 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 if the Bishops of those Churches were not called or the Council had no Authority over them Theod. l. 1. c. 7. Mar. Victor lib. 1. adv Arium Euseb. l. 3. de vitâ—â— Constannin c. 7. Socrat. l. 1. c. 5. Lastly if those Bishops were not called to the Council 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 You will not forget to answer these questions in your next CHAP. IV. ARGUMENT Num. 63. Emperors alone called no General Councils so that Extra-Imperial Bishops must have been called by the Pope Extra-Imperial Churches under the Patriarchs num 65 c. One page and a half of Mr. Baxters Key for Catholicks occasionally examined and what defects are found in them n. 67. Had the Extra-Imperial Churches not acknowledg'd the Popes Iurisdiction over them they had not been of the same kind of Government with those within the Empire n. 68. S. Prosper's and S. Leo's Texts for the Popes Supremacy without the Roman Empire num 69. S. Leo highly injur'd by Mr. Baxter num 71. No full express nomination of all the particular Provinces under Alexandria in the sixth Canon of the Nicene Council n. 71. By Egypt may be understood Ethiopia and other adjacent Countreys num 72. Dr. Heylen and Ross Protestant Authors against Mr. Baxter n. 37. The first of these acknowledges the Arabick Translation of the Nicene Council to be Authentick Baxter Num. 63. The Emperours called and enforced the Councils Non-proof 5. who had no power out of their Empire Iohnson Num. 63. Called they them alone had they not the Authority of the Roman Bishop joyn'd with them or rather presuppos'd to theirs Prove that the Emperours onely called them What if they had no coercive power out of the Empire had they not power to signifie to those Extra-Imperials that a Council was to be celebrated and to invite them at least to it Or if they did not could not the Bishop of Rome or the other Patriarchs under whose Jurisdiction they were respectively notifie to them the celebration of those Councils and require their presence in them You cannot but see this Baxter Num. 64. The Dioceses are described and expresly confined within the verge of the Empire See both the description and full proof in Blondel de Primatu in Ecclesiâ Gall. Iohnson Num. 64. I should much rather have
had the Description from your self then have been thus bobb'd off to Blondel so laxely cited without Page Paragraph Number Chapter or Book as you cite him here so that I must be enforced if I will find it to turn over his whole Treatise a Book in Folio of 1268 Pages Whatsoever therefore is of him with whom I have nothing to do for the present for if I would answer every particular Author of yours whom you cite as wildly as you do this Blondell I might have work enough it is evident that some Extra-Imperial Provinces were under the Ancient Patriarchs And in the first place concerning the Bishop of Rome the 39 Canon of the Nicene Council in the Arabick Edition published by Pisanus which I shall cite more particularly hereafter and prove the Authenticalness of those Canons affirms expresly that the Roman Bishop as being Christ's Vicar has power over all Christian Princes and their people subject to them Tom. 1. Conc. p. 416. and that he as being the Vicar of Christ is over all people and all Christian Churches and Can. 36. declares that the Bishop of Alexandria has Jurisdiction over the Ethiopick Churches And Can. 35. orders that the Bishop of Antioch should have Authority over the Church of Persia which was Extra-Imperial And the Council of Chalcedon Ibid. pag. 4â—â—5 Can. 28 th so much extolled by you gives to the Bishop of Constantinople Authority over the Barbarous Nations near those parts that is such as were Extra-Imperial as that of Russia and Muscovia Baxter Num. 65. The Emperors themselves did sometime giving power to the Councils Acts make Rome the chief and sometime as the Councils did also give Constantinople equal priviledge and sometime set Constantinople highest as I have shewed in my Key pag. 174 175. But the Emperours had no power to do thus with respect to those without the Empire Iohnson Num. 65. I will here give my Reader an assay of the solidity of your proofs heaped confusedly one upon another in your Key You cite in pag. 174 175. Now pag. 174. you translate Pontifex Pope and summus Pontifex chief Pope Sure you never had this Translation from any Grammarian new or old Who ever before you said that Pontifex signifies Pope or what similitude is there betwixt Pontifex and Pope save onely that they both begin with the same Letter When S. Paul saith speaking of our Saviour Habemus Pontificem magnum Hâ—â—b 4.14 would you translate it We have a great Pope Or when he affirms that he is Pontifex secundum ordinem Melchisedec would you English it Hâ—â—b 6.20 He is a Pope according to the order of Melchisedec I alwayes thought that Pontifex or summus Pontifex signified the highest sort of Priests both in the Old Testament and the New but never heard that it signified Pope before But you have some drift in this Baronius say you in Martyrolog Roman April 9. affirms that all Bishops were stiled anciently not onely Pontifices but summi Pontifices that is say you Popes and chief Popes to infringe thereby what some gather as you say viz the Supremacy of the Roman Bishop from this Title of being stiled Summi Pontifices chief Popes say you pag. 173. You should have done well to have told us who those some were and would have done so had you writ like a Scholar But I 'le help you out for once Bellarmin is one of that some you speak of Lib. 2. de Pontif. Roman cap. 31. sect Quartum But Barenius say you affirms that Title to have been attributed anciently to all Bishops that 's true too if you take the Latin words but not in that sense wherein Bellarmin takes Summus Pontifex For Baronius takes it for a chief Priest and Bellarmin for the chiefest or highest Priest not onely in respect of simple Priests who are in a rank below Bishops and in relation to whom Bishops were anciently stiled summi Pontifices such as were in the highest order of Priests but absolutely in respect of all other Bishops in the Church For Bellarmin in proof of this Title cites an Epistle of Pope Stephen where the Bishop of Rome is stiled Summus omnium praesulum Pontifex the highest Bishop of all Prelates or Bishops In the same sense he cites S. Gregory and S. Bernard And lastly the sixth Synod which intitles him Act. 18. in Sermon Acclamatorio Sanctissimum Patrem nostrum summum Papam their most holy Father and most high Pope that is the highest of all Bishops even over the Bishops of that Council And though Baronius cited by you grant the bare words of summus Pontifex as they signifie onely a chief Priest were anciently given to all Bishops yet in his Annals Anno 215 216. num 3. from the Title of Pontifex maximus the greatest or highest Bishop that is summus Pontifex in Bellarmins sense he proves the eminent Authority of the Roman Bishop Now this is worth the noting also that you first take summus Pontifex for the chief Pope in Bellarmins sense and then prove that summus Pontifex as it signifies not the chief Pope but a chief Priest as Baronius takes it is no proof of his universal Authority In your second Paragraph you shew that the Titles Papa Dominus Pater Sanctissimus Beatissimus Dei amantissimus c. were commonly given to all Bishops Who confute you here who ever said these Titles prove his Supremacy The like is of the Church of Rome being called the mother of all Churches Paraph. 3. for the term mother may be understood either in relation to the first origin or fountain of Christanity and in this sense Hierusalem is the mother Church or in regard of authority and government which a mother hath over her children And in this sense the title of mother is attributed to the Roman Church and proves evidently her aâ—â—thority over all Christian Churches But is it not very handsome for you first to affix the title of mother absolutely to the Roman Church and then to infringe that title by saying the Church of Cesarea out of S. Basil is the mother of all Churches in a manner Would you think it a rational answer if one should prove your mother had authority to correct you by vertue of the title of mother Fallacy 10. you should answer that the tiof mother proves nothing for your elder sister was as a mother to you in a manner though she had no authority over you Is not not this a plain Fallacy from simpliciter to secundum quid In your fourth Paragraph you say If the words be consulted where the Roman Church is stiled mater Ecclesiarum mother of all Churches for that 's her title they signifie only priority of dignity that is without authority and jurisdiction over all Churches joyned to that dignity And this you never go about to prove so irrefragable is your authority that your bare word must passe for a proof I wonder you have
the Churches within the Empire as you do but the care of the Universal Church Baxter Num. 69. Yet let me tell you that I will take Pope Leo for no competent Iudge or Witness though you call him a Saint as long as we know what passed between him and the Council of Chalcedon Non-prooâ—â—â—â— and that he was one of the first tumified Bishops of Rome he shall not be Iudge in his own Cause Iohnson Num. 69. Sir I am really mov'd to compassionate you when I see you write in this manner Had it not been enough for you to extenuate the Authority of the Holy Council as you here do but that you must as the Chalcedonian Council sayes of Dioscorus extend your spite against him that is S. Leo to whom our Saviour hath committed the care of the Vineyard to wit his whole Church Who ever before you and those Novellists of your spirit since the time of S. Leo branded him with the black note of a Tumified Pope Was it not this great S. Leo of whom the Council of Chalcedon pronounced that the care of Christ's Vineyard was committed to him by our Saviour Vâ—â—de Concilâ—â—um Calced in literis ad Leonem Was it not he who was stiled by the Ecclesiasticks of those times The Oecumenical Bishop Did not that holy Council call him their Head their Father their Directour and you fear not to call him a Tumified Pope I beseech God to forgive you And what I pray past betwixt him and the Council of Chalcedon which might occasion this rash censure Read his Epistles to the Council and to Anastasâ—â—us Bishop of Thessalonica and you will see it was nothing but the zeal of conserving the Authority of the Nicene Council in the Order and Dignity of Patriarchâ—â— which moved him to withstand that surreptitious Canon for the preferring Constantinople before Alexandria and Antioch to which the Nicene Council had decreed the two first Patriarchates after Rome The Primacy of his Sea was not questioned at all in that Canon for it is there expresly ordained that Constantinople should be the second after Rome Now for you to call him a Tumified Bishop for no other reason given here then for seeking to maintain the Ancient Decrees of Nice against all innovations of subsequent Councils will seem very strange I suppose to all Christian Readers Baxter Num. 70. But you add that the Abassines of Ethiopia were under the Patriarch of Alexandria anciently and he under the Authority of the Roman Bishop Reply 1. Your bare word without proof shall not perswade us that the Abassines were under the Patriarch of Alexandria for above three hundred if not four hundred years after Christ. Prove it and then your words are regardable Iohnson Num. 70. Why say you I speak without proof when I direct you pag. 42. by saying as we shall see presently to my proof of it which is pag. 45. where I prove it from one of your own Historians Baxter Num. 71.2 At the Council of Nice the contrary is manifest by the sixth Canon Mos antiquus perdurat in Egypto vel Lybia vel Pentapoli ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem c. Iohnson Num. 71. Your argument is fallacious and proceeds a parte ad totum The Canon sayes no more then that according to the ancient custome Egypt Lybia Can. Nicen. â—â— 6. and Pentapolis were subject to him which may be most true though more Provinces were under his Jurisdiction then these Should one say that England and Scotland is now subject to our most gracious Soveraign Charles the Second durst you conclude thence that Ireland was not part of his Kingdome Nor was it here the intention of the Council to nominate expresly all the Provinces under Alexandria nor to make a new Constitution but a Decree of Confirming the Ancient Custome about the Jurisdiction of Patriarchs Now seeing Meletius and his Complices had schismatically exercised Jurisdiction in those Provinces the Council to abrogate that intrusion and usurpation had a particular occasion of nominating these three thereby to restore the Ancient Right to the Sea of Alexandria leaving the other parts of that Patriarchate about which there was no controversie to the ancient custome without nomination of particulars as it did in relation to Antioch Socrat. l. 1. c. 6. Theodor. l. 1. c. 9. Conc. Nicen. Can. 6. where none at all are nominated in that Canon because there was no such occasion given of nominating any but leaving that Patriarch to that extent of Jurisdiction over those Provinces and Churches which he was known in those times to have possessed anciently Moreover some of the Learned are of opinion that under the name of Egypt Ethiopia is included And it seems probable that Egypt was a denomination including many other particular Countreys and Provinces in those parts for the Constantinopolitane Council c. 2. citing this 6 th Canon of Nice says that it was decreed in that Canon that the Patriarch of Alexandria should govern onely the affairs of Egypt neither naming Lybia nor Pentapolis which are specified in that Nicene Canon so that Egypt included all the adjacent Countreys in those parts and consequently Ethiopia Baxter Num. 72. And the common descriptions of the Alexandrian Patriarchate in those times confine it to the Empire and leave out Ethiopia Iohnson Num. 72. You should have done well to have cited some Authors one at least in proof of this seeing I had cited one and he of your own who says the contrary Ross. p. 99. infra citaâ—â— When you produce those Descriptions they shall be answered In the Interim I stand to my Assertion as not yet disproved Baxter Num. 73. Pisanus new inventions we regard not Iohnson Num. 73. The question is not what you regard or regard not but what you ought to regard according to right Reason I doubt not but Dr. Heylin hath the esteem of a person as much indued with Learning and Reason as your self who hath so much regard to Pisanus his Edition of the Arabick Canons of the Nicene Council Canon 36. Arab Edit Dr. Heylin Cosmograph lib. 4. pag. 977. Edit ultim that he cites them as Authentical and thereon grounds the subjection of Ethiopia to the Patriarch of Alexandria to have been confirmed in the Council of Nice and continued so ever since Behold Ross and Heylin both your own are against you CHAP. V. The ARGUMENT Num. 74. Proofs from Antiquity that the Bishops of Alexandria were more subject to the Bishops of Rome then are the rest of the Earls of England to the Earl of Arundel or the younger Iustices of the Peace to him who in a Sessions is the Eldest amongst them ibid. Bishops of Rome exercising Spiritual Iurisdiction and Authority over the three first Patriarchs of the East n. 75. No limitatiun to the Roman Empire mentioned in Antiquity in relation to the Popes Authority num 76. If any one Extra-Imperial Church be granted subject
to Romes Authority all others must be so a paritate rationis unless some reason be alledged why that was subject rather then others n. 79. No Emperor could give Authority to Rome over Extra-Imperial Churches n. 80. Primacy and Primate put absolutely in the Ecclesiastical signification argues alwayes Iurisdiction over others No Ancient Authority alledged or alledgeable that the Bishops within the Empire made the Pope chief Bishop even in place or meer precedency before Constantine's time or that the Bishops of the West constituted him by unanimous consent to have Power and Iurisdiction over all the Western Bishops Baxter Num. 74. I deny that the Patriarch of Alexandria was under the Government of the Bishop of Rome any more then the Iury are under the Foreman or the Iunior Iustices on the Bench under the Senior or York under London or the other Earls of England under the Earl of Arundel Iohnson Num. 74. I perceive you are very free in your denials but it had been well done to have considered twice before you deny once a thing so evidently true as this is Was the Patriarch of Alexandria no more under the Bishop of Rome then those which you here nominate one under the other Are you serious Why then did the Christians of Pentapolis write their accusations to Dionysius Bishop of Rome against Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria Anno 263. S. Anthanas de Sentent Dionys. Idem in Com. de Synod Why did the same Pope calling a Council in Italy for that end sit in solemn Judgement upon his Cause and write Monitory Letters to him to send him the Confession and Declaration of his Faith which he did accordingly and justified himself to the Bishop of Rome How came Peter Bishop of Alexandria Anno 337. Socrat. l. 4. c. 30. by vertue of Pope Damasus his Letters to be restored to his Bishoprick Why writ Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria Anno 404. Apud Palladâ—â— Dialog to prevent the writing of S. Chrysostome to Pope Innocentius in his own defence that he might escape the sentence and punishment of the Churches censure which S. Chrysostome required the Pope to inflict upon him and his complices Why did Innocentius the First together with the other Occidental Bishops Anno 407. D. Chrysost. epist ex Septem Tom. 5. operum ejus Extat etiam Tom. 1. epist. Rom. Pont. post Innocâ—â—nt ep 16. Anno 451. excommunicate Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria How came Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria to be deprived from sitting in the Council of Chalcedon and to be presented before the Council as a guilty person by vertue of a Sentence to that effect from S. Leo Bishop of Rome Concil Chalced. Act. 1. Evagr. lib. 2. cap. 4. What was the reason why Timotheus Solopaciolus craved pardon of Pope Simplicius for reciting the name of Dioscorus at the holy Altar compelled to it as he affirms by the Eutychians What reason had Pope Simplicius to write objurgatory Letters to Acacius because in a matter of so great moment as was the restitution of Petrus Mogus the Eutychian to the Sea of Alexandria and the exclusion of Ioannes Talaida a Catholick Simplicâ—â—us epist 17. Canonically elected to that Sea Or why writ those of Alexandria to Pope Simplicius Anno 483. to intreat him to confirm the election and instalment of Ioannes Talaida What moved Ioannes Talaida to procure Commendatory Letters to Simplicius from Calendion Bishop of Antioch to favour his Appeal against Petrus Mogus and Acacius and why did Felix Successor to Simplicius with a Western Council wherein he presided send a Writ by way of Citation to Acacius to answer in the Judicature of Rome to the Objections made against him by the said Iohn And why writ Felix to Zeno the Emperour to compel Acacius to appear Liberat. cap 18. Evagr. l. 3. c. 18 sâ—â—q and answer to his Adversaries at Rome And why was Petrus Fullonis condemn'd for having been intruded Cod. Crescâ—â—ni and Collect. recusa apud Baronium Tom. 61 Liberat. c. 1â—â— with exclusion of the lawfull Bishop Calendion into the Sea of Antioch And why writ Acacius himself to Felix Bishop of Rome to confirm his condemnation of Petrus Gnapheus and Ioannes Bishop of Apamea Nor will your usual Solution to my subsequent Objections serve your turn For it appears evidently in the form used in Excommunications and Condemnations from Rome they were not onely Declarations that the Bishop of Rome and his Bishops substracted themselves from communicating with them which say you any Christian may do but a positive ejection of them out of the Church and from the Communion of all faithfull Christians Thus runs the Excommunication and Condemnation of Acacius Bishop of Christantinople and his adherents the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch given out against them by Pope Felix Habe ergo cum his quos libenter amplecteris portionem ex sententiâ praesenti Sacerdotali honore Communione Catholicâ necnon etiam à fidelium numero segregatus sublatum tibi munus Ministerii Sacerdotalis agnosce Sancti Spiritus judicio Apostolicâ authoritate damnatus nunquamque Anathematis vinculis exuendus Receive therefore thy portion with those whom thou so willingly embracest by vertue of this sentence Thou art separated from Priestly Honour from Catholick Communion and from the number of the Faithfull Know that thou art deprived of Name and Ministery of a Priest being condemned by the judgement of the Holy Ghost and by Apostolical Authority never to be loosed from the bonds of this Anathema See here 1. A positive exclusion from the number and communion of the Faithfull 2. A deposition from Priesthood or being Bishop 3. That this is done not by way of counsel but of authority authoritate Apostolicâ it was done by the Popes Apostolical Authority 4. That this judgement of the Apostolick Sea is attributed to the Holy Ghost And lastly That the Pope exercises this high authority over the three chiefest and highest Patriarchs of Alexandria Antioch and Constantinople at the same time From which it will hereafter sufficiently appear how groundlesse your Answers are to my Objections But to proceed Nor yet can you alledge as you do to some of my proofs that these were unlawful and unjust proceedings For first The matter of the sentence was not unjust those being Hereticks Schismaticks Intruders and Usurpers against whom the sentence was decreed and that it was not unjust as proceeding from one who had no authority to inflict such a punishment is clear For neither did the Catholick nor Orthodox Christians no nor those very Schismaticks who were thus censur'd by Felix pretend any thing against the power of his Authority over them and if any such plea were used by them let it be evidenced out of authentical Authors in or about those times Now to your discourse if either the Foreman of a Jury or the Senior Justice upon the Bench or the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London or
is scarce faire pardon this plainness consider of it your self The substance of Nilus book is about the Primacie of the Pope the very Contents prefixed to the first book are these Oratio demonstrans non aliam c. an Oration demonstrating that there is no other cause of dissention between the Latine and the Greek Churches then that the Pope refuseth to defer the Cognisance and Iudgement of that which is Controverted to a General Council but he will sit the sole Master and Iudge of the Controversie and will have the rest as Disciples to be hearers of or obey his word which is a thing aliene from the Lawes and Actions of the Apostles and Fathers and he begins his Book after a few words thus Causa itaque hujus dissidii c. The Cause therefore of this difference as I judge is not the sublimity of the point exceeding man's capacitie 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 is the speech of the Scripture it self which as being concise doth pronounce nothing openly of that which is Controverted for to accuse the Scripture is as much as to accuse God himself But God is without all fault but who the fault is in any one may easily tell that is well in his wits He next shews that it is not for want of learned men on both sides nor is it because the Greeks do claim the Primacy and then concludeth it as before he maintaineth that your Pope succeedeth Peter onely as a Bishop ordained by him as many other Bishops that originally were ordained by him in like manner to succeed him and that his Primacy is no governing power nor given him by Peter but by Princes and Councils for order sake and this he proves at large and makes this the main difference Bellarmine 's answering his so many Arguments might have told you this if you had never read Nilus himself and if you say that this point was the Cause I deny it but if it were true yet was it not the onely or chief Cause afterwards The manner of bringing in the Filioque by Papal Authority without a general Council was it that greatly offended the Greeks from the beginning William Iohnson Num. 118. This is a strange manner of Arguing what if his chief subject be about the Popes Primacy may he not ex incidente and occasionaliter treat other matters Is not your chief matter in this Treatise to prove the succession of your Church and oppose ours and yet treat you not in this very place incidentally the procession of the holy Ghost I say then that Nilus declaring the cause why the Bishop of Rome hath lost all that Primacy and Authority which he had anciently by reason he is fallen from the Faith in adding Filioque to the Creed and teaching that the holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son the words you cite out of Nilus proves nothing he pretends indeed that the cause of the present dissention is the Popes challenging so high a Primacy which they are unwilling as all schismaticks ever were to grant him but that may well stand with what I affirm him to say that the first original cause of the breach betwixt the Greeks and Latines was the adding of Filioque and holding the holy Ghost's procession from the Father and the Son But see you not how fair a thread you have spun by pressing those words as you do against me is there indeed no other cause of dissention betwixt the Greek and Latine Church nor ground of their breach save the Popes supremacy then sure there is a full agreement in all other things if so there is a main disagreeing betwixt you and the Greeks in all other points of Faith controverted betwixt you and us for if they agree with us they disagree from you in every one of them nay you press Nilus his words in that sense you must take them to frame an Argument against me quite against the very words themselves for you alledge them to shew that he touches not the procession of the holy Ghost in that Book as the first ground of their difference to prove this you must proceed thus he treats nothing there save the Pope's Supremacie ergo he touches not the holy Ghost's procession you prove the Antecedent by the words of the Title of his first book here cited because he affirmes in them there is no other cause of dissention then that the Pope refuses to stand to the judgement of a general Council as if that onely were controverted betwixt them for otherwise you prove nothing Now it is most evident that Nilus supposes many other Controversies betwixt them and the Latines for he saies even as you cite him thus then that the Pope refuseth to defer the Cognisance and Iudgement of that which is Controverted to a general Council Ergo you must acknowledge that according to Nilus there was something controverted betwixt the Greeks and the Latines besides the Pope's Supremacie and after you bring him in pag. 124. mentioning this very point of the procession when you alledge him thus the cause therefore of this difference as I judge is not the sublimity of the point exceeding man's capacitie where he speaks of the holy Ghost's procession as I affirm him to doe thus you play fast and loose say and unsay at your pleasure thus you confound times and by not distinguishing the past as before you did not the future from the present make that which is now onely pretended by Nilus to be the chief cause of their not coming to Agreement to have been many hundred yeares agoe the original cause of their breach and opposition against the Latines whereby you confound the first occasion of the breach and the present obstacle to the making it up and reconciling them together as if they were one and the same thing Now it is most manifest that the first occasion of the breach made by the Greeks from the Latine Church was the Exception they took against the Latines for adding the word Filioque and from the Son to the Nicene Creed for Michael Patriarch of Constantinople anno 1054. in time of Leo the 9. Pope and Constantine the 10. Emperour styled Monomachos aspiring not onely in name and Title as many of his predecessours had done before him but in reality and effect to be universal Patriarch proclaimed Leo and all the Latines who adhered to him to be Excommunicated because contrary to the decree of the Ephesine Council they had made an Addition to the Creed so that the Roman Bishop being pretended by the Greeks to be thereby deposed from his Sea The Primacie of the Church fell by Course and right upon him as being the next Patriarch after the Bishop of Rome which gave occasion to Nilus of acknowledging that Controversie about the procession of the holy Ghost to have been the first occasion of
subjection to him for no man in proper speech can say that the Mayor of York professes subjection to the Mayor of London because he acknowledges he is to take place of him in a publique meeting nay by this meanes your Church of England and Bishop of Canterbury givâ—â—ing primacy to the Pope as much as the Greeks do that is in precedency of place only may must be said according to you not to have fallen from the subjection to the Roman Church which I believe will sound harsh in their ears Mr. Baxter Num. 123. The withering therefore was in the Roman branches if the corruptions of either part may be called a withering you that are a lesser part of the Church may easily call your selves the tree and the greater part two to one the branches but these beggings do but proclaime your necessities William Iohnson Num. 123. If the Roman Church have withered in this point shew me when it begun to wither in setting up the Pope as supream and as I now told you you will really oblige me Is it not strange to hear you term my argument a begging the question when you in the very same sentence beg the question your self for without any proof at all you suppose there what is universally deny'd by us that your selves and almost all the rest of Hereticks and Schismaticks now in the world are parts of the Catholicke Church for without inclusion of them you could not affirm with any appearance of probability those who oppose the Roman Church to be twice as great as part of the Catholick Church as are those that adhere to the Roman The Second part CHAP. I. ARGUMENT Iohannes Thalaida and Flavianus NUm 124. The interest of producing the insuing instances misreported by Mr. Baxter whereupon he imposes a false obligation upon his adversarie almost in every page the appeale of Iohn Thalaida patriarch of Alexandria to Pope Felix defended Thalaidas age according to Mr. Baxters account what kind of persons Zeno Acacius Petrus Mogas Petrus Fullonis Thalaida and Calendion were Num. 125. No Authors of those ages reprehend Simplicius or Felix in condemning Acacius and justifying Thalaida Num. 127. Thalaidas appeale whether it were a strict rigorous appeale or no proves the Popes supremacy Num. 128. The Popes power exercised over the three cheif Patriarchs of the East Num. 129. The whole Church allowed Pope Felix his deprivation of Acacius c. Num. 131. c. It had been ridiculous if Flavianus patriarch of Constantinople had apealed from the second Council of Ephesus which was then esteemed a general Council the Pope and his provincial Council had not the Pope as Pope had power to reverse the sentence of that Ephesine Council Num. 137. How farre the second Council of Ephesus was a general Council Mr. Baxter Num. 124. In good time you come to give me here at last some proof of an ancient Popery as you think But first you quite forget or worse that it is not a man or two in the whole world in an Age but the universal Church whose judgement and form we are now inquiring after you are to prove that all the Churches in every age were for the Papal universal Government and so that none can be saved that is not William Iohnson Num. 124. Sir please I may tell you that you would impose upon me an obligation of proving that which cannot be inferd from the argument I sent you as I have shewed above so would you now perswade your Reader by the insueing instances that I undertook to prove what was never undertaken by me I give indeed some proof of an ancient Popery and I have proved by force of my argument which you undertake to answer that all the Church in every age was for the Papal universal Government But I never undertooke in my treating with you to prove this by instances from age to age for this I still denyed as I yet do to be any obligation of mine contracted by virtue of my arguments which requirs your proof only and meddles not with mine such a proof as that from age to age may in its due time be effected when you have given a satisfactory answer to my Argument all therefore that I undertake here is occasionally fallen upon me by reason of your bold Assertion that within four hundred years you never saw valid proof of one Papist in all the world that is one that was for the Popes universal monarchy or vice-Christ-ship thus you p. 23. whereupon I took occasion to give you som essayes in ancienter times as appears by my words p. 49. in your edit where I say thus Though therefore you profess never to have some convincing proof of this in the first four hundred years and labour to infringe it in the next ages I will make an essay to give you a taste of those innumerable proofs of the Bishops of Romes supremacy not in order only but of Power Authority and Iurisdiction over all other Bishops in the ensuing instances within the first 400 500 or 600 years whence it is evident I intended no demonstration of our perpetual visibility but only a confutation of what you pretended within or about the first five hundred years by shewing some few instances to the contrary And indeed had I undertaken to prove it in all ages since Christ I had most grosly faild in my proof since I produce none after the first six hundred years whence appears how palpably you impose upon your Reader by proceeding upon this false supposition which you repeat almost in every page in your Answer to my instances that I have not brought the consent of the whole Church in them whereas it was sufficient for my intent in confutation of your Assertion to produce any one solid instance for it in those ages Mr. Baxter Num. 125. Your first testimony is from Liberatus c. 16. John Bishop of Antioch makes an appeal to Pope Simplicius Reply 1 I see you are deceived by going upon trust But its pitty to deceive others there was no such man as John Bishop of Antioch in Simplicius raigne John of Antioch was he that made the stirs and divisions for Nestorius against Cyril and called the schismatical council at Ephesus and dyed anno 436. having raigned thirteene years as Baronius saith and eighteene as Nicephorus he dyed in Sixtus the fift's time but it s said indeed that John Bishop of Alexandria made some addresse to Simplicius of which Baronius citeth Liberatus words not c. 16 but c 18 ad Anno Dom. 483. that John being expelled by the Emperour Zenos command went first to Calendion Bishop of Antioch and so to Rome to Simplicius if Baronius were to be believed as his iudge Liberatus saith that he took from Calendion Bishop of Antioch letters to Simplicius to whom he appealed as Athanasius had done and perswaded him to write for him to Acacius Bishop of Constantinople which Simplicius did but Acacius upon the receipt of Simplicius
a Citizen of Newscastle injured in the Mayors court publikly appeal to the Mayor of Bristol and his court as knowing him to be a more impartial Judge and of equal authority with the other would not all knowing men nay the common people laugh at him Mr. Baxter Num. 134. He might appeal to the Bishop of Rome as one of his Iudges in the Council where he was to be tryed and not as alone William Iohnson Num. 134. This is worse then the former think you that Flavianus was so great a fool as to frame a Solemn appeal in writing in the presence of a general Councill from the authority of it which is to be estemed and then esteemed it self the highest Congregationall tribunall in the Christian world to a particular Councill of some few Bishops in Italy as to a higher Judge then was a general Councill this is just as if one should appeal from the Parliament to the common Council of London Mr Baxter Num. 135. And it is evident in the history that it was not the Pope but the Council that was his Iudge William Iohnson Num. 135. But made that appeal the Bishop of Rome or the Council either an higher Judge then a general Council that 's the question here if it did then you must confess the Pope in a provincial Council at least iure Ecclesiastico above a general Council in Power and Authority How will your Brethren like that Mr. Baxter Num. 136. The greatness of Rome and Primacy of order not of jurisdiction made that Bishop of special interest in the Empire William Iohnson Num. 136. But withal you must suppose them in their right witts and of ordinary Learning and Prudence as Flavianus surely was and then they will find it absurd and foolish to appeal from a general Council to a particular or to make one who has no more then Patriarchal authority as you hold the Pope has no more above a general Council Mr. Baxter Num. 137. And distressed persecuted men will appeal to those that may any whit releive them But this proves no governing power nor so much as any interest without the Empire to make the voices of Patriarks necessary in their general Councils no wonder if appellations be made from those Councils that wanted the Patriarchs consent to other Councils where they consented William Iohnson Num. 137. But here in the beginning of the Council the patriarchs were present even he of Rome by his legates so that it was not conven'd wholly against the Popes wil and had things been carried justly and canonically there might have been a perfect consent of all the Patriarchs at least there was the consent of three of them and why a particular Council gathered by consent of one only patriarck as was that in Italy should be an higher tribunal then a general Council where three were present I cannot see nor I suppose you neither Mr. Baxter Num. 138. In which as they gave Constantinople the second place without any pretence of Divine Right and frequent appeals were made to that Sea so also they gave Rome the first Sea William Iohnson Num. 138. But was there ever a solemn Canonical appeal made in and from a general Council to any Bishop of Constantinople with his provincial Council as was made here from this of Ephesus to the Pope with his that 's the point and I hope you will give some instance of it from antiquity in your next Mr. Baxter Num. 139. Adding this only that as Flavian in his necessity seeking help from the Bishop of the prime Seat in the Empire did acknowledg no more but his primacy of order by the lawes of the Empire and the Councils thereof so the Empire was not all the world nor Flavian all the Church nor any more then one man therefore if he had held as you wil never prove he did the universal Government of the Pope if you will thence argue that it was held by all the Church your consequence must needs be marvelled at by them that believe that one man is not the Catholick Church no more then seeking of help was an acknowledging an universal headship or governing power William Iohnson Num. 139. All this is answered in the former instance though Flavian were not all the Church nor half neither for where did I ever say he was or needed to say so yet he was one man at least and a good Orthodox Christian and that 's enough to confute your former assertion that within the first four hundered years you never saw any one who was for the Popes universal monarchy or vice-Christs-ship now this was all I undertook to make good in my instances as I have demonstrated above what you add that this appeal having been addressed to Simplicius by Flavianus argu'd no more then a primacy of order in Simplicius before all other Bishops will seem as strange to considering persons as if a malefactour condemned by a younger Judge at the assizes should appeal to some other more ancient amongst the Judges because he would take place of the other in Parliament CHAP. II. ARGUMENT Theodoret the council of Sardica St. Leo NUm 140. Mr. Baxter crownes his arguments before he gives them a being Theodoret seeks in his appeal to be restored to his Bishopprick of Cyre as he was by the Popes authority Num. 143. The Councill gave no new judgement of Leo. Num. 145. In virtue of the Popes having authority over general Councils it follows he had power also over extra-imperiall Churches The Sardican council rightly cited but not fully Englished me Num. 150. Of what authority the Sardican council was Num. 151. The Sardican council falsified and sent into Africa by the Donatists Num. 153. Canons of the council of perpetual force in the Church Num. 164. St. Peter unsainted by Mr. Baxter ibid. His disrepect to General Councils Num. 165. ibid. The Sardican canons give not but presuppose a Suprâ—â—am power in the Pope Mr. Baxter Num. 140. And it is undeniably evident that the Church of Constantinople and all the Greek Churches did believe the universal Primacy which in the Empire was set up to be of humane right and now changeable as I prove not only by the express testimonies of the council of Chalcedon but by the slacking of the Primacy at last in Gregories dayes on Constantinople it self whose pretence neither was nor could be any other then a humane late institution William Iohnson Num. 140. These authorities shall be answered in your second part where you urge them at large to the Council of Chalcedon something is said already Mr. Baxter Num. 141. And if the Greek Churches judged so of it in Gregories dayes and the Council of Chalcedon in Leo's dayes wee have no reason to think that they ever judged otherwise at least not in Flavianus dayes that were the same as Leo's and business done about 149. This argument I here set against all your instances at once and it is unanswerable William Iohnson Num.
141. It is really unanswerable for I see nothing to be answered in it you only say you prove it by the testimony of the Council of Chalcedon and stating the primacy at least in St. Gregories dayes in Constantinople but neither produce here any authority of that Council nor of the Pope then you come with an if it be so c. when you have not proved it is so and then say your Argument is unanswerable 't is so indeed for no man can answer an argument before it be made considering men will think it had been soon enough to honour your own arguments with the illustrious title of unanswerable when you have set them out in their full glory but very unseasonable before you have given them a being now how unanswerable your argument will prove when it has a being time will inform us Mr. Baxter Num. 142. Your next instance is of Pope Leo's restoring Theodoret upon an appeal to just judgement Reply every Bishop hath a power to discerne who is fie for his own Communion and so Leo and the Bishops of the West perceiving Theodoret to be Orthodox received him as a Catholick into their communion and so might the Bishop of Constantinople have done William Iohnson Num. 142. Was there no more in it think you men a bare receiving an Orthodox Bishop into communion what need was there of that for I read not that Theodoret was excommunicated by the false Councill of Ephesus but deposed from his Bishopprick but having been accused of Nestorianisme and as such condemned in this Councill the Pope according to the usual custome declared him Orthodox and received him into his communion it was a restoration to his Episcopal Sea which he appealed for and a reversing the unjust sentence in his absence and having no warning given him to plead his cause and defence which he sought for to Pope Leo and he was accordingly restored in the first Session of the Councill of Chalcedon and consequently by the Authority of Pope Leo and took his seat in the Councill with the other Fathers because the Bishop of Rome had judged him innocent and restored him nor is there any mencion made of the Bishops of the West but only of a restauration ordered by Leo's authority nor could the Bishop of Constantinople have don any such soveraign act as this was which you say but prove not shew me if you can ever nay appeal like this of Theodorets made from the sentence of a generall Council to any patriarch in the world save the Bishop of Rome or any Bishop thus appealing restored to his sea after deposition by a general Council save only by the Popes authority Mr. Baxter Num. 143. But when this was done the Council did not thereupon receive him and restore him to his Bishopprick no nor would heare him read the passage between Pope Leo and him no nor make a confession of his Faith but cryed out against him as a Nestorian till he had expresly Anathematiz'd Nestorius and Eutiches before the Councill and then received and Restored him so that the finall judgement was not by Leo but by the Council William Iohnson Num. 143. Here are many untruths put up together 1. First it is most certain the Councill did receive him and he sat amongst them as Bishop of Cyrus upon his Restitution by Leo though the Bishops of Palestine Egypt and Illyria excepted and exclaimed against him 2. It was not the Councill but those Bishops which opposed him Con. Chalced ac 1. for whose satisfaction he Anathemis'd Nestorius 3. The Councill did not restore him otherwise then by ratifying and approving Pope Leo's act of Restaurations which is not to have the final judgement of the cause but to consent and approve by a publick act what was justly and Canonically adjudged before which may be and is very frequently don by equall or inferiour judges if indeed the judgement of Leo had been reverst in the Councill without the recourse had to him about it you might have had some Colour to affirm the finall judgement was by the Councill Mr. Baxter Num. 244. But if in his distress he appealed as you say to a just judgement from an unjust or sought to make Leo his friend no wonder but this is no grant of an universal Soverâ—â—ignty in Leo William Iohnson Num. 144. It was an act of jurisdiction out of the Western Patriarchs therefore it could not proceed from Leo as he was Patriarch of the West so that he must have done it as having authority and judicatory power over other Patriarchals and seeing there is no reason alleadgeable why he should have power in the Patriarchals where Theodoret was Bishop more then in any other à paritate rationis it proves that he had juridical power over all the Patriarchals ergo an universal power over the whole Church at least within the Empire if you will solve this argument you must shew a disparity why Theodoret was more subject to the Sea of Rome then any other Bishop within the Empire or the rest of the Patriarchs Mr. Baxter Num. 145. And if it had granted it in the Empire that is nothing to the Churches in other Empires William Iohnson Num. 145. It is manifest by this instance that Leo had power to annull the sentence of a general Council at least which esteemed it self so nor can I see why Protestants in their principles should not account it as true a general Council as others of those times there having been present both the Emperour and the Patriarchs either by themselves or their Legates and as many or more Bishops then were in â—â—her general Councils now seeing general Councils had power over the extra-imperial Provinces as is manifest above from the Couâ—â—cils of Nice and Chalcedon which subjected the barbarous Provinces that is Russia and Muscovia c. to the Bishop of Constantinople and the two Arabia's to the Patriarch of Antioch of which some were the extra-imperial seeing I say that this instance evidences that the Bishop of Rome had power to judge of the sentence of a general Council and reverse it too he must have had power also over that which is subject to general Councils that is over the extra-imperial Provinces Mr. Baxter Num. 146. Or if he had granted it as to all the world he was but one man of the world and not the Catholick Church William Iohnson Num. 146. 'T is true Theodoret was but one man but it was not Theodoret alone who thought this appeal lawful but it was approved as such by the whole general Council of Chalcedon which was the Church representative having exercised power as well without as within the Empire and after this the whole Catholick Church was satisfied with it never having accepted against it by any Orthodox writer in or about these times nor any memory lost that the Church or any true parts of it excepted against it in your next it will be expected you either produce
some exception witnessed bâ—â— Catholick antiquity made against it or grant it was accepted by the whole Church yet had it been Theodoret alone who approved that appeal I had prov'd there was at least one Orthodox christian who held the Popes supremacy in those ages which was all I undertook to prove to infringe your assertion ut Supra Mr. Baxter Num. 147. The Council expresly take on them the determination after Leo and they slight the legates of the Pope and pronounce him a Creature of the Fathers and give Constantinople equall priviledges though his legates refuse to consent but of the frivolousnesse of this your instance see D. Field of the Church lib. 5. cap. 35. pag. 537.538 and more fully Blondel de primatu ubi sup cap. 25. sect 63.65 William Iohnson Num. 147. Here is much said and nothing proved part of what you say is just now satisfied when in your rejoynder you alleadge the reasons of those two Doctors of yours you shall have an answer Mr. Baxter Num. 148. Your next instance is that the Council of Sardis determined that no Bishop deposed by other neighouring Bishops pretended to be heard againe was to have any successor appointed till the case were defined by the Pope Conc. Sard. cap. 4. cited by Anthanas apol 2. pag. 753. Reply It seems you ar well acquainted with the Council that know not of what place it was It was the Council at Sardica and not at Sardis that you would mean Sardis was a City of Lydia apud Tmolum olim Regio Coersi inter Thyatiram Philadelphiam But this Sardica was aâ—â— City of Thrace in the confines of the higher Mysia inter Naissum Mysiae Phillippopolim Thraciae as to the instance William Iohnson Num. 148. Had you seen my citation in the margin you might have saved this labour for I find it cited in two different copies of mine Concilium Sardicense not Sardiense and in a third Con Sardic which haply was contracted in the copie sent to you as you have printed it Con. Sard whereby it is manifest I know what I cited and all the defect was in Englishing the latine word Sardicense wherein such as have lived most part of their lives beyond Sea are not so well verst as those who never stept out of England and indeed you might as well blame the common strain of our English writers as me in this who ordinarily translate Nicea Nice when it should be Nicee for Nice and Nicea are all as different Cities as Sardis and Sardica yet the very name Sardis for Sardica was used long before me for I am not the first who confounded the names of those two Cities as Baronius witnesses an 347. Mr. Baxter Num. 149. This Council is by Augustine rejected as Heretical though I defend not his opinion William Iohnson Num. 149. Why then loose you time in mentioning it Zozom l 3. cap. 10. Epist. Synodalis Arianorum Extat inter Hilar. frag l. 2. but by your leave St. Augustine never rejected this Council of Sardica for it is probable it was unknown to him to be different from that of Nice But that of Philippopolis not far from Sardica where the Arian Bishops assembled a conventicle and gave it out under the name of the Arian Council Mr. Baxter Num. 150 2. It was of so little note and authority that it was not known to the Council of Carthage to have the next antecedent Canons which you would have omitted if you had read them its like in which your writers glory as their cheifest strength and which Bellarmine thinkes Pope Zosimus called the Nicene William Iohnson Num. 150 I can scarce think you were in earnest when you writ this was the Sardican Council of little note when Socrates Zozomen Severus Theodoret Vigilius episc Tadentinus Hilarius Epiphanius and above all St. Athanasius who was present in it make most honourable mention of it as of a famous general Council wherein as many of them say were above 308 Bishops all Catholicks wherein the Nicene Faith was confirmed against the Arians which for its great and unblemisht authority so fully consonant with the Nicene doctrine deserved to be accounted the same with it and to passe under the name and notion of the Council of Nice now this Council was celebrated by consent of both the Emperours of the East amd West and therein were Bishops as St. Athanasius and Theodoret witness from all the Provinces of Christendome Athan. ad salit even from Arabia it self though extra-imperial Mr. Baxter Num. 151. Or rather is it not suspicious that this Canon is forged when those Carthage Fathers plainly say in nullo patrum concilio invenimus mentioning that antecedent Canon proposed by Hosius to which this mentioned by you proposed by Gaudentius is but an addition or supplement And it is not like that all these African Fathers could be ignorant of those canons of Sardica when such abundance of African Bishops were at the Council and that but about 50 years before You may see in Binius how hard a strait he is put to to give any tolerable reason of this and onely saith that its like some of the Canons were lost sure tradition was then grown untrusty William Iohnson Num. 151. Had you but perused at leisure what the malice of the Donatists had wrought in Africa concerning the acts of the true Sardican Council in suppressing the canons of that Council and obtruding those of the false council of Philippopolis composed of Arians under the title and name of the Council of Sardica you had had smal reason to judge that the Affrican Fathers could not be ignorant of those canons of Sardica Now that the foresaid Arian Council was given out by the Donatists under the name of the Sardican Council it was most evident from St. Aug. ep 163. where he affirms that in a book containing the Council of Sardica he found St. Athanasius and Iulius Bishop of Rome condemned whence he collected it was a Council of Arians and contra l. 3. c. 24. He tells his adversary the Council of Sardica was a conventicle of Arians as was evident by the copies which in his time they had of it amongst them having been assembled principally against St. Athansius whereas it is manifest as the authors witnesse in the former paragraph the true Council of Sardica was in favour and defence of St Athanasius and in confirmation of the Nicene Faith Epist. con Sard. apud Athan. Athan Apol. ad sol vit that this fraud was practised by the Donatists St. Aug. witnesseth Ep. 163. where he affirmes that Spurious book was shewed him by Fortunius the Donatist and gives also there the reason of this perfidious dealing because they found in that Arian Council a writing addrest to the African Bishops of their communion with Donatus the first beginner and then Bishop of the Donatists whence appears undeniably that in St. Aug's and so in time of the African Council there was
this holy Council that they had preferred their own security before the memory of St. Peter I am really struck with compassion to see so much of the Lucian in you I have denyed any power at all to be given to the Bishops of Rome by these canons they only determine the use which was to be made of his presupposed power by whom and when If an order be made in Parliaments That such particular persons as have been oppressed by others in inferiour courts shall have recourse by appeal to one of the Lords cheif Justices Does that Parlianent by virtue of that order create or institute the Lord cheif Justice or rather is it not evident it supposes him to have the power of cheif Justice precedently to that order and only ordaines that others have recourse to him But yet the power they mention of redresse and appeal to the Roman Bishops is to him only as Judge for the canon sayes nothing of any Council joyned to him nor names any other Judge save the Pope when a Judge sits in judgement at the assizes though the bench be filled with other justices who inform and assist yet the sentence proceeds only from the Judge Thus though the Bishops of Rome used in matters of great concernment to the whole Church to call some neighbouring Bishops to sit in Council with him for his better information and greater solemnity in the judgement yet he alone had the power of pronouncing a definitive sentence in behalf of Bishops wrongfully deposed c. It is manifest by this that the restauration is ascribed as done by him and not by him and his Council and so having no authority in itself out of the Roman or Western Patriarchate and serving only for an assistance to the Pope in framing his judgement of the case propounded not in a decisive voyce in pronouncing the sentence or legal power in granting the restauration How expect you to be spoke of after your death when you slight so much the Fathers of the first general Council of Nice for a great number of them were in this and how can you live without fear Socrat. eccl histor l. 2. c. 11. Zozom l. 3. c. 11. 12. that you are led with the spirit of errour when you refuse to hear and beleive those who were the lawful pastours in a full representative of Gods holy Church but to shew how far you fal from trueth in saying those canons acknowledge no antecedent governing power in the Pope please to reflect on what is said in the third of them where they leave it to the Popes prudence to accept of what appeales he thinks fit and intreat him to vouchsafe to write to the neighbouring Bishops or to send legats of his own to examine the case as he judges best now had they conferd this power upon the Pope by virtue of those acts they should not have proceded by way of intreaty but by way of precept and injunction nor left matters to his disposition but ordered him by theirs what he was to doe Mr. Baxter Num. 158. That it is not a power of judging alone that they give but of Causing the re-examination of causes by the Council and adding his assistance in the the judgement and so to have the putting of another into the place forborne till it be done William Iohnson Num. 158. But does not the first of these canons give expresse order that the Pope appoint the judges and the second that the Pope himself pronounce the last juridical sentence the third that it is left to the Popes free election either to refer the farther examination to the neighbour Bishops or send judges of his own appointment Can there be more evident markes of an absolute judge than these are If the Pope had power only to examine the causes who had the power to judge them according to these Canons or to what purpose where those examinations made if none were impowred to passe judgement after the causes were examined Now seeing the canons attribute the power of judging to no other save the Bishops of Rome for they make no mention at all of any Council then the Council supposed the power of judgeing to be in him alone and not joyntly in the provincial Council and him Mr. Baxter Num. 159. And I hope still you will remember that at this Council were no Bishops without the Empire and that the Roman world was narrower then the Christian world and therefore if these Bishops in a part of the Empire had now given not a ruling but a saving power to the Pope so far as is there expressed this had been far from proving that he had a ruling power as the vice-Christ over all the world and that by divine right Blame me not to call on you to prove this Consequence William Iohnson Num. 159. I hope you will also remember what I have answered to these exceptions and that I have proved that Bishops from the three Arabia's were present in this Council all which were not under the Empire and that the Roman world in order to spiritual Government was as large as the Christian world univocally so called as I have prov'd from St. Prosper and St. Leo. Mr. Baxter Num. 160. There is as much for appeales to Constantinople that never claimed as vice-Christ-ship as jure divino William Iohnson Num. 160. 'T is your pleasure to say so but your word with me is not arrived to the authority of an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is your proofes not the bare sayings I expect here non proof 17. CHAP. III. ARGUMENT St. Basil. NUm 160. Mr. Baxter in lieu of answering to his adversaries objection treats other matters to draw his Reader from considering the force of the argument Num. 161. whether Mr. Baxter or his adversarie say true concerning the words of St. Chrysostome in his second epistle to Pope Innocent the first Num. 162. what the first Council of Ephesus writ to pope Celestine about Iohn Bishop of Antioch Mr. Baxters strange confidence in both these authorities Num. 163. Mr. Baxter flies to Hereticks to maintayn his cause by their wicked practises ibid. what Iuvenal Bishop of Hierusalem said of the Roman and Antiochian Church ibid. Mr. Baxter clips off the cheif part from Iuvenals words Num. 164. St. Cyril presided in the first Council of Ephesus as being the Popes legate Num. 166. Mr. Baxter recurrs again to the criminal procedings of Hereticks to maintaine his cause ibid. He minces the force of excomunication to lessen the Popes authority Num. 168. Whether Blondel Whitaker and Feild give satisfaction to that which Mr. Baxter calls a rancid instance Num. 171. What St. Basil sayes about the Popes authority Num. 172.173.174 Many non proofs heap't up together by Mr. Baxter Num. 179. He flies againe to patronize his cause by the crimes of Hereticks Mr. Baxter Num. 161. The sixt instance out of Basil's 74 Epistle I imagine you would have suppressed if ever you had
his eminent authority in that Kingdom he might do you some favour and he upon the receipt of those accusations should summon those Brethren of yours to appear before him and for not appearance condemn them and acquit and restore you would not all the World see that he exceeded his Commission No Patriarch by vertue of his Patriarchal dignity though preceeding the other in place had power to condemn any belonging to another Patriarchate if the fact were not committed within his jurisdiction without the consent of that Patriarch under whose Authority he was according to the Council of Nice Mr. Baxter Num. 176. Our own Communion with men is to be directed by the judgement of our own well informed consciences William Iohnson Num. 176. But our consciences if well regulated must avoid all those whose Communion is prohibited by the lawful Governours of Gods Church nor are private persons to avoid any whom the lawful Prelates of the Church retain in their Communion Mr. Baxter Num. 177. Julius desired not any man then to be one with a Council that should decide the Case William Iohnson Num. 177. There 's another non-proof make that appear Non-proof 18. Mr. Baxter Num. 178. Councils then had the Rule and the Patriarchs were the most honourable members of those Councils but no Rulers of them Non-proof 19. William Iohnson Num. 178. And that 's another let us see that prov'd Mr. Baxter Num. 179. Yet Zozomen and others tell you that Julius when he had done his best to befriend Athanasius and Paulus could do no good nor prevail with the Bishops of the East till the Emperours commands prevailed Non-proof 20. William Iohnson Num. 179. And that 's another cite the place in Zozomen who be those others Mr. Baxter Num. 180. Yea the Eastern Bishops tell him that he should not meddle with their proceedings no more then they did with his when he dealt with the Novatians seeing the greatness of Cities maketh not the power of one Bishop greater then another And so they took it ill that he interposed though but to call the matter to a Synode when a Patriarch was deposed William Iohnson Num. 180. What then Ergo the Pope had no Authority over them So did the Pharisees resist our Saviour the Jews Moses and Aaron and the late Rebels our most gratious Soveraign Ergo will you deduce thence they had no Authority over them But see you not how inconsequent you are to your self you said just now p. 148. that it seemed irregular that any Patriarch should be deposed without the knowledge of the Patriarch of the preceeding Sea Ergo say you the Eastern Bishops seem I suppose you mean truly and with reason or you urge that reason p. 148. without reason to have proceeded irregularly in opposing Iulius If so either this your first reason is against reason or you against your self Tradition Mr. Baxter Num. 181. Any Bishops might have attempted to relieve the oppressed as far as Julius did especially if he had such advantages as aforesaid to encourage him William Iohnson Num. 181. Another non proof why give you neither instance nor reason for what you say Mr Baxter Num. 182. All your consequences here therefore are denyed It is denyed that because Julius made this attempt that therefore he was universal Ruler in the Empire 2. It is denyed that it will thence follow if he were so that it had been by divine right any more then Constantinople had equal previledges by divine right 3 It is denyed that it hence followeth that either by divine or humane right he had any power to govern the rest of the world without the Empire Had you all you would rack these testimonies to speak it is but that he was mad by Councils and Emperours the cheif Bishop or Patriarck in a National Church I mean a Church in one Princes Dominion as the arch-Bishop of Canterbury was in England But a national or imperial Church is not the universal and withal oppressed men will seek releif from any that may help them William Iohnson Num. 182. All those consequences are proved at large in other parts of this treatise The first because this proceeding of Iulius having been approved in all ages by the whole Church there can be no other reason given of his power over the Bishops of Alexandria and others of the East save this that he was head in Government over all the Churches through the whole Empire The second that it was by divine right for it was exercised by virtue of an ancient rule or canon received in the Church as Iulius affirms which could not be that of Nice for that was instituted a very few years before Hence followes the third for Christs institution was for the whole Church not for the sole Empire CHAP. IV. ARGUMENT St. Athanasius Theodoret St. Chrysostome Innocentius NUm 182. Mr. Baxter miscites his adversaries words and then accuses him of want of Conscience for writing what he never wrote ibid. What sense Chamiers words can have whether they be referred to a Iudge or to a friend ibid. c. St. Athanasius his recourse to Iulius and effectual proceding in it and that Iulius had authority to restore him ibid. Theodorets appeal as to a Iudge acknowledged by Chamier nor is it directly contradicted by Mr. Baxter If the Pope were Theodorets lawful Iudge by way of appeal then was he also Iudge of all the Bishops in the Church Num. 184. St. Chrysostomes appeal convinces the Popes soveraign power Num. 185. 186. His appealing first to a Council hindred not his appeal afterward made to the Bishop of Rome Num. 187. None but superiours to a Council can reverse the sentence given by that Council Num. 187.188.189 How Mr. Baxter declines and Sophisticates the words of St. Chrysostome Num. 193. Whether Arcadius and Eudoxia were excommunicated by Pope Innocentius In what year Eudoxia dyed Num. 194. Mr. Baxter involves and lames the words of his adversarie Num. 201. What authority St. Ambrose had to excommunicate Theodosius which act is falliciously instanced by Mr. Baxter Mr. Baxter Num. 183. In your margin you add that concerning St. Athanasius being judged and rightly by Pope Juliu s Chamier acknowledgeth the matter of fact to be so but against all antiquity pretends that judgement to have been unjust Corruption Reply Take it not ill Sr I beseech you If I awake your conscience to tell me how you dare to write so many untruths which you knew or might know I could quickly manifest Both parts of your saying of Chamier p. 497. are untrue 1 the matter of fact is it that he denyeth He proveth to you from Zozomen's words that Athanasius did make no appeal to a judge but only fled for help to a friend he shewes you that Julius did not play the Iudge but the helper of the spoiled and that it was not an act of judgement 2 He therefore accuseth him not of wrong judging but only mentioneth his not hearing the
that is to such a one to whom every Bishop might appeal in the like case Mr. Baxter Num. 185. Your tenth proof is from Chrysostome's case where you say some things untrue and some impertinent 1. That Chrysostome appeals to Innocent from the Council of Constantinople is untrue if you mean it of an appeal to a superiour Court or Iudge much more if as to an universal Iudge But indeed in his banishment when all other help failed he wrote to him to interpose and helps him as far as he could I need no other proof of the Negative then 1. That there is no proof of the Affirmative that ever he made any such appeal William Iohnson Num. 185. Every appeal from a juridical sentence to have it reversed and the injured person restored to his former right and the unjust Judges punished by the authority of him to whom the appeal is made is to a superiour Court or Judge But St. Chrysostome's appeal was such Ergo it was to a superiour Court or Judge the Minor is evident from the matter of fact for St. Chrysostome writes thus to Pope Innocent Scribite precor authoritate vestra discernite St. Chrys. ep ad Inocent Papam apud Palladium in Dialogo hujusmodi iniqua gesta nobis absentibus judicium non declinantibus nullius esse roboris sicut per suam naturam sunt profecto irrita nulla porro qui talia gessere eos Ecclesiae censurae subjicite nos autem insontes neque convictos neque deprensos neque ullius criminis reos comprobate Ecclesiis nostris jubete restitui ut charitate frui pace confratibus nostris consuetâ possimus Write I beseech you and decree by your Authority that the unjust proceedings against us who were absent and not refusing Iudgement are of no force as indeed in their own nature they are void and null moreover make those to lye under the Churches censure who have committed such injustices but command that we who are innocent unconvicted and unguilty be restored to our Churches that we may re-enjoy our wanted charity and peace with our Brethren Is not this a full proof of the Minor The Major is also evident for none have power when appealed to perform those acts of authority over those of any Court unless they be a higher Court and Judge then the other from whom the appeal is made as all Jurists know and confess Mr. Baxter Num. 186. In his first Epistle to Innocent he tells him over and over that he appealed to a Synode and required Iudgement and that he was cast into a Ship for banishment because he appealed to a Synode and a righteous Iudgement never mentioning a word of any such appeal to the Pope William Iohnson Num. 186. What then Ergo he appealed not to Innocent as a superiour Iudge prove that consequence Was it not the custom then of approved Prelates as also in all well ordered Common-wealths first to appeal to the next ordinary Court and if Justice were done there to acquiesce and not to come to the highest Tribunal till no Justice could be had in the inferiour Did not St. Chrysostome all this must he needs mention his appeal to the Pope before he made it I think in earnest you were in jest here Mr. Baxter Num. 187. Yea he urgeth the Pope to befriend and help him by that Argument that he was still ready to stand to uncorrupted Iudges never mentioning the Pope as Iudge William Iohnson Num. 187. And was it not his duty to do so according to Canonical proceeding what need had he in that Epistle whilst he was in hopes of an inferiour tryal to mention an appeal to the highest Court must he upon all occasions mention every thing was it not sufficient that he did it when necessity required it Mr. Baxter Num. 188. By all which it appears it was but the assistance of his intercession that he requireth and withal perhaps the excommunicating of the wicked which another Bishop might have done William Iohnson Num. 188. But could any Bishop who was not a superiour Judge which make against you annul the Sentence of a Council by his Authority inflict Ecclesiastical censures upon those Judges and command the injured persons to be restored to their Seas as we have seen St. Chrysostome beseeched Innocent to do If you will undertake the writing of Controversies answer like a Scholar to the proofs alleadged against you and be sure in your next you fall no more into this fault for by dallying thus you may write to the worlds end to no purpose at all whilst you neither answer nor so much as mention the words which make aginst you pardon me if I tell you my mind plainly it is for your good Mr. Baxter Num. 189. Yea and it seems it was not to Innocent only but to others with him that he wrote for he would scarce else have used the termes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 William Iohnson Num. 189. How familiar is it in writing to persons of most eminent Authority to use the plural number how usual is this both in Scripture and other Authors Mr. Baxter Num. 190. But what need we more then his own words to know his request Saith he let those that are found to have done so wickedly be subject to the penalty of the Ecclesiastical Laws but as for us that are not convicted nor found guilty grant us to enjoy your letters and your charity and all others whose socâ—â—ety we did formerly enjoy Corruption William Iohnson Num. 190. This is a strange Metamorphosis of St. Chrysostomes words why leave you out the beginning of the Sentence scribite precor c. I beseech you to write and decree that by your authority those unjust acts are void and null I see this was not for your purpose nor could well admit of a handsom mistranslation 2. Why cite you not the Latin or Greek words that the equity of your Translation might appear O that would have spoyled your market Signifies then subjicite let them be subject what Grammer hath taught you that what word is there in the Latin Sentence that signifies your letters or your charity and what English word is there here which answers to jubete command or to restitui Ecclesiis vestris to be restored to our Churches See the Latin Text of St. Chrysostom cited above num Sir give me leave once more to be plain with you it had been much better for you and thousands of your too credulous Readers that you had never set pen to paper then to delude your own soul and theirs with such sophistications as these are and I pray God you come not one day with a great Patron of your Religion to curse the time that you ever writ Controversies which notwithstanding were rather to be wished then feared if the Grace of true Repentance accompany it Mr. Baxter Num. 191. The Ecclesiastical Laws enabled each Patriarch and Bishop to Sentence in his own
happened after St. Chrysostome's banishment Arbazachius was sent by the Emperour against the Isaurians where after he had spent some time depraving himself and exercising so many corrupt proceedings and oppressions as he was guilty of c. which would require the space of a year or two and thereby extend to the year 407. or thereabouts wherein St. Chrysostome died being accused and cited to answer the accusations made against him gave rich presents to the Empress and thereby escaped punishment Now these things could not happen but in a long tract of time it is not morally possible they should have been done in four dayes as those say who follow Socrates and Marcellinus Comes affirms that the troubles of Isauria happened anno 405. under the Consulate of Stilico and Anthemius So that Arbazachius must have had much more time before he was accused and consequently the Empress must have lived some years after the banishment of St. Chrysostome Nor makes Palladius any mention of her prodigious death so suddenly after the banishment of St. Chrysostome And George Patriarch of Alexandria who wrote 1000. years ago and is cited by St. Io. Damasc Orat. de Imagin affirms that Arcadius and Eudoxia were excommunicated by Innocentius and Zonaras affirmes the same Nor do the Authors you cite against this Bull affirm what you say Socrates lib. 6. c. 19. hath not a word of Eudoxia's death or that St. Chrysostome died three years after his banishment there 's your two first errors Zozomen seems to put the death of Eudoxia before that of St. Chrysostome but speaks not a word in that place here cited by you that he was in banishment three years after the death of Eudoxia there 's your third error Blondel p. 277. cannot deny this relation of Zozimus but questions whether the Empress he mentions were Eudoxia Now if it were not Eudoxia he should have told us what other Empress there was living at that time in Constantinople to whom those presents were given For Arcadius lived six years after this and Theodosius his Son was not capable of marriage presently after his Fathers death being then a child of no more then seven years of age having been born in the year 401. and Arcadius dying the year 408. Nor can it be thought that Arbazachius remained in Isauria till Theodosius junior was married for the expedition in a short time was finished against the Isaurians And presently upon that victory Arbazachius fell upon oppressions and complaints were not long after raised against him Mr. Baxter Num. 200. In your Margin you pretend to confute Chamier p. 498. as saying That other Bishops restored those wrongfully deposed as well as the Pope to which you say that never single Bishop restored any who were out of their respective Diocess c. whereas the Bishop of Rome by his sole single authority restored Bishops wrongfully deposed all the Church over William Iohnson Num. 200. I like not your writing my words by halves they were not so many but you might have quoted them intirely as they lay as you printed them pag. 52. I adde there after Diocesses these words viz. But alwayes collected together in a Synode by common voice and that in regard only of their neigbouring Bishops which you mask under an c. And then I adde whereas the Bishop of Rome by his sole and single authority restored Bishops wrongfully deposed as you have it here whereby the difference appeared more clearly betwixt the authority of the Roman and other Bishops which you by your c. have rendred obscure there being no express reason by way of opposition in their proceedings to adde this all the Church over which is clearly opposed to this other in regard only of their neighbouring Bishops in my words and by omitting those words but alwayes collected in a Synode by common voice you hide from your Reader that their convening was by order of their Arch-bishop Metropolitan Primate or Patriarch respectively who commonly had authority over those who were restored For all Synodes were to be Canonically convened by consent and authority of Ecclesiastical Superiours either granted or presumed And this happily may be one reason why you wish those to whom you recommend this book as I am certainly informed from a person of great worth who heard you to read your last answer only and not to trouble themselves with perusing my Text to which you pretend to answer Mr. Baxter Num. 201. Reply 1. It seems you took Chamier's words on trust peruse that page and see his words William Iohnson Num. 201. I took only upon trust of my own eyes and I think they deceived me not Mr. Baxter Num. 202. 2. Single Bishops have censured and therefore might as well remit their own censures Ambrose censured Theodosius who was no fixed member of his charge and he remitted the censure Fallacy William Iohnson Num. 202. You answer fallaciously proceeding à toto ad partem When I speak of persons out of their Diocesses I mean clearly such as are neither in them actually by way of habitation nor habitually by birth and education for my words are general And you give an instance of one who though not habitually yet actually was within the Diocess of him who censured him as then Theodosius was in the Diocess of Milan where St. Ambrose was Bishop You cannot sure be ignorant that domicilium fixum a settled habitation makes one an inhabitant and part of that City where he lives and that crimen commissum a crime committed in that place makes one subject to the Tribunal of that City Besides the Emperour could not be said by reason of his universal dominion to be fixt to any part of his Empire for his Empire was his dwelling so that wheresoever he was actually and committing any thing deserving excommunication there the Bishop of that City had power to excommunicate him With such sophismes as these you inveigle your credulous Readers I beseech God to forgive you and enlighten you Mr. Baxter Num. 203. Epiphanius presumed even at Constantinople to excommunicate Dioscorus and his Brethren Socrat l. 6. c. 14. William Iohnson Num. 203. Socrates hath no such matter in that Chapter nor any thing like it nor indeed could he for either you mean Epiphanius Bishop of Salamina who was dead 42. years before Dioscorus was excommunicated for that Epiphanius died anno 402. and Dioscorus was excommunicated anno 451. or as I think you do Epiphanius Bishop of Constantinople and Dioscorus was dead 70. years before Epiphanius was installed in the See of Constantinople Nor did Socrates produce his History farther then to the year 439. that is 90. years before Epiphanius was Bishop of Constantinople Who wrongs his soul now by taking authorities upon trust Mr. Baxter Num. 204. And many instances may be brought both of excommunicating and again receiving to Communion by particular Bishops even as to those that were not of their charge Non-proof William Iohnson Num. 204. I
was the Imperial Seat If you believe this Synode the Controversie is at an end if you do not why do you cite it and why pretend you to believe General Councils William Iohnson Num. 213. You have a strange way of shifting off the force of an argument and that quite out of form and that illogical and it is to bring in some preface or other to weaken the authority of those whence this proof is brought before you give a Categorical answer What have we now to do with your proof alleadged many leaves after Part. 2. Is there not time enough to answer it when it comes in treaty Have you forgot that you are a Respondent not an Opponent are you so much inamoured with your own arguments that you must shew them at every turn even when there is no just occasion to mention them one would think it timely enough to boast of them when you and all men see no satisfactory answer given to them Have patience a while and you shall see ere long you authority from Chalcedon hurts us nothing It is partly shewed already and when it shall be treated in its place I hope you 'l have no cause to brag of it Mr. Baxter Num. 214. But what have you from this Council against this Council Why 1. you say Martian wrote to Leo that by the Pope's authority a General Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please Reply 1. Whereas for this you write Act. Concil Chalced. 1. You tell me not what Author Crab Binius Surius Nicolinus or where I must seek it I have perused the Act. 1. in Binius which is 74. pages in folio such tasks your citations set me and find no such thing and therefore take it to be your mistake William Iohnson Num. 214. I am sorry you have taken so much pains and lost your labour but sure I gave you no occasion of it for as I cited in the margin Con. Chalced. Act. 1. so I quoted in the Text Martian's Epistle to Leo when I said Martian wrote to Leo so that you had no more to do then to turn to the first Action of that Council and seek Martian's Epistle to Pope Leo which because it is in the full editions of Councils I thought it needless to name any Now this might have been done in a very short time nor could it be more exactly cited then I cited it giving both the Action and the Epistle extant in that Action Could you not as well have found the Epistle of Martian as of Valentinian and Martian if they be different Epistles Sure the one was as visible and legible as the other I tell you 't is no mistake of mine but your mishap that you found it not Please to look again and you will find those very words which I cite in that very Epistle which I quote Mr. Baxter Num. 215. But in the Preambul Epistle I find that Valentinian and Martian desire Leo's prayers and contrary to your words that they say hoc ipsum nobis propiis literis tua sanctitas manifestet quatenus in omnem Orientem in ipsam Thraciam Illyricum sacrae nostrae literae dirigantur ut ad quendam definitum locum qui nobis placuerit omnes sanctissimi Episcopi debeant convenire It is not qui vobis placuerit but qui nobis William Iohnson Num. 215. Your words from the Epistle of Valentinian and Martian infringe not those mentioned by me for it may well be that Pope Leo remitted the designation of the place to the Emperour as judging it more belonging to them then to himself as a thing wholly temporal though the precise words qui nobis placuerit may be in rigor applied both to the Emperour and Pope My first authority therefore from that Council is not answered at all in this your paper Mr. Baxter Num. 216. But what if you had spoke truth doth it follow that Pope Leo was Christs Vicar-general Governour of the world because that the Soveraign of one Common-wealth did give him leave to chuse the place of a Council Serious things should not be thus jested with William Iohnson Num. 216. I argue not so you proceed fallaciously a secundum quid ad simpliciter The force of my argument consists not in the chusing of the place by the Pope that 's a pure circumstance but the strength of my reason consists in this that the Council was gathered by the Popes authority And to this you say nothing which notwithstanding is an evident proof that the Pope had authority over the whole Church as I shall prove hereafter Serious things should be seriously answered and not be thus jested at by fraudulent fallacies and disguises Now in my words here cited viz. Martian wrote to Leo that by the Bishops authority a General Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to chuse the word he may as well be related to Martian as to the Pope So that you cannot inforce from the precise words that I say the place was left to the Pope's choice Mr. Baxter Num. 217.2 You say Anatolius the rest of the Eastern Bishops sent to Pope Leo the professions of their Faith by his Order Reply 1. And what then Therefore Pope Leo was both Governour of them and all the Christian world You should not provoke men to laughter about serious things I tell you Can you prove this Consequence Confessions were ordinarily sent in order to communion or to satisfie the offended without respect to superiority Corruption William Iohnson Num. 217. I see y' are merrily disposed y' are so full of jesting and laughing but truly see no other jest here â—â—hen your misreporting my argument and then saying it moves laughter I spake of confessions of Faith exacted from others by command or order of the Pope and this I alleadge to be a proof of the Popes universal supremacy And you answer that Confessions were ordinarily sent in order to Communion or to satisfie the offended without respect to superiority As if I made the bare sending a Confession of Faith to another an argument that he to whom it is sent is superiour to him that sends it Whereas I say in express termes that it is the ordering such a Confession to be sent to him who orders it and not the bare sending without order which argues superiority in him who orders the sending such professions Might I not here deservedly retort your Sarcasmus and tell you you should not provoke men to laughter by such gross perversions as these in serious things But I spare and pitty you Mr. Baxter Num. 218.2 But I see not the proof of your impertinent words Pulcherius Epistle to Leo expresseth that Leo had sent his Confession first to Anatolius to which Anatolius consented By your Rule then Leo was subject to Anatolius Corruption William Iohnson Num. 218. I find no Epistle of Pulcherius to Leo nor so much as any such
man in those times You would say I suppose Pulcheria the Empress But you should have dealt more fairly if you had declared in what manner Pulcheria mentions the Confession of Faith sent by Leo. Really Sir the cunning which you use here is unsufferable First you say that Confession of Faith from Leo was sent to Anatolius Which is manifestlie untrue for the Empress Pulcheria saith it was sent to Flavianus his Predecessor This may pass as an error in Historie onlie Secondlie you say that Anatolius consented to that Faith which is true but you express not in what manner he consented to it for equals may consent in Faith one with another but the Empresse saith that Anatolius subscribed to the confession of Faith sent to Flavianus from Pope Leo and that without the least difficulty or demurr which argue that Leo's confession was sent to this end that the Pope required the Bishops of Constantinople to subscribe to what he wrote there to shew that they believed the Catholick Faith Et Epistolae similiter Catholicae fidei quam ad sanctae memoriae Flavianum Episcopum tua Beatitudo decrevit sine ulla dilatione subscripsit Anatolius The Empresse writes thus And he Anatolius without any delay subscribed to the Epistle of Faith which thy blessedness directed to Flavianus Thirdly whereas this Epistle or Confession of Faith was sent as from a superiour to be subscribed by those Patriarcks that he might know whether they held the right Faith or no and thereby judge whether he were to admit them into his communion as was then the ordinary custome you would make it to be a confession sent as from an equal to give them to whom he sent it an account of his Eaith Fourthly whereas I speak of a confession ordered by the Bishop of Rome to be sent from the Bishop of Constantinople to him that the Pope might thereby judge of his Faith you in answer return a confession of Faith as freely sent from the Bishop of Rome to the Bishop of Constantinople as though the Pope had given an account of his Faith to that Bishop now all know it to be a rule of Faith sent Vide verba Pulcheriae by Leo to which was required the in ep ad Leonem Bishop of Constantinople should subscribe to shew that he held the same Faith with the Bishop of Rome and thereby deserved to be received as a Catholick into his communion And lastly you make that to be a confession of Pope Leo's faith made to Anatolius when it was only a summe of the Catholick Faith Epistola fidei Catholicae in general that those Bishops were to subscribe by the Popes order For this very same Epistle in a Council held by the Popes legates in Constantinople Council Chalced in gracis was sent by their order to all the codicibus post Act â—â— tam. Metropolitans in those parts as Pope Leo had given them order to be subscribed by them CHAP. VI. Council of Chalcedon ARGUMENT NUm 219. Mr. Baxters imposition upon his adversary ibid. The legates precedency how it proves the Popes Supremacy Num. 221. Dioscorus not sitting as a Father in the Council shews the Bishop of Romes authority over the Council Num. 222. Mr. Baxter put to desperate shifts read these words Caput omnium Ecclesiarum that Rome is the head of all the Churches Num. 223. The Councils not contradicting what the legates said an undoubted sign of their assent Num. 224. His weak answer to the Councils calling the Pope their Father and themselves his children Num. 226. Mr. Baxter denyes most confidently the Council of Chalcedon to say what it sayes most manifestly Num. 227. Mr. Baxter dissembles his adversaries answer Num. 231. Of what authority was the 28 canon of Chalcedon in St. Leo's time and after Num. 132. General Councils never writ to exhort Bishops and Patriarchs to confirm their decrees in that manner as did the council of Chalcedon to the Pope ibid. two sleights of Mr. Baxters discovered Mr. Baxter Num. 219 You say the Popes Legates sate first in Council Reply what then therefore the Pope was Governour of the Christirn world though not a man out of the Empire were of the Council corruption William Iohnson Num. 219. Your petty slights are grown so numerous that they become intolerable An unskilful Reader would easily perswade himself this consequence is mine which you so confidently impose upon me here viz that I deduce or ought to deduce from the Popes legates sitting first in the Council that the Pope was Governour of the Christian world though not a man out of the Empire were of that Council as If I had granted and were agreed with you in this that there was not a man out of the Empire in that Council and supposing that as a truth with you yet that not withstanding I draw the Popes universal supremacy from the precedency of the Legates in that Council Now I pray you where have I in my whole paper supposed or delivered that there was not a man out of the Empire in that Council name the place and cite the words where I say so or acknowledge that you have imposed a most fals injurious calumnie upon me For you are not content to father your own error and so much your own that you are the first and sole inventor of it upon me but upon that imposition you aske me in a bitter Sarcasmus whether I be still in jest that is you put a consequence as you esteem it ridiculous of your own forging upon me and then aske me are you still in jest is not this handsome yet I Sr give me leave to tell you thus much that though I had granted which I constantly deny that not a man out of the Empire had been in the Council of Chalcedon yet it would have been no jest but a solid truth that from the precedency of the Roman Legates in the Council follows that the Pope was governour of the Christian world for it is necessary to the making of a Council truly and absolutely general and powerful over the Christian world that any Bishop out of the Empire should be actually present in it it is sufficient that they be legitimately and Canonically called to it as much as morally all circumstances considered can be done their actual sitting in it may be obstructed by a hundred accidents dangers impossibilities which hinders not those who can and do present themselves to compose a Council absolutely oecumenical as a sufficient representative of the Church no more then a Parliament legally summoned ceases to be a representative of the kingdome though the Knights of some Counties or Burgesses of some Cities be accidentally absent prove therefore in your next that for this reason that not a man out of the Empire was in that Council the Popes universal government over the Christian world followes not from his legates sitting first in it Mr. Baxter Num. 220. But if it must be so then I can prove that others
true but not to our purpose or mean you they desisted not from proceeding practically in conformity to them as esteeming them absolutely and compleatly obligatory whether the Pope yielded consent to them or no that 's not true For to what purpose used they so many reasons and perswasions so earnest entreaties Rogamus dignare we beseech thee vouchsafe most blessed Father to imbrace them c. had they not thought his consent necessary to the confirmation of them and that this very 28. had not the authority of a legitimate Canon of that Council as having been secretly and illegally framed neither the Judges nor Synode nor Popes Legates being present at it and very many Bishops especially those of Alexandria being departed as Blundel acknowledges pag. 966. and Leo refusing to confirm it is witnessed by Theodoret who was present in the Council by Dionysius exiguus and Theodorus Lector and the rest both Latins and Greeks who writ the Ecclesiastical History in that age and it is your task to quote some of them who inserted it into the number of the Canons of Chalcedon so that it was excluded and thereby at least suspended from being numbred with the other Canons of that Council till many years after which happily might have given occasion to St. Gregory of saying that the Council of Chalcedon in one place was falsified by the Church of Constantinople nor can it be found to have been cited as a true Canon of Chalcedon before the Trullan Conventicle mentioned it as one of them which was assembled a hundred and forty years after the council of Chalcedon CHAP. VII Agapet Anthymus St. Cyril Nestorius ARGUMENT NUm 233. Whether Pope Agapets deprivation of Anthymus Bishop of Constantinople were unjust Num. 236. Mr. Baxter is put to another desperate shift to avoid the force of Pope Gregorie the great 's words Num. 140. St. Cyril and Nestorius acknowledge the Popes Supremacy Num. 241. Celestines condemning Nestorius proves his universal authority Num. 242. No National nor Patriarchal Synode is of force to oblige any out of that Nation or Patriarchate where it is celebrated Num. 245. Whether St. Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria and President in the first Ephesine Council or Mr. Richard Baxter Minister of Kiddermunster be the wiser Num. 246. A threefold corruption of his Adversaries words Num. 247. Another corruption of his Adversaries argument Num. 248. Mr. Baxters Prophesie Num. 250. and Num. 252. His instances inapposite Num. 254. He slights the Council of Chalcedon Mr. Baxter Num. 233. That which they desired of him was what Synodes ordinarily did of Bishops of their Communion that were absent haec sicut propria amica ad decorem convenientissima dignare complecti sanctissime beatissime pater Non-proof 23. William Iohnson Num. 233. Here 's another of your Non-proofs shew if you can that Oecumenical Councils such as this at Chalcedon was did ordinarily beseech rogamus and entreat other Bishops to yeeld to what they had decreed as did here this Council St. Leo in this their Epistle to him General Councils understood the extent of their authority too well to beg of any Patriarch save him of Rome to yeeld consent to their decrees for they esteemed them all obliged to assent to them when they were approved by the Roman Bishop as appears both in this Council by the Emperours writing to all Churches to know whether they consented to it and their punishing Dioscorus the first In Epistolis ad diversas Ecclesias in fine Conc. Chalced. and Iohn of Antioch the second Oriental Patriarch and the like in that of Ephesus in condemning Nestorius c. But you use a petty sleight or two here first you say they write to Leo for his consent in the former Paragraph not specifying the manner of their writing and thereby leaving your Reader an occasion to think they might write by way of command or exaction for there are very different manners of writing one to another whereas I have declared their writing to Leo to have been by humble requests and intreaties and then in this Paragraph you say Councils ordinarily writ to Bishops in the same manner as this Council did to Leo not expressing what Councils you mean For if you speak of such Councils as were accounted in their respective times only National or Provincial 't is true they might entreat other Patriarchs and Bishops to give their approbation of them but that 's a stranger to our present matter if of general Councils which is only in question you should not have supposed but proved it Such minute underminings as these will gain you no great credit Mr. Baxter Num. 233. In your Margin you tell me that Agapet in the time of Justinian deposed Arithymus in Constantinople against the will of the Emperour and the Empress Reply And doth it follow that because he did it therefore he did it justly yea and as the Governour of that Church when Menna Bishop of Constantinople excommunicated Pope Vigilius was he not even with him and did that prove that Rome was subject unto Constantinople Niceph. l. 17. c. 26. when Dioscorus excommunicated Leo and an Eastern Synode excommunicated Julius Zozom l. 3. c. 11. that proves not that they did it justly or as his Governours Honorius the Emperour deposed Boniface Otho with a Synode deposed Johan 13. Justinian deposed Sylverius and Vigilius will you confess it therefore justly done as to the History I refer you to the full answer of Blondel to Perron cap. 25. sect 84 85. usurpation and deposing one another by rash sentences was then no rare thing Eusebius of Nicomedia threatned the deposing of Alexander of Constantinople who sure was not his subject Socrat. lib. 1. c. 37. vel 25. Acacius of Caesarea and his party depose not only Eleusius Basilius and many other but with them also Macedonius Bishop of Constantinople Socrat. lib. 2. c. 33. vel 42. did this prove Acacius the Vice-Christ what should I instance in Theophilus actions against Chrysostome or Cyrils against Johan Antiochen and many such like William Iohnson Num. 234. What will not obstinacy do rather then yeeld hitherto you have laboured to evade all the Instances I brought against you as insufficient to prove the Bishops of Rome did any act of true jurisdiction over the other Patriarchs Blond p. 438. and 439. Iustifies this proceeding of Agapet and Bishops of the East Church Now seeing this act cannot be pretended not to shew an exercise of power and jurisdiction over the Patriarch of Constantinople you confess the fact to be an act of power and superiority but alleadge it was unjust that is above the power of the Roman Bishops and then to make your plea good you demand this question of me and doth it follow that because he did it therefore he did it justly and that done to prove that consequence null you instance in many who excommunicated both Popes and other Bishops unjustly But see you not a wide
you are of an inferiour order to his Majesty and content he shall take place of you but withal deny he has any power over you were not he likely to be well serv'd by such subjects but sure you might have discovered had you read his words attentively that St. Gregory could not mean a subjection only of inferiority in order and not in government for he sayes in another place if there be any fault committed by Bishops l. 7. ep 64. secundum Blondel ep 65. Iâ—â—dictione 2. I know no Bishop which is not subject to the Apostolical Sea but if the fault require it not according to the reason of humility wee are all equal See you not the subjection which he asserts here is grounded in the delicts or faults of Bishops and is not that in order to correction reprehension and punishment for those faults and must not that proceed from power of government and authority over them is not this evident nor can he speak in the first part of this sentence of a subjection of order only for he affirms that supposing there be no fault the Bishop of Rome is the first Patriarch in order through the whole Church and consequently the rest unequal in ranke and place that is subject to him in your sense he must therefore mean another subjection besides that when he saith they are subject by reason of their faults would it not be ridiculous if the Mayor of London shoul write thus because all other Mayors are inferiour to him in order if any fault be committed by the Mayors of this Kingdome I know none of them all who is not subject to the Mayor of London but if no fault require it in humility we are all equal I hope by this time you will have cause to doubt whether your sense be the sense of St. Gregory here or no Mr. Baxter Num. 238. But if it had been otherwise Constantinople and the Empire was not all the Christian world William Iohnson Num. 238. This seemes to be the burthen of your song but I have shewed you just now that it s quite out of the tune Mr. Baxter Num. 239. Your next citation is lib. 7. epist. 37. but its falsly cited there is no such word and you are in so much haste for an answer that I will not read over all Gregories epistles William Iohnson Num. 239. There is an errour in the figures it should be lib. 7. ep 64. where you 'l finde what I cite And that very reason which you alleadge for not reading over St. Gregories epistles viz. hasting for an answer pleads the excuse of my friends in sending my answer away to you before I could return to town and read it over to wit your importunity for a speedy answer Mr. Baxter Num. 240. You say that Cyril would not breake of communion with Nestorius till Celestine had condemned him of this you gixe us no proof William Iohnson Num. 240. Doe I not looke in the Margin p. 56. in your edit lit o. you 'l finde the proof of it cited there I see you use not to read the places cited by your adversary otherwise you could not but have seen the proof of what I say in Cyrils epistle to Celestine Mr. Baxter Num. 241. But what if it be true did you think to prove the Pope to be the vice-Christ prudence might well make Cyril cautelous in excommunicating a Patriarch And we still grant you that the order of the Empire had given the Roman Bishop the Primacy therein and therefore no wonder if his consent were expected William Iohnson Num. 241. Yes indeed I really thought so if you understand by vice-Christ no more then what we ascribe to the Pope otherwise I would never have prest that instance to prove it And as really tooke I the writing of two and those as you would have it the cheif Patriarchs of the Eastern Church to the Pope of Rome the one to have his doctrine censured that is either allowed or condemned by the Pope the other to have the Popes authority for himself and the rest of the Eastern Bishops whether Nestorius his doctrine were formal heresie and they oblig'd to avoid communion with him this I tooke to be a forcible argument to prove the Pope to be a vice-Christ if you mean as we doe no more then this by it that he is the supream visible governour of the whole Christian militant Church in the place of Christ and truly I am in the same minde still for all you have brought against it Is it think you probable that Nestorius would have written to Celestine and required his authority for the approbation of his doctine had he esteemed him to have no more power over him then the Mayor of London hath over the Mayor of York nor was the question propounded by St. Cyril about a positive excommunication of Nestorius as you misconceiv'd but onlie a non-communion with him as you presently acknowledge Mr. Baxter Num. 242. But that Nestorius was comdemned by a Council needs no proof and what if Celestine began and first condemned him Is he therefore the universal Bishop William Iohnson Num. 242. Yes he is so as universal Bishop may be understood For if the condemnation of him in the Ephesine Council in conformity to the Popes precedent censure argu'd an universal authority in that council over the whole Church as all both Catholicks and Protestants you only excepted acknowledg much more the primacy and original condemnation of his doctrine argu'd an universal authority in Celestine Mr. Baxter Num. 243. But it was not Celestine alone but a Synod of the Western Bishops William Iohnson Num. 243. This is answered above where you put the same reply No national or patriarchal Council can upon their sole authority oblidge the rest of the Patriarchs as this did Mr. Baxter Num. 244. And yet Cyril did not hereupon reject him without further warning William Iohnson Num. 244. But that warning was ordered by Celestine as I have proved p. 56. in your edit Mr. Baxter Num. 245. And what was it that he threatned but to hold no communion with him William Iohnson Num. 245. And was that in your account a matter of smal moment you may please to take notice that the Bishop of Rome's denial to receive any one into his communion or the substracting himself from communicating with them was in those dayes an undoubted marke of their being cast out of the Church and that no Catholick Bishop was to excommunicate or to permit any under his charge to communicate with them as is proved at large in Schisme unmaskt or the conference with Dr. Gunning For the rule to know with whom every one was or was not to communicate was their Câ—â—mmunion or non-communion with the Roman Bishop Mr. Baxter Num. 246. And though pride made excommunication an Engine to advance one Bishop above others I can easily prove that if I had then lived it had been my duty to avoid
enough look into that action and you 'l find it in the Edition of Paulus Quintus Mr. Baxter Num. 253. But why were not the antecedent words of the Bishop of Antioch and his Clergy as valid to the contrary as Juvenals for this William Iohnson Num. 253. Because Iuvenal was a known Catholique Bishop Liberat. in brev c. 4. act Ephes. Tom. 1. c. 21. act Ephes. Tom. 3. c. 1. Evag. c. 5. alii and consented to the council and Iohn of Antioch with his complices were favourers of Nestorius restorers of the Pelagian Heresie and open Schismatiques celebrating a conventicle against the Ephesine council Mr. Baxter Num. 254. If these words were spoken they only import a judging in Council as a chief member of it and not of himself Non-proof 24. William Iohnson Num. 254. Yes sure it must needs be so because you say 't is so shall we never have an end of your non-proofs what kinde of Council mean you a general Council that was never thought necessary for the Roman Bishops censuring of others a particular that could have no juridical authority out of the Western Church ergo the power of judging out of the Western Patriarchate was only in the Pope Mr. Baxter Num. 255. And his Apostolica ordinatione is expresly contrary to the fore-cited Canon of the Council of Chalcedon and therefore not to be believed Non-proof William Iohnson Num. 255. Still more non-proofs why is it expresly contrary why you say 't is so I deny it to be contrary that 's as good as your affirmation I have explicated that Canon of Chalcedon above and made it consonant to these words of Iuvenal But what if it were contrary I have also shewed the uncanonicalness and illegality of that Canon But at least you cannot deny that I have brought one instance here that the Popes authority over a Patriarch was by Apostolical ordination Is it not manifest by this your answer that you slight the Council of Chalcedon in granting in one Session to approve of Iuvenals sayings and in another to contradict them Mr. Baxter Num. 256. Yet some called things done ordinatione Apostolica which were ordained by the seats which were held Apostolick Non-proof 25. William Iohnson Num. 256. Some which some why say you some and name none nor prove any still more and more non-proofs Mr. Baxter Num. 257. But still you resolve to forget that Antioch or the Empire extended not to the Antipodes nor contained all the Catholick Church William Iohnson Num. 257. Your burthen must still bear up the Song we have had enough of that already Shew some solid reason why the Pope had rather power over the Church and Patriarch of Antioch then over all other Prelates and Churches and you say something Mr. Baxter Num. 258. You next tell me of Valentinians words A.D. 445. Reply It is the most plausible of all your testimonies but worth nothing to your end for 1. Though Theodosius ' s name pro forma were at it yet it was only Valentinians act and done at Rome where Leo prevailed with a raw unexperienced Prince to 1 word the Epistle as he desired so that it is rather 2 Leo's then the Emperours original 13. Non-proofs more noted in figures in the Text. 3 And Leo was the first that attempted the excessive advancement of his seat above the rest of the Patriarchs 2. It is known that the Emperours sometime gave the Primacy to Rome and sometime to Constantinople as they were pleased or displeased by each of them So did Justinian who A. D. 530. Lampadio Oreste Coss. C. de Episcopis lib. 1. lege 24. saith Constantinopolitana Ecclesia omnium aliarum est Caput The Church of Constantinople is the head of all other 3. It is your fiction and not the words of Valentinian or Leo that the succession from Peter was the foundation of Romes Primacy It was then believed that Antioch and other Churches had a succession from Peter It is the merit of Peter and the dignity of the City of Rome and the authority of the Synode jointly that he ascribeth it to The 4 merit of Peter was nothing but the motive upon which Leo would have men believe the Synode gave the Primacy to Rome And Hosius in the Council of Sardica indeed useth that as his motive Let us for the honour of Peter c. They had a conceit that where Peter last preached and was martired and buried and his relicks lay there he should be most honoured 4. Here 's is not the least intitation that this Primacy was by Gods appointment or the Apostles but the Synodes nor that it had continued so from Peters dayes but that jointly for Peters merits and honour and the Cities dignity it was given by the Synode 5. And it 6 was but Leo's fraud to perswade the raw Emperour of the authority of a Synode which he would not name because the Synode of Sardica 7 was in little or no authority in those dayes The rest of the reasons were fraudulent also which though they prevailed with this 8 Emperour yet they took not in the East And Leo himself it seems durst not pretend to a divine right and 9 institution nor to a succession of Primacy from the Apostles 6. But nothing is more false then your assertion that he extendeth the power over the whole visible Church The word universitas is all that you translate in your Comment the whole visible Church As if you knew not that there was a Roman universality and that Roman Councils were called universal when no Bishops out of that one Common-wealth were present and that the Church in the Empire 10 is oft called the whole Church yea the Roman world was not an unusual And I pray you tell me what power Valentinian had out of the Empire who yet interposeth his authority there Neque praeter authoritatem sedis istius illicitum c. ut pax ubique servetur And in the end it is all the Provinces that is the university that he extends his precepts to 7. And for that annexed that without the Emperours letters his authority was to be of force through France for what shall not be lawful c. I answ No wonder for France was part of his Patriarchate and the Laws of the Empire had confirmed his Patriarchal power and those Laws might seem with the reverence of Synodes without new letters to do much But yet it 11 seems that the rising power needed this extraordinary secular help Hilary it seems with his Bishops thought that even to his Patriarch he owed no such obedience as Leo here by force exacteth So that your highest witness Leo by the mouth of Valentinian is for no more then a Primacy with a swelled power in the Roman universality but they never 12 medled with the rest of the Christian world It seems by all their writings and 13 attempts this never came into their thoughts William Iohnson Num. 258. In this paragraph you
have no lesse then a bakers dozen of non proofs I have noted them by figures in your text let them be prov'd and then they shall be answered till then they deserve no answer To what has any seeming ground or proof I answer First it imports little whether Theodosius had any hand in this Epistle or no I say nothing of him in my text p. 59.60.61 Secondly Your proof from Iustinian is already answered in my observation made upon p. 174. of your key only I see you have mended your citation and put lib. in place of lege 3. Must it needs follow that it is my fiction because it is not the words of Valentinian that the succession from St. Peter is the foundation of Romes primacy May not a medium be given betwixt those two extremes what if it were the true sense of Valentinians words it was then neither his words nor my fiction but a true interpretation of his words and that it is so is manifest for there must be some reason sure why the merit of St. Peter conferr'd a primacy rather upon the Bishop of Rome then upon any other Bishop but none can be imagined save this that the Bishops of Rome succeeded St. Peter in the sea of Rome ergo it must be that succession or nothing You seem to say that because St. Peter last preached and was martired and buried and his relicks lay there he should be most honoured and by honoured you must mean as Hosius cited by you here and Valentinian doe in the power acknowledged in the Bishops of Rome But this cannot subsist for St. Paul preached last at Rome also was martyred and buried and his relicks lay there yet no authors say the primacy of the Roman Bishops was founded in St. Pauls merits now no reason can be given of this save that which I gave viz that the Roman Bishops succeed not to St. Paul as they doe to St. Peter because St. Paul was never Bishop of Rome as St. Peter was What you say of the succession from St. Peter in Antioch availes nothing for he having deserted the Bishopprick of Antioch in his life time and transferr'd his seate to Rome were he dyed Bishop of the Roman see was to have his proper successour there for by tranferring his see to Rome he transferr'd the dignity of Primacy of the Episcopal crown as Valentinian sayes there appropriated to him and took it from Antioch and by dying Bishop of Rome left it there to his successours whence appears that the Bishop of Antioch was a successor to St. Peter as were other Bishops but no successor to his supereminent dignity and primacy over the Church because so long as St. Peter lived it could not descend upon any other Fourthly I deny not that he ascribes the establishment of Romes primacy to those three St. Peter the city and the Synod yet he makes the first foundation of it the dignity of St. Peter and therefore prefixes it before the other two and that it may appear he makes this the first and fundamental reason and not the Synod he addes these words haec cum fuerint hactenus inviolabiter custodita since these things i. e. that nothing of great concern should be done without the authority of the Roman see have been hitherto inviolably observ'd for if the Synod had conferr'd that dignity to the Bishop of Rome he could not have said with truth that those things had been alwayes observ'd for before the Synod which gave it which was three hundred years and more after the re-Surrection of our Saviour they were observed seeing therefore they were alwayes observed that power authority must have been in the Bishop of Rome long in being before those Synods were celebrated Now how the dignity of the Roman city concurr'd to this primacy I have above declared whence appears the loud untruth which you pronounce n. 4. Here is not the least intimation that this primacy was but by the appointment of the Synod nor that it had continued so from St. Peters dayes Since you use not to read over the texts which are brought against you I pray you what signifie these words haec cum fuerint hactenus inviolabiliter observata these things have been hitherto inviolably observed what signifies hitherto but from St. Peters time to his Your guess at the Synod of Sardica as aimed at by Valentinian though say you it was of little credit in those dayes which I have numbred amongst your non-proofs is a pure mistake for the Synod he alludes to is that of Nice which in the 6 canon as it is recited in the Council of Chalcedon sayes thus Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum the Church of Rome hath allwaies had the primacy where that holy council gives it not as you surmise but declares it to have been alwaies due to that see since the Apostles time whence also appears the falshood of what you say next that Leo durst not pretend divine right and institution nor to a succession of Primacy from the Apostle for this very Synod to which Leo alludes warrants both For if it were alwayes due to it or that it had alwayes possession of it semper habuit it must have come not only from the time of the Apostles but from Christ himself otherwise it had been semper for in the time of the Apostles it had not been due to it When you say next I translate the word universitas the whole visible Church you wrong me for I translate it universality see pag. 59. and when I name the whole visible Church p. 60. I make no translation of his words but deliver that which I think to be the sense of them To what you say there was a Roman universality If you mean that those who were under the sole Roman Empire with exclusion of all extra-imperial Churches communicating with them were called anciently the universal Church or the universality of Christians you are much deceived where prove you that if as united with them and giving the denomination to the whole 't is true and confirms what I say Now to shew that Valentinian meanes by universalities not those of the Roman Empire exclusively to all others he joynes to universalitie ubique for then sayes he the peace of the Church will be kept every where when the whole universality acknowledges their governour but certainly Valentinian was not so ignorant as not to know there were then many Churches out of the Roman Empire For about the year 414. that is above 20 years before Valentinian enacted this law Spain was possest by the Goths and divided from the Roman Empire and was Valentinian think you ignorant of that so that I am not ashamed to confesse my ignorance that I really know not any Roman universality Ecclesiastical in your precisive and exclusive sense nor know I any Council anciently stiled oecumenical or universal where no Bishops out of that one the Roman common-wealth were present and you have not yet
what he was not obliged to prove Num. 277. Why the Roman supremacy in spirituals is necessary to the being of Christs visible Church Num 278. He proceeds fallaciously a sensu conjuncto ad sensu divisum The difference between temporal Kings and Popes government not understood by Mr. Baxter Num. 279. He proceeds a jure ad factum from what should be done to what is done Num. 280. He mistakes his adversaries meaning in governing others as Brethren Num. 281. Wâ—â—e her the Pope be absolutely the Monarch of the visible Church Mr. Baxter Num. 275. Yet fear you not to say that in the time of the holy oecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon the universal consent of the whole Catholick Church was for you in this point The Lord keep our consciences from being the servants of our opinions or interests 1. Was the Popes legate the whole Church 2. Was there one man at either of these Councils but within the Empire yea a piece of the Empire So that they were but such as we now call national Councils that is consisting only of the subjects of one republick 3. Did the Council speak a word for your power without the Empire 4. Do they not determine it so expresly to be of humane right that Bellarmine hath nothing regardable to say against it Can. 28. Con. Chal. but that they spoke falsly And yet your opinion or interest hath tempted you to appeal viz. to the Sun that there is no such thing as light William Iohnson Num. 275. Here 's nothing but a good face put upon a bad cause and a repetition of what is answered imboldned with a new confidence your first qu. about the Popes legate is answered To your second I answer yes there were no small number of extra-imperials but had there been none if all were summoned it ceased not to be a general Council To the third yes every decree it made was spoken to the whole Church and as it appeares by the letters of Leo the Emperour writ presently after the Council of Chalcedon to all Churches even the most distant in those parts it was universally received in their respective answers by every one of them To your fourth about can 28. Con. Chal. I have answered already and shall say more when it is more fully treated Mr. Baxter Num. 276. After the conclusion you have a supernumerary in your margin from Greg. lib. 10. Epist. 30. But there is no such word in that Epistle nor is it of any such subject But it s the 31 Epistle its like that your leader meant And there is no more but that a Bishop not named person or place having fallen into Schism voluntarily swore never more to depart from the unity of the Catholick Church or the Sea of Rome But. 1. So may a Bishop of the Roman Province do or Patriarchate without beleiving Rome to be the universal head William Iohnson Num. 276. Could they and yet make the communion with the Bishop of Rome to be the certification and evidence they reconciled themselves to the Catholick Church If any Schismatick in France should reconcile himself to the Catholick Church could he promise to remain allwayes in the communion of the Bishop of Rhemes suppose that Bishop should so be excommunicated or turne Schismatick as he might could he promise never to forsake his communion seeing therefore an absolute promise was made to remain alwayes in the communion of the Bishop of Rome it was presupposed that Bishop once lawfully chosen and installed could never be excommunicated or become a Schismatick so long as he remained Bishop of Rome otherwise the promise had been illegal and impious obliging them to communicate with Schismaticks Now there can be no other sufficient reason given why the Bishop of Rome can never be excommunicated or become a Schismatick so long as he is Bishop of that Sea then that he is the visible head of the whole Church from whose communion whosoever seperates becomes a Schismatick as he who seperates from the loyal obedience of the visible head of a Kingdome becomes a Rebel but because he has no power above him against whom he can rebel but as a King can never be a Rebell so not the highest visible governour of the Church can be excommunicated or commit Schisme by contempt of the lawful authority of the Church because he who is the highest of all has no authority in the Church over him for then he were not the highest Mr. Baxter Num. 277. So might any one in any other Province have done And yet it followes not that he ought to do so because he did so You see now what all your proofs are come too and how shamefully naked you have left your cause William Iohnson Num. 277. I have so illustrated and strengthened my instances to open them to your understanding that every one of them by an argument a paritate rationis onis ut supra evinces the Popes power to have been universal over all Christendome seeing those Patriarchs and Prelates that were within the verge of the Empire obeyed him upon no other score save this that they still conceived him to be by vertue of the priviledges and powers given by our Saviour to St. Peter and his lawful successors the cheif Governour of themselves and of all other Prelates whatsoever and of the whole Church and I challenge you to produce one sole instance of Authority from antiquity which sayes in expresse termes that those of the Empire obeyed them because they were members of the Empire or that his authority reached not without the Empire Nay even in time of the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon Spain though seperate from the Empire obeyed the Roman Bishop for it was possest by the Gothes an 414. who have ever since kept it and the Council of Ephesus began 430. And not long after an 475. France was possest by barbarous Kings and never since returned to the Empire yet still remained under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome When England was after converted betwixt six and seven hundred years it was no part of the same Empire yet yeilded it obedience to the Bishop of Rome the like is of many other Western and Northern Countries out of the Empire converted about or after these times See more of this in my reasons against your grand noveltie in restraint of general councils what you mention here of a parity from Canterbury hath no parity at all For the English Church rendred obeisance to the Bishop of Canterbury as to the Primate of the English Church only whereas those in the Empire obeyed the Bishop of Rome not as cheif Bishop only of the Roman â—â—mpire but as having authority over the whole Church in vertue of succession from St. Peter who received it from Christ which I will demonstrate hereafter Mr. Baxter Num. 278. You have not named one man that was a Papist Pope Lâ—â—o was the nearest of any man nor one testimony that ever a
Pope of Rome had the government of all the Church without the verge of the Roman Empire but only that he was to the Roman Church as the arch-bishop of Canterbury to the English Church and as between Canterbury and York so between Rome and Constantinople there have been contentions for preheminency but if you can prove Canterbury to be before York or Rome before Constantinople that will prove neither of them to be Ruler of the antipodes or of all the Christian world William Iohnson Num. 278. But if you can prove Canterbury to be not only in place and precedency but in authority and jurisdiction above York and withall above all the Metropolitans Primates and Patriarchs which were anciently within the Roman Empire because they acknowledged his authority to be above all the Prelates of God to have Christs vineyard committed to his care from Christ to be the Father to all the Bishops met in general Councils and they his professed children acknowledged by them to be their head and they as parts subject to him c. And never to have been acknowledged as supream in spirituals by these in the Empire because his authority reached as I have prov'd the Bishops of Rome to have been acknowledged by them no farther then the Empire When I say you shall have prov'd the Bishop of Canterbury to have been over all the Metropolitans Primates and Patriarchs within the Empire in this manner as I have proved the Bishop of Rome to be you will have proved Canterbury to have had all the preheminences given him by antiquity to be the Supream spiritual governour of the whole Church But seeing neither you nor any one in his right wits would ever undertake so great a peice of nonsence I should have wondered you dazle the eyes of your readers with such empty shewes as these had it not been so ordinary with you This very argument hath proved that not only one man but as you cannot deny all the Churches in the Empire acknowledge it and yet you say I have not proved one man to hold it whether this be to be termed confidence or impudence I leave to judgement Mr. Baxter Num. 279. Much less have you proved that ever any Church was of this opinion that the Pope was by divine Right the Governour of the world when you cannot prove one man of that opinion 3. much less have you proved a succession of such a Church from the Apostles having said as much as nothing to the first 300 yeares William Iohnson Num. 279. You forget and have proceeded in that act of oblivion through your whole reply that I undertook in these instances noe more then to prove against your bold assertion that within the first 600. 500. and 400 yeares there were some at least who testified the Supremacy of the Roman Bishop over the whole Church by Christs institution though therefore my proofs had not been taken out of those who flourished within the first 300 years seeing they were within the first 400 they had been of force against you But you may remember also that I cited St. Cyprian who was within the first 300 and Vincentius Lyrinensis who witnesses the same of Pope Stephen contemporary with St. Cyprian and very many of my cheif instances prove V. G. in the councils of Nice Ephesus and Chalcedon that it descended from our Saviour and had been in all ages since the Apostles and was to be in all future ages Mr. Baxter Num 380. And much less have you proved that the whole Catholique Church was of this opinion William Iohnson Num. 380. Whether I have or no let others judge Mr. Baxter Num. 381. And yet least of all have you proved that the whole Church took this Primacy of Rome to be of necessity to the very being of the Church to our salvation and not only ad melius esse as a point of order William Iohnson Num. 381. I have proved it to have been a matter ever necessary in the Church by Christs institution and therefore necessary ad esse to the being and not only ad bene esse to the perfection of the Church For seeing some Governours are essential to the Church as appears Ephes. 4. v. 11 12 13. in the order and Hierarchy of those Governours there must be some who are to be over all the rest in visible government otherwise neither could schism be avoided and unity preserved as Optatus cited hereafter affirms l. 2. contra Parmen nor would a visible body have a visible head which would be monstrous Mr. Baxter Num. 382. So that you have left your cause in shameful nakedness as if you had confessed that you can prove nothing William Iohnson N. 382. If you mean to such eyes as yours which I have demonstrated either discovered not or mis-saw the face of my arguments I grant it but all open and right sighted eyes I hope will have seen my cause so invested with grace and truth by what I have here replyed that it will have no shame to appear before heaven and earth before men and angels for its justification Mr. Baxter Num. 383. In the end you return to terms To what you say about the word Christians I only say that it s but equivocally applied to any that profess not all the essentials of Christianity of which Popery is none any more then pride is William Iohnson Num. 383. I leave it to judgement whether this answer related to my explication as of Christianity pag. 64. your edit have any sense in it For what though Popery as you conceit were no more essential to Christianity then pride is yet if a Papist hold all the essentials of Christianity as you hold he does he may be univocally a Christian. Will you say that because pride is none of the essentials of Christianity therefore no proud man holds all the essentialls of Christianity to what purpose then have you added this clause of Pride and Popery when I speak in general and abstractive terms not medling at all with particulars Now you give no satisfaction to your Reader about the clear notion of an univocal Christian you tell him here that an univocal Christian is he who believes all the essentials of Christianity but through this whole answer you never give him either a distinct catalogue of essentials or prescribe any direct rule or means to know which they are as we shall see hereafter Mr. Baxter Num. 384. About the word Monarch in good sadness do you deny the Pope to be an imperious sole Commander Which of these is it you do deny not that he is a Commander not that he is imperious not that he is sole in his Soveraignty I would either you or we knew what you hold or deny But perhaps the next words shew the difference as temporal Kings But this saith not a word wherein they differ from temporal Kings William Iohnson 384. You are really a strange man to deal withal Can any one speak more
and the Apostles successors yea Peters successours were Titles given to others as well as him and more then these It being therefore the point in controversie between us whether the Bishop of Rome be in the place of Christ or as his Vicar the Head Monarch or Governour of the Church universal and the termes Vice-Christi Vicarius Christi being those that Popes and Papists choose to signifie their claim what other shoâ—â—lâ—â— I use William Iohnson Num. 414. This discourse of yours is defective many wayes First it is fallacious ex insufficiente enumeratione partium For amongst all the titles you have reckoned you have not that of Pontifex maximus and the like may be said of many others which is peculiar to the Bishop of Rome and was never attributed to any other nor was any other ever intituled Vicarius-Christi the Vicar of Christ nor Episcopus universalis Ecclesiae Bishop of the universal Church nor Caput omnium sacerdotum Dei the head of all Priests of God save the Pope see how much you are out in the accounts Secondly it is corrupt for you fall againe as you did in your key ut supra to translate Pontifex Pope and summus Pontifex Chief Pope Thirdly you assert the same things without proof as that Head of the Church was given to Constantinople that the Popes made an agreement with Constantinople that their Patriarch should keep the title of universal Patriarch and the Bishop of Rome be called the universal Pope Fourthly you speak equivocally for though summus Pontifex as Baronius notes was given anciently to all Bishops yet that was in relation to inferiour Clarks not to all even Bishops Metropolitanes and Patriarchs as it is given to the Bishop of Rome So that Summus Pontifex in Baronius his sense signifies no more then a chief or highest Priest but ascribed to the Pope it signifies the chief and the highest Bishop and is consignificant with Pontifex Maximus which Baronius affirms to be peculiar to the Pope as I have already noted you equivocate also in the title of Saint Peters successours as I have declared above for though other Bishops may be said to be his successours secundum quid in some part of his Ecclesiastical power viz as he was a Bishop yet none can be said to be his successour simpliciter absolutely and intirely that is in the fulnesse of his power as he was Prince of the Apostles and chief Bishop of Gods visible Church as it is visible save the Bishop of Rome for the reason above alleadged by me and thus much your self must grant according to your own principles for though you assert other Bishops to be his successours in his Episcopal dignity yet seeing you grant him a precedency of place before all other Bishops and Patriarchs as Saint Peter had precedency before all the rest of the Apostles for otherwise he could not have been as the Ancient Fathers familiarly call him Princeps Apostolorum the Prince and chief amongst the Apostles for that must at least signifie a principallity in place and rank seeing I say you yield him this precedency none can have been successour to Saint Peter in the full extent of his dignity save the Bishop of Rome As to the particular Authours you cite here you have very ill luck in your citations you first produce these words qui totum dicit nihil excludit as spoken by Stephanus Patracensis when they are St. Bernards words and cited by this Stephanus out of his book de consideratione to Eugenius the Pope and to which words of St. Bernard Stephanus Alcides in this place So that you cannot condemn him unlesse you condemn Saint Bernard for using that allusion out of Scripture to the Pope The meaning of this Author is no more then this that he having before termed the Church Coelum Heaven he prosecutes that metaphor and by Heaven meanes nothing but Ecclesiastical persons and by earth those of the laity for he speakes first of Bishops and Prelates and then of Christian Kings and Princes saying to the Pope Et vera reformatio fiat tam in spiritualibus quam in temporalibus ubicunque terrarum tuo decreto diffusa fuerit after which he adds immediately Accipe ergo gladium divinae potestatis c. Quia tibi data est omnis potestas in caelo in terra Antoninus whom you very leardnedly call Antonius in that place of his History if you mean that has not one word of what you cite here Paulius Emilius Augustin Triumphus Zabarella and Bertrandus I have not yet seen but these are only particular Authors not of sufficient authority which I required to conferre the title of the Vice-Christ upon Popes nor yet do they so much as mention any such title Now these authorities were either alleadged by you to confute my position denying the title of Vice-Christ was given him by sufficient authority or they so many pure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and proofs in the air you pretend by these allegations to prove against my assertion that the title of the Vice-Christ is given by authority to our Popes and accepted by them and to prove this you cite five particular Authors whereof not so much as one names the title of the Vice-Christ Is not this as much as to say they give him not the title of Vice-Christ ergo they give him the title of Vice-Christ Sure you dream'd of logick when you writ this yet farther if these five authorities prove any thing against us tis that they make the Pope not the Vice-Christ but Christ himself or of equal power with him and one of them that the Pope is of greater power then God himself which is directly contrary to your pretence for no vice-Vice-King is the King nor of equal power with the King If you reply in proving they make him equal to God and Christ c. They prove more then was undertaken to be proved and that they make him higher then the Vice-Christ And secondly you may please to remember you had two things to prove the first that the Popes were held by sufficient authority amongst us to be the Vice-Christ and secondly that the Popes accepted of that title Now though you had prov'd that some have given them eulogiums sounding something more then the Vice-Christ yet that will neither prove it was done by sufficient authority nor unlesse you prove the Popes have accepted them which you never so much as essay to doe your intent in these prooss for the authorities you alledge are not sufficient to ground a publick solemn title so that your Thesis is left bare and naked yet without proof You say here the ancient Councils though câ—â—ld General yet were but of one principallity that is as you have often affirmed their authority extended no farther then the Empire so that in effect they were not truly general but national or provincial Now I have already produced many reasons to represse this your grand novelty and prov'd
manifestly that in some of these Councils were many Bishops out of Spain France and Germany or at least that these Councils had power and jurisdiction over the Churches in those Nations after they were separated from the Roman Empire under other Kings and Governours I will now indeavour to shew that there were extra-imperial Bishops in the four first Councils and that such as were out of the Empire subjected themselves to their determinations as to such as were obligatory through the whole Church concerning the first In the first Council of Nice Theophilus Gothiae Metropolis Bishop of Gothia in the farthest parts of the North beyond Germany Dominus Bospori Bishop of Bosporus a citty of Thracia Cimmeria or India as Cosmographers declare 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 as Ptolomeus notes l. 4. c. 1. Iohanâ—â—es Persidis of Persia which was not under the Roman Empire as you acknowledge above In the first Council of Constantinople the second General were three Bishops of Scythia And Etherius Anchialensis now Anchialos is a City in Thracia not far from great Apollonia In the first Council of Ephesus the third General was Phebamon Coptorum Episcopus the Bishop of Kopti Theodulus Elusae Episcopus anciently a City of Arabia Theodorus Gadarorum Episcopus of that name is a City in Cavà -Syria In the Council of Chalcedon the fourth General was present Antipater Bostrorum Episcopus a City in Arabia ut supra Olympius Scythopoleos which is a City of the Scythians in Coele syria Eustathius Gentis Saxacenorum of Saraca there is a City so called in Arabia-Foelix Constantinus Episcopus Bostrorum in Arabia Subscripsit quidam pro Glaco Gerassae Episcopo Gerasa is a City in Coele-syria Now 't is evident 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 jurisdiction over the whole Church and never so much as insinuated that their authority was limited within the precincts of the Empire Thus the Council of Ephesus sayes their decrees was for the good of the whole world Thus the Council of Chalcedon act 7 apud Bin. tome 2. pag. 105. declares the Church of Antioch to have under its government Arabia and act 16. cap. 28. apud Bin. which you hold for a Genuine Canon that the Bishop of Constance should have under him certain Churches in barbarous Nations which you must prove to have been then under the Empire The first Council of Constance in that Canon which you admit about the authority of the Bishop of Constantinople makes a decree concerning those Churches which were amongst the Barbarians that they should be governed according to the ancient custome no wayes restraining the Canon to those only which were under the Empire Thus Nicephorus lib. 15. hist. Ecclesiast c. 16. relates that Leo the Emperour writ to the Bishops of all Provinces together circularibus per orbem literis ad Ecclesias missis Leo haec sic ad omnes ubique Episcopos misit which he accounts were above a thousand to have them subscribe to the Council of Chalcedon And in correspondence to those letters of the Emperour the Bishops of the second Armenia which seem to have been out of the Empire writ an answer wherein they affirm the Council of Nice conferr'd peace upon all the Catholick Churches founded thorough the whole world to wit by teaching them to defend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against Arius and call the Council of Chalcedon twice occumenical and general and Adelphus a Bishop of Arabia subscribes amongst the rest to this Epistle The Bishops of the second Mesnia which you must prove to have then been under the Empire writ that the Council of Nice deliver'd the Faith toto orbi terrarum to the whole world they stile also the Roman Bishop the head of Bishops and that the Council of Chalcedon was gathered by Pope Leo's command who since they call him head of Bishops they extend his power and consequently the power of that general Council gather'd by him to all Bishops and Churches in the world To this Epistle subscribes Dita Bishop of Odyssa in Scythia It is manifest also that the Bishops of Spain France and Germany who were not under the Emperour in time of the third and fourth general Councils submitted themselves to their decrees and esteem'd themselves obliged to it as you cannot deny Mr. Baxter Num. 415. As to what you say of the Council of Constance which you must say also of Basil and of the French Church Venetians c. you pretend the doubt to be only between ordinary and extraordinary Governours But 1. of old the Councils called General indeed but of one principality were more ordinary then now the Pope hath brought them to be and I blame him not if he will hold his greatness to take heed of them William Iohnson Num. 415. I wonder you have the boldness to say general Councils were more ordinary that is more frequent of old then now they are seeing that from St. Peters dayes till 300. years after Christ there was not so much as one general Council in the Church was the Church think you all that time governed by general Councils as by its ordinary Governour but what mean you by more ordinary you equivocate in the word ordinary for you by that word can mean no more then frequent whereas I take ordinary as it is taken in the Canon Law for that which is of it self not frequently but alwayes required for the Churches government and without which the Church cannot be rightly governed Thus a King is the ordinary head and supream Governour in his Kingdom and though Parliaments be ordinarily that is frequently called yet they cannot be said to be the ordinary governours of the Kingdom You play and dally with words not understanding the sense but the sound of them Mr. Baxter Num. 416. The way not to have been extraordinary if the Council of Constance had been infallible or of sufficient power who decreed that there should be one every ten years William Iohnson Num. 416. Here you use the same equivocation in the word extraordinary that you did just now in the word ordinary you call that extraordinary which is not frequent or happens but seldom when the true sense in which I speak and which you should oppose is this that which is not alwayes of its own nature necessary for the Churches government nor perpetually in use and power whether it be frequent or not frequent that is ordinary or extraordinary in your mistaken sense But I would intreat you hereafter to reflect a little more of what you write you hasten so much that you leave sense behind you The way say you not to have been extraordinary if the Council of Constance had been infallible or of sufficient power
It is evident that the principallity of Rome before all other Patriarchal Churches was not only in precedency of place and order but in power jurisdiction and authority over them for Damascus as Photius witnesse ep 125 confirm'd that Constantinopolitan Council which was an act of Supream jurisdiction 4 That addition to the second canon about Constantinople priviledges Con. Const. 1 c. 2. must have been annexed to the canon by some sinister meanes after the Council was dissolved for it is both dissonant from the former part of the canon which decrees that the Canon of Nice c. 6. be observed in exercise of jurisdiction within their districts prescribed in that canon and yet this addition infringes the very canon of Nice where the Bishop of Alexandria was the first and of Antioch the second both before Constantinople Second when Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria with a Council celebrated by his authority pretended to exercise authority over St. Chrysostome neither St. Chrysostome nor his adherents ever mentioned this addition to the second canon of Constantinople which had it been held authentical in their time they would doubtless have done as being so powerful to defend their cause Thirdly when Sicinius successour to Atticus at Constantinople had ordain'd Proclus his competitor Bishop of Sizicene by virtue of a canon that none should be ordain'd Bishop without the consent of the Constantinopolitan Bishop those of Sizicene rejected Proclus and affirm'd that canon to have been made only for Atticus nor did Sicinius so much as mention this canon of the first Council of Constantinople which he would have don Socrat lib. 7. c. 28. had he esteemed it a genuine part of the canon in his time now what is said of equal priviledges with Rome cannot be understood of all priviledges w ch Rome had for then Constantinople should not have been next after Rome but equal with Rome but it must be limited to some particular priviledges then though it had been made equal in them it might in others remain inferiour nay subject to it 38. To what you most urge that Romes priviledges were given to it by the Fathers and consequently are not derived from our Saviours institutions besides that of the greek word now observed I answer the Council of Chalcedon could not mean that the Fathers gave as by a new gift the priviledges to Rome without a plain contradiction for in the Council of Chalcedon the sixt canon of the Nicene Council is alledged thus Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum the Roman Church had alwaies the primacy now if it had alwaies the primacie how could the same Council say it recieved its priviledges and consequently its primacy as you collect here from the Fathers in succeeding times Either therefore you must say that supposing as you do this canon is a genuine canon of the Council that the Council contradicts it self or that they mean not these words the Fathers gave as a new gift all the priviledges to Rome or you must say that this canon is false supposititious fram'd surreptitiously and rejected by St. Leo destructive of the Nicene canon and ancient priviledges of other Churches and coin'd by Anatolius his adherents perswasion out of pride ambition as it is most manifest it is so of no force as Leo declares in his epistle to Anatolius And Anatolius himself in part acknowledges in his answer to Leo. To what you say of the ground of these priviledges the imperialitie of the Roman city I have told you that was not urged as the sole but as a partial ground of those priviledges as it is also in the letters of Valentinian cited above but yet that only was mentioned here because it made most for Anatolius his pretension 39. Your second argument is page 244 245 246 247. You ground your arguments in a patent falshood those Fathers and others as occasion served prest mainly and largely this argument so Bellar. Baron Perrone Coccius Gualterus Stapleton and others of this subject and no smal number of them are cited by me in this answer But you call all their citations scraps and it must be so if you have once said it your word is a proof at any time but you should have don well to have cited those scraps that the world might have seen whether they be so or no are you a disputant when you have no other reason for your saying then an I say so but if you make so slight of those proofs how will you prove from the Fathers either the baptisme of Infants or the necessity of Ministers or the precedency of the Roman Bishop which you hold but by those which here you call scraps out of these Fathers 40. Your next argument page 248. is an abominable untruth set down by a fore-head of brass you might as well have out-brav'd the loyal subjects of his most excellent Majesty in time of the rebellion by teling them the tradition of the greater part of the Nation was against him and his title what man in his right wits would have had the confidence to utter so loud a falshood without any proof at all if there be any perpetual tradition receiv'd as you affirm from generation to generation that the Papal viccar-ship or soveraignty is an innovation or usurpation and that the Catholick Church hath bin many hundred years without it as known and notorious as that the Turks believe in Mahomet by common consent of histories and Travelers shew this tradition from the year 300 to the year 600 to have bin as notoriously known and credited as it is that the Turks believe in Mahomet which if you cannot do all the world will see you are one of the most insufferable out-facers of truth and assertors of open falshood that ever yet set pen to paper and if you do it I 'le leave the papacy But see you not what an obligation you have now brought upon your self by your confidence of proving what you have hitherto denyed you had any obligation to prove you seem not to understand what tradition from generation to generation is nominate to me any one profession of Christians which held the Popes soveraignty as it is proposed by the Church of Rome to be an usurpation and I here oblige my self to shew the time since Christ when that profession was not in the Chrstian world as cleerly as you can shew when the prosession of the Turks in the belief of the Mahomets doctrine was not in those Nations wherein it is now when the profession it self was not how could it have any tradition 41. Page 249 250 251. Is first spent in five non-proofs let them be prov'd in your next concerning the Indians Persians c. Armenians Parthians and Abbasins wee have already spoken as occasion served which needs no repetition Now if I can prove as I have proved that any one extra-imperial Church was subject to the Bishop of Rome and you cannot shew some evident
Apostoloâ—â—um Capuâ—â— Petrus unde Cephas appellatus est In qua una Cathedra unitâ—â—s ab omnibus servaretur ne caeteri Apostoli singuli sibi quisque defenderent Ut jam Schismaticus peccator esset qui contra singularem Cathedram alteram collocaret Ergo Cathedra unica quae est prima de dotibus sedit prior Petrus cui successit Linus c. Therefore sayes Optatus thou canst not deny that thou knowest in the City of Rome the Episcopal chaire was first given to Peter wherein sate the head of all the Apostles Peter whence he is called Cephas In which one chaire unity should be kept by all least every one of the rest of the Apostles should defend another chair to himselfe That now he should be a Schismatick and a sinner who should erect another chaire against this that is single or one only therefore in this only chair which is one of the dowries of the Church first sate Peter to whom Linus succeeded c. Thus farr Optatus and then he reckons up seven and thirtie Popes succeeding one another to Ciricius who sate in his time then adds Cum quo nobis totus orbis commercio formarum in una communionis societate concordat Literarum supplendum videtur with whom Ciricius the whole world accords with us by the correspondence of formed Letters This done he relates that this truth of unity in faith and communion was then a thing so notoriously known throughout the whole Christian world for a mark of a true Christian that the Donatists themselves to have some pretence to it even from their first beginning sent one of their partie to be Bishop of the African Donatists in Rome and still continued the succession of those Donatists Bishops there to the number of four whose names he mentions so ambitious were they of having at least a shadow of communicating with a Bishop at Rome seeing they could never have it with the true Bishop of Rome as Optatus notes here St. Chrysostome (t) Orat. Encom in Petrum Paulum orat 5. contr Iudeos hom 83 in Math. hom 87. in Ioan. hom 80. ad po Anteoch stiles St. Peter Doctour or Teacher of the Apostles and that he was the first of the Apostles brought under his subjection the whole world and that Christ built his Church upon him The top of the Apostolical Colledge that he was President of the Church throughout the whole world St. Augustine (u) In questi novi test q. 75 in fine That all titles of Authority next after Christ were in St. Peter that he was the head to be Pastor of Christs flock that our Saviour praying for St. Peter pray'd for all the Apostles (x) Serm. 15. de Sanctis Serm. 16. because what is done for a Superiour or Governour is done for all those who are under his charge that he was the foundation of the Church by virtue of our Saviours words upon this rock I will build my Church he calls the Roman Sea the Sea Apostolick absolutely (y) Lit. 2. contr lit petil c. 51. (z) Himno cont partem Donati in initio That the succession of the Roman Bishops is the rock which the gates of Hell do not overcome I omit for brevity sake many other holy Fathers of those ages hoping these will be a sufficient testimony of St. Peters and the Roman Bishops authority not within the Empire only but through the whole Christian world 44. To your fift Argument p. 251. I deny your Antecedent you prove it by an outfacing confidence in five particulars to the first and second I answer it is not necessary he should either have chosen or ordain'd them nor authorize any other to the validitie of ordaining them nor that they should receive their Episcopal power of ordaining from him but their Patriarchal power was from him as I have proved above in that he both restored and deposed those Patriarchs as occasion requir'd To your third the lawes and canons of the Church they receiv'd and those were confirm'd by his authority To your fourth I have evidenced they were commanded and judged by him To your fift I deny the Patriarch of Constantinople to be equal with him in all things nor can you prove it No nor so much as essay to prove it without contradicting your self who grant him a precedency of place before the Bishop of Constantinople which is one priviledge CHAP. IV. St. Gregories doctrine about universal Bishop Num. 45. In what sence St. Gregory condemn'd the title of universal Bishop how cleerly he attributes to St. Peter the Soveraign authority over the whole Church by Christs authority and consequently to his lawful Succâ—â—ssors after his death the Bishops of Rome Num. 47 Whether the title of universal were offered St. Leo by the Council of Chalcedon why St. Gregory refus'd and condemn'd that title Num. 52. Mr. Baxter contradicts St. Gregory and himself and brings all he hath objected in 8. or 10. pages to nothing Num. 53 54 55. how various he is in his accounts Num. 57. into what difficulties Mr. Baxter casts himself 45. Pag. 253. You trifle about the title of universal Bishop or Patriarch this St. Gregory took to be full of pride and insolency and injurious to all Patriarchs and Bishops in the Church because it was capable of this signification that he was the universal Bishop of the whole Church so that there were no other true and effectual Bishops in the whole Church save himself and the rest were not Christs but his officers nor receiving their power from Christ but from him this he insinuates in the words you cite here and after sayes Iam vos Episcopi non estis if once an universal Bishop were admitted in the Church then all the rest were no longer Bishops for this reason this holy Pope refused and condemn'd this title but as for the thing it self which is in controversie betwixt us that the Pope hath power and jurisdiction over the whole Church we have above proved St. Gregory to be most positive in it in several passages of his works See St. Gregories Epistles throughout nor was there every any Pope exercised more acts of jurisdiction through the whole Church as occasion required then he did And in his Epistles themselves even in those he writ in time of this controversie with Iohn of Constantinople he gives most evident proofs of it Ep. lib. 1. ep 24. he sayes thus Hinc namque est quod Petrus authore Deo principatum tenens a bene urgente Cornelio sese ei humiliter prosternanti immoderatius venerari recusavit Hence it is that Peter holding the principality by Gods authority or God being the author refused to be immoderately venerated by good Cornelius who prostrated himself unto him where he attributes St. Peters principality to the institution of God that is of our Saviour but then presently St. Gregory addes that when St. Peter dealt with Ananias
mox quanta potentia super caeteros excussit ostendit summum se intra Ecclesiam contra peccata recoluit He corroborated himself as the highest within the Church against sin N. B. he sayes summā intra Ecclesiam non intra imperium the highest within the Church not within the Empire And ep 32. ad Maurit Cunctis ergo Evangelium scientibus liquet quod voce dominica sancto omnium Apostolorum Petro principi Apostolo totius Ecclesiae cura commissa est cum totius Ecclesiae principatus ei committitur tamen universalis Episcopus non vocatur It is manifest to all who know the Gospel that by the voice of our Lord the care of the whole Church is committed to Peter the care and principality of the whole Church is committed to him and yet he is not call'd the universal Bishop Nor can you say with reason as you pretend that the rest of the Apostles had the care of the whole Church committed to them by our Saviour as St. Peter had For he had it sayes St. Gregory as being Prince of the Apostles themselves and so had not only the care of the people and inferiour Pastors and Prelates but of the very Apostles committed to him and in this exceeded all the other Apostles as having the care of the whole Church people Pastors Bishops Apostles committed to him by our Saviour which no other had the same nor said he to any of them absolutely feed my Lambes feed my Sheep that is all my Lambes all my Sheep but to him Thus St. Paul when he saith the care of all Churches lay upon him he includes not the Apostles themselves as never having challenged nor ever having ascribed to him by antiquity to be princeps Apostolorum Prince of the Apostles as St. Peter had Beside the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 11.28 signifies a soliditude or anctious care which he took for all the Churches which might have been taken for them out of an excess of charity extended to all though he had had no power or care commited to him by our Saviour as St. Peter had over them See you not the care not of the Churches within the Empire as you fancy but of the whole Church as now declared not by humane right from Fathers or Councils as you imagin but by the voice of Christ himself was committed to St. Peter and this was no secret in St. Gregories dayes nor a thing known to many or most but to all sayes this holy Doctor who knew the Gospel And hence also appears the difference betwixt the title of universal and the thing it self controverted betwixt you and me which you would have signified by that title of having care and power committed to one from Christ over the whole Church this second sayes St. Gregory St. Peter had but not the first and this difference appears yet more evidently for the holy Pope instances also in the high Priest in Moses Law as you acknowledge page 265. who as all men know had not only precedency of place but real power and authority over the whole Church of the Jews and yet sayes he was not call'd universal Now this being St. Gregories doctrine in relation to St. Peter and our Saviour having subjected his Church under the care and providence of St. Peter as supream visible Governour in his place after his Ascention into Heaven it will follow that our Saviour judged this government alwayes necessary for his Church for the very same reason which made it necessary in the Apostles time evince it to be necessary in all succeeding ages this government therefore was to be perpetuated in his Church and seeing it was fix'd upon St. Peter by our Saviour it must fall upon St. Peters lawful successors after his death and seeing none can claim that succession save the supream Bishop for he of Antioch succeeded him in his life time and therefore could not have that soveraign power derived to him for St. Peter retained that as long as he lived as all acknowledge none save the Bishop of Rome can claim the care of the universal Church committed to him by vertue of Christs institution Ergo he and he only is the ordinary supream visible Governour of the whole Church of Christ in St. Gregories principles 46. But St. Gregory is not only positive in the principle but in the sequel also in relation to St. Peters successour at Rome for l. 4. ep 36. ad Eulog Alexandrinum Anastas Antioch speaking of the Constantinopolitane Synod which had given the title of universal to Iohn of Canstantinople he sayes thus Idem decessor meus ex authoritate sancti Petri directis litteris cassavit That his Predecessor had annul'd that Council by the authority of St. Peter behold the Roman Bishops used the authority of St. Peter and by power of that invalidated a Council collected out of their Patriarchate which shews that St. Peters authority descends down to his successors the Roman Bishops and that having been extended over the universal Church the successors also have the same extent of authority in vertue of their first predecessor St. Peter Now this phrase of exercising acts of government in the Church was ordinarily exprest by doing them by the authority of St. Peter as appears in a hundred passages of the ancients This annulling the acts of that Constantinopolitan Synod is again asserted by St. Gregory lib. 4. ep 34. ad Constant. Agustam where treating of Iohn of Constantinople he sayes Ita ut sanctae memoriae decessoris mei tempore ascribi se in Synodo See the like Text cited above lib. 7. ep 65. lib. 2. ep 37. lib. 7. ep 64. lib. 1. ep 72. tali hoc superbo vocabulo faceret quamvis cuncta acta illius Synodi sede contradicente Apostolicâ soluta sunt So that he John of Constantinople procur'd himself to be honour'd with that proud title in a Synod although all the acts of that Synod be dissolved the Apostolical See contradicting them Nor shews St. Gregory the authority of his predecessor only but his own also over the Bishops of Constantinople for lib. 4. ep ep 38. ad Ioan. constant Quicquid facere humiliter debui non omisi sed si in mea correptione despiciar restat at Ecclesiam debeam adhibere whatsoever I ought to do in humility I have not omitted but if I be despis'd in my correction it remains that I must use the Church that is as he treats immediately before use the authority of the Church in casting him out of it as a Heathen and Publican because he refused to hear the Church And again lib. 7. ep ep 70. ad Episcop Thessalon alios complures After he had strictly prohibited them to give any consent to the title of universal Bishop he addes si quis neglexerit a beati Petri Apostolorum principis pace se noverit segregatum If any one of you neglect this my command let him know
Patents and Commissions immediately from the King subject to the general in order to their respective commands but are as truly Officers of the King as the general is nor can the General displace any of them at his pleasure as the King can do though he has power to command them upon the Kings service or to correct punish or displace them when they give sufficient cause for that is also belonging to the Kings service Now you had not consideration enough to see this difference t' was not some will say for want of ignorance Now if we take the word universal in the malignant signification it will follow that if such an universal Bishop fall the Church falls with him because there will be no other true Pastour to maintain her in the truth through the whole Church the rest being not absolute pastours but his Officers 50. Page 257. Is spent in reciting St. Gregories execrations against the title of universal which touch'd not our controversie 51. Page 258. Whether your reply or Bellar. answer be more miserable I leave to the Reader he speaks of a Vicar to sinful man and you answer t is no indignity to a Bishop to be a Vicar of Christ the eternal God next you equivocate again num 2. the question is not what Iohn thought or pretended by that title who can prove or disprove evidently what were his secret thoughts but what St. Gregory expresses himself to judge of his pretences either what he did think or probably speaking might be judged to think by assuming that title Now that St. Gregory thought such to be Iohns pretensions by that title is out of question 52. Page 258.259 num 3. You make Pope Gregory his exceed in censure of Iohns pretensions in assuming that title and thereby take away all force from those very citations which you cite against us so strong a disputant are you against your self why should you think groundless discourses should be of any force against your adversarie nay you are so favourable to St. Iohn and so froward to St. Gregory that you make the one pretend no farther then to a precedency of place before all other Bishops which he had before in relation to all save only the Bishop of Rome so that it was not in reallity a subjection of all the members of Christ to him which he sought by that title supposing that it included no more then a primacy of order or precedency but that he sought only by that title having before precedency before all the rest to obtain precedencie before one more then he had that is the Bishop of Rome And for St. Gregory you make him an arrand lyer for he sayes neither himself nor any of his predecessours ever accepted of that proud title and yet if it were no more but a supremacy of place before all not an universal government as you say here it was not you your felf acknowledge that he and all his predecessors at least since the Council of Nice accepted of it nay you will make St. Gregory speak absurdly and ridiculously in inveighing so earnestly against Iohn of Constantinople as a forerunner of Anti-Christ a prophane person a destroyer of Episcopal dignitie c. For having pretended no more then to take place of the Pope whereas you say here the Pope had then no rite to nor possession in that precedency of place but only striv'd for it and why then might not Iohn strive also for't against him without blasphemy or Anti-Christanism What say you of the Greeks refusing to have the universal government of the Church I have above confuted out of Hieremius against the Lutherans 53. Page 259. The text you urge proves no more then the former and shews the truth of my answer the like is of page 260. That title as subjecting all Christs members to one as their universal Bishop as though they had no other Bishop nor true Pastour but him is as manifestly against Christ as if a General should subject all the souldiers and Officers under him as if he were their sole commander by immediate commission from the King and the rest by commission from him would be against the King 54. Page 261. The words you urge do manifestly illustrate my interpretation of St. Gregory when he sayes Et solus omnibus praeesse videretur for in our opinion it is not true that the Pope solus omnibus praeest is alone above all for all Christians have some other above them then the Pope as he is supream governour of the Church videlicet their respective Bishops and Pastours but in the sense St. Gregory speakes of the universal Bishop only is above all there being no others but such as have their authority from him and govern as his Officers in his place and by his authority 55. Page 261. Your first reply to Bellarm. is now answer'd t' was but two Deacons three leaves of and now t is two or three they 'l increase in time like Falstafs blades in buckerome The Fathers of the Council cal'd him not only head or head-Bishop as London is cal'd the head City but they cal'd him their head and themselves the members of that body whereof he was head and said that he governed them as the head governs the members Tu sicut caput Membris prae eras ut supra To number the third p. 262. t' was first two then on the other side of the leaf it increased to two or three Deacons who offer'd St. Leo this title and without the Councils approbation and on this side it is the whole Council according to St. Gregory whose words you cite against us and therefore must esteem them true which consisted of thrice 200 Bishops Falstafs bounce buckerome was nothing to this increase Next you fall into a fallacie ex insufficiente enumeratione partium It was neither in the sense now explicated he thought it was offered by the Council nor as he was Episcopus primae sedis Bishop of the first sea in your sense i. e. The first in place order or precedency only but as it signified the supream Bishop who governed all other Bishops though they were as true and proper governours of their respective flocks as he was of his which immediate power and commission from our Saviour as Colonels and Captaines are govern'd by their General To num 3. Nor have to this day any Roman Bishop incerted this name of universal into their titles as the Bishops of Constantinople doe But contrary wise ever since this proud title was assumed by the Bishops of Constantinople the Bishops of Rome have inserted this humble title into theirs of Servi servorum Dei Servant of the servants of God as may be seen in St. Gregories Epistles written after that time to which is prefixed by him that humble title Gregorius servus servorum Dei But if it signified no more then that the Roman Bishop is the first in place before all others why might he not use it seeing you
acknowledge it to be his due you can give me no other reason for this then because the word universal is capable of a worse signification and therefore to be avoided which is the very reason I give you why St. Gregory both refused it and inveighed so much against it 56. How the rest of the Apostles had the care of the whole Church you oppose Bellar. p. 262. sect 2. To your first answer I have now replyed To your n. 2. No man questions St. Peters being a member of Christs Church under Christ the head but so is every Bishop a member of the Church which hinders not their being true Governours and visible heads of their respective Diocesses so was the high Priest amongst the Jews a member of the Church next under God the absolute chief head yet was withal indued with the power of governing visibly the whole Jewish Church as all grant 57. Pag. 262. But see you not into what bryars you have cast your self if you follow the ordinary Edition read it as you do thus certe Petrus Apostolus primum membrum sanctae universalis Ecclesiae est Peter the Apostle is the first member of the holy universal Church You establish St. Peters supremacy for what is primum membrum sanctae universalis Ecclesiae is it in place only then the Bishops of Rome as St. Peters successors have their precedency in place from him and not conferr'd upon them by the Fathers which destroyes the main ground of your novelty you cannot therefore say it is a naked precedency in place it must therefore have been a primacy over the whole Church in government as was that of the other Apostles in their singular jurisdictions yet was he not to be stiled absolutely head of the whole Church for the reasons above declar'd But if you follow the lection of Mr. Iames whom I credit as much as you do Mr. Ross you will make a fair piece of non-sence of St. Gregories words for they constitute St. Peter no more then a common member of the Church membrum sanctae universalis Ecclesiae est which is true of every good Christian and yet constitute the other Apostles heads of particular Churches and thereby give a greater honour and power to them then to St. Peter which you your self every where deny CHAP. V. Saint Leo and other holy Fathers NUm 58. what means Ecclesiae Catholicae Episcopus given by St. Leo and other Fathers to the Roman Bishop how Episcopus universalis Ecclesiae and universalis Episcopus Bishop of the universal Church and universal Bishop are said by Bellar. to be of the same signification Num. 60. How Mr. Baxter abuses both Bellar. and St. Gregory he makes St. Greg. speak false Latin and non-sence by misciting his words he understands not St. Greg. Latin phrase Num. 62. In what sense Catholiques affirm Christians to be opposers of the Pope Bellar. misreported by Mr. Baxter Num. 64.66 He gives a false translation to Raynerius his words twice over and misreports his meaning by concealing the words following in Canus once Num. 67. 68 69 c. He proves his antecedent but not his consequence which I deny Num. 69. Whether the Papacy began in Phocas his time 58. To your third numb pag. 263. you are sore pinch'd to find an answer to the Popes being intituled Episcopus universalis Ecclesiae Bishop of the universal Church could you think it would satisfie any rational man to say that this title imported no more then what may be and ought to be given to every Bishop who adhered to the common Communion was a Catholick to wit that he was a Bishop of the Catholick Church can you be so ignorant as not to know this and the like titles were given him as signal declaratives of his place honour whereby he was both distinguish'd and preferr'd before all other Bishops and Patriarchs neither of which could be done had Episcopus universalis Ecclesiae signified no more then that he was a Bishop that is to be accounted amongst the Bishops of the universal Church for this was common to him with all other Bishops thorough the whole Church And I pray you tell me in good earnest when any one should have intituled his letter to Pope Leo v. g. thus Leoni Episcopo universalis Ecclesiae to Leo a Bishop of the Catholick Church would it not have been profoundly ridiculous for seeing there might have been some other Catholick Bishops call'd Leo as well as the Bishop of Rome who could know to whom this letter was written by vertue of that title but that it may appear evidently how incongruous this your effugium is several Epistles of Pope Leo intituled with his own hand will sufficiently manifest it Saint Leo Epist. 97. intitles his Epist. thus Leo Romae universalis Catholicaeque Ecclesiae Episcopus would you translate these words thus Leo a Bishop of Rome and of the universal and Catholique Church I pray you how many Bishops of Rome were there at that time beside Leo Or sees not every one who sees any thing that they must be thus render'd into English Leo Bishop of Rome and of the universal and Catholique Church Now this evinces that as he was in power and jurisdiction Bishop of Rome so was he also Bishop of the universal and Catholique Church in power and jurisdiction for otherwise the sentence will be incongruous and equivocal In the like manner ep 13. he intitles himself Leo Catholicae Romanae Ecclesiae Episcopus Leo the Bishop of the Catholique Roman Church Now who sees not both that this must be in authority and government and that the appellation of the Roman Catholique Church is of 12. hundred years standing Ep. 42. he writes himself thus Leo Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopus now had that imported no more then this Leo a Bishop of the Catholick Church who could have known who writ this Epistle ep 88. he gives himself this title Leo Romanae Ecclesiae Apostolicae sedis Episcopus Leo Bishop of the Roman Church and Apostolique Sea Now seeing he takes the Roman Church for the same with the Catholique Church as we have now seen it imports thus much Leo Bishop of the Roman or Catholique Church of the Apostolical Sea for had he meant only the particular Roman Church by Romanae Ecclesiae he had committed a tautology in adadding presently Apostolicae sedis for that design'd the particular Church of Rome Now seeing he was by power of government Bishop of the Apostolique Sea either he must speak equivocally and absonously or signifie by those words that he was by power of government also Bishop of the Roman Catholique Church ep 54. thus Leo Episcopus Romanae universalis Ecclesiae Leo Bishop of the Roman and universal Church ep 62. Leo Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopus Leo Bishop of the Catholique Church by all this appears the truth of Bellarmines illation from this title against your novel and
jejune gloss upon the title of universalis Ecclesiae Episcopus for in effect it comprehends all the authority which we ascribe to the Roman Bishop over the Church and as much nay much more then you would have signified by the title of the universal Bishop conformable to this title in its genuine signification are others of the like nature given to the Popes by the ancient Fathers Thus writes St. Ambrose ep 81. Ad Cyricium Papam Recognovimus literis sanctitatis tuae boni pastoris excubias quam fideliter tibi commissam januam serves pia solicitudine Christi ovile custodias we discover by your Holiness letters the watchfulness of a good Pastor how faithfully you keep the door committed to you and with how holy a care you preserve the fold of Christ. And again in 1. ad Tim. 3. Domus Dei est Ecclesia cujus hodie Rector est Damasus the house of God is the Church the Governor whereof is Damasus who was then the Bishop of Rome The Council of Chalcedon as we have already seen â—â—p ad Leonem sayes thus in super contra ipsum â—â—ui vineae custodia a Salvatore commissa est id est contra tuam Apostolicam sanctitatem extendit insaniam Moreover Dioscorus extends his madness against him to whom the care of the Vineyard was committed by our Saviour that is against this Apostolical sanctity An. Ed. Binnii p. 141. The Popes Legates in the Council of Chalcedon intitle Leo Caput universalis Ecclesiae head of the universal Church Now to imbroyle the controversie and cast a slurre upon Bellar. you put St. Greg. at odds with him and then ask which of those two is the wiser whereas Bell. promises first a distinction of two different significations of universalis Episcopus universal Bishops In the one he accords with St Gregory that the said title is prophane sacrilegious and Anti-christian and proves that St. Greg. took the words in that sence when he inveighed so highly against them and never asserts that Episcopus universalis taken in that prophane sence and Episcopus universalis Ecclesiae are of the same force Then he accommodates as you your self do though another way another signification to those words universal Bishop wherein they were taken in the bills directed to St. Leo in the Council of Chalcedon for neither would the Council have permitted nor those Catholiques and Clericks have ascribed a prophane sacrilegious and Anti-christian title to Pope Leo and it appears that as they took the word universal it had no more of the prophane c. in it as applyed to St. Leo then it had as apply'd to the Council of Chalcedon for to both of them they attribute universal as therefore the Council was truly universal in a most Catholique sence without any prejudice to other Bishops or the Hierarchy of the Church in the like sence did they understand Pope Leo to be universal Archbishop his universal jurisdiction suiting as well with the compleat authority of all other Bishops as did that of the Council for though the Council was truly universal in jurisdiction over the whole Church as I have proved yet that notwithstanding the Patholick Bishops became no substitutes Vicars or Officers to those of the Council but still remain'd absolute Officers of Christ and true Pastours Bishops Governors in place of Christ in their respective districts c. In like manner the Popes being universal in jurisdiction took not away any part of the full power and authority of other Bishops but consisted together with it as did the universal jurisdiction of the Council Now in this second and Catholick sense only Bellar. affirms that universal Bishop and Bishop of universal Church are the same in sense wherein there is no debate between him and St. Gregory Thus you cunningly delude your Readers by casting such confused mists as these before their eyes 59. By this the weakness of what you say next p. 264. is clearly discover'd where you vent rather your passion then speak reason against Bellar. for who can doubt but St. Gregory had ground enough to execrate as he did that title when it was so obnoxious in it self to prophaness c. And pretended by a person of so ambitious a spirit as was that Iohn of Constantinople that he was in danger to make the worse use of it for his own advantage Thus though Christotocos be capable of a true and Catholick sense yet because it is also capable and obnoxius since Nestorius his heresie to be taken in an heretical signification the Church forbade it as sacrilegious and prophane and much more as it was then used by Nestorius 60. In your answer to Bellar. second reason p. 264. you abuse both him and St. Gregory Bell. sayes the title of universal was not due to Iohn of Constantinople in neither of the two senses now delivered which you conceal and therefore was absolutely prophane and sacrilegious as applied to him in any sense whatsoever and yet even St. Gregory himself refus'd it as prophane c. Though in some sense it might be due to him to beat down the pride of Iohn you abuse St. Gregory in saying p. 265. That he approv'd that title for himself or that Bell. affirms he approved of it as for himself neither of them say any such matter prove they do Know you not that Malum ex quocunque defectu that every defect makes a thing evil seeing therefore there was a defect of a prophane signification and scandal in the title of universal for that defect he accounted it evil and absolutely disallowed of it nor could the capacity of that word to be taken in a more moderate sense prevail with him to approve of it quia malum ex quocunque defectu the other defect had corrupted it nor sayes Bellarmine that he approved it even for himself but that in some sence it agreed with him yet the danger of scandal in accepting a title so subject to bear a prophane sense deterr'd him from approving of it even for himself as knowing the curse which lyes upon those which give scandal to their weak brethren and that Christians are to avoy'd all appearance of evil 61. In your last clause of this paragraph you fall again into your old fallacie proceeding a notione secunda ad primam from the titles which hath two significations to the thing controverted which corresponds but to one of those significations I have proved though St. Greg. disallowed of that scandalous title yet both he and his predecessors allwaies admitted of an universal Soveraignty as it was explicated above most untrue therefore is your illation that it sprung up since St. Greg. dayes your next citation out of St. Gregory confirmes what I have now said he thought the title of universal by reason of the scandal comprized in it absolutely to be refus'd by all good Prelats And so does the rest that followes out of St. Gregory page 266. only in these words sed
best serves your turne and covers your falsitie Canus sayes there ab aliis plerisque totius orbis Episcopis which you translate thus but almost all the rest of the Bishops of the whole world so that alii plerique very many others is with you almost all the rest had you only said a great sort or the most part even that had bin to stretch the word plerique to its full length but to translate it almost all is too too bad and cryes shame of the translator for by this meanes you would perswade your Reader that scarce any Bishop at all adher'd to the Bishop of Rome according to this Author whereas he in the beginning of this seventh Chapter saith that not only the Bishops but Ecclesia the Church from the time of the Apostles alwayes acknowledg'd that the Roman Bishops succeeded place Faith and authority of St Peter and that all Catholicks respected his judgement in the controversies of Religion and this is most cleer and evident but yet this is not all your foul play You had undertook to prove Papists affirm that univocal Christians composing visible Churches have bin opposers of the Pope And here you seem'd to have cull'd out a text for your pupose for Canus acknowledges in this place that a very great number of Bishops and the greater number of Churches were against the Pope and who could he suppose these to be but true Catholick Bishops and Churches here you think you have your Reader sure but why cited you not these words the next following O that would have marr'd your market Canus is so farr from holding these mutineering Bishops and Churches to be true univocal Christians that he affirms expresly they were either Schismaticks or Hereticks Quinimo qui à Romanâ quidem sede defecerunt hi Schismatici semper ab ecclesia sunt habiti qui vero hujus sedis de fide judicia detrectarunt heretici But those sayes Canus who made a defection from the Roman Sea were alwaies accounted Schismaticks by the Church and those who refused to stand to the judgement of this Sea in matters of faith were esteemed Hereticks these are fair characters of your great sincerity If you should reply though Canus account them not univocal Christians nor true Churches who made those oppositions yet them not to be no true Churches nor no univocal Christians I reply it makes thus much at least that Canus his testimony proves not that any true Catholick Christians or Churches withstood the Pope for the proof whereof you cited this his testimony 66. Ibid You have a third bout with Raynerius I answer whatsoever he may hold of the antiquity of the Waldenses is nothing to me now holds he them to be univocal Christians prove that thus in all the testimonies you have alleadged for the proof of your antecedent against my distinction you have not so much as one that assayes to prove it Your eight Argument page 269. Is a pure non-proof that which you undertake to prove as appears by your question premised in the beginning of this second part page 197. Is to prove the Church whereof Protestants are members hath been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth and your title upon every page pretends to shew the successive visibility of the Church of which the Protestants are members Now as if you had quite forgot what you were about you pretend in this your Argument to shew that anciently the Papal soveraignty was not part of the Churches faith nor own'd by the Ancients when therefore you shall have logically deduced this consequence the Papal soveraingty hath not been alwayes visible Ergo the Church whereof Protestants are members hath bin alwayes visible I will esteem my self obliged to answer the proofs from your testimonies till then I purely omit your antecedent and deny the consequence which you ought to draw from it thence follows not that the Church whereof you Protestants are members hath bin alwaies visible though your antecedent were true the truth whereof I neither grant nor deny for the present but omit it as not being now to our purpose 67. Page 271. Your ninth argument halts of the same leg it follows not that though our Church as papal had no successive visibilitie that the Church whereof the Protestants are members had ever since Christs time on earth a successive visibility when you have proved this consequence which you do not so much as mention in your argument I oblige my self to answer every one of your instances till that be done all I am obliged to do by force of logical forme is to omit your antecedent as nothing to our purpose for you undertake not in this second part to disprove ours but to prove your own perpetual visibility and I deny again your consequence which you ought to draw logically from your antecedent to wit that it follows not from this argument that the Church whereof the Protestant are members hath bin visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth 68. Your 10. argument is sick of the same disease is propounded p. 275. this reaches no further then to prove that there hath bin a succession of visible professors of Christianity that were no Papists Transeat pro praesente I let that pass for the present neither granting it nor denying it nor medling at all with it because I judge it of no present concern to our purpose but whatsoever is of that I deny it follows thence what you are to prove that the Church whereof the Protestants are members hath bin visible ever since the daies of Christ upon earth Moreover by this manner of illogical proceeding you change the part of the respondent which only was yours into the part of an opponent you were to shew some other Church beside the Roman to have bin perpetually visible and this you undertake in this second part by proving the Protestants to be so Now you turne the scales and labour by 10. arguments to prove the Roman Church as Roman is not so You promis'd in the beginning a fair logical answer keep your word and turne not opponent whil'st you are to be respondent stick to something otherwise you confound all and render it impossible to draw any controversie to a period or open a passage to truth acquit your self of your present obligation prove your said consequence that accomplished when your instances come into logical course I here oblige my self again to answer every one of them but first let us dispatch this shew your consequence undertaken here of the perpetual visibility of the Protestant Church to follow from the want of perpetual visibilitie in the Roman no more then your perpetual visibility follows from the want of it in the Greek or Abissme Church what if neither of them have bin perpetually visible For there is no Heretick in the world no neither Arrian or Sabellian c. whom you hold no Christians which may not argue in the same manner against
mistake me I speak of a Rejection and contempt of a subject as appears by my words and your Reply mentions the independance without Rejection of such as are no subjects now the Rejection or contempt of Superiouâ—â—s Authority in a Subject takes away this dependance of that Superiour and his very working independently of them cannot be done without Rejection and contempt of their Authority so long as he remains a subject I pray minde a little better to what you Reply Reply I further Reply 1. It seems then it is not onely the Pope but every Priest respectively that is an essential member of your Church or to whom each member must be subject necessarily ad esse If so then in every man that by falling out or prejudice doth culpably Reject the Authority of any one Pastour or Priest among a swarm is damned or none of the Church though he believe in the Pope and twenty thousand Priests besides 2. And then have we not cause to pray God to blesse us from the company of your Priests or at least that we may not have too many among a multitude we may be in danger of Rejecting some one and then we are cast out of that Church what if a Gentleman should find some such as Watson or Montaltus described in bed with his wife or a Prince finde a Garnet a Campian or a Parsons in Treason and by such temptation should be so weak as to contemn or reject the Authority of that single Priest while he obeyeth all the rest It is certain that such a man is none of the Catholique Church for that how hard it is in France Italy then to be a Catholick where Priests are so numerous that it 's ten to one but among that croud the Authority of some one may be Rejected 3. But is it all the Priests that we never knew or knew not to be Priests that we must depend on or is it onely those whose Authority is manifested to us by sufficient Evidence doubtless if you will confine our dependanâ—â—e to these onely or else no man could be a Christian. And if so be you know we are never the nearer a Resolution for your Answer till you yet tell us how we must know our Pastours to have Authority indeed William Iohnson Sir you mistake again I speak onely of all Respectively to each subject that is of such as are properly the Pastours of such soules mediate or immediate and you wave the consideration of the word Respectively and thereby would extend my words to all Priests in the whole Church know you not the difference betwixt Pastours and Priests are there not millions of Priests amongst us and a number of Ministers amongst you which are no Pastours that is have no care or cure of souls committed to them my Assertion therefore is that a private christian rejecting the authority of his Parish-Priest Bishop Arch-bishop Metrapolitane Primate Patriarch or supream Bishop who are in some cases at least his Pastour becomes a Schismatick casts himself out of the Church now for all the rest who are not his proper Pastours though they may be Pastours to others his rejecting or contemning them will be a grevious fin of pride but not sufficient alone to cast men out of the Church because he remaines still dependent of his own Pastours and here falls to ground all your ensuing discourse of the multitude of Priests c. Where I will not take notice of an accusation made without proof and relishing too little of Christian charity against some particuler persons humbly beseeching God to forgive you for it and hoping so to temper my expressions that they still run peaceably on within the bank of Charity Mr. Baxter What if they shew me the Bishops orders and I know that many have had forged orders am I bound to believe in this authority William Iohnson As much as you can be assured of any being Pastour of such a Church or Bishop of such a Diocesse or Justice of peace or Earle or Baron by his Majesties Patents or publick orders Reply What if I be utterly ignorant whether he that ordained were himself ordained per intentionem ordinandi how shall I then be sure of his authority that he is ordained Rejoynder As sure as you can be that you were the lawful child of your Father and Mother who could not be truly married without intention of being Husband and Wife one to the other how know you that they had such an intention solve this and you solve your own argument Mr Baxter And how can the People be acquainted with the passages in Election and ordination that are necessary to the knowledge of their authority especially of the Popes and Prelates and what if you tell me your own opinion of the â—â—ufficient meanes by which I must be convicted of the Popes and the Priests authority William Iohnson When it is publickly allowed in the Church witnessed to be performed according to the Canonical prescription by such as were present and derived to the people without contradiction by publick fame Mr Baxter How shall I know that you are not deceived and that these are the sufficient meanes indeed unless a general Council have defined them to be sufficient and if they have If it were not as an Article of Faith you will say I am not bound of necessity to believe their definition William Iohnson The orders prescrihed in the canon law and universally received are sufficient for this without decrees of General Councils for these are no points of faith but of order and discipline whereof a moral certainty and ecclesiastical authority is sufficient Mr. Baxter And what if I have sufficient meanes to know the Authority of a thousand Bishops but am culpably ignorant of some few through my neglect doth it follow that I am out of the Church Is my obedience to each Priest as necessary as my belief of every Article or multyplying Priests doth fill Hell faster If men must be judged by your laws Rejoynder This is grounded in your former mistake and solved above it is not all Priests but all Pastours in relation to their flocks that I speak of Mr. Baxter But is it our allegiance to our Soveraign that is the character of a subject in the common wealth and not our allegiance or duty to every inferiour Magistrate the rejection of one of them may stand with subjection though not with innocency It is not reason to reject a Constable why then should it more be necessary to our Church membership and Salvation But still you make your Church invisible for as no man can know that liveth in the remote parts of the world whether your Popes themselves are truely Popes as being duly qualified and elected now which is that true Pope when you have often more then one at once so you can never know concerning your members whether their dependance on their Pastors be extensively proportionate to the meanes that discovers their Authority
and whether their disobedience unchurch them or not Rejoynder But if you reject the Constable and with him all superiour Magistrates who maintain his Authoritie and come at last so far that you reject the Authority of the supreme or Soveraign power rather then depend on the Constable you will become a Rebel this is my case for the Church being visible is governed in this world by visible governours if therefore one Reject the Authority first of a parish Priest and then of the Bishop of the Diocesse and after of all those who are Superiour to that Bishop even to the highest authority whether this be in one single person or in the assembly of these Pastours in general Council imports little for the present question he becomes a Rebell to the visible Church and casts himself out of it and by consequence because our Saviour hath said he who heareth you heareth me and he who contemneth you contemneth me rejects also Christ's Authority by rejecting them and thereby casts himself from being any longer whilst he remains in that contempt of the Flock and Kingdome of Christ which is his Church For this contempt must be the same kind in respect of Christ that it is in regard of all the aforesaid visible Governours and therefore must reject the Authority of Christ because it rejects their Authority but none of those who reject Christ's Authority over them can be parts of his Flock or Kingdome Ergo note the fallacie of your Assertion in making many Hereticks and Schismaticks properly so called Real parts of the Catholick Church Reply I earnestly crave your Answer to the uncertainties which I have mentioned in my Safe Religion pag. 9 3. to 104. and tell us how all our Pastours may be known and whether every particular sin un-Church men and if not why the contempt and rejection of a drunken Priest doth it while all the rest are perhaps too much honoured Rejoynder Really Sir I am too full of employments either to Answer or peruse your Books I never oblig'd my self to answer them You make a visible Body with an invisible Head that is you admit no other head or supreme Ecclesiastical Magistrate over the visible Church save Christ who is invisible to the Church as he is head of it and whose government is internal and invisible if you abstract from all visible supreme Authority and hence you assert that though all the Respective visible governours in spiritual things be rejected by a subject yet he may be a part of the visible Church because he is still subject to Christ who is invisible to to him in his Head-ship I suppose I have said enough above to what you demand here and take those Arguments in your safe Religion to be much of the same nature with these Mr. Baxter Qu. 4. Why exclude you the chief Pastours that depend on none William Iohnson Ans. I exclude them not but include them as those of whom all the rest depend as St. Ierome does in his definition Ecclesia est plebs Episcopo unita Mr. Baxter How inconstant are you among your selves in the use of Terms how frequent is it with you to appropriate the name of the Church to the Clergie but remember hereafter when you tell us of the Determinations Traditions of the Church that it is the people that you mean and not onely the Pastours in Council much lesse the Pope alone Rejoynder This Requires no Answer as opposing nothing against what I say to that Question who knowes not that Termes have different acceptions both amongst you and us both in Scripture Ecclesiastical and Civil Authors Of HERESIE Heresie is an obstinate intellectual Opposition against Divine Authority revealed when it is sufficiently propounded Mr. Baxter Qu. 1. Is the obstinacie that makes Heresie in that Intellectual Will William Iohnson Answ. In the will by an imperate act restraining the understanding to that Mr. Baxter Still your descriptions signifie just nothing you describe it to be an Intellectual obstinate opposition and yet say that this is in the will William Iohnson You still Reply lesse then nothing to what I say yes it is an intellectual obstinate opposition but I say not that the intellectualtie is in the will or do you demand that Read I pray my description and your question and you will find no such matter I say the obstinacy is in the will directly to your question but the heresie is in the understanding and therefore comes it to be an intellectual obstinate opposition because that obstinacie in the will imperates a kind of immobility in the understanding whereby it adheres firmly to it's Errour Intellectual therefore it is from the understanding and obstinate from the will Mr. Baxter And yet again you contradict your self by saying that it is an Imperate act William Iohnson Where say I that imperate act is in the will prove from my words I say so I say indeed that obstinacy is in the will by an imperate restraining the understanding to that Errour but I never said that imperate act was in the will nay I insinuate sufficiently that it is in the understanding by affirming that it restrains the understanding for the imperate act is a kind of immoveable judgement imperated in the understanding by the obstinacy of the will all therefore that I say is this that there is an obstinacy in the will shewing it self to be there by that immobility which it imperates in the understanding and adheres to that errour when therefore I say by that imperate act I mean not formally by that but causally Reply No imperate act is in the will though it be from the will it is voluntary but not in volunte an imperate act may be in the will but not an imperate all imperate acts are in and immediately by the commanded faculties The Intelligere which is the imperate act is in the intellect though the velle intelligere which is an elicite act be in the will Rejoynder You seem to discourse very strangely and inconsequently of imperate acts what Philosopher before you ever said no imperate act is in the will though it be from the will shew your Authours for this is not the quite contrary the common assertion of the schools does not the will by an imperant act of charity e. g. imperate within it self an act of obedience contrition patience c. Nay do not many Philosophers from hence argue that the will and the understanding must be one and the same soul and not two powers really distinct because the will imperates acts in the understanding not by way of production or proper efficiency but by a certain Sympathetical emanation of an act imperated from the act imperating Mr. Baxter 2. From hence it is plain that you cannot prove me or any man to be an Heretick that is unfeignedly willing to know the truth and is not obstinately willing in opposing it which are things you cannot ordinarily discern and prove by others that are ready
some time or other all those whom you term Christians were not such Heretiques as in Reality were no Christians being Christians onely in name as the Arians were nay how shall they know they were any Christians at all for five hundred yeares agoe they must take all upon your word and so as much resolve their Faith into your Authority as you would have ours to resolve theirs into that of their Parish Priests Resolve this and you have solved your own difficulty against us General Council William Iohnson A general Council I take to be an Assembly of Bishops and other chief Prelates called convened confirmed by those who have sufficient spiritual Authority to call convene and confirm it Mr. Baxter Qu. 1. Who is ad esse that must call convene and confirm it till I know that I am never the nearer knowing what a Council is and which is one indeed William Iohnson Answ. Definitions abstract from inferiour subdivisions for your satisfaction I affirm it belongs to the Bishop of Rome Mr. Baxter If it be necessary to the being or validity of a Council that it be called or confirmed by the Pope then your Definition signifies nothing if you abstract from that which is so necessary an ingredient unlesse it were presupposed to be understood William Iohnson I have often told you that Definitions must abstract if my Definition be true why yield you not to it if false why shew not wherein my Genus is an Assembly my Differentia of Bishops and chief Prelates called convened c. Is there here either a false genus or a false Differentia In this first objection you admit both and yet will not be satisfied with my Definition this I understand not when I named the Bishop of Rome I told you it was for your satisfaction not for compleating my Definition for that abstracts from particulars Mr. Baxter If it belong to the Bishop of Rome to call a Council as necessary to its being then the first great general Council and others following were none it being certain that they were not called by him and as certain that he hath never proved any such Authority to call them or confirm William Iohnson What with you is certain till you prove it I hold not onely to be uncertain but untrue also Mr. Baxter Qu. 2. Must it represent all the Catholick Church doth not your Definition agree to a provincial or the smallest Council William Iohnson Answ. My Definition speaks specifically of Bishops and those Prelates as contradistinct from inferiour Pastours and Clergie and thereby comprised all the Priest conteined in the Species and consequently makes a distinction from the National or particular Councils whom some Bishops onely Convened not all that being onely some part and not the whole Species or specifical notion applyed to Bishops of every age and yet I said not all Bishops But Bishops and chief Prelates because though all are to be called yet it is not necessary that all should convene whence appears what I am to answer to the next Questions Mr. Baxter Then you have no General Councils much lesse can you have any now for you have none to represent the greatest part of the Church unlesse by a mock-Representation 2. If all must be called your Councils have not been General that called not a great part of the Church William Iohnson The matter we are now about is to explicate Termes whether those Explications agree with us or make against us belongs to our further Dispute what you say of our having had no Councils representing the whole Church is as easily denied as affirmed without proof which are those which called not all Mr. Baxter If most are necessarily detained as by distance the Prohibition of Princes c. the call made it not their duty to be there and so make it not a generall Council which is so called from the Generality of the meeting and representation and not of the Invitation no more than a Call would make it a true Council if none come William Iohnson Your Reason concludes not drawn from none present to most absent when a Parliament is summoned in our Nation if none at all should come it would be no Parliament follows it therefore if most fall sick or are lawfully hindered or wilfully absent themselves that by reason of the absence of them it is neither Representative sufficiently of the Kingdome nor enabled to enact Lawes binding all the Inhabitants see you not that such Principles as this of yours are of dangerous Consequence and render the Lawes of our Nation dubious and uncertain nor is the Call a sole invitation but a summon or command Mr. Baxter Qu. How many Bishops and from what parts ad esse make such a Council William Iohnson The number is morally to be considered more or fewer according to the difference of times distances of place and other circumstances from whence thay are to come Mr. Baxter This is put off for want of an Answer is it a Council if difficulties keep away all if not it can be no General Council when difficulties keep away the most much lesse when such a petty Confederacy as met at Trent shall pretend to represent the Christian world you thus leave us uncertain when a Council is General and when not how can the people tell when you cannot tell your selves when the Bishops are so many as make a Council General William Iohnson By this is answered what you say here tell me what number present may consist with the Essence of a Parliament or a Diet in the Empire and I will tell you with proportion what number may suffice for a Representation of the Church in a General Council will you have things of a moral consideration to consist in indivisibles But who sees not how by cavilling in in this manner against the validity of a Council you lay grounds of dangerous consequence for rejecting the authority of lawfull Parliaments whilst you thus carp at the members present and thereby render it as difficult to know which is a sufficient number foâ—â— Parliament as for a Council Mr. Baxter Qu. 4. May none but Bishops and chief Prelates be members as you intimate William Iohnson Answ. No others unlesse such inferiours as are sent to supply their places and as Deputies of those Bishops or Prelates who are such members of the Council as have decisive Votes in framing Decrees and Definitions Mr. Baxter This is your private opinion no Council hath defined it unlesse they are Contradictory for I suppose you know that Basil and many Councils before it had Presbyters in them William Iohnson Basil in many things is not allowed of by us name those others received as General Councils amongst us which had simple Priests with power of giving voices belonging to them as such SCHISM I understand by Schism a wilfull Separation or Division of ones self from the whole visible Church of Christ. Mr. Baxter Qu. 1. Is it no Schisme to separate
from a particular Church unlesse from the whole William Iohnson Answ. No it is no Schism as Schism is taken in the holy Fathers for that great and capital crime so severely censured by them in which sense onely I take it here Mr. Baxter Though I take Schisme more comprehensibly and I think aptly my self yet hence I observe your justification of the Protestants from the Schisme seeing they separate and not from the Catholique Church for they separate not from the Armenian Ethiopian Greek William Iohnson Here you allow of my definition at least you disclaim not from it but use your objections how it makes against my party this I have told often is not now our work but belongs to our dispute in taking your best advantages of my explications Did not your first Protestants in Germany separate as much from the Armenians Ethiopians Greeks as they did from uhe Romans if they did not shew the communion they had with them did you first Ministers either take mission or jurisdiction to preach from any of their Bishops or Patriarks did they take the prescription of their Liturgie Discipline or Hirearchie from them did they upon occasion joyn in Prayer Sacraments or Sacrifice with them and did they profess the same faith in all points of faith and those the very same wherein they dissented from the Church of Rome and all this notwithstanding were they in external communion with them If so they may as well be said not to have separated from the external communion of the Roman Church and if they separate from that they also separated from the other for the very same reasons Mr. Baxter Nor from you as Christians William Iohnson Nor from us say you as Christians no sure for if you did you must be Jewes Turks or Infidels Mr. Baxter But as scandalous offenders when we are commanded to avoide we separate not from any but as they separate from Christ. William Iohnson Was there no more in 't did not the Primitive Persons who begun your breach and party ow subjection to their respective Ecclesiastical Superiours Diocesans and Pastors immediately before they revolted from them and is it lawful for a subject to subtract himself from the obedience of his lawful Pastour because that Pastour is a scandalous offender remaines he not in his former power notwithstanding those scandelous offences till he be legally deposed if you say he does not you contradict our Saviour commanding obedience to be given to the scandalous Pharises who sate in Moyses his chaire you destroy all Ecclesiastical Government and open a way to tread underfoot all temporal authority also in desisting to acknowledge their authority by reason of Scandelous offences if you hold these offences deprive him ipso facto from all Ecclesiastical power why shall not another say they deprive Kings and Magistrates nay even Fathers and Mothers of their authority over those whom they Govern and then you would have spun a fair thred and laid a more open passage to rebellion then any you can finde or shew amongst those whom you term Papists and will make this good against your self that a man cannot be a good subject unless he cease to be of your party such I suppose you esteem those to be who follow your doctrine nor yet did you only refuse obedience to them in what you thought to be scandelous and against God but you absolutely rejected their Ecclesiastical authority and refused to have any dependance at all of them as your lawful Pastour neither acknowledging those under whose immediate jurisdiction you then were nor any of the Ecclesiastical authority in that time Mr. Baxter Qu. 2. Or no Schism unless willfull W. Iohnson Noe. Mr. Baxter Again your further justifie us from Schism if it be wilful it must be against knowledge but we are farr from separating willfully or knowingly from the whole Church that we abhor the very thought of such a thing as Impious and Damnable William Iohnson Abhorr it as much as you please for your own particular I know not what excuse may be pleaded for you I am certain that your first beginners did it and that knowingly and willfully and you still maintaining what they begun must by all considering Christians be judged guilty of the same crime for still you remain separate from all those Churches from which they departed that is from all the visibe Churches existant immediately before they sprung up and in their time and still continue through the whole world Mr. Baxter Qu. 3. Is it none if you make it a division in the Church and not from the Church William Iohnson Answ. Not as we are here to understand it and as the Fathers treat it for the Church of Christ being perfectly one cannot admit of any proper Schism within it self for that would divide it into two which it cannot be Mr. Baxter Though I am sure Paul calls it Schism when men makes divisions in the Church though not from it not making it two Churches but dislocating some members and abating Charity and causing contentions where there should be peace yet I accept your continued justification of us who if we should be tempted to be dividers in the Church should yet hate to be dividers from it as believing that he that is sepâ—â—ate from the whole body is also separate from the head William Iohnson I am glad to see you accept of some thing at the last upshot If it be for your advantage God give you good on 't See Dr. Ham. in his Book of schism c. 1 2 3 I speak not of Schism taken in a large sense but of that onely which is treated by the Fathers and reckoned up amongst the most horrid sinnes which a Christian can commit and that separates from the whole Church Sir urgent and unavoidable businesse constrained me to delay my return to your Solutions or Explications of your Definitions till this Iune 29. 1660. Mr. Baxter When you desire me to Answer any such Questions or Explain any doubtfull passages of mine I shall willingly doe it In the mean time you may see while your Termes are Explained and your Explications or Definitions so insignificant how unfit we are to proceed any further in dispute till we better understand each other as to our Termes and Subject which when you have done your part to I shall gladly if God enable me go on with you till we come if it may be to our desired Issue But still I crave your performance of the double task you are ingaged in RICHARD BAXTER William Iohnson Sir I have thus far endeavoured to satisfie your expectation and to acquit my self of all my obligations wherein I have sought as I strongly hope first God's eternal glory and in the next place your eternal good with his for whom I undertake this labour and of all those who attentively and unpartially peruse this Treatise WILLIAM IOHNSON ERRATA Page 75. line 13. ad neither p. 78. l. 6 dele my answering