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
deliver'd in the Creed or propos'd to be expresly believed by Catecumens as necessarie to Baptism But they say you lived neer the Churches that were planted by the Apostles and how far lived your beginners from one of them were they not so neer it that everie one of them was of it before they began to novelize That 's not all say you but they were neer the Apostles daies and were those Christians who liv'd neer the Apostles daies to have another rule of faith and principles to confound Heretickes then those of succeeding ages Tertullians rule of prescription is universal and illimitted either to time or place is it not if it be not how came all insuing ages to make use of it against Hereticks of their respective ages And were the Christians in Brittanie Spain and Affrica neerer to those Churches then then they are now what perergons are these Or are those of Armenia and Graecia farther from them now then they were in Tertul. time Num. 1. pag. 232. It was the common Creed then say you and is it not now nay but you adde no other doctrine save that what mean you by other contrary doctrine to the Creed no more is it now not express'd in the Creed so were not many doctrines inculcated then by Tertullian as the holy Eucharist and Pennance where read you these express'd in the Creed which Christian mysteries notwithstanding Tertullian requires in his prescriptions Num. 2. pag. 132. if he would have all Apostolical Churches to be assured witnesses then sure Rome was not excluded why exclude you't now Num. 3. pag. 232 233. if he woâ—â—lâ—â— have the present Churches to the respective beginnings of Hereticks the immediate witnesses as you acknowledge here why refus'd you the witnesse of all immediate Churches existent in the world in your beginnings did they not all celebrate Mass pray for the dead fast Lent desire the prayer of Saints held merits of good works Confession Purgatorie c. Name those who did not hold some or all of these in those times Pag. 232. you cite Latin Texts without rendring them into English there 's something in 't what mean you when you say Tertullian understands not the Church of Rome by una Ecclesia no more then this that it was not the Church of Rome when it first begun in Jerusalem who ever contradicted you in this mean you that it was not made one visible Church by the same visible government first under our Saviour whilst he remain'd on earth then under St. Peter both before and after he became Bishop of Rome which it had under his lawful Successors the Roman Bishops in all ensuing ages that 's indeed the question and seeing Tertullian speaks here of one Church as propagated thorough the world successively from the Apostolical Churches and that of Rome was one and the chief amongst them how can Tertullian speak of the Church and not speak of the Church of Rome in this sentence and seeing also he treats here of a Church as one visible and there is no other means to render it so one if it have not one supream visible ordinary Tribunal to whom all are subject as Optatus had said above and that can neither be the Bishops diffus'd thorough the whole Church nor assembled in a general Council for that is an extraordinarie Tribunal as I have proved there must be some one supream ordinarie Pastor over all other Bishops which if it be not the Bishop of Rome pray tell me in your next who it is By this is satisfied your seven notanda pag. 234. for though Tertullian instance in the Apostolical Churches of his time whilst they agreed in faith with that of Rome as paterns of Christian faith yet experience hath told us and you cannot denie it that all the rest by departing from the faith profest in Rome fell by degrees into heresie so that now you must either say there is no Apostolical not fallen into Heresie or that the sole Roman remains pure from it and a pattern of unitie and puritie of faith to all Christians even till and at this day 29. Pag. 235. you make Tertullian speak both false Latin and non-sence by putting tenentem for tenendum 'T is not put amongst your errata's your English parenthesises as you larded the Latin Text with them three in number look methinks something odlie 30. Pag. 235. what if Tertullian in that passage send us not to the Roman Church would you have him to write nothing in his whole works but dispatches to Rome what if he call the holy Ghost only Vicarius Christi in that place sayes he therefore that he only is his Vicar cannot Christ have one invisible and another visible Vicar Why not sayes Tertullian as you here acknowledge that it is the holy Ghosts office to procure that all the Churches lose not the Apostles doctrine why then say you they have all lost it you 'l replie they have not all lost it in its essentials names Tertullian essentials he sayes the holy Ghost would never permit all Churches to leave the Apostles doctrine now that which you account non-essential was as we now suppose as much their doctrine as was that which you account essential besides ut supra what essentials were contradicted by the Millenaries Nicolaitans c yet they in Tertullians account left the Apostles doctrine but you 'l reply again those onlie are said to leave the Apostles doctrine who leave all their doctrine not those who hold some points though they leave others Then no Heretick can be said to have left the Apostles doctrine for never did any leave it all then though the Church should deny some articles of the Creed and hold others it could not be said to have left the Apostles doctrine you 'l bring I see the Church at last to a fair pass I am glad to see you so ingenuous as to cite the words of Tertullian ecquid verisimili est c. but should have been more satisfied had you English'd them He saies there that it is unlikely all Churches should agree in one and the same errour so that when many agree in one it is no errour but tradition and then demands whether any one have the audaciousness to say those err'd who deliver'd such a doctrine How like you this did not all the visible Churches in the world deriveable from the Apostles agree in the celebration of Mass real Sacrifice desiring the prayers of Saints in heaven praying for the dead fasting in Lent c. immediately before Luther begun to play the Novelist name me any such Church who did not ergo non est erratum sed traditum therefore these are no errours but traditions according to Tertullians doctrine here you are an excellent confuter of your self 31. Pag. 236. you cite Tertullian again reckoning Smirna with many others before Rome Answer it was enough for illustrating Tertullians argument prest there of reducing Churches to their first Originals to bring any instance
Reader may have all ready at hand for a more facil understanding of the whole matter Yet in my Answer to his second part in proof of the perpetual visibility of the Protestant Church I have not inserted his Text both by reason it would haveâ—â— rendred the tome improportionable and that he often spends many Leafs in proving Propositions which I deny not so that it had bin to no purpose at all to insert them what I found material in that part I have recited and answered and remit the judgement and censure of the whole work to any impartial Reader If Mr. Baxter will venture upon an Answer I expect as fair a proceeding from him as he has here from me to insert by Sections as I have done my Text and apply a particular Answer to each Section for otherwise all impartiall eyes will see that he flies the light and seeks corners to hide himself and takes a new occasion both to pervert my words distort my sense and make me say what he pleases when he cannot answer what I say as he has done more then once in this his Answer The whole issue of the work is not onely a discovery of the weaknesse and dâ—â—ssatisfaction of this his Answer but withall an enervating of the main Principles Arguments and Instances against the Roman Church in his other Works and particularly in his KEY this against Johnson being a Receul or Epitome of what he has more largely treated in his former Invectives so that the Authour hopes the serious perusal of this will so far rectifie the judgement of his Readers that they will be enabled to see the vanity and fallacy of all he has with so much labour and bitternesse given out against us All we have to say or doe in relation to his Person is earnestly to beg of the God of mercy pardon and forgivenesse for him for what is past and a new beam of light from heaven to guide and direct him for the future and bring him into that saving way wherein he may attain unto a never ending felicity A Brief Advertisement to the READER THat the Reader may be sufficiently informed how this controversie took its rise and progresse he may please to take notice That Mr. Johnsons Argument was first sent to Mr. Baxter concerning the necessity of being a member of the Roman Church to obtain salvation next Mr. Baxter sent back an Answer to the said Argument and thereupon Mr. Johnson sent a Reply to Mr. Baxters Answer Thus far the whole Process is comprised in Mr. Baxters Edition from page 1. to page 66. which I have here reprinted Word for Word that the Reader may have a full view of the whole Controversie and have at hand the matter to which Mr. Baxter fram'd his last Answer to the end that this Rejoynder to it may be the better understood and the force of it more fully examined and weighed by the Iudicious Peruser of this Tract Mr. Baxter therefore sets down Mr. Johnsons Argument Mr. Baxters Answer and Johnsons Reply in this manner following Mr. Iohnsons first PAPER THe Church of Christ wherein only Salvation is to be had never was nor is any other then those Assemblies of Christians who were united in Communion and obedience to S. Peter in the beginning since the Ascension of Christ. And ever since to his lawfull Successors the Bishops of Rome as to their chief Pastor Proof Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ acknowledges S. Peter and his lawful Successors the Bishops of Rome ever since the Ascension of Christ to have been and now to be by the Institution of Christ their chief Head and Governour on earth in matters belonging to the soul next under Christ. But there is no salvation to be had out of that Congregation of Christians which is now the true Church of Christ. Ergo There is no salvation to be had out of that Congregation of Christians which acknowledges S. Peter and his lawful Successors the Bishops of Rome ever to have been since the Ascension of Christ and now to be by the Institution of Christ their chief Head and Governour on earth in matters belonging to the soul next under Christ. The Minor is clear For all Christians agree in this that to be saved it is necessary to be in the true Church of Christ that only being his mystical Body Spouse and Mother of the faithful to which must belong all those who ever have been are or shall be saved The Major I prove thus Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath been always visible since the time of Christ either under persecution or in peace and flourishing But no Congregation of Christians hath been always visible since the time of Christ either under persecution or in peace and flourishing save that only which acknowledges S. Peter and his lawfull successors the Bishops of Rome ever to have been since the Ascension of Christ and now to be by Christs Institution their chief Head and Governour on earth in matters belonging to the soul next under Christ. Ergo Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ acknowledges S. Peter and his lawful successors the Bishops of Rome ever to have been since the Ascension of Christ and now to be by Christs Institution their chief Head and Governour on earth in matters belonging to the soul next under Christ. The Major is proved thus Whatsoever Congregation of Christians hath always had visible Pastors and people united hath always been visible either under persecution or in peace and flourishing But whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the the true Church of Christ hath always had visible Pastors and People united Ergo Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath always been visible either under persecution or in peace and flourishing The Major of this last Syllogism is evident for seeing a visible Church is nothing but a visible Pastor and people united where there have always been visible Pastors and people united there hath always been a visible Church The Minor I prove from Ephesians cap. 4. ver 10 11 12 13 14 c. Where S. Paul says that Christ had instituted that there should be Pastors and Teachers in the Church for the work of the Ministry and preserving the people under their respective charges from being carried away with every wind of doctrine c. which evidently shews those Pastors must be visible seeing the work of the Ministry which is Preaching and Administration of Sacraments and governing their flocks are all external and visible actions And this shews likewise that those Pastors and People must be always visible because they are to continue from Christs Ascension untill we all meet together in the unity of faith c. which cannot be before the day of judgement Neither can it be said as some say that this promise of Christ is only conditional since to put it
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
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
semper in suis successoribus vivit judicium exercet Hujus itaque secundum ordinem successor locum-tenens sanctus beatissimusque Papa noster Celestinus nos ipsius praesentiam supplentes huc misit And Arcadius another of the Popes Legats inveighing against the Heretick Nestorius accuses him though he was Patriarch of Constantinople which this Council requires to be next in dignity after Rome as of a great crime that he contemned the command of the Apostolick See that is of Pope Celestine Now had Pope Celestine had no power to command him and by the like reason to command all other Bishops he had committed no fault in transgressing and contemning his command By these testimonies it will appear that what you are pleased to say That the most part of the Catholick Church hath been against us to this day and all for many hundred of years is far from truth seeing in the time of the holy Oecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon the universal consent of the whole Catholick Church was for us in this point For the age 600 see S. Gregory Pope l. 10. ep 30 where Hereticks and Schismaticks repenting were received then into the Church upon solemn promise and publick protestation that they would never any more separate from but always remain in the unity of the Catholick Church and communion in all things with the Bishop of Rome As to what you say of Congregation of Christians in the beginning I answer I took the word of Christians in a large sense comprehending in it all those as it is vulgarly taken who are baptized and profess to beleive in Christ and are distinguished from Jews Mahumetans and Heathens under the denomination of Christians What you often say of an universal Monarch c. if you take Monarch for an Imperious sole Commander as temporal Kings are we acknowledge no such Monarch in the Church if onely for one who hath received power from Christ in meekness charity and humility to govern all the rest for their own eternal good as brethren or children we grant it What also you often repeat of a Vice-christ we much dislike that title as proud and insolent and utterly disclaim from it neither was it ever given by any sufficient Authority to our Popes or did they ever accept of it As to the Council of Constance they never questioned the Supremacy of the Pope as ordinary chief Governour of all Bishops and people in the whole Church nay they expresly give it to Martinus Quintus when he was chosen But in extraordinary cases especially when it is doubtful who is true Pope as it was in the beginning of this Council till Martinus Quintus was chosen whether any extraordinary power be in a general Council above that ordinary power of the Pope which is a question disputed by some amongst our selves but touches not the matter in hand which proceeds only of the ordinary and constant Supream Pastor of all Christians abstracting from extraordinary tribunals and powers which are seldome found in the Church and collected only occasionally and upon extraordinary accidents Thus honoured Sir I have as much as my occasions would permit me hastened a Reply to your Answer and if more be requisite it shall not be denied Only please to give me leave to tell you that I cannot conceive my Argument yet answer'd by all you have said to it Feb. 3. 1658. William Iohnson Novelty Represt In a Rejoynder to Mr. Baxters Reply to William Iohnson The First Part. CHAP. I. ARGUMENT Num. 1. Exordium n. 3. Assembly and Congregation not different n. 5. Acknowledgment or Denial of what is Essential to the Church is it self Essential to the constitution or destruction of the Church my words mis-cited by omitting the word ever n. 7. Three Fallacies discovered Franciscus à S ta Clarâ mis-alledged n. 12. Congregations of Christians and Church not Synonyma's n. 16 17. Nothing instituted by Christ to be ever in his Church can be accidentall to his Church n. 19. Though universals exist not yet particulars which exist may be exprest in universal or abstractive terms n. 20. Many things necessary to the whole Church which are not necessary for every particular Christian. num 21 22. Christ now no visible Pastor of the Church militant though his person in heaven be visible n. 22. A visible Body without a visible Head is a Monster Such is Mr. Baxters Church Mr. Baxter SIR Num. 1. THe multitude and urgency of my employments gave me not leave till this day May 2. so much as to read over all your Papers but I shall be as loath to break off our disputation as you can be though perhaps necessity may sometime cause some weeks delay And again I profess my indignation against the hypocritical jugling of this age doth provoke me to welcome so Ingenuous and Candid a Disputant as your self with great content But I must confess also that I was the lesse hastie in sending you this Reply because I desired you might have leasure to peruse a Book which I published since your last a Key for Catholicks seeing that I have there answered you already and that more largely then I am like to doe in this Reply For the sharpness of that I must crave your patience the persons and cause I thought required it William Iohnson Num. 1. Sir Your Plea is my Defence I had my imployments and those of great concern as much as you which have hitherto detained me from accomplishing this Reply I have my Adversaries as well as you and no lesse then three at once in Print against me yet the esteem I have of your worth hath exacted from me to desist a while from what I had begun in Answer to the chief of them that I might bestow the whole time on you which notwithstanding was lately interrupted even when I was drawing towards an end by an unexpected and unrefusable occasion which hath already taken from me many weeks and is like to deprive me of many more Some small time an interstitium through the absence of my Adversary hath afforded me and that hath drawn the work almost to a period I have not hitherto had any leisure to peruse your Key and indeed what you here acknowledge of it Sharpness deterrs me from medling any further with it then what may be occasioned in this your Answer I finde even this in several passages of a relish tart enough but I can bear with that and I hope observe a moderacy where passion speaks against my cause or me For I tell you truly I had rather shew my self a patient Christian then a passionate Controvertist What reason utters will have power with rational men Passion never begins to speak but when reason is struck dumb and so cannot speak according to reason Mr. Baxter Num. 2. If you will not be precise in arguing you had little reason to expect much lesse so strictly to exact a precise Answer which cannot be made as you prescribed
in usual Logical processes belonging to Syllogistical Form p. 37. Baxt. Edit Do what I can you will mistake me I speak of a Church denying that the Pope hath alwayes had it that is of a Church which now or of late times denies it and you make me speak of a Church which hath alwayes denied it contrary to my express words immediately following as you presently acknowledge All I pretend is this Prove that any Church which now denies it hath been alwayes visible and I am satisfied whether that Church alwayes denied it or no. Baxter Num. 27. I told you I would be a Papist if you prove That the whole visible Church in all Ages held the Popes universal Head-ship You say that you have proved it by this Argument that either he hath that Supremacy or some other Church denying that he hath alwayes had it hath been alwayes visible and that Church you require should be named I reply 1. Had not you despaired of making good your Cause you should have gone on by Argumentation till you had forced me to contradict some common Principle 2. If you should shew these Papers to the world and tell them that you have no better proof of the Succession of your Papacy then that we prove not that it hath alwayes been denied by the visible Church you would sure turn thousands from Popery if there be so many rational considering impartial men that would peruse them and believe you For any man may know that it could not be expected that the Churches should deny a Vice-Christ before he was sprung up Why did not all the precedent Roman Bishops disclaim the title of universal Bishop or Patriarch till Pelagius and Gregory but because there was none in the world that gave occasion for it How should any Heresie be opposed or condemned before it doth arise Iohnson Num. 27. I have manifestly forced you to contradict a common Principle and not one but Two of them First you are forced to contradict that Principle in Logick That he who denies an universal Negative Proposition framed in a positive Historical matter as mine is is not obliged to give an instance when it is demanded to infringe the universality of it and this I have and do refer The second is a Theological or rather Christian Principle That no professed Heretick nor Schismatick properly so called is a true part of the universal visible Church of Christ. That this is such a Principle shall appear hereafter where I shall make it evident that a professed Heretick properly so called had or could have true Christian Faith or the profession of it without which no man can be a true member of the Catholick Church that is united to Christ as his Head as you explicate your meaning Your other difficulties about the Title of Universal Bishop c. shall be answered in their place Baxter Num. 28. But you fairly yield me somewhat here and say that you oblige me 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 Reply I confess your first part is very ingenious and fair Remember it hereafter that you have discharged me from proving a Church that denied the Papacy formally and expresly Iohnson Num. 28. But have you dealt as fairly with me when after I had so clearly explicated my self in my former Answer not to exact a perpetual visible Church formally and expresly denying that Supremacy you make me frame an Argument in the precedent Paragraph exacting the formal and express denial of it in all Ages is this fair You corrupt again my Proposition I say not that I freed you from proving a Church that denied the Papacy formally and expresly but as you acknowledge in this Paragraph that I obliged you not to prove a continued visible Church formally and expresly denying it that is such a Church as denied it so all the time that it was visible yet I quitted you not of the obligation of instancing in a Church which at some time or other denied it formally and expresly as your inference seems to affirm I do For seeing it has for many hundred years been publickly acknowledged as due to the Bishop of Rome it was deniable by those who lived in the said Ages Baxter Num. 29. But as to what you yet demand 1. I have here given it you because you shall not say Iâ—â—le fail you I have answered your desire But 2. It is not as a thing necessary but ex abundanti as an overplus For you may now see plainly that to prove that the Church was without an universal Pastor which you require is to prove the Negative viz. that then there was none such whereas it's you that must prove that there was such I prove our Religion do you prove yours though I say to pleasure you I le disprove it and have done it in two Books already Iohnson Num. 29. I had no farther Obligation in the Process of this Argument then to inforce you to produce an instance of some Church perpetually visible which either denied or was inconsistent with and Independent of that Supremacy And this I say you were obliged to do according to Logical Form say as much as you please that it was ex abundanti no good Logician will beleeve you I mention not the Churches being without a Supream visible Pastor which you term universal nor oblige I you precisely to prove that but to prove a perpetual visible Church whose government was inconsistent with one supream visible Pastor over all which is an Affirmative Proposition Why mistake you perpetually prove this and I am satisfied Nor yet have you in what you have done performed what you undertake as shall appear in my following Rejoynder to your Arguments Baxter Num. 29. My reason from the stress of necessity which you lay on your Affirmative and Additions was but subservient to the foregoing Reasons not first to prove you bound but to prove you the more bound to the proof of your Affirmative And therefore your instance of Mahumetans is impertinent He that saith you shall be damned if you beleeve not this or that is more obliged to prove it then he that affirmeth a point as of no such moment Iohnson Num. 30. Sure if you prove me more bound you prove me bound à fortiori For every comparative supposes its positive The instance I bring is pertinent and all who read it attentively will see it is so Your last sentence is a repetition of what I denied without answering my answering my Argument against it Then say I a Christian is bound to prove his Religion to a Mahumetan but a Mahumetan is not bound to prove his to a Christian or if you will have it so is more bound of the two this you answer not because the same reason holding in both you saw you could not answer it Baxter Num.
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
and yet Two of these made themselves subjects to the Roman Emperour as I have now proved You undertook to prove that those three forenamed Nations and other Extra-Imperial Churches were never under the Bishop of Rome and in proof thereof you say in your first reason that all or most of them that is not all at this day are from under his Jurisdiction so that your Argument runs thus None of them were ever under him because all or most of them were never under him Take you this to be Logick You tell me we cannot tell when or how they turned from us and I tell you and have prov'd it that the Goths in Spain are not from under us at this day and that the Suedes and Danes being their off-spring departed not from us till about the year 1520. by occasion of Luther's Heresie This is your first proof and no marvel you put it as your Achilles in the front it is so mighty strong Now let us hear your second Baxter Num. 52.2 These Nations profess it to be their Tradition that the Pope was never their Governour Iohnson Num. 52. You are pleas'd to say so and I am ready to believe you when you prove what you say This is your second proof Baxter Num. 53.3 No History or Authority of the least regard is brought by your own Writers to prove these Churches under your Iurisdiction no not by Baronius himself that is so copious and so skilfull in making much of nothing Iohnson Num. 53. Those Histories and Authors which say All Churches and the whole Church of Christ was and ought to be subject to him prove sufficiently that these Churches were subject to him for these were contained in the number of All. But many Ancient Authors S. Prosper S. Leo c. infra citandi and Fathers say That All Churches and the whole Church was and ought to be subject to him Ergo they say that these Churches were subject to him The Major is evident The Minor shall be amply proved and is sufficiently already in my subsequent Allegations as I shall make good when I come to the defence of them against your Answers and Exceptions Baxter Num. 54. No credible witnesses mention your Acts of Iurisdiction over them or their Acts of subjection which Church History must needs have contained if it had been true that they were your Subjects Iohnson Num. 54. What none that were very strange Is not Genebrard a witness that Pope Eugenius wrote to the Emperour of Ethiopia anno 1437. to send Legates to the Council of Ferrara as the Greek Emperour had decreed to do to whose Letters and Legates David their Emperour returned a respectfull Answer and accordingly sent some of his Church to that Council as appears by the Acts of the Council it self where the Ethiopians are recorded to have been present and that in the year 1524. the said David and Helena his Empress promised Obedience to the Bishop of Rome Pope Clement the 7 th And witnesses not both Platina Nauclerus Volaterranus Chalcondylas Emylius Onuphrius Genebrard and also the Acts of the Florentine Council that the Armenians and Indians acknowledged the Spiritual Soveraignty of the Roman Bishop through the whole world Are these no credible witnesses And as to more Ancient times gives not the Arabick Translation of the first Nicene Council a clear witness as we shall see presently that the Ethiopians were to be under the Jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Alexandria and he under that of Rome as is witnessed and decreed in the Ephesin Council and others Are these no credible witnesses neither Witness not the whole Kingdome of Spain at this day and all the Historians of Sueden Denmark and other Northern Countreys issuing from the Extra-Imperial Goths and never subject to the Roman Empire that from their first Conversions till after the year 1500. they were all subject to the Roman Bishop and are none of these credible witnesses That 's hard But more of this hereafter Baxter Num. 55. Their absence from General Councils and no invitation of them thereunto that was ever proved or is shewed by you is sufficient evidence Non-proof Iohnson Num. 55 I intend to make a particular Tract to prove this and to evidence the falsity of your Allegation from the undeniable testimonies of Classie Authors and from the ancient subscriptions of the Councils themselves Baxter Num. 56. Their Liturgies even the most Ancient bear no footsteps of any subjection to you though your forgeries have corrupted them as I shall here digressively give one instance of The Ethiopick Liturgie because of a Hoc est corpus meum which we also use is urged to prove that they are for the Corporal Presence or Transubstantiation But saith Vsher de Success Eccles In Ethiopicarum Ecclesiarum universali Canone descriptum habebatur Hic panis est corpus meum In Latinâ Translatione contra fidem Ethiopic Exemplarium ut in primâ operis editione confirmat Pontificius ipse Scholiastes expunctum est nomen panis Iohnson Num. 56. No more does the Roman Missal it self nor those of France or Spain witness their subjection to the Roman Bishop Must every Book witness every thing Must those Books which contain nothing but the service of the Church determine points of Controversie no way pertaining to that subject What rule have you for that Yet I finde in their very Liturgie both a plain acknowledgment of St. Peters primacy and of the reverence they bear to the three first general Councils in making a particular Commemoration of the Fathers which were in them in the Cannon of their Mass whereby they profess to receive the Decrees of those three Councils and thereby their subjection to them and name not the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon the fourth general because they follow the Heresie of Eutiches who was condemned in it Your digression I confesse is something large from the Popes Supremacy to Transubstantiation Yet had you grounded it upon a more firm Authority then that of a professed Adversary it would I suppose have had more weight with your Readers What if Usher say so that moves not me a jot though I marvel not a little also why you who stand upon such Niceties in citations should fall into the same defect which you blame in me of putting me to the labour of reading over that whole Book by not citing the place where those words are found But I should have taken no notice of such small omissions had not you given me a President for it At last I found them cap. 2. p. 54. Edit 2. but then I was at a loss again For having examined three different Editions of the Bibliotheca which is all are extant and the Scholia's in the Margin I could finde no such matter nor could I know what other Scholiastes or Edition he meant and should be more satisfied if in your next you please to cite the Edition more exactly and the precise words of
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 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
Instances in your next Reply as are here demanded of you You cite me here Blondel and Aeneas Silvius so confusedly without Book Chapter Page or Column that I think it not worth my pains to spend time in seeking them if they have any thing worth your citing or satisfactory to what here I say either set it clearly down in your next or give me some clear means to know what you stand upon in those two Authors Baxter Num 80. Whether the Bishop of Rome had power over the Bishop of Arles Fallacy 11. by the Heathen Emperors is a frivolous question Arles was in the Roman Patriarchate and not out of the Empire The Churches in the Empire might by consent dispose themselves into the Patriarchal Orders Non-proof 10 without the Emperors and yet not meddle out of the Empire Iohnson Num. 80. You proceed Sophistically à possibili ad actum The Question is not What the Bishops might have done but what they did Now you affirm they did form themselves into Patriarchates by free consent make it appear to have been so by Authentical Testimonies from Antiquity I bring you proofs that their subjection to him was out of that most publick Tradition that he was successor to S. Peter Vide infra Bring me as many that he was made Patriarch of the West before Constantines time by force of free consent of the Western Bishops under the Empire Is it not a plain Paradox to affirm that a thing should be done by publick consent of a thousand Bishops through the whole Western Church and yet there should be no one step of proof no word of any Historian for it in all Antiquity Baxter Num. 81. Yet indeed Cyprians words intimate no power Rome had over Arles more then Arles had over Rome that is to reject Communion with each other upon dissent Iohnson Num. 81. S. Cyprians words shall be examined hereafter in their proper place CHAP. VI. ARGUMENT Num. 82. The four first General Councils proved by many Reasons and Authorities to be truly and properly Oecumenical having Authority over all Christian Churches as well without as within the Roman Empire num 84 85. Whom Mr. Baxtâ—â—r accounts univocal Christians and proper parts of the Catholick Church num 86. Whether he have made a good choice for himself num 88. No Heretick properly so called can have true Christian Faith in any Article whatsoever and consequently can be no part of the Catholick Church num 90 91. Christ the sole Head of the whole Church Triumphant and Militant The Bishop of Rome no more then Head of the visible Church on earth and not absolutely but secundum quid that is according to the external and visible Government onely and even that not as having all other Bishops under him as his Officers but as Christs Officers together with him they of their respective Districts and he of them to direct and correct them when need requires it Baxter Num. 82. Nay it more confuteth you that even under Heathen Emperours when Church-associations were by voluntary consent of Pastors only and so if they had thought it necessary Non-proof 11. they might have extended them to other Principalities yet de facto they did not do it as all History of the Church declareth mentioning their Councils and Associations without these taken in Iohnson Num. 82. Where are your proofs I deny any such consent to be extant in Antiquity nor could those Provincial or Nationall Councils call the Extra-Imperials to sit with them because they were only of the Provinces which were within the Empire and had no Authority without the precincts of their respective Churches Now you will give me leave to discover the weakness and inconsistency of your Novelty about the first four General Councils having had no power without the Empire First the very a Vide titulum Conc. Nicen. Titles of the Councils themselves confute you where they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is universal or General Nor can you say that is meant onely through the Empire for you hotly contend that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 universal is extended to all Christians through the whole world Part. 2. Secondly b Conc. Chalcedon Act. 16. ap Binium p. 464. they call themselves General Thirdly the Canons Decrees Definitions are General without any limitation more to the Empire then to any other part of the world as is clear out of all the Canons and Decrees themselves Fourthly Historians of all Ages call them Oecumenical or General and never intimate any Imperial limitation if they do produce the Historian that calls them National or Imperial Councils Fifthly the whole Christian world ever since their times have esteemed them General and to have had an obligatory power and authority over all Christians Sixthly the holy Fathers c D. Aug. tom 7. contra Denatist lib. 2. cap. 13. ut diu Concil in suis quibusque regionibus diversa Statuta nutaâ—â—rint donec plenario totius orbis Concilio quod saluberrimè sentieâ—â—atur etiam remoâ—â—is dubitationibus â—â—irmaretur Hoc enim jam in ipsa totius orbis unitate discussum consideratum perfectum etque firmatum est loquitur de Concil Niceno Now it is evident that S. Aug. by his totius orbis means totius orbis Christians the whole Christian world that is the whole Church of Christ as appears by a hundred places of his against the Donatiffs when he sayes they have separated themselves from the whole world that is from the whole visible Church and this you confess to be true pag. 229 230 c. of your Book who speak of them stile them General Oecumenical plenary yea plenissima c. d Produce any one of them who limits these Councils to the Empires or denies them to have had power to oblige all Christians Seventhly Protestant Authors so far as I can see before you esteemed them General without any limitation and if you can cite any who say the contrary I pray do it e Anno 1 Elizabeth cap. 1. Versus finem capitis Eighthly the very Statute-Books of England since Protestant times call them General f Artic. 21. where by saying Some General Councils have erred they suppose there have been General Councils in the Church which had Authority out of the Empire For those as you confess were onely National or Imperial Councils Ninthly your 39 Articles call them General and the Fathers g D. Aug. tom 7. de Baptism cont Donatist lib. 2. cap. 3. when they call them General they distinguish them also from Provincial or National Councils Tenthly h D. Aug. ibid. cap. 1. cap. 4. cap. 9. Sic ait si autem Concilium ejus Cypriani attenditur huic universae Ecclesiae posterius Concilium Nicenum intelligit praeponendum cujus se membrum ostendebat ut se in totius corporis compage retinendâ caeteri imitarentur saepiùs admonâ—â—bat Nam ut Concilia
of the denyal of original Sin That Infants which dye without Baptisme are not in the state of Salvation c. Now these are enough to make them Hereticks and out of the Church whatsoever is of the rest of their Heresie which howsoever some dispute now wherein it consisteth yet when they were first condemned there was no dispute about it But here 's another grand Noveltie of yours to be considered Who ever yet before you said that Catholick Church could be divided in it self when it is a most perfect unity See what the Fathers say of this point why is it called una Ecclesia Catholica one Catholick Church in the Nicene Creed if it can be divided and then you adde another Novelty as the former For who but you ever said the Donatists were not divided absolutely from the Church does not S. Aug. lib. de Baptismo contra Donatistas say they separated and divided from the Church a hundred times over But more of this hereafter Mr. Baxter Num. 105. I know that Heresie is a personal Crime and cannot be charged on Nations unlesse you have Evidence that the Nations consent to it which here you have none William Iohnson Num. 105. I have your own Author for it an approved Historian amongst you there is no Authority alledged by you which contradicts his Testimony or clears them from Eutychianisme why therefore seek you evidence against what you are not able to disprove But for your farther satisfaction first it is certain in the year One thousand one hundred seventy and seven the Abyssines or Ethiopians under Prester Iohn desired Doctours to be sent to them from Pope Alexander the third to Instruct them in the Roman Faith from which they differed at that time The Pope write to their King and high Bishop that he desired nothing more then to gratifie them in their Request intreating them to send their doubts and requests in particular to Rome Now that these differences from the Roman Church in part at least were the Heresie of Eutyches is Evident from the Canon of their Mass wherein they commemorate three or four times the Fathers of the three first general Councils but never make mention of those in the fourth that is the Council of Chalcedon whereof no other probable reason can be given save their adhering to the Heresie of Eutyches which was condemned in that Council so that there needs no farther Testimony against them seeing they condemn themselves of Eutychianisme Mr. Baxter Num. 106. Some are Hereticks for denying Points essential to Christianity these are not Christians and so not in the Church but many also are called Hereticks by you and by the Fathers for lesser Errours consistent with Christianity and these may be in the Church Abyssines and all the rest have not been yet tryed and convicted before any competent Iudge and Slanderers we regard not William Iohnson Num. 106. This is already answered all Hereticks deny the veracity of Christ which is Essential to Christ and Christianity whatsoever their Heresies be the Abyssines confess themselves to follow as I have proved Eutyches and Dioscorus and therefore need neither tryal nor conviction Mr. Baxter Num. 107. Many of your own Writers acquit them of Heresie and say †Non-proof 13. the difference is now found to be but in words or little more William Iohnson Num. 107. Name those Writers and you shall be answered think you that any rational man will be convinced by your bare affirmation Mr. Baxter Num. 108. What you say of their disclaiming us unless we take the Patriarch of Constantinople for the vice Christ you many wayes mistake 1. if this were true that they rejected us it were not proof that we are not of one universal Church William Iohnson Num. 108. But sure I mistake not in saying they disclaim you if it be supposed true as you suppose now they doe disclaim you and I think impartial men will take it to be a proof for if both the whole Westerne Church with the Bishop of Rome and the Easterne with the Bishop of Constantinople each claiming the Soveraignty of visible Government over the whole Church of Christ reject you as Hereticks and no other Church existent in the world anno Dom. 1500. Immediately before your first visible opposition against the Roman Church own you as you have not proved nor can you ever prove they doe but upon the same or for some other reasons Reject you for which the Easterne and Westerne Churches have disclaimed you you cannot but confess you are rejected by the whole Catholick Church of Christ seeing you were Rejected by all the visible Churches of that time Now whosoever is rejected as an Heretick by the whole Catholick visible Church either must be no part of it or the Catholick Church must not be able to know which are which are not her true parts and be fallen into so desperate an Errour as to reject as out-casts and enemies those who are her true Children Or what phrenzie would it be in a Novellist vainly and presumptuously to give himself out for a Member of the Church when the whole Catholick Church disclaims and Anathematises him as an Alien Now reduce your selves as Tertullian sayes to your first origine in the year 1500 even in your Principles the visible Catholick Church was all the Congregations of Christians through the whole world but all these Congregations disowned you as Aliens and Separatists from them when you first begun an 1517. ergo the whole Catholick Church disowned you as Aliens and Separatists Ergo you were then either such as the Church esteemed you to be or the whole Catholick Church was deceived but all good Christians will rather believe that you who were then but a handfull of new-hatched Novellists were deceived in fancying your selves to be parts of the Church against the censure and judgement of the whole Christian world then that the whole Christian world should be deceived and you only in the Right Nay that you may have no shadow to shroud your self under not only the whole Christian world when you begun rejected you as not belonging to their Body but you your selves never so much as pretended then to be parts of any of these Churches but hated and abominated them as much as they did you and condemned them all of Errour and Superstition of Babylonish captivity and utter darknesse of Antichrianisme and Idolatry c. Read your first Writers and you will find it so for seeing all the visible Christian Congregations held many of those Points which your first beginners held to be Idolatrous and Superstitious in the Roman Church in condemning the Roman and separating from it upon those pretended Superstitions and Errours you separated from and condemned the whole Catholick Church nor can you free your self from this unless you nominate some Church in those times spread all the Christian world over which resisted those said Errours as you did and joined with you against the Roman
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
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
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
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
accused to shew that he did not play the part of a judge but of a friend as Chrysostome did by some that fled to him I pray answer his reasons William Iohnson Num. 183. Had I written as you print my words I had indeed deserved a sharper reprehension then you gave me Now whether I writ so or no I leave it to your judgement Here you cite my words thus in your margent say you you add that concerning St. Athanasius being judged and rightly Chamier acknowledgeth the matter of fact to be so but against all antiquity pretends that judgement to have been unjust In which words you make me first wrong Chamier by affirming he sayes Athanasius was judged rightly by Iulius and then you make me wrong my self by delivering a manifest contradiction in two lines for first in your citation I say that Chamier affirms that judgement to have been rightly done and then presently that I affirm Chamier to have said that judgement to have been unjust that is not rightly done Now whether I affirm Chamier to have said the matter of fact to have been so that is to have been rightly done your own printing of my words will put the matter out of question therefore pag. 52. in the margin you cite my words thus concerning St. Athanasius being judged and righted by Pope Iulius Chamier cit acknowledges the matter of fact to be so Now one may be judged and righted that is set again into his right by one who hath no power to judge him and consequently judges not rightly that is duly juridically and Canonically now by changing righted into rightly you change the whole tenure and meaning of my words and then grate on me upon the Conscience with what not I but you or your printer was guilty of and truly I should have been most willing to have cast it upon him had your written copy shewed the contrary so here you have not righted but rightly neither do I finde these words to be so in my marginal copy but only thus Chamier confesses the matter of fact without to be so though I will not contend with you in this as not having seen the copy which was sent you True it is Chamier would have this judgement to have passed as from a freind but to prove this he contends that it could not be from a competent and canonical Judge because it was under the notion of a judgement unjust seeing both parties were not present to be heard in judgement so that he holds this to have been an unjust judgement if taken in a rigorous sense which is all that I said But in the mean time you answer not my arguments whereby I prove it just nor could you answer them without impeaching St. Athanasius of concurring with Iulius to an unjust judgement for though Iulius had past this judgement as a freind yet to proceed to execution before the adverse party was heard or things made so evident that there was no place for defence would have been an unjust proceeding and if matters were so undeniably clear it was not unjust for want of that formality so that if it were unjust in a freind according to equity or justice can justify a person accused without hearing what his accusers are able to make good against him much lesse can those accusors be condemned as manifest detractors and lyars when they are not permitted to speak for themselves and produce their evidences in quality of a judgement for want of the defendants being heard it would have been unjust in quality of freind-ship for the same reason for now to say that St. Athanasius concurred with Iulius either as an unjust Judge or as an unjust freind would to wrong that blessed Saint and your self too but I would gladly be satisfyed in this how one who had no judicatory authority above another Court could reverse the Sentence of that Court and restore the person injured by it to his right as Iulius here did by the Sentence given in a Council against St. Athanasius or what man in his right wits would address himself to a friend for relief in that which he knows is above his power should a Citizen of York injured in the Mayors Court frame an appeal to the Lord Mayor of London because he is his friend and the prime Mayor in England being the chief Officer of the Imperial City to reverse the sentence given at York against him would he not become a laughing-stock both to York and London Mr. Baxter 184. And for what you say again in your Margin of Theodoret I say again that he appealeth to the Bishop of Rome for help as a person who with the Western Bishops might sway much against his Adversaries but not as to an universal Governour or Iudge no not as to the universal Iudge of the Church Imperial much less of all the Catholick Churches William Iohnson Num. 184. Here you say nothing at all to Chamiers granting it to be an appeal as to a Judge that was so plain belike that you could not answer it nor yet would you expresly grant it neither that had been too flat against you So you thought it best to huddle it up in silence and say nothing of it and thought it may be your adversaries would have past it over too but I hope all wise men will see your failing in this Baxter p. 51. in Margin The question in my Margin there is not what you say to it but what Chamier said Now lest it should appear that you and Chamier clash in this you give me only your opinion but dissemble his and yet sure his was as much the better as it was the â—â—iuer Nor yet do you deny this appeal to have been as to a Iudge which was the only question in the Margin p. 51. Baxter but not to have been as to an universal Governour or Iudge no not within the Empire say you But by your good leave if this were not a forcible Instance supposing it were as to a Iudge which Chamier grants and you deny not to prove à paritate rationis that every Bishop both within the Empire and Church might have as well appealed to the Roman Bishop as to a Iudge as Theodoret did had he been injured as he was If I say this was not of force shew in your next some particular reason why the Bishop of Rome had power to judge the case of Theodoret rather then of any other Bishop in the Church which till you do See more of this supra your effugium that this appeal was not made as to an universal Governour or Judge speaks nothing for if he as in our sense be an universal Judge or Governour to whom every Bishop of the Church may appeal as to his Judge then seeing Theodoret's appeal to him as such proves every Bishop had as much right in the like circumstances which Theodoret then had it proves also that he appealed to him as to an universal Governour or Judge
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
Iudicium Therefore honor we beseech you our judgement also with your decree Here therefore you wrong both your self and me in affirming what I say to be false To what you say about that other canon I shall answer in the ensuing paragraph Mr. Baxter Num. 228. You see then contrary to your fiction that three general Councils of the greatest likened by Gregory to the four Evangelists not only judged without the Pope but by your own confession against him for you say he consented not Yea so much did they slight the Popes consent that when his legates dissented they were not heard see Bin. p. 134.136 They persisted in the Council to maintain their Canon 38 notwithstanding the contradiction of Lucretius and and Paschasinus William Iohnson Num. 228. That there was a canon composed in behalf of the Bishops of Constantinople c. I have acknowledged and you acknowledge I have acknowledged it here when you print those words of mine which notwithstanding the Council had consented to c but you dissemble my answer for I contend that whatsoever they concluded amongst themselves without the knowledge and against the protestations of the Popes legates they here submit to the Popes judgement and decree and tell him they enacted that Canon at Constantinople grounding themselves upon a confidence they had that notwithstanding whatsoever his legates presse against it he himself would yield to it as being a thing conceived by them to be very reasonable praesumentes dum noverimus quia quicquid rectitudinis a filiis fit ad Patres recurrit facientes hoc sibi proprium presuming say they Seeing we know that what is done justly by children recurrs to their Fathers who make it to be their own act seeing therefore this whole canon was both decreed out of a confidence that Pope Leo would consent to it and his consent desired by the Council all you say here either of those Fathers resisting the legates or persisting in the persuance of that canon is of no force to prove that either they desired not that his consent or the denyall of it break not the legality of that canon Moreover when you affirm this council decreed without and against the Pope you fall into another fallacy for seeing as I have now prov'd those Fathers proceeded to that decree through confidence they should obtain Leo's consent they cannot properly be said to have done it without much lesse against his consent for they conceived themselves to have a consent presumed which is sufficient when no more can be had to regulate humane actions and though Leo thought fit to deny his consent yet that was after the canon was fram'd for whilst they formed it they had hope he would consent I omit you call it the 38 canon when it is the 28 I suppose 't was an errour in the print Mr. Baxter Num. 229. And unanimously the whole Synod consented never stopping at the Roman dissent Pergaminus Bishop of Antioch saith in omnibus sanctissimum Archiepiscopum Regiae civitatis novae Romae in honore cura sicut Patrem praecipuum habere nos convenit No man contradicted this and is not this as much or more then you alledge as spoke to Leo William Iohnson Num. 229. Will you not expose your self to the deep censure of a considering reader when you say here the whole Synod consented viz to this 28 canon having said but just now they persisted in the council in maintaining the the 38 28. canon notwithstanding the contradiction of Lucretius and Paschasinus who were the Popes legates and were not they the two cheif persons in the whole Council how then could the whole Council consent to it when these two contradicted it Mr. Baxter Num. 230. They call Leo you say Father And the Bishop of Constantinople is pronounced the cheif Father in all things in honour and cure William Iohnson Num. 330. They call Leo say I their father and themselves his children prove they have given such a title to the Bishop of Constantinople vide supra nor yet call they him the chief Father for the words pater praecipuus may properly signifie a cheif Father that is one of the chief Fathers of the Church no nor do they stile him absolutely a chief Father but that he was to be honoured sicut pater praecipuus as a chief Father though he were not the chief above all Mr. Baxter 231. And Eusebius Bishop of Doryl the chief adversary of Dioscorus witnessed that he himself in the presence of the Clergy of Constantinople did read this Canon to the Pope at Rome and he received it upon which your Historian hath no better an observation then that either Eusebius lyed or else at that hour he deceived Leo. William Iohnson Num. 231. Why cite you not your Author for this story sure there 's some reason fo'rt best known to your self no wise man would be thought Author of so fond a Fable First the thing it self is wholly improbable unless you suppose Leo to have been of an unconstant brain for he expresly rejects it in his answer to the Synodical Epistle and secondly to tell it as you do that in the presence of the Clergy of Constantinople Eusebius read this Canon to the Pope of Rome will seem ridiculous seeing that by the Clergy of Constantinople is properly to be understood either all the Clergy or almost all for had you meant only a small part of it you would have said in presence of some of the Clergy c. of Constantinople and not absolutely in presence of the Clergy of Constantinople think you that almost the whole Clergy of Constantinople left their own Church without divine service or Government to go with Eusebius an ordinary Bishop of Rome But that which makes this story as you tell it not only false but impossible is this that what Eusebius said was either before or whilst this Canon was decreeing Eusebius being then present in the Council so that he must have either read it at Rome to Leo before it was made or in the time whilst it was decreeing being then himself not at Rome but at Chalcedon All therefore that he could have said to Leo was about the Canon of the 2. general Council at Constantinople something like to this which was not approved neither by two nor by any of his Predecessors So that Cardinal Peron had reason to affirm the relation of this Eusebius to be false because Leo was so far from confirming either of these Canons that he expresly rejects them in his answer to the Synodical Epistle from Chalcedon Mr. Baxter Num. 232. It 's true that the Synod writ to him for his Consent but not as suspending any of their decrees on it but telling him over and over that the things were by them defined and confirmed already pag. 140. William Iohnson Num. 232. What mean you by not suspending any of their decrees that they raced them not out of the records wherein they were writ that 's
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
proves evidently that there was at least one papist that is one who was for the Popes univer +sal monarchy or vice-Christship in the extent of those ages wherein you profess not to have found so much as one single person in that whole tract of time For those legates give testimony not only for that precise time of the Council but also for all precedent ages before it as I have evidenced by their words Mr. Baxter Num. 271. Yet I have given you instances in my key which I would transcribe if I thought you could not as well read print as M. S. of higher expressions then Caput fundamentum given to Andrew by Isychius and equal expressions to others as well as Rome and Peter William Iohnson Num. 271. You might have pleased to have told me where thinke you I 'me bound to were your key at my girdle as if I had nothing to doe but busie my self in reading it over to finde your wild citations Mr. Baxter Num. 272. And who is ignorant that knoweth any thing of Church history that others were called successors of Peter as well as the Bishop of Rome William Iohnson Num. 272. What successors mean you such as were received by Christians to succeed in the place of St. Peter as he was fidei columna and ecclesiae Catholicae fundamentum the pillar of Faith and foundation of the Catholick Church as the legate speakes here of him truly Sr. I confesse I am so ignorant that I know no such matter as you talke of Mr. Baxter Num. 273. And that the the Claves regni were given him is no proof that they were not given also to all the rest of the Apostles William Iohnson Num. 273. The question is not at present whether it prove absolutely they were not given to others because they were given to St. Peter but whether the legate in this sentence must not mean this to have been a priviledge peculiar to St. Peter as much as all the former were understood by him to be peculiar to St. Peter Now he could not without manifest absurdity be understood in any other sense for seeing he intended to demonstrate to the Council the preheminence of St. Peter and his successors above all others he had fallen into a grosse inconsequence had he enumerated those excelencies to shew St. Peter to be greater then were the other Apostles and his successor higher in authority then the successors of any of the Apostles should he have specified such particulars as were common with him and the rest of the Apostles seeing those are so far from proving him to be above them that they prove the quite contrary for equal priviledges common to all prove all were equal in those priviledges Mr. Baxter Num. 274. And where you say Arcadius condemneth Nestorius for contemning the command of the Apostolick sea You tell me not where to finde it I answer you still that its long since your sea begun to swell and rage but if you must have us grant you all these consequences Celestine commanded therefore he justly commanded therefore another might not as well have commanded him as one Pastor may do another though equal in the name of Christ And therefore he had power to command without the Empire over all the Catholick Church and therefore the Council was of this minde yea therefore the universal Church was of this minde that the Pope was its universal head You still are guilty of sporting about serious things and moving pitty instead of offering the least proof William Iohnson Num. 274. By what I have now writ in answer I think you will not have found me in jest in the proof of these consequences taken with due circumstances Celestine sayes the legate commanded and Nestorius was condemned by him for not obeying Celestines command and no man was either in the council or in the whole Church who had then the repute of an orthodox Christian either reprehended Celestine for commanding or justifyed Nestorius for not obeying and if any did so produce them in your next by good authority ergo it was a just command 2. It being a just command and must proceed from one who had true authority to command and against one whome you say by right of the first Council of Constantinople was the first Patriarch then in the Church had he true authority over him he must have had true authority over all those who were inferiour to him ergo there was no man to be found in the church who had power to command Celestine there the second consequence The third I prove thus he had power to command justly as is proved the highest Patriarch in the Empire and that Patriarch and the others also had power to command the Empire as I have proved above ergo Celestine had consequently power to command all those whom they commanded The fourth consequence I prove the legate said this in full and publick council and were all highly concern'd in it as is also prov'd and yet did not in the least contradict it ergo the council was of this mind that it was no abridgement to their priviledges but an establishment of their authority a prime preservative of the Churches unity and a fundamental institution of Christ in the perfect orders of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy as the legates had delivered it to the council You suppose here without any proof at all that one pastour though equal may command another in the name of Christ. Who ever taught this doctrine before you everts it not inevitably the order of Church government commanded by St. Paul for what is order but a due observance and subjection of inferiours to their respective superiours which is wholly subverted when an equal takes authority upon him to command his equal whatsoever pretence of the name of Christ he assume to glosse it for unless that conferre a real authority upon him who commands over him who is commanded he remaines his equal still that notwithstanding and then he commands without any true authority which destroyes order or if it communicate a reall authority over the person commanded it makes him superiour who commands and not equal to the other which destroyes your supposition of one equal commanding an other This made good the last consequence followes inevitably for seeing his Council has ever â—â—een reverenced and received as a true general Council and what such Councils consent to is the consent of the Catholick Church for all bodies diffusive are to confirm themselves to their true representatives it follows and that very seriously without all jesting that these consequences are so fast lockt up together that all the tuâ—â—nâ—â—s of your key will not be able to unlock them CHAP. VIII NUm 275. Why perpetual adherence to the Roman Church was promised by a Bishop who was reconciled from Schism to the Church Extra-imperial Bishops obeyed the Bishops of Rome Num. 276. Mr. Baxter forgets what his adversary undertook to prove and thereupon accuses him of not proving
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
metaphorical children and he a metaphorical Father but will you scruple at the Pater noster because we call God our Father and consequently our selves his children because we are not the proper and natural but his metaphorical children when you next talk of governing them in love for their good and affirm that Kings must do the like why leave you out the word eternal which is my epithite and wherein the force of my words consists and then tell me I have exprest no difference at all is this fair will not every one who hath but half an eye discover such petty slights as these Mr. Baxter Num. 390. But our question is not new nor in universal terms what Soveraignty you claim you know or should know Are you ignorant that Bellarmine Boverius and ordinarily your Writers labour to prove that the Government of the Church is Monarchical and that the Pope is the Monarch the supream head and Ruler which in English is Soveraign Are you ashamed of the very cause or Title of it which you will have necessary to our salvation William Iohnson 390. 'T is one thing to say the Government is Monarchical and another to affirm the Pope to be the Monarch as you do and Bell. cited by you does not of the whole Church without ever explicating what kind of Monarch you mean A government may be termed Monarchical which hath a great part of Monarchy in it though it be not strict and perfect Monarchy as a man may be called Angelical though he be no Angel thus our Authors and particularly Bellarmine put the Church-government to have something of the mixt in it Bell. l. 1. de Rom. pont c. 5. sect ultimo though he esteems it to incline more to Monarchy then to Aristocracy Whence appears that your inference drawn from a government thus imperfectly Monarchical to intitle the chief Governour in it the Monarch of it without all restriction as you do is of no force And of as little force is your other inference grounded in your former mistake that I am ashamed of any title which I hold necessary to salvation first prove we call the Pope Monarch and then say I am ashamed of it CHAP. IX Num. 391. Whether the title of the Vice-Christ be accounted either due or given by sufficient authority amongst Roman Catholiques to the Pope or accepted by them Num. 392. Mr. Baxter confounds Vice-Christi in place of Christ and Vice-Christus the Vice-Christ Num. 393. How far the Pope is understood to be in the place of Christ. Num. 394. He miscites his Adversaries words Num. 395. How the Vice-Christ and the Vicar of Christ differ Num. 396. Why a Deputy for a King may be called the Vice-King but a Deputy of Christ cannot be called the Vice-Christ Num. 397. Mr. Baxter makes Vice God to be a a higher title then Vice-Christ Num. 398. Mr. Baxter in place of alleadging a sufficient that is a publique authority cites Oratours Poets Encomiasticks c. and yet mistake most of those Mr. Baxter Num. 391. Next you say that you very much dislike the title of Vice-Christ as proved and insolent and utterly disclaim from it neither was it ever given by any sufficient authority to your Popes or did they ever accept of it Reply Now blessed be God that makes sin a shame to it self that the Patrons of it dare scarce own it without some paint or vizard William Iohnson Num. 391. Had you first confuted this answer and then broke out into this exclamation it had been much more seasonable but as it stands it relishes more of passion then of reason and will appear so to any who shall consider the weakness of your proofs against it whereof most consist in a pure digression by a fallacy usual to you proceeding à notione secunda ad primam from the second notion to the first or from the title to the thing it self as we shall now see Mr. Baxter Num. 392. Is not the very life of the cause between you and us whether the Pope be the universal head of the Church Vice-Christi Vicarius Christi Are not these the most common titles that Papists give them and that they take unto themselves William Iohnson Num. 392. Here you begin your fallacie Vicarius Christi is indeed a title but Vice-Christi is none the one signifies the Vicar of Christ but the other signifies in the place or stead of Christ which having no substantive or demonstrative annext to it cannot possibly be a title for of it self it signifies no determinate substance Now if you will joyn to it a substantive and say Papa est Vice-Christi the Pope is in place of Christ you may make some kind of title to it but you can never make it that about which we controvert for that is Vice-Christus the Vice-Christ so that all those who are Vice-Christi in the genitive case that is the place of Christ are not Vice-Christi in the nominative that is Vice-Christi which title onlie is in question betwixt us you were as some of your Parishioners esteemed you to govern those of Kidderminster Vice-Christi in the place of Christ were you therefore the Vice-Christ of Kiddermunster Nor is the title of universal head of the Church set down in your illimited terms here either a title acknowledged by us as due to the Pope or given to him by us For that Christ being the sole universal head of the Church which comprehends the Church militant and triumphant the term universal head signifies that which is due to Christ onlie we therefore acknowledge there is none but Christ himself according to your expression universal head of the Church nor is there any universal Vice-head nor Vice-Christ corresponding to that universal head to be found in the whole Church Nay even speaking of the sole militant Church we never say without some restriction the Pope is universal head of the Church for universal head comprises as well the internal and invisible as the visible Governour of the militant Church now we all deny that the Pope is head in the invisible government of the visible Church for that manner of government Christ only is the universal head nor say we that there is any Vice-christ or Vice-head constituted in the place of Christ in this invisible direction of the Church We therefore restrain the term universal head by this restrictive visible nor intend we to say any more then this that the Bishop of Rome is the visible head of the universal visible Church so far as it is capable of a visible government together with other Bishops who are as truely Christs officers and vice-gerents in their respective governments though subject to the Pope as he is in his government And in this sense only can he be termed a vice-Christ or vice-God that is holding the place of Christ in the visible government of his Militant Church But he cannot be stiled the vice-Christ which is the sole title about which we now contend
then either the Church Canons or the consent of classick Authours warrant them If you had proceeded like a Scholar to confute my assertion you should have alleadged either some Popes who inserted Vice-Christus Vice-Christ into their titles or who taught it in their publick Bulls or writings to be due to them or at least some Council or consent of Catholick Doctours who give him that title or prove it to belong to him But to draw a solemn title from Orators Poets Rhetoritians Encomiasticks what is it but a trifle to give rather an intertainment then an argument to youâ—â— Readers And for Antonius Puccius he sayes no more here to the Pope then was gâ—â—ven in time of the Council of Chacedon to the Emperour Martian by Pulcheria the Empresse who sayes Literae Divinitatis ejus the letters of his Divinity and even by the Fathers of that Council Martian is called divinissimus most divine â—â—on Chal. Act. apud Binium Tom. 2. p. 106. Mr. Baxter Num. 413. In the same Council Simon Beginus Modrusiensis Episcopus in an oration Sess. 6. calls Leo the Lyon of the tribe of Juda the root of Jesse him whom they had looked for as the Saviour William Iohnson Num. 413. It seems you either took these authorities on trust or reade them very cursorily over Beginus says not Radix Iesses the root of Iesse as you have it but Radix David the root of David And his meaning is perverted by you culling out those words from the rest conjoyned to them in the Oration for it is evident that he gives Pope Leo these titles in allusion to his name and applies them only restrictively to the saving or preserving the Roman Church from the invasions of Turkes and Hereticks then appearing and threatning Christendome this is so evident that no man can read the oration and not see it Now what crime is there in calling him a Saviour in this particular external preservation Why did you not fall as heavie upon the holy Scripture Iudicum 3 15. for intitling Ehud a Saviour and 4 Reg. 13.5 that the same title is given to Ioas. But here you shew your spleen and cunning in translating the word Salvatorem the Saviour as if Beginus made the Pope to be Christ he only having due to him the title of being called the Saviour Mr. Baxter Num. 414. In the same Council Sess. 10. Steph. Patracensis Archiep. saith Reges in compedibus magnitudinis magni regis liga nobiles in manicis ferreis censurarum constringe quoniam tibi data est omnis potestas in coelo in terra and before qui totum dicit nihil excludit So that all power in Heaven and Earth is given to the Pope Paulus Emilius de gestis Francor lib. 7. saith that the Sicilian Embassadours lay prostrate at the Popes feet thrice repeated thou that takest away the sins of the world have mercy upon us And prove to me that ever any such man was reprehended for these things by the Popes of late Augustinus Triumphus in praefat sum ad Johan 22. saith that the Popes power is infinite for great is the Lord great is his power of his greatenesse there is no end And qu. 36. ad 6. He saith that the Pope influenceth or giveth the Motion of direction and the sense of cognition into all the members of the Church for in him we live and move and have our being And a little after he saith The will of God and consequently of the Pope who is his vicar is the first and highest cause of all Corporal and spiritual motions Would you have more witnesse of the falshood of your words Saith Zabarella I. C. lib de Schism Innocent 7. and Bened. pag. 20. For this long time past and even to this day those that would please the Popes perswaded them that they could do all things and so they might do what they pleased even things unlawful and so more then God Antonius parte 3. tit 21. cap. 5.4 Saith the Pope receiveth faithful adorations prostrations and kisses of his feet which Peter permitted not from Cornelius nor the Angel from John the Evangelist Cardinalis Bertrandus Tract de Origin jurisd q. 4. num 4. in Glos. extrag com l. 1. fol. 12. saith Because Iesus Christ the Son of God while he was in this world and even from Eternity was a natural Lord and by natural right could pronounce the sentence of deposition on Emperours or any others and the sentence of damnation and any other as upon the Persons which he had created and endowed with natural and free gifts and also did conserve it is his will that on his account his vicar may do the same things For the Lord should not seem discreet that I may speak with his reverence unless he had left behinde him one vicar that can do all these things Tell me now whether you said true in the Paragraph about the title Vice-Christ yea whether it be not much more that hath been given and accepted But what name else is that you agree on as proper to express the power which is controverted I know no name so fitted to the real controversie and therefore in disclaiming the Name for ought I know you disclaime your cause and confess the shame of Popery If he that seeks to the King of England should say he disclaimeth the title of the King as insolent and proud doth he not allow me to conclude the same of the thing which he concludeth of the proper name the Name Papa Pope you know its like was usually by the ancients given to other Bishops as well as to him of Rome and therfore that cannot distinguish him from other men the same I may say of the titles Dominus Pater sanctissimus Dei amantissimus and many such like And for summus Pontifex Baronius tells you Martirol Rom. April 9. that it was the ancient Custome of the Church to call all Bishops not only Pontifices Popes but the highest or chief Popes citing Hierom. Ep. 99. And for the word head of the Church or of all Bishops it hath been given to Constantinople that yet claimeth not as Nilus tells you neither a precedency to Rome nor an universal Government much less as the Vice-Christ And that the Bishop of Constantinople was called the Apostolick Vniversal Bishop Baronius testifieth from an old Vatican monument which on the other side calls Agapetus Episcoporum Princeps the Title Apostolick was usually given to others Hierusalem was called the Mother of the Churches A Council gave Constantinople the Title of universal Church which though Gregory pronounced so impious and intolerable for any to use yet the following Popes made an agreement with Constantinople that their Patriarch should keep his Title of universal Patriarch and the Bishop of Rome be called the universal Pope which can signifie nothing proper to him the name Pope being common more then universal Patriarch doth the foundations and Pillars of the Church
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-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
whatsoever of any Apostolical Church nor was he there to have regard to the order but to the substance of his instances Pag. 236. you make Tertullian speak false Latin and non-sence again by printing institutum for instituuntur so careful are you in your citations fill they but up paper and help to patch up a new volum 't is enough for you Who can doubt but the Apostolical doctrine will prove an Apostolical Church when ever planted as you collect from this Text of Tertullian but how come those succeeding Churches to agree with the precedent but by means of a visible head who hath preserved all in the unity of faith which subject themselves to him where did you ever find any Churches continue long in the same faith with the Apostolical Churches after they had put themselves in opposition to the See of Rome let such Churches be nam'd in your next CHAP. III. More of Mr. Baxters Arguments Num. 32. Mr. Baxters third Argument out of form Num. 33. If the Roman Church were infected with the plague c. anno 1500. the whole visible Catholick Church was infected with it which is a foul Blasphemy Num. 34. Possession stands in force against Protestants Num. 36. the Popes Supremacy in spirituals essential to the Church Num. 37. The true meaning of the 28. Canon of Chalcedon and of the 2. Canon of the first Council of Constantinople Num. 39. Whether the ancient Fathers were accustomed to press the Authority of the Roman See against Heretiques Num. 40. A loud untruth of Mr. Baxter Num. 41. Extra-Imperial Churches subject to the Bishop of Rome Num. 44. 5. Reasons of Mr. Baxters against the Popes supremacy in spirituals answered 32. Pag. 238. Your third argument is out of form having the term as Christian in the first part of the antecedent and not in the sequel or second part therefore I deny the antecedent viz. Though the Roman as Christian hath been alwayes visible yet the Protestant hath not been alwayes visible It is fallacia à secundum quid and simpliciter For all that can be pretended to follow is no more then this that the Protestants have been visible as Christians that is so far as they profess the belief of the chief articles in Christian faith nor yet follows so much for I deny they believe any one of them as Christians ought to do that is with an infallible supernatural divine faith so that they have not been alwayes a visible Church as Christian though the Roman have been so Hence falls the proof of your consequence 33. Pag. 239. I denie your supposition that when Protestants first pretended to reform what displeas'd them in the doctrine of the Roman Church that thereby they were cured of the plague c. for if the Roman Church were then infected with the plague all the visible Churches in the world and consequently the whole Catholique Church was infected with it which is diametrically contrary to the Texts here cited by you out of Tertullian and a horrible blasphemie to affirm that the mystical body of Christ is infected with the plague or any such like mischief Here you trifle again prove the Popes supremacie first to be an usurpation and then take it for a ground of your argument what millions abroad and within the Roman Territories are those you talk of is everie number which you fancie a million Ibid. you frame an objection of your own and then answer it what 's the one or the other to me That which I have objected to be proved by you is no negative but a plain affirmative for 't is this that you prove any Church now denying or opposing the Popes Supremacy to have been alwayes visible Pag. 240. you essay to answer the argument about possession Your first answer is petitio principii or falsum suppositum that any parts of the Catholique Church much less the most fit can be nominated wherin the Popes Supremacy had not possession Non-proof 34. Your second of making good against our title of supremacy c. is only affirm'd by you who are a party but never yielded by us nor legitimately judged or defin'd against us so that sub judice lis est the matter is still in process and you know lite pendente till the cause be decreed or yielded up by one of the parties the possessor is to enjoy his title according to all law and reason you therfore by actual dispossessing the Roman Bishops of that right and title whereof he was quietly possest in the year 1500 in this our Nation and in all other places where you entred upon this pretence only that you think you have sufficiently disproved it from the divine law is to do him as much wrong as if a plantif in a suite at law should thrust the defendant out of quiet possession without decree or order from any competent Judge upon this sole pretence that he frames a judgement to himself he has convinced by law the others title to be null for in these cases both he and you make your selves judges in your own cause and proceed to an execution without a warrant 35. Page 240. To your question what you must prove I answer 't is this that any Church which has at any time or does now deny the Popes supremacy or remain independent of it has bin allwaies visible Ibid. of such as know nothing of the Popes supremacy I say nothing it being not our case then only they are bound to alledge proof for the denyal of it when it is or shall be sufficiently propunded to them 36. Page 241. The Smpremacie it self I have proved to be essential to the Church for there can be no visible body without a head But then it is essential to the subsistance of Christian faith in particular persons when it is sufficiently propounded to them as a point of faith page 241. You propose your fourth argument in proof of the Catholick Church not acknowledging the Popes supremacy for some time Your first Sylogism is out of form 1 for want of the word ever it should be ever since in your antecedent 2 and in the sequel for you say only that the Church whereof the Protestants are members hath been visible where as you should say hath been ever or alwayes visible for that only is the present question 3 You suppose the sole denyal of the Popes supremacy constitutes the Church whereof the Protestants are members which I deny for all hereticks as well as Protestants denyed his supremacy 37. Page 232 233. I have already answered to your 28 canon of Chalcedon first it uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is deferr'd or attributed not gave or conferr'd a new 2 they pretend to give no more to Constantinople then the second general Council had done as appeares by the words now that was to be next after Rome so that the principallity which Rome had before the Council of Constantinople was no way infringed by that canon 3
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
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
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
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
us as you do p. 242. were they to prove the succession of their Church as you do of yours what would you have us answer but deny the consequence for it will never follow because we have not bin that Arrians have bin perpetually visible Nay should he argue thus against you Protestants have not bin perpetually visible Ergo Arrians have bin might you not omitting his antecedent deny his consequence judge therefore by your own cause and prove your consequence nay should we argue thus against you Protestants qua tales have not bin perpetualy visible Ergo the Church whereof Papists are members hath bin perpetually visible might you deny our consequence the reason why this consequence is denyed by all true Christians is this because ours not being perpetually visible confers nothing to your being perpetually visible no more then Cayphas his not being a good Priest made Annas to be a good one And as little followes it that though multitudes of Christians as you have it in your 10 argument page 275. the like you have page 249. argument the fourth and page 251. argu 5. c. Had bin ignorant of Poperie not of Christianity and a succession of visible professors of Christianity that were no Papists that therefore the Church whereof Protestants are members hath bin alwayes visible unless you first prove that all who are profess'd Christians but no Papists are of that Church whereof Protestants are members which I have shewed to be false Suppose therefore ex suppositione impossibili that the Roman Church had not bin alwaies visible thence will not follow that the Church whereof Protestants are members has bin alwaies visible this only will follow that neither it nor Protestants is the true Church I press you therefore once more to prove your consequence and till that be prov'd I am free from all obligation of answering to the proof of your antecedent for no man according to logical form is oblig'd to answer the proofs of any proposition which is neither denied nor distinguished by the respondent but purely omitted 69. I will only ex abundanti clear one difficultie which touches somthing of the main point about the Ogin of the Popes supremacy and is in every pedants mouth who can chatter against us this you have rais'd as a fierce batterie against the walls of Rome and have placed eight pieces of canon upon it Regino contractus Marianus Sigibertus Rumbaldis Pomponius c. And these make a fearful thundering about our ears but sure you did it rather to fright us then to hurt us otherwise you would have taken care to charge them with something else then powder see you not how they vanish away all into smoak have you indeed produced a Caput sieret should be made head of all Churches you had made some breach but to bring no more then ut Caput esset caput esse Phocas constituted the Roman Church should be head or to be head of all Churches is an emptie puffe and no more Did not a late Parliament immediately before his Sacred Majesties return vote and constitute Charles the second to be King of England c. or that he ought to be King of England c. dare you therefore say that he had no other right precedent to be our Soveraign before the Vote and constitution of that Parliament know you not when titles and rights are controverted as it was in Phocas his time the soveraign tribunal decrees to whom the right or title belongs not by conferring it upon them as a free gift but by declaring it to be their right and giving them what they judge to be their due now that this was so in the case of Boniface 3. is manifest first out of Platina who was no extraordinary favourer of Popes in Boniface 3. Bonifacius tertius patria Romanus à Phoca Imperatore obtinuit magna tamen contentione ut sedes Beati Petri Apostoli quae est caput omnium Ecclesiarum ita diceretur haberetur ab omnibus Bonifacius the third sayes Platina by Nation a Roman obtein'd of Phocas the Emperour that the seat of Blessed Peter the Apostle which is head of all Churches should be so call'd and esteem'd of all 2. from Carion p. 229. Sabiniano defuncto creatus est Pontifex 65. Bonifacius tertius hic autem Pontifex ab Imperatore Phochà Augusto obtinuit ut Ecclesia Romana Beati Petri Apostolorum principis sedes quae jure Caput est omnium Ecclesiarum ita diceretur haberetur ab omnibus c. Sabinianus being dead Boniface the third was made Bishop this Bishop obtein'd of the Emperour Phocas that the Roman Church the Sea of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles which by right is head of all Churches should be so call'd and esteem'd by all and he cites for this Onuphrius Panninius and Pompeius Letus 3. Illesius in his spanish history of Popes delivers the substance of Phocas his decree wherein it appeares he constituted no more then this that the Roman Bishop and no other was supream visible governour of the Militant Church and that neither Constantinople nor Ravenna nor any other City save old Rome was deputed by our Saaviour and by St. Peter and Paul for the seat of Christs vicar and Prelates of the whole Church now it is most evident that this constitution of Phocas was not as you ungroundedly imagine the beginning of the Popes universal headship for besides the many texts whâ—â—ch I have already alleadged and you acknowledged from Councils and Fathers long before the time of Phocas wherein the Bishop and Church of Rome is acknowledged to be head of all Churches Iustinian much ancienter then Phocas in codice parte prima lib. 1. Tit. 5. de sacro Sanctis Ecclesiis c. (a) Nec patimur ut non vestrae innotescat sanctitati quod caput est omnium sanctarum Ecclesiaerum omnes vero sacerdotes sanctae Catholicae Apostolicae Ecclesiae Reverendissimae Archemandritae sanctorum Monasteriorum sequentes sanctitatem vestram custodientes statum unitatem sanctarum Dei Ecclesiarum quam habent ab apostolica vestrae sanctitatis sede nihil penitus in mutantes de Ecclesiastiâ—â—o statu quam hactenus ob inuit utque obtinet uno consensu confitetur c. lege 4. nos Reddentes in Epist. Iustinian ad Iohannem Papam 15. Imp. August annoo 1576. affirms the Bishop of Rome to be the head of all the holy Churches and that the unitie of the whole Church derives it self from him that all Priests of the Catholick and Apostolick Church follow the Bishop of Rome changing nothing of the state Ecclesiastical which he to that time had continued and then did continue and many years before Iustinian Gratian Valentinianus and Theodosius Emperours lib 1. cod Tit. 3 desumma Trinitate c. 1. Cunctos populos c command that all who were within their Empire were to follow the doctrine of St. Peter delivered to the Romans
first sense I grant your conclusion if really you are part of the Church There is no Salvation to be had out of Christs Universal Church of which you are a small corrupted part In the second sense I told you we deny the supposition in the subject In the third sense I deny the sequel non sequitur because your Major Proposition being false de Ecclesia universali the conclusion must be false de parte ista as excluding the rest But to the unskilful or unwary Reader your conclusion seemeth to import that the being in such a Church which acknowledgeth the Popes Soveraignty as it is such a Church is necessary to Salvation and so that the persons acknowledgement is neccesary But it is a fallacia accidentis cunningly lapt up that is the life of your imported cause That part of the Universal Church doth hold to the Popes Soveraignty is per accidens and could you prove that the whole Church doth so which you are unlike to do I would say the like And that your fallacy may the beter appear I give you some examples of such like Sophismes Whatsoever Nation is the true Kingdom of Spain is proud and cruel against Protestants But there is no protection there due to any that are not of that Kingdome therefore there is no protection due to any that are not proud and cruel Or whatsoever Nation is the true Kingdome of France acknowledgeth the Pope but no protection is due from the Governours to any that are not of that Kingdom therefore no protection is due to any that acknowledge not the Pope Or what ever Nation is the Kingdome of Ireland in the days of Queen Elizabeth was for the Earl of Tyrone but there was no right of Inheritance for any that were not of that Nation therefore there was no right of Inheritance for any that was not for the Earl of Tyrone Or suppose that you could have proved it of all the Church If you had lived four hundred years after Christ you might as well have argued thus Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ is against kneeling in adoration on the Lords days But there is no salvation to be had out of that Congregation of Christians which is now the true Church of Christ therefore there is no salvation to be had out of that Congregation which is against kneeling on the Lords day c. But yet 1. There was Salvation to be had in that Congregation without being of that opinion 2. And there is now Salvation to be had in a Congregation that is not of that opinion as you will confess Or whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ doth hold the Canticles and the Epistle to Philemon to be Canonical Scripture and so have done c. But there is no Salvation to be had out of the true Church therefore there is no Salvation to be had out of that Congregation which holdeth the Canticles and Epistle to Philemon to be Canonical Scripture But yet 1. Salvation is to be had in that Church without holding it 2. And its possible hereafter a Church may deny those two books and yet you will think Salvation not thereby overthrown This is but to shew your fallacy from a corrupt accident and indeed but of a part of the Church and a small part Now to your proof of the Major Resp. ad Major The present matter of the Church was not visible in the last Generation for we were not then born but the same form of the Church was then existent in a visible Matter and their Profession was visible or audible though their faith it self was invisible I will do more then you shall do in maintaining the constant visibility of the Church Ad minorem 1. If you mean that no Congregation hath been alwayes visible but that Vniversal Church whose lesser corrupt part acknowledges the Popes Soveraignty I grant it For besides the whole containing all Christians as the parts there can be no other If you mean save that part which acknowledgeth you contradict your self because a part implyeth other parts If you mean save that Universal Church all whose members or the most acknowledg it there is no such subject existent 2. I distinguish of Visibility It s one thing to be a visible Church that is visible in its essentials and another thing to be visible quoad hoc as to some separable accident The Universal Church was ever visible because their Profession of Christianity was so and the persons professing But the acknowledgment of the Vice-christ was not alwayes visible no not in any parts much less in the whole And if it had it was but a separable accident if your disease be not incurable that was visible and therefore 1. It was not necessary to Salvation nor a proper mark of the Church 2. Nor can it be so for the time to come I need to say no more to your conclusion Your Argument is no better then this whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath been alwayes visible since the time of Christ But no congregation of Christians hath been so visible save onely that which condemneth the Greeks which hath a Colledge of Cardinals to chose the Popes which denieth the cup to the laity which forbiddeth the reading of Scripture in a known tongue without license c. Therefore whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath all these 1. In a corrupt part it hath 2. But it had not alwayes 3. And may be cured hereafter To your proof of the Major 1. I grant your Major 2. Ad minorem 1. Either you mean Vniversal Pastors each one or some one having charge and Government of the whole Church or you mean unfixed Pastors having an indefinite charge of Preaching and Guiding when they come and have particular calls and opportunities or you mean the fixed Pastors of particular Churches In the first sense your Minor is false the Catholike Church was never so united to any Universal Head but Christ no one of the Apostles governed the rest and the whole Church much less any since their time In the second sense I grant that the Church hath ever had Pastors since the Ascension In the third sense I grant that some parts or other of the Catholick Church have ever had fixed Pastors of Congregations since the first setling of such Pastors But any one particular Congregation may cease to have such Pastors and may cease it self And Rome hath been long without any true Pastors and therefore was then no such visible Church 2. If by Congregation you mean not the Universal Church but a part or if you mean it of all the parts of the Universal Church I deny your Minor Communities of Christians and particular persons have been and may be without any Pastors to whom they are united or subject The Indians that died in the faith while Frumentius and Edesius were
there preaching before they had any Pastor were yet Christians and saved If a Lay man convert one or a thousand and you will say that he may baptize them and they die before they can have a Pastor or ever hear of any to whom they owe subjection they are nevertheless saved as members of the Church And if all the Pastors in a Nation were murdered or banished the people would not cease to be Christians and members of the Church Much lesse if the Pope were dead or deposed or a vacancy befell his seat would all the Catholick Church be annihilated or cease To your Confirmation of the Major that a visible Church is nothing but a Visible Pastor and people united I answer 1. It s true of the Universal Church as united in Christ the great Pastor but not as united in a Vice-Christ or humane head 2. It is true of a particular Political or organized Church as united to their proper Pastors 3. But it is not true of every Community of Christians who are a part of the Universal Church A companie converted to Christ are members of the Vniversal Church though they never heard of a Pope at Rome before they are united to Pastors of their own The Proof of the Minor from Ephes. 4. I grant as aforesaid The Text proveth that Pastors the Church shall have I disclaim the vain Objection of Conditionality in the Promise which you mention But it proves not 1. That the Church shall have an Universal Monarch or Vice-Christ under Christ. 2. Nor that every Member of the Universall Church shall certainly be a member of a particular Church or ever see the face of Pastor or be subject to him You say next There remains only to prove the Minor of the second Syllogism Viz. That no Congregation of Christians hath been always visible but that which acknowledges c. This is the great point which all lyeth on The rest hath been all nothing but a cunning shooing horn to this Prove this and prove all Prove not this and you have lost your time You say The Minor I prove by obliging the answerers to nominate any Congregation of Christians which always till this present time since Christ hath been visible save that only which acknowledges c. And have I waited all this while for this You prove it by obliging me to prove the contrary Ridiculous sed quo jure 1. Your undertaken form of arguing obligeth you to prove your Minor You cannot cast your Respondent upon proving and so arguing and doing the Opponents part 2. And in your Postscript you presently forbid it me You require me to hold to a Concedo Nego Distinguo Omitto Transeat threatning that else you will take it for an Effugium And I pray you tell me in your next to which of these doth the nomination or proof of such a Church as you describe belong Plainly you first slip away when you should prove your Minor and then oblige me to prove ehe contrary and then tell me if I attempt it you 'l take it for an Effugium A good cause needs not such dealing as this which me thinks you should be loth a learned man should hear of 3. Your interest also in the Matter as well as your office as Opponent doth oblige you to the proof For though you make a Negative of it you may put it in other terms at your pleasure It is your main work to prove that all the members of the Vniversal Church have in all ages held the Popes Soveraignty or Universal Headship Or the whole Visible Church hath held it Prove this and I will be a Papist you have my promise You affirm and you must prove Prove a Catholike Church at least that in the Major part was of that mind though that would be nothing to prove the condemnation of the rest If you are an impartial enquirer after truth fly not when you come to the setting too I give you this further evident reason why you cannot oblige me to what you here impose 1. Because you require me to prove the Visibility of a Church which held not your point of Papacy and so put an unreasonable task upon me about a Negative Or else I must prove that they held the contrary before your opinion was started And it is the Catholike Church that we are disputing about so that I must prove this Negative of the Catholike Church 2. It is you that lay the great stress of Necessity on your Affirmative more then we do on the Negative you say that no man can be saved without your Affirmative that the Pope is the universal Head and Governour But we say not that no man can be saved that holdeth not our Negative that he is not the Vice-Christ For one that hath the plague or leprosie may live Therefore it is you that must prove that all the Catholike Church was still of your mind 3. And it is an Accident and but an Accident of a smaller corrupted part of the Catholike Church that you would oblige me to prove the Negation of and therefore it is utterly needlesse to my proof of a visible Catholike Church I will without it prove to you a successive Visibility of the Catholike Church from the Visibility of its Essential or Constitutive parts of which your Pope is none I will prove a successive visible Church that hath still professed faith in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and been united to the Universal Head and had particular Pastors some fixed some unfixed and held all essential to a Christian. And proving this I have proved the Church of which I am a member To prove that England hath been so long a Kingdom requireth no more but to prove the two Essential parts King and Subjects to have so long continued united It requireth not that I prove that it either had or opposed a Vice-King This is our plain case if a man have a botch on one of his hands it is not needful in order to my proving him a man heretofore that I prove he was born and bred without it so be it I prove that he was born a man it sufficeth Nor is it needful that I prove the other hand always to have been free in order to prove it a member of the body It sufficeth that I prove it to have been still a hand I do therefore desire you to perform your work and prove that no Congregation hath been still visible but such as yours or that the whole Catholike Church hath ever since the ascention held a Humane Universal Governour under Christ or else I shall take it as a giving up your cause as indefensible And observe if you shall prove onely that a part of the Catholick Church still held this which you can never do then 1. You will make the contrary opinion as Consistent with salvation as yours For the rest of the Catholick Church is savable 2. And then you well allow me to turn
your Argument against your self as much as it is against us and so cast it away e. g what ever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath been alwayes Visible But no Congregation of Christians hath been alwayes Visible but that which quoad partem denieth the Popes universal Headship therefore whatever Congregation of Christians is the true Church denieth the Popes universal Headship Well! but for all this supposing you will do your part I will fail you in nothing that 's reasonable which I can perform A Catholick Church in all ages that was against the Pope in every member of it I hope I cannot shew you because I hope that you are members though corrupt But you shall have more then a particular Congregation or a hundred 1. At this present two or three parts of the Catholick Church is known to be against your Vniversal Monarchy The Greeks Armenians Etheopians c. besides the Protestants 2. In the last age there were as many or more 3. I the former ages till An. D. 1000. there were neer as many or rather many more For more be faln off in Tenduè Nubia and other parts then the Protestants that came in 4. About the year 600. there were many more incomparably and I think then but at least of 400. years after Christ I never yet saw valid proof of one Papist in all the world that is one that was for the Popes Vniversal Monarchy or Vice-Christ-ship So that most of the Catholick Church about three parts to one hath been against you to this day and all against you for many hundred years Could I name but a Nation against you I should think I had done nothing much lesse if I cited a few men in an age 5. And of all those of Ethiopia India c. that are without the verge and awe of the Ancient Roman Empire never so much as gave the Pope that Primacy of dignity which those within the Empire gave him when he was chief as the Earl of Arundel is of the Earls of England that governeth none of them and as the Lord Chancellour may be the chief Iudge that hath no power in alieno foro or as the eldest Iustice is chief in the County and on the Bench that ruleth not the rest Mistake not this Primacy for Monarchy nor the Roman Empire for the world and you can say nothing At present ad hominem I give you sufficient proof of this succession As you use to say that the present Church best knew the judgement of the former age and so on to the head and so Tradition beareth you out I turn this unresistibly against you The far greatest part of Christians in the world that now are in possession of the doctrine contrary to your Monarchy tell us that they had it from their Fathers and so on And as in Councils so with the Church Real the Major part three to one is more to be credited then the Minor part especially when it is a visible self-advancement that the Minor part insisteth on And were not this enough I might add That your Western Church it self in its Representative Body at Constance and Basil hath determined that not the Pope but a General Council is the chief Governour under Christ and that this hath been still the judgement of the Church and that its Heresie in whoever that hold the contrary 7. And no man can prove that one half or tenth part of your people called Papists are of your opinion For they are not called to professe it by words and their obedience is partly forced and partly upon their principles some obeying the Pope as their Western Patriarch of chief dignity and some and most doing all for their safety and peace Their outward acts will prove no more And now Sir I have told you what Church of which we are members hath been visible yea and what part of it hath opposed the Vice-christ of Rome This I delayed not an hour after I received yours because you desired speed Accordingly I crave your speedy return and intreat you to advise with the most learned men whether Iesuites or others of your party in London that think it worth their thoughts and time not that I have any thoughts of being their equall in learning but partly because the case seemeth to me so exceeding palpable that I think it will suffice me to supply all my defects against the ablest men on earth or all of them together of your way and principally because I would see your strength and know the most that can be said that I may be rectified if I err which I suspect not or confirmed the more if you cannot evince it and so may be true to Gods Truth and my own soul. Rich. Baxter Mr. Iohnsons second PAPER SIR IT was my happiness to have this Argument transmitted into your learned and quiet hands which gratefully returns as fair a measure as it received from you that Animâ—â—sities on both sides reposed Truth may appear in its full splendor and seat it self in the Center of both our hearts To your first Exception My Thesis was sufficiently made clear to my friend who was concerned in it and needed no explication in its address to the learned To your second Exception My Propositions were long that my Argument as was required might be very short and not exceed the quantity of half a sheet which enforced me to penetrate many Syllogisms into one and by that means in the first not to be so precise in form as otherwise I should have been To your third Exception Seeing I required nothing but Logical form in answering I conceive that regard was more to be had amongst the learned to that then to the errors of the vulgar that whilest ignorance attends to most words learning might attend to most reason To your fourth Exception My Argument contains not precisely the terms of my Thesis because when I was called upon to hasten my Argument I had not then at hand my Thesis Had I put more in my Thesis then I prove in my Argument I had been faulty but proving more then my Thesis contained as I clearly do no body hath reason to find fault with me save my self The reall difference betwixt Assemblies of Christians and Congregations of Christians and betwixt Salvation is only to be had in those Assemblies and Salvation is not to be had out of that Congregation I understand not seeing all particular Assemblies of true Christians must make one Congregation To your Answer to my first Syllogism He who distinguishes Logically the terms of any proposition must not apply his distinction to some one part of the term only but to the whole term as it stands in the proposition distinguished Now in my proposition I affirm that the Congregation of Christians I speak of there is such a Congregation that it is the true Church of Christ that is as all know the whole Catholick Church and you distinguish
thus That I either mean by Congregation the whole Catholick Church or only some part of it as if one should say Whatsoever Congregation of men is the Common-wealth of England and another in answer to it should distinguish either by Congregation of men you mean the whole Common wealth or some part of it when all men know that by the Common-wealth of England must be meant the whole Common-wealth for no part of it is the Common-wealth of England Again you distinguish that some things are Essentials or Necessaries and others accidents which are acknowledged or practised in the Church Now to apply this distinction to my Proposition you must distinguish that which I say is acknowledged to have been ever in the Church by the Institution of Christ either to be meant of an Essential or an Accident when all the world knows that whatsoever is acknowledged to have been ever in the Church by Christs Institution cannot be meant of any Accidental thing but of a necessary unchangeable and essential thing in Christs true Church If one should advance this proposition Whatsoever Congregation is the true Church of Christ acknowledges the Eucharist ever to have been by Christs Institution a proper Sacrament of the new Law and another should distinguish as you do my proposition This may be meant either of an Essential or Accidental thing to Christs true Church Seeing whatsoever is acknowledged to have been always in Christs Church and instituted by Christ cannot be acknowledged but as necessary and essential to his Church If therefore my Major as the terms lie expressed in it be true it should have been granted if false it should have been denyed But no Logick allows that it should be distinguished into such different members whereof one is expresly excluded in the very terms of the Proposition These distinctions therefore though learned and substantial in themselves yet were they here unseasonable and too illogical to ground an answer in form as you ground yours still insisting upon them in your address almost to every proposition Hence appears first that I used no fallacy at all ex Accidente seeing my proposition could not be verified of an accident Secondly that all your instances of Spain France c. which include Accidents are not apposite because your propositions as they lie have no term which excludes Accidental Adjuncts as mine hath To the proof of my Major Syl. 2. You seem to grant the Major of my second Syllogism not excepting any thing material against it To my Minor You fall again into the former distinctions now disproved and excluded of the meaning of Congregation c. in my Proposition and would have me to understand determinately either the whole Catholick Church or some part of it and so make four terms in my Syllogism whereas in my Minor Congregation of Christians is taken generically and abstracts as an universal from all particulars I say no Congregation which is an universal negative and when I say none Save that Congregation which acknowledges Saint Peter c. the term Congregation supposes for the same whole Catholick Church mentioned in my former Syllogism but expresses it under a general term of Congregation in confuso as I express Homo when I say he is Animal a man when I say he is a living creature but only generically or in confuso Now should I have intended determinately either the whole Catholike Church or any part of it I should have made an inept Syllogism which would have run thus Whatsoever true Church of Christ is now the true Church of Christ hath been alwaies visible c But no true Church of Christ hath been always visible save the true Church of Christ which acknowledges Saint Peter c. Ergo whatsoever true Church of Christ is now the true Church acknowledges Saint Peter c. which would have been idem per idem for every one knows that the true Church of Christ is now the true Church of Christ. But speaking as I do in abstractive and generical terms I avoid this absurdity and frame a true Syllogism Now my meaning in this Minor could be no other then this which my words express That the Congregation that is the whole Congregation acknowledges Saint Peter c. and is visible c. and not any part great or small of it For when I say the Parliament of these Nations doth or hath enacted a Statute who would demand of me whether I meant the whole Parliament or some determinate part of it You should therefore have denyed not thus distinguished my Minor quite against the express words of it What you say again of Essentials and Accidents is already refuted and by that also your Syllogism brought by way of instance For your Proposition doth not say that the Church of Rome acknowledges those things were always done and that by Christs Institution as my Proposition says she acknowledges Saint Peter and his Successors To my third Syllogism Granting my Major you distinguish the term Pastors in my Minor into particular and universal fixed and unfixed c. I answer that the term Pastors as before Congregation signifies determinately no one of these but generically and in confuso all and so abstracts from each of them in particular as the word Animal abstracts from homo and brutum Neither can I mean some parts of the Church only had Pastors for I say whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath always had visible Pastors and People united Now the Church is not a part but the whole Church that is both the whole body of the Church and all particular Churches the parts of it And hence is solved your argument of the Indians of people converted by lay-men when particular Pastors are dead c. For those were subjects of the chief Bishop alone till some inferiour Pastors were sent to them For when they were taught the Christian Doctrine in the explication of that Article I beleeve the holy Catholick Church they were also taught that they being people of Christs Church must subject themselves to their lawful Pastors this being a part of the Christian doctrine Heb. 13. who though absent in body may yet be present in spirit with them as Saint Paul saith of himself 1 Cor. 5.3 Your Answer to the confirmation of my Major seems strange For I speak of visible Pastors and you say 't is true of an invisible Pastor that is Christ our Saviour who is now in heaven invisible to men on earth The rest is a repetition of what is immediatly before answered Ephes. 4. proves not only that some particular Churches or part of the whole Church must always have Pastors but that the whole Church it self must have Pastors and every particular Church in it for it speaks of that Church which is the Body of Christ which can be no lesse then the whole Church For no particular Church alone is his mystical Body but only a part of it Ephes. 4.
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
such only to whom they are sufficiently propounded Baxter Num. 10. Where you say Your Major should have been granted or denied without these distinctions I reply 1. If you mean fairly and not to abuse the truth by confusion such distinctions as your self call learned and substantial can do you no wrong they do but secure our true understanding of one another And a few lines in the beginning by way of distinction are not vain that may prevent much vain altercation afterward When I once understand you I have done and I beseech you take it not for an injury to be understood Iohnson Num. 10. If they have done no wrong to you 't is well for my part I finde my self nothing injur'd by them But unnecessary and frivolous distinctions as yours were in this occasion can be no great advantage to him who gives them Baxter Num. 11. As to your Conclusion that you used no fallacy ex accidente and that my instances are not apposite I reply that 's the very life of the controversie between us and our main question is not so to be begged Fallacy 4. (a) Make sense of this On the grounds I have shewed you I still aver That the holding the Papacy as accidental to the universal Church as a canker in the breast is to a woman And though you say it is essential and of â—â—hrists Institution that maketh it neither essential nor of Christs Institution nor doth it make all his institutions to be essentials Iohnson Num. 11. You fall here again upon your former mistake I say not that the Papacy is therefore precisely not Accidental because it is of Christs Institution but because Christ hath instituted it should be ever in the Church which ever you still omit My saying I confess makes it not to be of Christs Institution but I hope to evince that my Argument hath proved it by a cleer confutation of your Answer Nor would I have any one give credit to my sayings further then I prove them to be true by solid reason Baxter Num. 12. Now of your second Syllogism 1. I shall never question the successive visibility of the Church whereas I told you out of Francisc. à Sanctâ Clarâ that many or most of your own Schoolmen agree not to that which you say Corruption 2. All Christians agree to you make no reply to it Iohnson Num. 12. I had not then seen that Author for want of time and so omitted the Answer And when I came to the sight of him your citation is so vastly large for you say only in articulis Anglicanis that I was forced to turn over the whole Book and all I have found where he treats this subject is A Sancta Clara in Artic. Anglic problem 15. p. 109 110 c. that one may be saved through invincible ignorance though he have no express but onely an implicite Faith in Christ. But I find no mention of Infidels in that place much less that he affirms most of our Doctors teach they may be saved nor that he affirms any can be saved who are out of the Church Your friends will be sorry to see you so defective in your citations You might have cited either his words or the place where they are found in particular and thereby have saved my labour and your own credit This I hope will be done in your next Baxter Num. 13. As to your Minor I have given you the Reasons of the necessity and harmlesness of my distinctions we need say no more to that A Congregation of Christians and a Church are synonyma Iohnson Num. 13. I wonder to hear you say a Congregation of Christians and a Church are synonyma Suppose a Montanist a Luciferian an Origenist an Arrian an Eutychian a Pelagian an Iconoclast a Wickliffian a Waldensian a Donatist an Aerian a Hussite and with these one of each Heresie and Schisme since Christ which in your opinion are or have been univocally Christians and that without any to reconcile and agree them were congregated together to oppose the Roman Church though you hold they are a Congregation of Christians would you venture to affirm they are a Church Or should a company of Murtherers Thieves Adulterers Robbers Bandits meet in rebellion together without Priest or Pastor though all Christians they would be a Congregation of Christians but would you therefore call them a Church Or when in Christian Armies the Souldiers and Commanders stand in Battalia to fight their Enemies or Countrey-people congregate in a Fair or to choose the Knight of the Shire or at my Lord Mayors Feast in London or at Bartholomew-Fair to see a Puppet-play will you term each of the Congregations of Christians Churches Will you term the Common-Council of London or the Sessions of Mayor Aldermen and Justices sitting in the Old-Baily or the Kings most Honorable Privy Councel or the High Court of Parliament a Church yet all the world knows they are each of them Congregations of Christians S. Paul tells you 1 Cor. 12. that the Church is composed of different Heterogenial members as our bodies are one subject orderly to another by way of Pastor and People which is not found in every Congregation of Christians as I have made it manifest Baxter Num. 14. But the word True was not added to your first term by you or me and therefore your instance here is delusory Iohnson Num. 14. I wonder to hear you discourse in this manner I contend the word True could not be added to the first term without manifest absurdity and therefore I neither added it nor was to be understood to include it Baxt. p. 13. Your Syllogisme runs thus Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ c. and is not my Major cited thus by you Baxt. p. 13. Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ. Now you say the word True was not added to your first term nor to mine that 's true but you say withal that I must intend to signifie in that first term by whatsoever Congregation the universal that is the true Church of Christ that 's not true for I speak abstractly in that term nor could I do otherwise unless I would have made an absurd or identical Proposition Baxter Num. 15. But to say Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the True Church of Christ is all one as to say Whatsoever Church of Christians is now the true Church when I know your meaning I have my end Iohnson Num. 15. I have proved this to be manifestly untrue for the East-India Company in Holland is a Congregation of Christians and yet is not a Church Baxter Num. 16. Though my Syllogisme say not that the Church of Rome acknowledgeth those things alwayes done and that by Christs Institution it nevertheless explicates the weakness of yours as to the fallacy Accidentis Iohnson Num. 16. The question is not here whether this acknowledgement of the Roman
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
the heart to spend paper in such groundless Parergons In your fifth you first call those marks of flattery for giving the title of Vniversal Bishop to Pope Leo which the whole Council of Chalcedon approved and read publikely and therefore must all have concurred with flatterers and yet in the next line you affirm that by the title of universal they meant no more then the Bishop which in order of dignity is above the rest and that you confess belongs as due to the Roman Bishop how then account you them flatterers when they give the Pope no more then his due Either therefore they were no flatterers and then you injure them in branding those holy venerable persons with so black a note or they meant more then you would have them mean by universal Bishop and then you speak untruly in putting a false gloss upon their words chuse which you please you contradict your self And you are as consonant to your self in instancing that many particular Churches are oft called Catholick What then Ergo the Title of Archbishop of the Catholick Church or the Vniversal Bishop proves not the Popes Supremacy Draw these two together if you can Yes there is a difference say you next between a Catholick Church and the Catholick Church There is so but what of that Then will you say if you say any thing there must be a difference betwixt an Archbishop of a Catholick Church and the Archbishop of the Catholick Church That 's true too But see you not that this discourse quite overthrows yours for you say not that the title whose sequel you infringe is that the Pope is called an Archbishop of a Catholick Church for so is every Orthodox Archbishop as well as the Pope but that he is called the Archbishop of the Catholick Church These are your precise words Noâ—â— say you that we stile him an universal or Catholick Bishop for so are all lawfull Bishops but that we stile him the universal Bishop It seems you have two hands and those so contrary one to the other that what the one builds the other pulls down Then you say the Bishop of Constantinople had that title given him in a Council at Constantinople Anno 518. But was that Council received as publickly without contradiction in the Church as this Epistle was received without contradiction in the Council of Chalcedon Was not that Constantinopolitan Council condemned both by S. Gregory and his Predecessor as S. Gregory witnesses in his Epistle against Iohn of Constantinople and can you name any who in the Council of Chalcedon condemned the title given to Leo in that Epistle read in the Council of Chalcedon The truth is you care not much what you write so you make a noise This done you alledge Iustin. Codex de Episcopis l. 1. lege 24. that is the First Law the four and twentieth Law a learned citation if yours and not the Printers oversight in printing L. for T. for it should be Tit. 2. not 1. lege 24. You cite him thus Constantinopolitana Ecclesia omnium aliarum caput the Church of Constantinople is the Head of all other Churches whence you prove that Iustinian prefers the Church of Constantinople before the Church of Rome Surely you never read this Law of Iustinian for had you read it you would have found by his mentioning there certain Ecclesiastical Officers called Chartularii belonging to the Cathedral Church that he speaks there only of the great Patriarchal Church of St. Sophia in Constantinople and makes it the Head of all other Cathedral Churches in that Patriarchate and not of the politick body of the Constantinopolitan Church in regard of all other Christian Churches in the world And your very Concession here concludes that he prefers not the Constantinopolitan in your sense before that of Rome for you acknowledge he prefers Rome before it For all know that Iustinians Laws were so prudently couched and ordered that such palpable contradictions as these were never noted by any Classick Authors to be inserted into them But whilst you thus take Authors upon trust hand over head no marvel if you make more haste then good speed in posting out one Book after another Presently upon this you fall upon a Story concerning Vigilius and Iustinian and by that you prove nothing For Iustinian might both hold the Bishop of Rome was Head of all the holy Prelates of God as he intitles him C. l. 1. tit 2. l. 7. and yet persecute him and abuse him to draw him to subscribe to what he desired as many Emperors since Iustinian have done who notwithstanding beleeved and professed constantly the universal Supremacy of the Roman Bishop For when they are injurious to particular Popes their spleen is not against the Sea or dignity of the Roman Bishop but against this or that person who is actually in possession of it Thus Iustinianus junior endeavoured all he could even by force and violence to draw Pope Sergius to subscribe to the Trullane Cannons though he could not effect it Nay had you drawn a natural sequel from such proceedings it should rather have been That Iustinianus senior therefore proceeded so violently against Vigilius to induce him to subscribe to the condemnation of the Tria capitula decreed in the fifth Council because he esteemed him to be of so eminent power that it would never have been universally received as a lawful General Council without his Subscription to it and confirmation of it which was the reason that moved Iustinianus junior to press Sergius so forcibly to subscribe to that in Trullo Thus I have given a brief Survey of what you cite p. 174 175. in your Key whence may be collected what your manner of writing is in that loose Treatise since in little more then in one sole page occasionally light upon I have discovered no lesse then two Equivocations three Fallacies four false Translations three Inconsequences one Mistake and two Contradictions Yet were such defects now and then only to be met with in your Book it were something tolerable but such as read it attentively finde it swarmes all over with them and is indeed nothing but a Farrago of Fallacies and Falsities heap'd one upon another throughout the whole Tract Pardon me if I have been more bold with you in answering this passage of your Key then in what you have writ against me for I neither find you so mainly defective in that as in this other and where you are so I labour to smother what I can that I may not seem to be too severe with you in my own concern What you say in this Paragraph by way of Parenthesis That the Emperors gave power to the Councils Acts if you mean they gave any spiritual Authority by force of Vote or Suffrage to them you neither have prov'd it nor can prove it if you mean they gave only a coercive power for the external Observation of those decrees which by vertue of the Councils Authority obliged
Church all the rest even the highest are no more then his Officers with a limited and restrained power that is in order to the sole sole external and visible government of it not having other Bishops under him as his Officers but as Officers of Christ and subject to him as hereafter shall be further declared Nor yet have you given here any direct answer to my Question I demand whether you account Rome and Protestants one Congregation To which you answer the Roman Church hath two heads and the Protestant but one and that 's the difference Now this gives no satisfaction to my demand for the Question inquires not Whether there be any difference betwixt us and you that was out of Question but whether that difference assigned by you be so great that it hinders them from being one Congregation and that you resolve not and thereby leave the difficulty unanswered Baxter Num. 91. They are Christians and so one Church as united in Chrst with us and all other true Christians If any so hold their Papacy and other Errors as effectively and practically to destroy their Christianity those are not Christians and so not of the same Church as we But those that do not so but are so Papists as yet to be truly and practically Christians are and shall be of the same Church with us whether they will or not Iohnson Num. 91. You tell us what would follow if such things as you fancy were done but you tell us not whether it is possible to do them or no. Can a Papist think you remaining still a Papist so hold his Papacy and other pretended errors as to destroy Christianity If he cannot why trifle you away time in printing such Chymerical conditionals if he can tell us how and by what means which you have not done nor indeed can you do it For how is it possible for two persons to be both Papists that is of the same Faith in all things for otherwise they will not be both Papists and the one of them only to be a Christian and the other none but practically and effectually destroying Christianity Baxter Num. 92. And your modest stile makes me hope that you and I are of one Church though you never so much renounce it Iohnson Num. 92. I never saw a man labor so confidently to perswade one out of his Religion upon so weak grounds as you do And truly something might be done in time to make you and me of one Church if I knew what Church you are of For you contradict so loudly the Tenets of all those who pretend either to be the Church or parts of the Church before you that I cannot finde but you are of a Church by your self which no man knows but your self and then I 'me sure you neither are nor can be of one Church with me so long as you remain in the state you are in yet it is the height of my desires that we may both be joyned in one Catholick Church which I shall most earnestly and unfainedly beg of God still hoping that your zeal and ardency in what you profess may as it did S. Paul bring you to see and imbrace his true Church Baxter Num. 93. As Papal we are not of your Church that 's a new Church-form Iohnson Num. 93. Prove it is new you know well enough we hold it to be ancient Baxter Num. 94. But as Christian we are and will be of it even when you are condemning torturing and burning us if such persecution can stand with your Christianity Iohnson Num. 94. I have shewed you are not as Christian speaking univocally of one Church with us For true Christianity requires true faith which I cannot beleeve you have nor have you proved it as shall appear hereafter I am unwilling to revive the memory of those severities you mention and you also might have pleased to have buried them in Oblivion for in objecting them to us you refresh the remembrance of yours towards us nor yet see I why such severities can better stand with your Christianity then with ours CHAP. VII ARGUMENT Num. 95. Roman Catholicks and Protestants cannot be of one and the same Church num 96 Length of time or continuance excuses not the succeeding Hereticks or Schismaticks from the crimes of their first beginners num 97. When Protestants deserted external Communion with Rome they deserted together with it the external Communion of all other particular visible Churches and that upon the same grounds n. 98. Mr. Baxters exclamation against Rome is injurious to all other ancient particular Churches existent immediatly before the first beginners of Protestancy n. 99. All the Kingdoms in the world not one visible but only invisible Kingdome under Gods invisible providence and power which governs them and in that regard an unfit instance to prove different particular Churches without one visible governour of them all to be one visible Church num 100. His opinion of actual Hereticks and Schismaticks properly so called contrary to all Authors ours or his own and to Christianity it self num 101. How Alphonsus à Castro held them to be members of the Church num 102. Every Heretick properly so called denies some essentials of Christianity num 103. Pelagians undoubted and manifest Hereticks and Schismaticks The Catholick Church so perfectly one that it s not capable to be divided Baxter Num. 95. But you ask Why did you then separate your selves and remain still separate from the Communion of the Roman Church Answ. 1. We never separated from you as you are Christians we still remain of that Church as Christian and we know or will know no other form because that Scripture and Primitive Churches knew no other Either you have by Popery separated from the Church as Christian or not If you have it s you that are the damnable Separatists If you have not then we are not separated from you in respect of the form of the Christian Church Iohnson Num. 95. You separated as much from us as did either Novatians or Pelagians or Donatists or Acacians or Luciferians or Nestorians Eutychians c. did from the Catholick Church of their respective times which is enough for us to deny you to be of one Church with us or to be any true parts of the Catholick Church If it be not so shew what you can say for your selves which any of those Hereticks might not as well have alledged in their own defence for neither did any of them separate from the Church as it was Christian nor did either the Pelagians Donatists Acacians Luciferians Novatians dis-beleeve any essential point of Christian faith if Protestants dis-beleeve no essential what you say of not separating from us as we are Christians is a precision never used by Catholick or Heretick in ancient times nor indeed did ever any Heretick who esteemed himself a Christian affirm he separated from the Church as it was Christian for that had been to deny himself to be a Christian which
no Hetick ever did so that if this excuse save you from Schismatical separation every Heretick in the world may be excused as well as you Actual separation and refusal of external Communion with all the Churches in the world of their time as your first beginners did was ever esteemed and will ever be esteemed by Orthodox Christians a destruction of true union with the visible Church of Christ under what notion or precission soever it be done because as Dr. Hammâ—â—nd affirms lib. de schismate there can be no sufficient cause given for any such separation Baxter Num. 96. And for your other form the Papacy 1. Neither I nor my Grand-father or great Grand-father did separate from it because they never entertained it Iohnson Num. 96. This is strange doctrine and would help out an Arrian or a Donatist at a dead lift after a hundred or two hundred years continuance of those Heresies no lesse then your self Is not the maintaining of a Separation or Schisme ever termed amongst Christians a Schism or separation even many generations after it begun Were not the succeeding Donatists after some ages as truly esteemed Schismaticks as the first beginners of their Schisme S. Austin called them Schismaticks and said they had left the Church above a hundred years after their first parting from it Baxter Num. 97. Those that did so did but repent of their sin and that 's no sin We still remain separated from you as Papists even as we are separated from such as we are commanded to avoid for impenitency in some corrupting Doctrine or scandalous sin Whether such mens sins or their professed Christianity be most predominant at the heart we know not but till they shew repentance we must avoid them yet admonishing them as brethren and not taking them as men of another Church but as finding them unfit for our Communion Iohnson Num. 97. This is one of the handsomest passages of your whole Reply and shews a fecundity of invention to maintain a Novelty But give me leave to tell you it will not it cannot acquit you of separating from the true â—â—hurch of Christ. Had you indeed deserted the sole Communion of the Papacy as you term it it might have born some shew of defence though no more then a shew but seeing when you separated from that you remained also separate as much from all particular visible Churches in the world as from that there can be neither shew nor shadow of excuse in it For you must either say that all the particular Churches in the world existent immediatly before you Anno 1500. were guilty of impenitency in some corrupting Doctrine or scandalous sin for which you were commanded to avoid them which were both to contradict Tertullian cited by your self page 235. Eâ—â—quid verisimile est c. to prove the contrary and thereby to condemn your selves of manifest Schisme which is nothing but a separation of ones self from the whole Visible Church or you must say there were some particular Churches then existent not guilty of that impenitency in some corrupting Doctrine or scandalous sin to which Churches you adhered when you first separated from the Roman and with which you lived in external Communion and then you are obliged to shew design and nominate which that Church oâ—â— those Churches were which neither you nor any of your professors ever yet did or could doe Nor will it excuse you to alledge you communicate with all Churches as Christian for whilest you profess your selves Christians you cannot affirm that you left all Churches as they are Christian and by this means never yet any Heretick no neither Arrian nor Sabellian could be convinced to have separated from all Churches for never would any of them acknowledge that they left them as Christian seeing they all not only protested but really beleeved themselves to be Christians Now if you will acquit your selves of separation from Christs Church shew in your Rejoynder some visible Churches pre-existent immediatly before you and co-existent with you in your first beginning which did not pray for the dead desire the assistance and Prayers of Saints for themselves use and reverence Images in their Churches which had not Altars Priests Masses reall and proper Sacrifice which held not Bread and Wine to be really changed by vertue of consecration into Christs true Body and Blood before they received them which held not S. Peter and him whom they esteemed his lawfull Successor to be the Supream visible Governour next under Christ of the whole Militant Church as is declared above Or which held not some other points as points of Faith which you deny or held not or denied some points which you hold to be points of Christian faith by reason wherof you had sufficient reason to leave their external Communion if you had reason to forsake that of Rome For till this be shewed all the world will see that as you separated from all other particular Churches as much as from those who adhere to the Church of Rome so had you the very same or equivalent Reasons to separate from them So that in accusing the Church of Rome of impenitency in some corrupting Doctrine and scandalous sin you accuse in like manner all other Christian Churches then existent in the World together with her Baxter Num. 98. But O Sir what manner of dealing have we from you must we be imprisoned rackt harg'd and burned if we will not beleeve that Bread and Wine are not Bread and Wine contrary to our own and all mens senses and if we will not worship them with divine Worship and will not obey the Pope of Rome in all such matters contrary to our Consciences and then must we be chidden for separating from you if we can but a while escape the Strappado and the flames What! will you blame us for not beleeving that all mens senses are deceived and the greater part of Christians and their Traditions against you are false when we read studie and suspect our selves and pray for light and are willing to hear any of your reasons but cannot force our own understandings ti beleeve all such things that you beleeve and meerly because the Pope commands it and when we cannot thus force our own understandings must we be burned or else called Separatists Would you have the Communion of our Ashes or else say We forsake your Communion In your Churches we cannot have leave to come without lying against God and our Consciences and saying We beleeve what our senses contradict and without committing that which our Consciences tell us are most hainous sins We solemnly protest that we would do as you do and say as we say were it not for the love of truth and holiness and for fear of the wrath of God and the flames of Hell but we cannot we dare not rush upon those Errors and sell our souls to please the Pope And must we then either be murthered or taken for uncharitable Will you
say to so many poor souls that are ready to enter into another World Either sin against your Consciences and so damn your souls or else let us burn and murder you or else you do not love us you are uncharitable if you deny us leave to kill you and you separate from the Communion of the Church We appeal from the Pope and all unreasonable men to the great God of heaven and earth to judge righteously between you and us concerning this dealing As for possessing our selves of your Bishopricks and Cures if any particular person had personal injury in the change being cast out without cause they must answer for it that did it not I though I never heard any thing to make me beleeve it But must the Prince and the people let alone Delinquent Pastors for fear of being blamed for taking their Bishopricks Ministers of the same Religion with us may be cast out for their crimes Princes have power over Pastors as well as David Solomon and other Kings of Israel had Guil. Barclay and some few of your own knew this The Popes treasonable exemption of the Clergie from the Soveraigns judgement will not warrant those Princes before God that neglect to punish offending Pastors And I beseech you tell us when our Consciences after the use of all means that we can use to be informed cannot renounce all our senses nor our reason nor the judgement of the most of the Church or of Antiquity or the Word of God and yet we must do so or be no members of your Church what wrong is it to you if we chuse us Pastors of our own in the order that God hath appointed Had not the people in all former ages the choice of their Pastors We and our late Fore-fathers here were never under your over-sight but we know not why we may not now choose our Pastors as well as formerly we do it not by Tumults We kill not men and tread not in their blood while we chuse our Pastors as Pope Damasus was chosen The Tythes and other Temporal maintenance we take from none but the Magistrate disposeth of it as he seeth meet for the Churches good And the maintenancâ—â— is for the cure or work and therefore that are justly cast out of the cure are justly deprived of the maintenance And surely when they are dead none of you can with any shew of reason stand up and say These Bishopricks are yours or These Parsonages are yours It is the Incumbent personally that only can claim the Title saving the super-eminent title of Christ to whom they are devoted But the successive Popes cannot have title to all the Tythes and Temples in the World nor any of his Clergy that never were called to the charges If this be dis-union it is you that are the Separatists and cause of all If you will needs tell all the Christian World that except they will be ruled by the Pope of Rome and be burned if they beleeve not as he bids them in spight of their senses he will call them Separatists Schismaticks and say they dis-unite and are uncharitable again we appeal to God and all wise men that are impartial whether it be he or we that is the divider Iohnson Num. 98. By what is now answered this your long Rhetorical Exclamation from page 108. to page 112. is also solved For all that the Church of Rome demands of you even to the denying of your senses and subjecting of your judgement was in the year 1500. required of you by all Visible Ancient Churches in the World and you are not able to nominate any one where it was not Change therefore the term Pope or Church of Rome into that of the Catholick Church of Christ that is all Orthodox particular Churches existent at that time which are comprised in the number of all visible ancient particular Churches then existing and address your exclamations to it and then you will see how little of a Christian complaint there is in that whole digression To this therefore I presse you once again to produce some Visible Church in the year 1500. from whose visible Communion you were not separated in your first beginning Anno 1517. as much as were the Pelagians or Donatists from all Visible Churches in their times And to render a sufficient reason why your dis-obeying or substracting your selves from the dependance and obedience of all the Visible Pastors in all Churches Anno 1500. was not as much deserving to be termed and held a criminal Schism and spiritual Rebellion as any former separation from all Visible Churches Mr. Baxter Num. 99. You ask me 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 a Congregation of Commonwealth's-men Answ. yes it is But as all the world is one kingdome under God the universal King but yet hath no universal vice-king but every Commonwealth only hath it's own Sovereign even so all the Christian world is one Church under Christ the universal king of the Church but hath not one vice-Christ but every Church hath it's own Pastours as every School hath it's own School-master But all the Anger is because we are loth to be ruled by a cruel usurper therefore we are uncharitable William Iohnson Num. 99. You commit the Fallacy of ignoratio Elenchi and pass à genere in genus I speak of a visible Kingdome or Commonwealth as it is regulated by a visible Government and you take it as it is invisibly govern'd by an invisible Providence In this sense only are all the kindomes of the earth one kingdome under the invisible Government of the Invisible God but cannot be truly called one visible kingdome but more Now it is evident through the whole discourse that our present Controversie is of the visible Church as it is visible and in this sense it is and must be one and consequently must be under some visible Government which must make it one That cannot be Christ for he governs not his Church now visibly Ergo there must be some other and that must either be some Assembly of chief Governours as would be a General Council or some one person who has Authority to govern the whole body of the Church A general Council it cannot be for that was never held to be the ordinary but only the extraordinary Church-Government when emergent occasions require it and even when that is convened there must be some one person to avoid Schisme and quiet Controversies which may possibly arise in the Council with Authority above all the rest It is therefore manifest the Church cannot be perfectly one visible politick Body unless there be one visible head to govern it visibly as the ordinary Governour of it I beseech you Sir reflect often upon this distinction and you will see the chief ground of your discourse answered by it For to say as you do here that the Church
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.
no other copy of the Sardican Council save that false one of the Arians fraudently given out for the true one of Sardica Now if St Augustine the light not only of Africa but of the whole Church was ignorant of the true canons of the Sardican Council the copies of it having been supprest by the Donatists what need you wonder that the rest of the African Bishops were ignorant of them and this is the reason why the African Fathers writ they found not the canons in any Council of the Fathers because they had not the true copy of the Sardican wherein they were yet it is true that these very canons were acknowledged by the African Churches within very few years after this African Council both by the practise of that Church S. Leo. Ep. 8. ad Episc Africanâ—â—s where as St. Leo witnesses an African Bishop appealed to him who succeeded within eight years of Celestine and his appeal was received and by inserting these very canons of the Sardican Council into the canon law of Africa for Fulgentius Ferrandus Deacon of Carthag not long after St. August and Contemporanean with St. Fulgentius Fulg. Ferrand in Breviar Can art 59. 60. hath registred them into his collection of the canons amongst the rest Mr. Baxter Num. 152. It was made in a case of Athanasius and other Orthodox Oriental Bishops meerly in that strait to save them and the Churches from the Arians William Iohnson Num. 152. But if it were only for this strait why was it many years after put into the canon law of Africa as I have now proved and practised to this very day ever since in the Church Who ever before you said it was only for that strait name any one clasick author of antiquity if you can who said so Canons of general Councils though occasioned by several accidents are to be supposed as perpetual to the whole Church till they be either repealed by some authority equal to a general Council or some manifest action given in the institution of them that they are only provisionary for a time prove if you can by the words of this Council that it intends them only to be obligatory only for that strait and not to be perpetual This indeed were an excellent way to infringe the obligation of all or the most part of the Ecclesiastical canons by saying they were in aid upon such a strait as all were made by some or other and therefore binde not after that occasion is past But what if in effect either the same or the like occasion and strait more or lesse be still found in the Churches For after the Arians the Nestorians Eutychians Monothelites image breakers others persecuted Catholick Bishops as wrongfully as did the Arians why then was this canon not to remaine necessary after that strait of the Arian opposition I see the strait was yours being much pinched for an answer when you fell upon such a strait as this Mr. Baxter Num. 153. The Arians withdrew from the Council being the Minor part and excommunicated Julius and Athanasius and other occidentals and the occidental Bishops excommunicated the oriental Athanasius himself was a cheif man in the Council and had before been rescued by the help of Julius and therefore no wonder if they desired this safety to their Churches William Iohnson Num. 153. But yet because it was morally certain even after this strait was past that as before this Council was assembled or the Council of Nice either many Bishops were opprest by their neighbour Bishops and stood in need of appeals so in all future times more or lesse such occasions would happen as continual experience ever since hath taught as they have hapned for these reasons I say it was necessary that these and the like canons should be of perpetual force or remedy against perpetual dangers equal or like to those of the Arians This ground of yours would have stood our late Republicans in good stead who might have cancelled most of the ancient lawes of our Kingdomes upon the same pretence with yours that they were enacted first upon some strait or other which being past over many years agoe they are now no more necessary nor any way obligatory See you not what foundations you lay for the overthrow of the lawes both of Church and Kingdome Mr. Baxter Num. 154. Note that this is a thing newly granted now by this canon and not any ancient thing William Iohnson Num. 154. Prove it is a new thing this decree was not before it was made but the matter of the decree that is the power of the Bishops of Rome to judge all other prelats was before this Council for otherwise St. Athanasius and the other Bishops could never have appealed to the Bishops of Rome as to their judges or would their appeales have been accepted by those holy Bishops or approved in general Councils or had the effects of restauration c. In the Church which notwithstanding you your self confesse here was done before this Council Mr. Baxter Num. 155. Note that therefore it was of humane Right and not of Divine William Iohnson Num. 155. Therefore whence deduce you that to prove first your premises before you infer your conclusion may not the Church order that divine Lawes and institutons be observed and are they therefore not of divine right because the Church hath commanded the observance of them did not the fourth Council of Lateran command all Christians to receive at Easter Is therefore the reception of the Sacrament not of divine right true it is the circumstances of Executing divine commands may be determined by the Church as they were in this Council but the substance is still divine shew by any word in those canons that they give the power of judging the causes of all Bishops to the Pope as if he had it not before Mr. Baxter Num. 156. Note that yet this canon was not received or practised in the Church but after this the contrary maintained by Councils and practised as I shall anon prove William Iohnson Num. 156. When you prove it I hope I shall answer it Mr. Baxter Num. 157. That it is not any antecedent Governing power that the Canon acknowledgeth in the Pope but in honor of the memory of St. Peter as they say yet more for their present security they give thus much to Rome it being the vulgar opinion that Peter had been their Bishop William Iohnson Num. 157. I am heartily sorry to discover so bad a spirit in you as these expressions demonstrate why give you not the title of St. to him to whom this holy oecumenicall Council as you here acknowledg gave it they call him say you St. Peter and you unsaint him cal him as it were in derision of the Council plain Peter why call you that a vulgar opinion which was imbraced as an unquestioned certainty by this reverend Learned and general assembly of the catholick Church why impose you upon
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
Priestly power from him by his disposition c. your strange confidence in out-facing two so manifest authorities will neither credit your cause nor your self Mr. Baxter Num. 164. Indeed your annotator in sess 6. mentions some words of Juvenals that he should at least have regarded the Roman legates it being the custome that his Church de directed by that but I see no proof he brings of those words corruption William Iohnson Num. 164. My citation mentions neither Iohns appeales nor Iuvenals denuntiation but the Ephesine Councils letters to Pope Celestine wherein they reserve the last judgement concerning Iohn of Antioch to Celestine yet sure Iohns appealing to the Emperours prove no more then that it is the Custome of Hereticks to appeal from general Councils to secular Princes and Iuvenals denunciation against Iohn was not only that the Church of Antioch was to be directed but judged also which you are pleased to omit by the Church of Rome and that was not only a Custome as you barely terme it but an Apostolical ordination ut Apostolica ordinatione See the true meaning of this sentenc in Hierom. Alex disput 2. de Regione sub urbe c. 4. antiqua traditione sayes Juvenal Antiochena sedes perpetuo a Romana dirigeretur judicareturque Whence appears that these words are not the words of any Historian but are yet extant in the Council and thereby proved to be true and by them is clearly witnessed the perpetual power and authority of judging all other Seas by an argument a paritate rationis Mr. Baxter Num. 165. And it is known that Cyril of Alexandria did preside and subscribed before the Roman Legates even to the several letters of the Synode As you may see in Tom. 2. cap 23. passim William Iohnson Num. 165. It is known also he was Pope Celestine Celest. Ep. 3. Theod. Bâ—â—alsoin Photius Tit. c. 1. Niceph. L. 14. c. 34. legate in ordinary therefore sate as president in the Council and subscribed first as being constituted by Celestine to supply his place in the examination and sentencing of Nestorius in token of which he wore the Pall in celebration of Mass sent him from Celestine in time of the Councils of Ephesus which was the habit of the Roman Bishop Mr. Baxter Num. 166. But if your words were there to be found what are they to the purpose the Pope can punish the Bishops of Antioch but how why by excommunicating him true If he deserve it that is by pronouncing him unfit for Christian communion and requiring his flock and exhorting all others to avoide him William Iohnson Num. 166. I have before answered this in the example of Acatius punisht by Felix and this instance it self vt supra convinces that it was not only a negative declaration of himself and others avoiding him but of deposing him also from his Priestly office Mr. Baxter Num. 167. And thus may another Bishop do and thus did John by Cyril of Alexandria though he was himself of the inferiour seat and thus hath the Bishop of Constantinople done by the Bishops of Rome so may others William Iohnson Num. 167. What Bishops were those Iohn of Antioch a ringleader of the Nestorians and some Bishops of Constantinople why name you them not none but ejusdem farinae with Iohn of Antioch Hereticks or Schismaticks name any Bishop of Constantinople who excommunicated the Bishop of Rome and I undertake here to prove him to be either an Heretick or a Schismatick and accounted such by the Catholicks of his time That was that great and Capital crime so much exclaimed against in the Empeachment of Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria before the Fathers assembled at Chalcedon was it not that he had extended his felonious hand against Pope Leo in pronouncing an excommunication against him but shew me also that ever any inferiour or equal prelate gave out a sentence of excommunication against another of higher or equal dignity who in so doing was not condemned by the Catholicks of those times and then shew who in those dayes condemned Pope Celestine for punishing and sentencing Nestorius or Iohn of Antioch You mince all you can to depresse the Popes authority the sentence of excommunication who told you that the Pope only exhorted all others out of his proper Diocess to avoide a person excommunicated by him was not Constantinople out of the Popes flock in your opinion and did not the Pope command with threats of Gods wrath that none should give the communion to those whom he had deprived of it so my instance above in the excommunication of Acatius Or whence learnt you that excommunication was no more then to pronounce one unfit for Christian communion and no command to abstain from them produce your authorities or reject your Novelties Mr. Baxter Num. 198. non proof 15. non proof 16. Your ninth proof is from the applications that the Arians and Athanasius made to Julius ex Athan ad solit Epist. Julius in Litt. ad Arian apud Athan Apol. 1. p. 753. Theodoret lib. 2. c. 4. Athan. Apol. Zozom lib. 3. c. 7. Reply I marvell you urge such rancid instances to which you have been so fully and so often answered William Iohnson Num. 168. But I marvell not to hear you speak so confidently as you do without giving reason for your confidence it is so ordinary a thing with you If you call an instance rancid all the world must without scruple beleive it because you call it so if you say that has been often and fully answered it must be accounted as certain as if it proceed from an Oracle Think you wise men will be moved to any thing but laughter by such non proofs will any rational person yeild to you both the place of Judge and partie Mr. Baxter Num. 169. I refer you to Blondel de primatu cap. 25. sect 14.15 Whitaker de Roman Pontif p. 150 passim Dr. Feild of the Ch. l. 5. c. 35. c. William Iohnson Num. 169. 'T is a shrewd signe you aad no answer of your own worth the mentioning when you send me to Blondel Whitaker and Feild for an answer Truly Sr I have my hands too full to spend time in such needlesse messages yet had I undertaken them I perceive I had lost my labour for Whitaker in the place you cite de Roman Pontifice p. 150. hath never a word of these instances nor of the Bishops of Rome And your other citation of passim is as much as if you had said you know not where and thereby send me you know not whither Are such citations fit amongst Scholars in controversies of Religion Blondel first trifles in time figures words translations to amuse his Reader and then hath no other shift but to feign Iulius to have been freely chosen as an Arbitrator for that sole time and occasion by the Arian Legates as they might have chosen any other Bishop not considering that Arbitrators must be equally chosen
were the universal governours because at Nice and other Councils they sate before the legates of the Pope and in many his legates had no place Is this argument good think you O unfaithfull partiality in the matters of salvation non proof William Iohnson Num. 220. O you can do wonders but I would gladly see you doe what you say you can do You have not yet done it and I cannot believe you can do 't till I see you have don 't there is a great difference betwixt saying and doing Your groundless exclamation I regard not it is not partiality what you call so nor what you say you can prove to be so prove it in your next to be partiality Mr. Baxter Num. 221. You say they prohibited Dioscorus to sit by his order Reply 1. What then therefore he was universal governour of the Church All alike Any accuser in a Parliament or Synod may require that the accused may not sit as Iudge till he be tried fallacy 12. William Iohnson Num. 221. Your reply is fallacious procâ—â—ding ex falso supposito p. 150. See the place cited in my p. 54. Con Chal. act 3. Leo's order that Dioscorus should not sit in Council was not because he was accused but because he was condemned nor was it a bare requiring but a strickt command and injunction that he should not sit there as a Bishop of that Council Mr. Baxter Num 222.2 But did you not know that Leo's legates were not obeyed but that the Gloriosissimi judices amplissimus senatus required that the cause should be first made known and that it was not done tiâ—â— Eusebius Episcop Dorylaei had read his bill of complaint Binius Act. 1. pag. 5. Fallacy 13. William Iohnson Num. 222. No really I know it not nor I thinke you neither You commit an other fallacy by an ignoratio elenchi the Iudices Gloriosissimi c and the complaint read against him by Eusebius Epis. Dorylaei was not put as a remora to Dioscorus not sitting in the Council with the rest of the Fathers but in order to his and others publick condemnation which with great applause of the whole Council was performed in the end of the first action So skilful are you in Church history if you make not your self seem more unskilful then you are to say something which may make a noise in the ears of the unlearned It being therefore clear that Dioscorus was prohibited upon St. Leo's order to sit in Council It followes that he was universal Governour of the Church a paritate rationis ut supra for if he had power to remove the cheif Patriarch of the Church next after himself from having an Episcopal vote in a general Council which was an act of absolute jurisdiction over him much more had he power upon like grounds to remove any other inferiour Patriarck or Prelate through the whole Church there having been no proof alleadged by you that this his power was limited to the sole Empire and I having now produced many reasons that there could be no such limitation Mr. Baxter Num. 223. You say the Popes legates pronounced the Church of Rome to be Caput omnium Ecclesiarum Reply 1. What then therefore he was Governour of all the Christian world I deny the consequence You do nothing but beg not a word of proof Caput was but membrum principale the Patriarch primae sedis and that but in the Empire William Iohnson Num. 223. This consequence is made strong by the weakenes of your reply Is Caput omnium Ecclesiarum the head of all Churches no more with you then the principal member of all Churhes in the Empire that is in your new theologie one who was to take of all other Churches without any true and proper authority over them see you not in what straits you are put should some new Sabellian or Câ—â—rinthian rise up and deny that our Saviour were any more then the cheif person in the Church that is to take place before all others but without any jurisdiction or authority over the whole Church and a Catholick should labour to prove he hath authority from that place of St. Paul Coloss. 1.18 Ipse est Caput Corporis Ecclesiae he is the head of his body the Church And the Sabellian having read this book of yours Should reply as you do here to me what then therefore Christ is governour of the Christian world I deny this consequence Caput is but membrum principale head is no more then the principal part c. Would you not make pretty work with Scripture and open a gap to every novellist to elude no less yours then our proofs for Christs supream government over his Church but I see you care not whom you hurt so you can but avoide the present stroak Nay you have delivered here a precious doctrine no lesse for your she citizens at London then your good wives of Kidderminster for when their husbond teach them obedience and subjection to them from St. Paul 1 Cor. 11.3 Where he sayes that the husband is head of the wife they will have an answer ready at their fingers ends from your doctrine here that that head is no more then the principal part of the family in place but not in authority over their wives nay you have spun a fair thred also for the independency of the Protestant English Church of its head in giving ground to take away all Authority from his sacred Majestie and his royal predecessors over it in quality of heads of the English Church and making them to have no more then a bare precedency in the Church as no more then the principal members in the Church in order and dignity but not in authority But had you a little attended to those words of the Popes Legates you might have discovered they were spoke by them to prove not the bare precedency in place but soveraignty in authority for they alleadge them to corroborate the power of the Roman Church as sufficient to prohibite the sitting of Dioscorus in the Council by vertue of Pope Leo's order And you were prest as hard to finde an answer for omnium Ecclesiarum all Churches that is to say non omnium not all but only those within the Empire thus you can make all some and the whole a sole part when you have nothing else to say see you not how you give advantage to the Manichees and Menandrians c. who when one should have prest them Iohn 1.2 That our Saviour is creatour of all things they should have replyed as you do thar is not of all but only of some things not of bodies but of spirit only Are you a person fit to dispute in matters concerning conscience and salvation when rather then not reply to what cannot in reason be answered you will quite destroy the words opposed to you by your glosse upon them are not these desperate Intregues But t is very strange that the ancient Councils and Fathers
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
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
you write thus confidently upon meer phantasmes and upon your own misconceit of your adversaries words and sure your light must be very dim which cannot distinguish betwixt vice-Christi and vice-Christus but you have involved in the ensuing paragraph another incongruity you say the the title of vice-Christ is not the highest which the Popes claim and to prove it you nominate a higher and that is the title of vice-God whereby one would take you to be an Arian and consequently in your principles to be no Christian then be like you beleive God to be higher then Christ and so beleive him not to be God and you take these two with a third I say the title of vice-Christ was never given by sufficient authority to our Popes neither did they ever accept of it where it is evident I speak of a solemn authoritative attribution and acceptation of such titles usually and publickly exercised by our Popes not of a rethorical expression by some particular persons or a negative silence by some particular Pope in not contradicting or tacitely accepting such expressions and therefore I say not of any Pope as speaking in particuler but of our Popes taking them collectively as assenting to and useing such titles Now you answer by a fallacy proceeding a parte ad totum as if you would argue this man is endued with reason therefore all sensible creatures are indued with reason you discourse thus some particular person may have given and some particular Pope negatively accepted of such rethorical or not legal expressions This will appear by your subsequent proofs Mr. Baxter Num. 398. Were it not more tedious then necessary I would cite you the words vice-Christi vicarius Christi out of Popes and multitudes of writers But alas tha't 's not the highest the vice-God is a title that they have not thought insolent or words of the same signification would you have my proof pardon it then for proving your pen so false and deceitful that 's not my fault William Iohnson Num. 398. The first part of this is only a transition and so requires no answer The second is answered in the fore going paragraph Mr. Baxter Num. 399. Pope Julius the second in his general Council at Laterane saith Cont. Pragmat sanct monitor Binius vol. 4. pag. 560. Though the institutions of sacred Canons holy Fathers and Popes of Rome and their decres be judged immutable as made by divine inspiration yet the Pope of Rome who though of unequal merits holdeth the place of the eternal King and the maker of all things and all laws on earth may abrogate these decres when they are abused Here from the Iudge of Faith it self you hear that the Pope holds the place of the eternal King the maker of all things and laws William Iohnson Num. 399. In this proof is neither vice-Christ nor vice-God if it be shew it in your next Every Prince spiritual or temporal holds the place of the eternal King the maker of all things and lawes and yet they assume not to themselves the title of vice-God Mr. Baxter Num. 400. Pope Sixtus Quartus in passagio sive Bulla contra Turcos sent to Philip Palatine Elector 1481. in Breheri tom 2 pag. 162. vol. 2. saith Vniversos Christianos Principes ac omnes Christi fideles requirere eisque mandare vice Dei cujus locum quamvis immeriti tenemus in terris that is we are constrained to require all Christian Princes and all believers in Christ and to command them in the stead of God whose place on earth we hold though undeserving Here is a vice-God holding his place on earth and commanding all Princes and Christians to warr against the Turks in Gods stead note vide in margine Here is neither c. William Iohnson Num. 400. Here 's is neither vice-Christ nor vice-God but only the Pope commanding in the place or stead of God and you now confound vice-dei and vice-Deus as you did before vice-Christi and vice-Christus Mr. Baxter Num. 400. I know to a particular people Gods Embassadors are said to speak in his name and stead as if God did beseech men by us 2 Cor. 5.19 But this is only as to a narrow and limited Embassage not that they hold Gods place on earth as Rulers over the universal Church William Iohnson Num. 401. This answer of yours overthrows your argument and shews evidently that every lawful governour temporal or spititual is Vice-Dei or Vice-Christi in the name of God or Christ to govern others I give also a limited embassage or Vice-government to our Popes that is no farther then in visible and external government And will you adventure to condemn the ruling of the whole visible Church on earth to be proud and insolent was not every one of the Apostles sent by our Saviour into the whole world and had not every one a part received power to govern the whole Church in the name and place of our Saviour proves not this text of the 2 Cor. 5.19 so much where he names no particular people or nation but affirms that they being Embassadors from Christ God by them exhorted the world which Christ had reconciled and that I conceive extends it self to all Nations in the world Did not the Council of the Apostles Act. 15. govern the whole Church in place of Christ and in Gods stead did not every Apostle in their canonical Epistles give rules and Commands in Gods stead to all Christians were they therefore Vice-Gods Mr. Baxter Num. 402. The same Pope Sixtus 4. saith ibid. pag. 163. Sola superest Romana sedes sedes utique immaculati agni sedes viventis in secula seculorum Haec quippe praedictas Patriarchales genuit Ecclesias quae quasi filiae in ejus gremio residebant in circuitu tanquam famulae in ipsius adsistebant obsequio that is only the Roman Church remaineth the seat of him that liveth for ever my flesh trembleth to write these things this did before beget the foresaid Patriarchal Churches notorious falshood which rested as daughters in her bosome and as servants stood about in her obedience William Iohnson Num. 402. Why should your flesh tremble at these words I am sorry to see you so subject to quaking upon so small occasion Read you not a thousand times over in holy writ that Hierusalem is called the city of God and the city of the living God is not the arke of the tabernacle called the seat of God why then may not the sea of Rome be stiled the seat of God and of his immaculate lamb therefore was Hierusalem called the city of God amongst other reasons because the cheif Priest of Gods Church resided there Mr. Baxter Num. 403. Here you see from the Pope himself that the other Patriarchs are his servants and so to obey him and that Rome begate them all that were before it except Constantinople and neither made Christians nor Patriarch by it and that Rome now is become the seate of the immaculate Lambe
such as with the belief of what they esteem universally essential and fundamental in themselves not to be joyn'd with an actual disbelief of any point though not so generaly necessary to be expresly believed by every one yet sufficiently propounded to them hic nunc as a point of Christian faith To what purpose cite you Tertul p. 219. What is that rule which he speaks of Is it sole Scripture without Church or tradition prove that or what hurts us in his other sentence c. 8. Do we teach any thing against it prove that or why make you such observations upon Tertullians prescriptions p. 220. why prove you not your observations froÌ„ Tertul. words where say's he the rules of Essentials extracted from the whole Scriptures is the Churches ancient creed that the compleat rule of all points of faith is the whole Scripture what mean you to cite that from Tertullian which destroyes you have you ever yet cleared your selves from denying some Essentials I am sure Tertullian puts in the book cited by you the Eucharist Baptisme amongst the things which he would have to be principal points taught by St. Peter and to be believed by all Christians to whom they were sufficiently propounded are not our controversies about these leave not you many books of Scripture out of the Canon and use you not the large feild of Scripture to puzzle the weak how then can you turne your selves more from the lash of Tertullian then the Hereticks against whom he writes And you say this ancient Author advised the ordinary Christians of his time instead of long puzling disputes to hold them to the Churches prescription of the simple doctrine of the creed do you not confound your own publick practise in perswading every ordinary Christian to read the Scriptures in his own language to maintain their cause by some obscure mistaken passages out of them against the Churches prescriptions nay and the simple doctrine of the Creed too by perverting that article of believing the holy Catholick Church instance if you can the prescription of the Church in the year 1500 to justifie your so many oppositions against the prescriptions of all particular visible Churches in that age and be sure you fail not with all to tell me what Church prescribed in the same year against the Church of Rome in opposing those which you call supplemental traditions held by her and all other visible Churches at that time 19. Page 221. You cite St. Augustine de doctrina Christiana lib. 2. cap. 9. and note in an English parenthesis he was not against the vulgar reading Scripture which how it follows I know not unless you would have him also not against the vulgars being vers'd both in Latin Greek and Hebrew which he here requires for the perfect understanding of Scriptures Secondly you put an N. B. upon St. Augustines words minding your reader to note that he affirms all things which belong to Christian faith and manners are thereby set down in Scripture which N. B. might have been well omitted where you place it and a N. B. put upon his next following words whereby it would have appeared that this holy Doctor speakes not of all manner of points of Faith but de quibus libro superiore tractavimus of such as he had treated in the foregoing book and in that he treates only of the Trinity of the Incarnation of the Church of the resurrection of the dead which we acknowledge are openly set down in Scripture so much heed take you to the words you cite so pertinent is your collection drawn from these words about the sufficiencie of Scripture and so faire are you in your citations let an N. B. passe upon that pag. 223 223. What conclude you from St. Augustines words lib 3. cap. 6. contra lit Petiliani which of us ever thought it lawful to teach any thing praeterquam besides that is against for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greek signifies the law or gospel and as wise is your question collected thence page 223. viz was not the Church then purely protestant in their religion 20. To the proof of the minor by your profession p. 223. I have told you already your particular profession in disbelieving many things conteined in Scripture evidences your general profession of taking Scripture for the sole rule of your faith to be false and nugatorie 21. As to your discourse page 224. tells us first which are all the Essentials of Christianity in your account and then we shall see whether they are all expresly conteined in Scripture or no. The rest is course and unhandsome better suiting with a country ballad then with a controversie You add in good time the parenthesis if you know how to keep those Friars and Iesuits as much out as to keep out the devil I see they stay not in through any want of opposition in you 't is well you have not as much of the knowledge as you have of the malice of him to whom you compare them I beseech God to pardon you for then they had been all sent packing long ere this and t is not I see for want of ignorance in you that you are not quit of them if any such be within the Nation yet if you drive them no more out then you can drive out the devil they have no great reason to fear you You must think your Reader to be very silly when you go about to perswade him that the Popes supremacie and transubstantiation were brought into the kingdome by Friars and Jesuits of late since you begun your new gospel 22 Page 225. you answer the Catholicks question where your Church was c. very profoundly what if you can neither tell where it all was nor half nor a considerable part nor for all ages nor by entire catalogues can you not at least tell where existed any one though a smal part of it in the year 1500 immediately before your doctrine appeared in Germany shew that and we press you no farther at this time Pag. 226.227 You change the terme Protestant Church into Catholick Church the question was where was the Protestant Church and you shew where the Catholick Church was call you this answering nor can you suppose the Protestant to be part of the Catholick for I have shewed that hitherto you have not proved it pag. 227. You first say your Church was in Europe c. 1. and l. 8. you say you 'l say nothing of Europe n. b. 23. Page 227.228.229.230 To what purpose have you taken so much paines in copying the Latin texts of St. Augustine you were afraid I see to English them least the vulgar whom you chiefâ—â—ly lalour to please should finde many flawes in them Intend you therefore to prove no more by those authorities then the Churches being spread all the world over which of us ever denyed nay who amongst us have not constantly asserted that Intend you to shew that whatsoever professors of Christianity are
spread through the world are the Catholick Church why then cite you words quite overthrowing that position out of St. Augustine pag. 230. 24. Quicunque de ipso capite ab scripturis sanctio dissentiunt etiamsi in omnibus locis inveniantur in quibus ecclesia designata est non sunt in ecclesia whosoever discents from the holy Scriptures concerning the head our Saviour though they be found in all places in which the Church is design'd yet are they not in this Catholick Church or intend you to evince that all those who profess the Essentials of Christianity as you understand them though they separate from the external communion of all visible Churches existent when they first begun communicate only amongst themselves in some particular countries are parts of the Church why then cite you the words immediately following Et rursus quicunque de ipso capite scripturis fanctis consentiunt unitati ecclesiae non communicant or as after ab ejus corpore quod est ecclesia ita dissentiunt ut eorum communio non sit cum toto quacunque diffunditur sed in aliqua parte separata inveniatur manifestum est eos non esse in ecclesia Catholica And againe whosoever consents with the holy Scripture concerning the head Christ communicate not with the unity of the Church as after but so dissent from his body which is the Church that their communion be found in some separate part it is manifest they are not in the Catholick Church Now seeing St. Augustine intends by this argument to convince the Donatists not being parts of the Catholick Church because they departed from the external communion of all particular Churches existing immediately before in their time yet it is manifest that in your opinion they held all the essentials of Christian Faith and thereby communicated with those Churches as they were Christians as much as you do you separate from external communion as much as they did it is evident that this very text cited by your self against us unanswerably confutes the substance of your whole book against me overthrowes the foundation of your key and suppresses that grand noveltie of Schismaticks being parts of the true Church O you are a stout disputer are you not 25. Pag. 231. Optatus is cited to as little purpose as was St. Augustine why distinguish you obedience and subjection from charity is not it a preserving of charity in the Church to yield subjection to Superiours is not that a part of Christian charity being a performance of a command touching the love to our neighbour otherwise you must argue thus Optatus sayes the schismatiques were charitatis desertores non subjectionis desertores desertors of charity not desertors of subjection ergo he makes no spiritual Superiours or Pastors at all essential parts of the Catholique Church nor talks of unity caused by subjection to them how like you this consequence If you admit it every old wife at Kidderminster might have tanted you and told you there needs no subjection to you from me more then to me from you so long as I am in charity with you and all men I have no need of subjection to any and therefore as you acknowledge in your answer to Iohnson pag. 231. Optatus calls the schismatiques desertors of charity not of subjection O this is a welcom doctrine to the vulgar and a precious seed of rebellion for if no subjection but a charity as amongst equals be required to the Essence of the Church why should it be essential to a common-wealth O how sweet will this sound in the ear of a Leveller But why say you he accounts not the Apostolick Roman See to be an essential part of the Catholique Church sayes he not expresly in the words now cited by me that unity is to be preserv'd through the whole Church by means of the singular Seat unica sedes of St. Peter at Rome and is not both unity and that which is necessary to preserve it essential to the Church sayes not Optatus presently after those words that this unica sedes the one only See of Rome is Dos Ecclesiae one of the Dowries or properties of the Church and are not they essential 26. Pag. 231. It is cleer Optatus means by extra septem Ecclesias out of the seven Churches no more then out of their communion as they were parts of the Catholique Church as appears from the next words you cite dissentio schisma tibi displicuit concordasti cum fratri tuo cum una Ecclesia quae est in toto orbe terrarum communicasti septem Ecclesiis memoriis Apostolorum amplexus es unitatem Dissention and Schism hath displeased thee thou hast agreed with thy brother and with one Church which is in the whole earth thou hast communicated with the seven Churches and the memories of the Apostles thou hast imbraced unity Thus you save me the labour of salving your arguments by salving them your self 27. But why cite you Optatus his words lib. 6. p. 93. in your 232. page I know not if it be not to confute and confound your grand novelty of Schismaticks properly so called being parts of Christs Church sayes he not after his description of the Catholique Church aquâ vos concisos esse from which you are cut off Why have you not added this sentence to leave your Reader doubtful whether Optatus say these Schismaticks were or were not cut off from the Church nothing surer then that but it 's most certain Optatus was in the affirmative as the full sentence declares Optat. lib. 6. Itra Parm. p. 93. which quite ruines that your novelty Thus you save me again the labour of confuting your novelties by confuting them your self Are you not a strong Disputant let the world judge that 28. Pag. 232. you say first Tertullian thought it a tiresome way to dispute with the Hereticks of and before his time out of Scripture that they were to be convinc'd by prescription and what I pray think you of the matter are you of Tertullians mind why then have you press'd so much the sufficiency of sole Scripture as the rule by which you intend to dispute against us may not we reply against you as Tertullian did against those that it is a tiresome thing to dispute with Hereticks out of Scripture and that you are to be convinc'd by prescription But these Heretick say you err'd in fundamentals tell us I pray precisely once for all which are those how shall we know otherwise whether they err'd in sole fundamentals or no Please also to tell me where Tertullian restrains his rules of prescription to such only as erre in those which you would put in the number if you were able to sum it up of fundamentals what fundamental point even in your account deny'd the Chilliasts or Millenaries the Nicolaitans the Sacramentaries mention'd by St. Ignatius as he is cited by Theod. Dial. 3. deny they any article
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
quoad in me correptione despicior restat ut ecclesiam debeam adhibere I note these particulars 1. you miscite St. Gregories words and thereby make them both non-sense and bald Latin it should not be as you have it sed quoad but sed quia thus I find it in two different editions of St. Gregory the one anno 1564. Basiliae and the other 1572. Antwerpiae both which have it quia nor ever found I it printed or cited otherwise till I read in your book now what sense is this but until I am despis'd in my correction it remaines that I use the Church that is I must lay the Churches censures upon you before you offend I must take them of and who ever joyn'd a present tense of the Indicative mood with a quoad before you for that is as much as to say until I am now despised which makes the time present and future all one and that I think is Nonsense what think you of it 2. you prove St. Gregory held the Churches authoritie to be greater then his own by these words now treated Now whatsoever St. Gregory held in this is not of any concern now but most certain it is he neither did nor could prove it by these words for this phrase Ecclesiam debeam adhibere I must use the Church signifies no more then this I must proceed according to the rigor of the Church canons and discipline in inflicting upon you the censures of the Church that is I must proceed no longer as a friend to intreat exhort and admonish you as hitherto I have done but as the chief Pastor of the Church use the fulness of that authoritie which I have in the name and for the good of the Church in casting you out of it by the severity of excommunication that this only is his meaning is evident both by the precedent words where he declares our Saviours doctrine about excommunication of obstinate offenders and by the words immediately subsequent where he affirms he must not prefer his person though never so dear to him before the institution of the Canons c. Now when will you ever prove the consequence viz. St. Gregory threatned the use of censures of the Church against Iohn of Constantinople Ergo he took the Churches authority to be greater then his own 62. Now you come in good time to prove your seventh argument page 257. Which you draw from the confession of Papists I distinguish your antecedent if you mean Papists confess that multitudes or the most part of Christians not univocally so call'd have bin opposers or no subjects of the Pope I grant it if univocally so cal'd I deny it therefore by those testimonies there have bin visible Churches of such I deny your consequence To your first authority from Eneas Silvius I answer he cannot mean that so smal regard was had to the Church of Rome before the Council of Nice that it was not believed to be the head of all other Churches c. as I have prov'd it was unless you make him accuse the Council of Nice of Innovation and of introducing a new government into the Church of God which notwithstanding they supposed to have been ever before their time for the Council of Chalcedon cites the Sixth Nicene Canons as affirming that the Church of Rome had alwayes the Primacy your answer to Bellar. is fallacious proceeding a parte Se Con. Chal. Can. 28. ad totum Bell. you acknowledge sayes he it is partly true and partly false you subsume but if true which supposes Bellarmine to affirm that its wholly true whereas you should have subsumed but if partly true as you alledge Bellar. to have said it was and then you fall again into the same fallacy if it be false say you that is if the whole be false whereas you should have said if it be partly false as Bellar. said it was And had you thus proceeded candidly and logically in your subsupmtion your subsequel against our Historians authority had been Evacuated for very many good Authors may speak some things which in part are true and in part false that is in some respect true and in others false they understanding what they writ in that respect wherein they are true 63. Page 268. You mention first the Greeks in opposition to the Pope recorded by our Historians what then Ergo by their testimony there have been visible Churches of such that is of true univocal Christians who opposed the Pope that 's the thing to be proved but to prove that you must prove those historians to have held those schismatical Greeks to have bin univocal Christians which is necessary to compose a visible Church this you have not done then you cite Golestaldus but where the Lords knows making mention of such as were under the Popes patriarchal power and yet oppos'd him but if that Golestaldus were truly ours prove also that he held them whilst they stood thus in opposition against the Pope to be univocal Christians that 's your main work and yet you do it not but see you not how you first take such as you must acknowledge to be subjects to the Pope in spirituals resisting their true superiour as being under his Patriarchal power to be patrons of your cause another seed of Rebellion and then you acknowledge Emperours and Kings to be under the Popes patriarchal power for many opposers of the Pope were such I speak of an opposition in faith and communion not in civil oppositions which may happen upon just occasions 64. Page 268. Next I wonder to see you so abominably false in your translations you your self page 251. cite Raynerius his words non subsunt which in my grammar signifies are not under and yet you translate them here were not under the Roman Church is it not true now to say Constantinople and Alexandria non subsunt are not under the Roman Emperour must it therefore be true they were not under it 65 Ibid. Canus speaks of different times not that altogether but interruptedly some at on time time some at another strove to oppose the Pope but accounts Canus such opposers in sensu conjuncto so were univocal christians that 's the point and you never so much as think of proving it might not you as well argue that so many Provinces Nations and Kingdomes belonging to the Roman Emperours have opposed the authority of the Roman Emperours Ergo they had no lawful authority over them or to look homeward so many Nations Provinces Cities Ministers and Commons have oppos'd the authority of our royal Soveraign Ergo neither had he any lawful power over them nor ceased they to be univocal parts of the Kingdome notwithstanding that opposition here 's another root of rebellion Page 268. But you relapse again into your accustomed falsitie in translation which would have appeared had you printed Canus his Latin words thus you make Authors speak in what language you please English or Latin as it
because all men living are culpably ignorant of some truths which they had a revelation of that was thus farre sufficient if the second be your sense then the same unhappy consequence will follow that all are Hereticks and moreover by that sense of obscure education are unavoidable Hereticks because they had no opportunity to know those things which as to that Majority are of publick Testimony and universal Tradition William Iohnson I tell you I judge of no mens conscience it is sufficient 1. That such as acknowledge themselves they know such points of faith to be propounded by the Roman Church which I infallibly believe to be the true Church and that notwithstanding reject them as errours give me ground to presume them to be Hereticks 2. Such as oppose what all visible Churches have most notoriously practised and believed as Divine truths whilst they were so universarily taught and practised I may safely presume to be Hereticks because things so notorious cannot morally be presumed to be unknown to any one for other particulars I may and do suspend my judgement for what obligation have I to know all the Hereticks in the world these Rules being a sufficient judge of the greatest part of them See you not your fallacy how you passe ab abstracto in concretum Our question was onely what Heresie is and you divert it to inquire which particular persons are Hereticks cannot definitions stand though we know not all the individualls which are reducible to them Mr. Baxter Is not the Bible a publick Testimony and record and being universally received is an universal Tradition and yet abundance of truths in the holy Bible are unknown and therefore not actually believed by millions that are in your Church and are not taken by your self for Hereticks your befriending ignorance would else make very many Hereticks Rejoynder What if the Bible be a publick Tradition it is onely a Tradition that whatsoever is there delivered is the word of God but it is no Tradition that such a determinate sense and no other is the word of God in every sentence contained in it when according to the Analogie of faith the words are capable of many senses all therefore that is an universal Tradition concerning the Bible is sufficiently propounded but what is not Tradition left to the several Discourses and Expositions of Doctours will it hence follow think you that because what is not an universal Tradition is not sufficiently propounded to be known Ergo what is universal Tradition also is not Pope By Pope I mean S. Peter or any of his lawfull Successours in the Sea of Rome having authority by the institution of Christ to govern all particular Churches next under Christ. Of the Pope Mr. Baxter I am never the nearer knowing the Pope by this till I know how Peters Successours may be known to me Qu. 1. What personal qualification is necessary ad esse William Iohnson Answ. Such as are necessary ad esse of other Bishops which I suppose you know Mr. Baxter If so then all these were no Popes that were Heretques or denyed Essential points of Faith William Iohnson 'T is true they were no Popes whilst formal Heretiques if any such were Baxter As Iohn 24. Iohnson prove that Baxter And so were no Christians Iohnson Prove that Baxter All those that wanted the necessary abilities to the Essentials of their work Iohnson Prove there were such Popes Mr. Baxter And so your Church hath often bin headless and your succession interrupted Councils having censured many Popes to be thus qualified William Iohnson When you have proved the precedents prove that Mr. Baxter And the dispositio materiae being of it self necessary to the reception of that form it must needs follow that such were no Popes even before the Councils charged them with incapacity or Heresie because they had it before they were accused of it and Simony then made many uncapable William Iohnson Prove they were lawfull Councils which so censured any Popes which we admit as true and lawfull Mr. Baxter Qu. 2. Where and how must the Institution of Christ be found William Iohnson Answ. In the revealed Word of God written or unwritten Mr. Baxter You never gave the World assurance how they may truly know the measure of your unwritten Word nor where to finde it so as to know what it is William Iohnson We say we have Mr. Baxter 2. 'Till you prove Christ's Institution which you have never done William Iohnson That is to be done in our Controversie Mr. Baxter You free us from believing in the Pope William Iohnson All are free from believing in the Pope we believe in God but not in the Pope who of us ever obliged you you to do so Mr. Baxter Qu. 3. Will any ones Election prove him to be Pope or who must Elect him ad esse William Iohnson Answ. Such as by approved custome are esteemed by those by to whom it belongs fit for that Charge and with whose Election the Church is satisfied Reply Here you are fain to hide your self instead of Answering and shew indeed that a Pope that 's made an Essential part of the Church subjection to whom is made of necessity to salvation is indeed but a meer name or a thing unknown and so can certainly be believed or acknowledged by none For either Election in him by somebody is necessary or not If not then you or another man unchosen may be Pope for ought I know or any man else if yea then it is either any bodies Election of him that will serve turn or not if it will then you may be Popes if your Schollars chuse you and then you have had three Popes at once for many were Elected but if it be not then it must be known who hath the Power of Election before it can be known who is indeed the Pope but you are forced here by your Answer to intimate to us that the Power of Election cannot be known therefore the Pope cannot be known for 1. Here are no Determinate Electours mentioned and therefore it seems none known to you and no wonder for if you confine it to the People or to the Cardinals or to the Emperours or to the Councils you cut off all your Popes that were Chosen by the other wayes 2. Nor do you Determine of any particular discernable note by which the Electours and power of Election may be known to that Church but all these patches make up your description 1. it must be those that are esteemed fit for the Charge 2. that by those to whom it belongs 3. and that by Custome 4. and that approved 5. and the Church must be satisfied with the Election a miserable body then that hath been so often headlesse as Rome hath been 1. well esteeming them fit to serve turn though they be unfit then it is not the fitnesse that is necessary but the Estimation true or false 2. but why did you not tell us to whom it is
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
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