profess it to be their Tradition that the Pope was never their Governour 3. No history or authority of the least regard is brought by your own writers to prove these Churches under your jurisdiction no not by Baronius himself that is so copious and so skilful in making much of nothing No credible witnesses mention your Acts of jurisdiction over them or their Acts of subjection which Church history must needs have contained if it had been true that they were your subjects 4. Their absence from general Councils and no invitation of them thereunto that was ever proved or is shewed by you is sufficient evidence 5. 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 Liturgy 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 Latina translatione contra fidem Ethiopic Exemplarium ut in prima operis editione confirmat Pontificius ipse Scholiastes expunctum est nomen Panis 6. Constantines Letters of request to the King of Persia for the Churches there which Euseb. in vit Constant. mentioneth do intimate that then the Roman Bishop ruled not there 7. Even at home the Scots and Brittains obeyed not the Pope nor conformed about the Easter observation even in the daies of Gregory but resisted his changes and refused communion with his Ministers 8. I have already elsewhere given you the testimony of some of your own writers as Reynerius contra Waldens Catal. in Biblioth Patr. Tom. 4. p. 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 9. I have proved from the Council of Chalcedon that it was the Fathers that is the Councils that gave Rome its preheminence But those Councils gave the Pope no preheminence over the extra-imperial Nations For 1. Those Nations being not called to the Council could not be bound by it 2. The Emperours called and enforced the Councils who had no power out of their Empire 3. The Diocess are described and expresly confined within the verge of the Empire see both the description and full proof in Blondel de Primatu in Ecclesia Gall. And 10. The Emperours themselves did sometime giveing 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 p. 174 175. But the Emperours had no power to do thus with respect to those without the Empire But what say you now to the contrary Why 1. You ask Were those Primitive Christians of another kind of Church order and Government then were those under the Roman Empire Answ. When the whole body of Church history satisfieth us that they were not subject to the Pope which is the thing in question is it any weakening of such evidence in a matter of such publick fact to put such a question as this Whether they were under another kind of Government 1. We know that they were under Bishops or Pastors of their own and so far their Government was of the same kind 2. If any of them or all did suit their Church associations to the several Commonwealths in which they lived and so held National Councils and for order sake made one among them the Bishop primae sedis then was that Government of the same kind with that of the Imperial Churches and not of another kind The Roman Government was no other but One thus Ordered in one Empire And if there were also One so ordered in England one in Scotland one in Ethiopia c. this was of the same kind with the Roman Every Church suited to the form of the Common-wealth is even as to that humane mode of the same kind if a humane mode must be called a Kind It may be of that same kind and mode without being part of the same Individual But 2. You say that How far from truth this is appeareth from St. Leo in his Sermons de Natali suo where he sayes Sedes Roma Perri quicquid non possidet armis Religione tenet Reply If you take your Religion on trust as you do your authorities that are made your ground of it and bring others to it when you are deceived your selves how will you look Christ in the the face when you must answer for such temerity Leo hath no Sermons de Natali suo but only one Sermon affixed to his Sermons lately found in an oid book of Nicol. Fabers And in that Sermon there is no such words as you here alledge Neither doth he Poetize in his Sermons nor there hath any such words which might occasion your mistake and therefore doubtless you believed some body for this that told you an untruth and yet ventured to make it the ground of charging my words with untruth Yet let me tell you that I will take Pope Leo for no competent judge or witness though you call him a Saint as long as we know what past between him and the Council of Chalcedon and that he was one of the first tumified Bishops of Rome he shall not be judge in his own cause 3. 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 2. At the Council of Nice the contrary is manifest by the sixth Can. Mos antiquus perdurat in Aegypto vel Lybia Pentapoli ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem c. And the common descriptions of the Alexandrian Patriarchate in those times confine it to the Empire and leave out Aethiopia Pisanus new inventions we regard not 3. I deny that the Patriarch of Alexandria was under the Government of the Bishop of Rome any more then the Jury are under the Foremen or the junior Justices on the bench are under the senior or York is under London or the other Earls of England are under the Earl of Arundel 4. 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 that were under Alexandria were not therefore under Rome 5. 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
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 antient Author for this Assertion Were those primitive Christians of another kind of Church-order and Government then were those under the Roman Empire 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 Emperour 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 equal judgement whether my demand be satisfied or no. You answer to this That all those who are nominated by you are parts of the Catholike 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 Catholike 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 disunion 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 Catholike 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 Catholike Church unless you make Arians and Pelagians and Donatists parts of the Catholike 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 Catholike Church notwithstanding that separation do continue parts of the Catholike Church For who knows not that the Ethiopians to this day are 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 and the consent of all Orthodox Christians who ever since esteemed them no others or you must make condemned Hereticks parts of the Catholick Church against all antiquity and Christianity And for those Greeks neer 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 real 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 Rome and his party to have fallen from the true faith and lost his ancient authority by that sole pretended error and the Latins alwaies 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 to be parts of the Catholike 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 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 Rome's Supremacy not of Order only but of Power Authority Iurisdiction over all other Bishops in the ensuing instances which happened within the first 400 or 500 or 600 years Iohn Bishop of Antioch makes an Appeal to Pope Simplicius And Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople being deposed in the false Councill of Ephesus immediately appeals to the Pope as to his judge Theodoret was by Pope Leo restored and that by an appeal unto a just judgement Saint Cyprian desirâ—â— 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 Council of Sardis That no Bishop deposed by other neighbouring Bishops pretending to be heard again was to have any successour appointed until the case were defined by the Pope Eustathius Bishop of Sebast in Armenia was restored by Pope Liberius his Letters read and received in the Council of Tyana and 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 Council of Ephesus in the case of Iohn Bishop of Antioch 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 Saint Athanasius the same did Saint Athanasius to defend himself against them which Arian Bishops having understood from Iulius that their Accusations against Saint 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 Councill in Judgement 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 a half All which time his Accusers though also summoned appeared not fearing they should be condemned by the Pope and his Councill 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 Ecclesiasticalâ— and consequently that the Pope had nothing to do with them but only pretended certain frivolous excuses to delay their appearance 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 Catholikes for condemning Saint Athanasius in an Eastern Councill gathered by them before they had acquainted the Bishop of Rome with so important a cause useth these words An ignari â—stis hanc consuetudinâ—m esse ut primum nobis scribatur ut â—inc quod justum est à â—finiri 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 cleerly it appears that it belonged particularly to the Bishop of Rome to pass 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 Saint Chrysostome Where first Saint Chrysostome appears to Innocentius from the Councill assembled at Constantinople wherein he was condemned Secondly Innocentius annulls this condemnation and declares him innocent Thridly he Excommunicates Atticus Bishop of Constantinople and Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria for persecuting Saint Chrysostome Fourthly after Saint Chrysostome was dead in Banishment Pope Innocentius Excommunicates Arcadius the Emperour of the East and Eudoxia his wife Fifthly the Emperour and Empress humble themselves crave pardon of him and were obsolved 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 believed 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 Legats affronted and himself excommunicated by wicked Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria and president of that Coventicle 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 Chruch with great evidences of Sorrow and Pennance Presently after Anno. 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 Fourthly they prohibited by his order given them That Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria and chief upholder of
the Eutychians should sit in the Councill but be presented as a guilty person to be judged becuase he had celebrated a Councill 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 Councill and Dioscorus was judged and condemned his condemnation and deposition being pronounced by the Popes Legats and after subscribred by the Councill Fifthly the Popes Legats pronounced the Church of Rome to be Caput omnium Ecclesiarum the Head of all Churches before the whole Council and none contradicted them Sixthly all the Fathers assembled in that Holy Councill 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 Councill had consented to as had also the Third General Councill 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 yield to their petition against the express ordination of the First Councill 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 After this Saint Cyrill having received Pope Leo's Letters wherein he gave power to Saint Cyrill to execute his condemnation against Nestorius and to send his condemnatory letters to him gathered a Council of his next Bishops and sent Letters and Articles to be subscribed with the Letters of Celestine to Nestorius which when Nestorius had received he was so far from repentance that he accused St. Cyril in those Articles to be guilty of the Heresie of Apollinaris so that St. Cyril being also accused of Heresie was barred from pronouncing sentence against Nestorius so long as he stood charged with that Accusation Theodosius the Emperour seeing the Eastern Church embroyled 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 Celestine 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 Caesarea 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 St. 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 St. 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 dirigeretur 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 Celestine 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 St. 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 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 St. 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 Emperours Letters Pattents 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 entituled a Bishop the sole humanity of the meek Prelate id est 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
fair Remember it hereafter that you have discharged me from proving a Church that denied the Papacy formally expresly But as to what you yet demand 1. I have here given it you because you shall not say â—'le sail 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 its 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 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 believe not this or that is more obliged to prove it then he that affirmeth a point as of no such moment 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 Me thinks you that make Christ to be corporally present in every Church in the Eucharist should not say that the King of the Church is absent 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 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 Kingdom The Deputy is but an officer and not essential 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 The Government of inferiour officers is not essential to the universal Church no more then Judges and Justices to a Kingdom 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 Sir I desire open dealing as between men that believe these matters are of eternal consequence I watch not for any advantage against you Though it be your part to prove the Affirmative which our Negative supposeth 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 have proved a visible Church successively that hâ—ld not the Popes universal 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 You complain of a deficiency in quality though you confess that I abound in number But where is the defect you say I must assert both that these were one Congregation and ever visible since Christs time Reply If by one Congregation you meant one assembly met for personal Communion which is the first sense of the word Congregation it were ridiculous to feign the universal Church to be such If you mean One as united in one visible humane Head that 's it that we deny and therefore may not be required to prove But that these Churches are One as united in Christ the Head we easily prove In that from him the whole family is named the body is Christs body 1 Cor. 12.12 13. and one in him Eph. 4.4 5 6 c. All that are true Christians are one Kingdom or Church of Christ but these of whom I speak are true Christians therefore they are one Kingdom or Church of Christ. And that they have been visible since Christs time till now all history even your own affirms As in Iudaea from the Apostles times in Ethiopia Egypt and other parts Rome was no Church in the time of Christs being on earth And to what purpose talk you of determinate Congregations Do you mean individual assemblies those cease when the persons die or do you mean assemblies meeting in the same place so they have not done still at Rome I told you and tell you still that we hold not that God hath secured the perpetual visibility of his Church in any one City or Country but if it cease in one place it is still in others It may cease at Ephesus at Philippi Colosse c. in Tenduc Nubia c. and yet remain in other parts I never said that the Church must needs be visible still in one Town or Country And yet it hath been so de facto as in Asia Ethiopia c. But you say I nominate none Are you serious must I nominate Christians of these Nations to prove that there were such you require not this of the Church Historians It sufficeth that they tell you that Ethiopia Egypt Armenia Syria c. had Christians without naming them When all history tells you that these Countries were Christians or had Churches I must tell you what and who they were must you have their names sirnames and Genealogies I cannot name you one of a thousand in this small Nation in the age I live in How then should I name you the people of Armenia Abassia c. so long ago You can name but few of the Roman Church in each age And had they wanted learning and records as much as the Abassins and Indians and others you might have been as much to seek for names as they 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 That there were any Papists of 400. years after Christ do you prove if you are able My conclusion that all have been against you for many hundred years must stand good till you 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 Do you think to satisfie any reasonable man by calling for positive proof from Authors of such Negatives 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 jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome 1. You find all these Churches or most of them at this day that remain from under your jurisdiction and you cannot tell us when or how they turned from you If you could it had been done 2. These Nations
seems durst not pretend to a Divine Right and 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 Vniversitas is all that you translate in your comment the whole visible Church As if you knew not that there was a Roman Vniversality that Roman Councils were called Vniversall when no Bishops out of that one Common-wealth were present and that the Church in the Empire is oft called the whole Church Yea the Roman world was not an unusuall phrase And I pray you tell me what power Valentinian had out of the Empire who yet interposâ—th his authority there Nequid praeter authoritatem sedis istiusilliâ—itum c. ut pâ—x ubique servetur And in the end it is All the Provinces that is the Vniversity 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 lawfull c. I Ans. No wonder â—or France was part of his Patriarchaâ—e and the Laws of the Empire had confirmed his Patriarchal power and those Laws might seem with the reverence of Synods without new Letters to do much But yet it 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 medled with the rest of the Christian world It seems by all their writings and attempts this never came into their thoughts And it s no credit to your cause that this Hilary was by Baronius confession a man of extraordinary holiness and knowledge and is Sainted among you and hath his Day in your Calendar And yet Valentinian had great provocation to interpose if Leo told him no untruths for his own advantage For it was no less then laying siege to Cities to force Bishops on them without their consent that he is accused of which shews to what odious pride and usurpation prosperity even then had raised the Clergy fitter to be lamented with floods of tears then to be defended by any honest Christian Leo himself may be the principal instance 18. You next return to the Council of Chalcedon Act. 1. seq where 1. You refer me to that Act. 1. where is no such matter but you add seq that I may have an hundred and ninety pages in Folio to peruse and then you call for a speedy answer But the Epistle to Leo is in the end of Act. 16. pag. Bin. 139. 2. And there you do but falsly thrust in the word thou governst us and so you have made your self a witness because you could find none The words are Quibus tu quidem sicut membris caput praeeras in his qui tuum tenebant ordinem benevolentiam praeferens Imperatores vero adornandum decentissime praesidebant Now to go before with you must be to Govern If so then Aurelius at the Council of Carthage and others in Councils that presided did govern them It was but benevolentiam praetulisse that they acknowledged And that the Magistrates not only presided indeed but did the work of Judges and Governours is express in the Acts it s after wrote in that Epistle Haec sunt quae tecum qui spiritu praesens eras complacere tanquam fratribus deliberasti qui pene per tuorum vicariorum sapientiam videbaris à nobis effecimus And haec à tua sanctitate fuerint inchoata and yet Qui enim locum vestrae sanctitatis obtinent iis ita constitutis vehementer resistere tentaverunt From all which it appeareth that he only is acknowledged to lead the way and to please them as his brethren and to help them by the wisdome of his substitutes and yet that the Council would not yield to their vehement resistance of one particular But I have told you oft enough that the Council shall be judge not in a complementall Epistle but in Can. 28. where your Primacy is acknowledged but 1. As a gift of the Fathers 2. And therefore as new 3. For the Cities dignity 4. And it can be of no further extent then the Empire the Givers and this Council being but the Members of that one Commonwealth So that all is but a novel Imperial Primacy 19. And for the words of Vincentius Lirinensis c. 9. what are they to your purpose quantum loci authoritate signifieth no more then we confess viz. that in those times the greatness of Rome and humane Ordination thereupon had given them that precedency by which their loci authoritas had the advantage of any other Seat Or else they had never swelled to their impious Usurpation I have plainly proved to you in the End of my safe Religion that Vincentius was no Papist But you draw an argument from the word sanxit As if you were ignorant that bigger words then that are applied to them that have no governing power Quantum in se sanxit he charged them that they should not innovate And what is it P. Stephen that is the Law-giver of the Law against unjust innovation Did not Cyprian believe that this was a Law of Christ before Stephen medled in that business What Stephens authority was in those dayes we need no other witnesses then Firmilian Cyprian and a Council of Carthage who slighted the Pope as much as I do I pray answer Cyprians testimony and arguments against Popery cited by me in the Disp. 3. of my safe Religion 20. You say you will conclude with the saying of your priest Philip and Arcadius at Ephesus And 1. You take it for granted that all consented to what they contradicted not But your word is all the proof of the consequence Nothing more common then in Senates and Synods to say nothing to many passages in speeches not consented to If no word not consented to in any mans speech must pass without contradiction Senates and Synods would be no wiser Societies then Billingsgate affords nor more harmonious then a Fair or vulgar rout What confusion would contradictions make among them 2. You turn me to Tom. 2. pag. 327. Act. 1. I began to hope of some expedition here But you tell me not at all what Author you use And in Binnius which I use the Tomes are not divided into Acts but Chapters and pâ—g 327. is long bâ—fore this Councâ—l So â—hat I must believe you or search paper enough for a weeks reading to disprove you This once I will believe you to save me that labour and supposing all rightly cited I reply 1. Philip was not the Council You bear witness to your selves therefore your witness is not credible Yet I have given you instances in my Key which I would
so many years as that at Trent did are then become an Ordinary Government 4. What is given to the Church Representative is by many of you given to the Church reall or essentiall as you call it which is ordinarily existent only not capable of exerting the power it hath The singulis major at universis minor is no rare doctrine with you 5. But let it be as extraordinary as you please if while these Councils sit the Pope lose his Headship your Church is then two Churches specifically distinct and the form of it changeth when a Council sitteth which is a two-headed mutable Church not like the Spouse of Jesus Christ. 6. As your Popes are said to live in their constitutions and Laws when the person dyeth and your Church is not thought by you to die with them so why may not Councils do The Laws of Councils live when they sit not and the French think that these Laws are above the Pope though I shewed you even now that Iulius 2. in Conc. Later concluded otherwise of Decrees and the Council of the Popes power 7. If a Nation be Governed by Trienniall and so Decenniall Parliaments as the highest power and Councils of State in the intervalls who shall be accountable to Parliaments will you say that these Parliaments are extraordinary and not the ordinary Soveraign No doubt they are And the Council of State is not the Soveraign but the chief Officer or Magistrate for execution in the intervals Having begun this Reply May 2. I was again taken off it about May 5. or 6. And about May 11. I received a Letter from you wherein you tell me of a quarter of a years expectation Be patient good Sir These matters concern Eternity Believe it I have somewhat else to do of greater hast and moment Even some of your own friends find me more work What if ten of you write to me at once is it fair for each one of you to call for an answer as hastily as if I had but one in hand This is not my case but it is more then thus Fear not lest I give you over till you first prove the deserter and turn your back if God enable me Only I must tell you that I take it for a flight already and a forsaking of your Cause that you turn to these rambling impertinent citations and discourses in stead of a Syllogisticall arguing the case and that when you had spoken so much for it I have here that you may have no cause of exception nor pretence of cause in this Paper replyed to your last and in another proved the Visibility of our Church syllogistically and as overplus also disproved yours and proved it to be an upstart the sprout of Pride upon occasion of the greatness of the City of Rome and of the forming the Church to the Civil State in that one Empire If now you will deny to do the like I shall conclude you fly and forsake your Cause Besides your Rejoinder to this Reply I principally expect that you syllogistically in close and faithfull Arguing do prove to us the Affirmative of these Questions following Qu. Whether the Church of which the subjects of the Pope are Members hath been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth In which these three Questions are involved which you have to prove 1. Whether the Papacy that is the Vniversal Monarchy or Soveraign Government or Vice-Christship of the Pope take which term you like hath continued from Christs dayes till now 2 Whether all the Catholick Church did still submit to it and were subjects of the Pope 3. Whether those that did submit to it did take it to be necessary to the Being of the Church and the salvation of all believers or only to the more peaceable and better being If you call for Catalogues or proof of Visible succession and pretend so high to it your selves and yet will give us none when we importune you to it you tell us that you seek not to reveal the truth and Church but to hide them I urge you the harder though it may seem immodest because as the Cause doth lie upon your proof here so I know you cannot do it Pardon my confidence I know you can do no more then Baronius Bellarmine Bullinger c. set together have done and therefore I say I know you cannot do it I know your Vice-Christ I doubt the Antichrist is of humane introduction springing out of a Nationall I mean Imperiall Primacy which also was of humane invention It was but one Civil Government or Commonwealth in which your Bishop had his Primacy and that long without a Governing power And this National Primacy because of the greatness of the Empire was at last called Universal And even this was long after the dayes of Christ some hundreds of years a stranger in the Church unless as the Greatness of the Church of Rome and advantages of the place did give that Church such authority as ariseth from magnitude splendour honour and accidental advantages from the populousness wealth and glory of the City of Rome The carnall Church is led by the Vice-Christ the earthly Prince of Pride contending in the world for command and superiority and prosecuting his Cause with Strappados fire sword and gunpowder when Christ gave no Pastor a Coercive power to touch mens bodies or estates The true spirituall Church is Headed and commanded by Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace and knoweth no other Universal Head because no other hath either Capacity or Authority It obeyeth his Laws and learneth of him to be charitable patient meek and lowly and wonders not at errours and divisions on earth nor therefore accuseth the providence of God but knoweth by faith that the Universal Judge of Controversies is at the door and that it is but a very little while and we shall see that the Church had an Universal Head that was alone sufficient for his work for he that cometh will come and will not tarry Amen Even so come Lord Jesus Sir I desire you presently to send me word whether you will by close Syllogisticall arguing prove the successive visibility of your Church as Papal or not that I may know what to expect And once more I pray you take the help of the ablest of your party both that I may not be so troubled with wrong or impertinent allegations and that I may be sure that your insufficient arguings are not from any imperfection of the person but of the Cause If you meet in these Papers with any passages which you think too confident and earnest I beseech you charge them not with uncharitableness or passion for I hope it proceeded not from either but I confess I am inclined to speak confidently where I am certain and to speak seriously about the things of God which are of everlasting consequence May 18. 1659. For Mr. William Iohnson THE SECOND PART Wherein the successive Visibility of the Church of which the
appetit quo vocari nullus praesumpsit qui veraciter sanctus fuit That is And to bind up all in the girdle of speech the Saints before the Law the Saints under the Law the Saints under Grace all these making up the Body of Christ were placed among the Members of the Church yet never man would be called Universal Let your Holiness therefore consider how with your self you swell that desire to be called by that name by which no man hath presumed to be called that was truly Holy Well! if this be not as pâ—â—in as Protestants speak against Popery I will never hope to understand a Pope I only add that Gregory makes this usurpation of the name of an Universal Bishop a forerunner of Antichrist And that Pope Pelagius condemned it before him which Gratian puts into their Decrees or Canon Law And that he took the Churches authority to be greater then his own when he tells Iohn Sed quoad in mea correptione despicior restat ut Ecclesiam debeam adhibere Lib. 7. Ep. 30. Dixi nec mihi vos nec cuiquam alteri tale aliquid scribere debere ecce in praefatione epistolae quam ad meipsum qui prohibui direxistis sâ—perbae appellationis verbum Universalem me Papam dicentes imprimere curastis Quod peto dulcissima sanctitas vestra ultra non faciat quia vobis subtrahitur quod alteri plusquam ratio exigit praebetur See then whether it be not judged by him undue to himself as well as to others And what the weight of the matter seemed to him judge more by these words Ep. 83. l. 4. ad Arrian In isto scelesto vocabulo consentire nihil est aliud quam fidem perdere To consent in that wicked word is nothing else but to lose or destroy the faith That is apostasie And l. 6. c. 194. Mauric Aug. Ego fidenter dico quia quisquis se universalem sacerdotem vocat vel vocare desiderat in elatione sua Antichristum praecurrit quia superbiendo se caeteris praeponit nec dispari superbia ad errorem ducitur Arg. 7. The Papists themselves confess that multitudes of Christians if not most by far have been the opposers of the Pope or none of his subjects therefore by their Testimony there have been visible Churches of such Aeneas Sylvius after Pope Pius 2. saith small regard was had to the Church of Rome before the Council of Nice Bellarmine saith This is partly true by reason of the persecution of those ages and partly false Ans. But if true we prove the matter of fact and leave Bellarmine better to prove his Reason If it be false then their own Historians are not to be believed â—hough worthy to be Popes And then wâ—at historicall testimony will they believe Voluminously do their Historians mention the Opposition of the Greeks on one side and of the Emperours and Kings and Divines that were under the Popes Patriarchal power as Mich. Goldastus in abundance of Treatises hath manifested I gave before the testimony of Reynerius that the Churches planted by the Apostles were not under the Pope I shall once more recite the words of Melch. Canus Loc. Theol. lib. 6. cap. 7. fol. 201. Not only the Greeks but almost all N. B. the rest of the Bishops of the whole world have vehemently fought to destroy the Priviledge of the Church of Rome and indeed they had on their side both the Arms of Emperours and the greater Number of Churches and yet they could never prevail to abrogate the Power of the One Pope of Rome By the Papists confession then most of the Churches and almost all the Bishops of the whole world and the Emperours their Armies have vehemently fought to abrogate the Popes power and destroy the Priviledges of Rome Reynerius his testimony concerning the Antiquity of the Waldenses as from Pope Sylvesters dayes if not the Apostles hath been oft cited Had they been but from Gregories dayes it had been enough when we have his own Testimony that no Bishop of Rome would own to that time that wicked prophane sacrilegious foolish blasphemous dividing name of Vniversal Patriarch or Bishop which who ever holds to destroys the faith Arg. 8. The next Argument should have been from the Historical Testimony of the Ancients that the Papal Soveraignty was then no part of the Churches faith nor owned by them But here to produce the Testimonies of all ages would be to write a Volume in Folio on this one Argument alone For how can the History of all Ages be so particularly delivered out of such a Multitude of Books but in a multitude of words And it is done already so fully that I provoke the Papists to answer the Catalogues and historicall Evidence given in if they can If you ask where I will now only tell you of 1. Blondell against Perron dâ— Primatu in Ecclesia in French that shews you the torrent of Antiquity against the Papal Soveraignty 2. Molinaeus in French de Novitate Papismi against the same Perron 3. Bishop Vsher de statu successione Ecclesiarum and his Answer to the â—esuites challenge 4. Dr. Field of the Church who lib. 5. answereth Bellarmines allegations from all sort of Antiquity which are their strength I pass by many others some of which I have named in the foresaid 3. Dispute of the safe Religion where also I have produced more of this evidence then they can answer At least much more then you have returned me in your last Paper for the contrary to which I desire your answer For it s in vain to write one thing so oft I shall only instance in the currant Testimony of their own Historians of the Beginning of their Universal Headship Saith Regino Chron. l. 1. An. 808. p. 13. Bonifacius obtinuit apud Phocam Principem ut sedes Romana Caput esset omnium Ecclesiarum quia Ecclesia Constantinâ—pâ—litana primum se omnium Ecclesiarum scribebat Hermannus Contractus An. M. 4550. p. 122. Hoc tempore Phocas Romanam Ecclesiam omnium Ecclesiâ—rum Caput esse constituit Nam Constantinop primam se esse scripsit So Marianus Scotus in Phoc. Bonifacius P. 67. impetravit á Phoca Caesare ut sedes Apostolica Romana Caput esset Ecclesiae quum antea Constantinopolis Primam omnium se scriberet The same hath Sigebertus Gemblac An. 607. p. 526. And so Compilat Chron. and many more Beneventus de Rambaldis Lib. Augustali saith p. 8. in Phoca Phocas occiâ—â—r Manritii qui Primus constituit Quod Ecclesia esset Caput omnium Ecclesiarum Cum prius Constantin supremum se nominaret Mark here the Primus Constituit So Beda P. Diaconus Anastasius Pomponius Laetus c. And of the Novelty of their worship saith Platina in Gregor 1. What should I say more of this holy man whose whole institution of the Church office specially the old one was invented and approved by him which Order I would we did follow then Learned men would
Bishop of Rome which the Council of Chalcedon before mentioned plainly owned when writing to Pope Leo they say 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 ut opinor existimans si reliquos omnes tantum fidei devotione quantum locī 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 or 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 pag. 327. Act. 1. where Philip Priest and Legate of Pope Celestine sayes 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 enveighing 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 Catholike 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 Catholike Church was for us in this point As to what you say of Congregation of Christians in the beginning I answer I took the word Christians in a large sense comprehending in it all those as it is vulgarly taken who are Baptized and profess to believe 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 only 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 seldom 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 denyed Only please to give me leave to tell you that I cannot conceive my Argument yet answered by all you have said to it William Iohnson Feb. 3. 1658. Sir It was the 21. of January before your Answer came to my hands and though my Reply was made ready by me the third instant yet I have found so great difficulties to get it transcribed that it was not possible to transmit it to you before now But I hope hereafter I shall find Scribes more at leasure I must desire you to excuse what errors you find in the Copy which I send As also that being unwilling to make a farther delay I am enforced to send a Copy which hath in it more interlineations then would otherwise become me to send to a person of your worth Yet I cannot doubt but your Candor will pass by all things of this nature I am Sir Your very humble servant William Iohnson Feb. 15. 1658. Worthy Sir I have now expected neer three moneths for your rejoynder to the Reply which I made to that answer which you were pleased to send and return to my Argument concerning the Church of Christ but as yet nothing hath appeared I must confess I have wondered at it considering the earnestness which appeared in you at the first to proceed with speed in a business of this nature what the impediment hath been I am only left to guess but certainly truth is strong and it will not be found an easie thing to oppose her while we keep close to form I am now necessitated to go out of London so that if your Papers come in my absence I shall hope you will have the patience to expect untill they can be sent from London to me and my Answers returned by the way of London but I do engage not to make a delay longer then the circumstances of the place and times shall enforce Sir I do highly honour and esteem your parts and person and shall be very glad to bring that business to an handsome
their Diocess yet they might renounce all communion with him Churches that have no power over one another may have communion with one another and that communion they may hold and renounce as there is cause Now if a neighbour Patriarch with so many Bishops of the West had renounc'd Communion with Chrysostomes enemies and also written their Letters on his behalf and taken him still as in their Communion this he hoped would much further his restauration which yet he doubted as he had cause For in his second Epistle he thanks him for doing his part though it did no good or did not avail And it is to be noted that your Author Nicephorus tells you lib. 13. cap. 31. that Chrysostomes Letters and his fellow-Bishops also and the Clergies of Constantinople were all written both to the Emperour Honorius and to Innocent And therefore you may see by that on what account it was and what help they did expect The Emperour was not to excommunicate but his Letters might do much Well but you alledge Niceph. l. 13. c. 34. to prove 1. Chrysostomes appeal But you have better or worse eyes then I for I can find there no such thing but a seeking for help as aforesaid 2. You say Innocentius nulls his condemnation and declares him innocent Ans. So might another Bishop have declared him But how far it should be regarded was not in his power 3. You say he excommunicates Atticus and Theopilus and 4. Arcadius the Emperor also and Eudoxia Reply 1. If he did so and did well another Bishop might as well have done it Mennas excommunicated Vigilius of Rome Excommunicating is not alwayes an act of Jurisdiction but a renouncing of Communion with a Ministeriall binding which any Pastor on a just occasion may exercise even on those that are not of his Diocess examples in Church-history are common 2. But I would have you answer Dr. Whittakers Reasons by which he proves that Nicephorus is a fabler in this relation and that that Epistle is not Innocents which cap. 34. he reciteth Lib. de pontif Rom. Contr. 4. Qu. 4. pag. 454 455. 1. Neither Socrates Theodoret or Sozomen make any mention of this excommunication who yet write much of the Case of Chrysostome and Arcadius And would these men that lived so near that time have all silenced so great and rare a thing as the excommunication of the Emperour and Empress which would have made so great a noise and stir that yet mention Ambrose his censure of Theodosius 2. This Bull of Innocents as Nicephorus would have us believe it hath such falshoods contrary to more credible history as bewray the forgery For Socrates lib. 6. c. 19. writeth that Eudoxia died the same year that Chrysostome was banished and that Chrysostome died the third year of his banishment And Sozomen saith l. 8. c. 28. that Chrysostome was in banishment three years after the death of Eudoxia But if Nicephorus were to be believed Eudoxia was alive and excommunicated by Innocent after Chrysostomes death Nor can it be said that Innocent knew not of her death for his Legats were sent to Constantinople in Atticus time who succeeded Arsacius who outlived Eudoxia This is the summe of Dr. Whittakers confutation of Nicephorus And withall who knows not how full of fictions Nicephorus is In your Margin you pretend to confute Chamier p. 498. as saying That other Bishops restored those wrongfully deposed as well as the Pope to which you say that never single Bishop restored any who were out of their respective Diocess c. whereas the Bishop of Rome by his sole and single authority restored Bishops wrongfully deposed all the Church over Reply 1. It seems you took Chamiers words on trust peruse that page and see his words 2. Single Bishops have censured and therefore might as well remit their own censures Ambrose censured Theodosius who was no fixed Member of his charge and he remitted the Censure Epiphanius presumed even at Constantinople to excommunicate Dioscorus and his Brethren Socrat. lib. 6. c. 14. And many instances may be brought both of excommunicating and again receiving to communion by particular Bishops even as to those that were not of their charge And if the fact were not proved yet the forbearance proveth not the want of power 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 suasorily or Synodically 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 Patriarchs before they called a Council You cannot but know that Councils have been called without the Pope and that neither this nor an Emperours forsaking his errour is a sign of the Popes Universal Government 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 controlable when they excommunicated him But when you cite out of any Author the words that you build on I shall take more particular notice of them 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 Archbishop of Canterbury would have proved that the King of France was subject to him 12. 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 Synod expresly determineth that your Primacy is a novel humane invention that it was given you by the Fathers because Rome was the Imperial Seat If you believe this Synod the Controversie is at end If you do not why do you cite it and why pretend you to believe Generall Councils But what have you from this Council against this Council Why 1. You say Martian wrote to Leo that by the Popes Authority a generall Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to choose Reply 1. Whereas for this you cite Act. Concil Chalcedon 1. You tell me not in what Author whether Crabbe Binnius Surius Nicolinus or where I must seek it I have perused the Act. 1. in Binnius which is 63 pages in Folio such tasks your citations set me and find no such thing and therefore take it to be your mistake But in the preambul Epist I find that Valentinian and Martian desire Leo's prayers and contrary to your words that they say Hoc ipsum nobis propriis liter is tua sanctitas manifestet quatenus in omnem Orientem in ipsam Thraciam
guideth or inspireth him This is at once to believe a Humane and Divine Veracity If any of this be your meaning the last questions remain still to be resolved by you A man may believe that God is true and that his Prophets or inspired messengers are true and yet not understand a word of the message so that still if this will serve a man may be of your Church that knoweth not that ever there was such a person as Jesus Christ or that ever he died for our sins or rose again or that we shall rise And are Infidels of your Church while you are arguing us out But if there be some truths besides the Veracity of God and his Messengers that must be believed you must shew what it is or your Church-members cannot be known Tell me therefore without tergiversation what are the revealed truths that must actually be believed or what is the faith materially in unity whereof all members of the Catholike Church do live I pray fly not but plainly tell me And if again you fly to uncertain points because of the diversity of means of information and say It must be so much to every man as he had means to know I again answer you 1. If a man had no means to know that there is a Christ it seems then he is one of your Church 2. You still damn all your own there being not a man that knoweth all that he had means to know because all have culpably neglected means And so you have no Church 3. Still you make your Church invisible if you had any For no man can tell as I said who knoweth in full proportion to his helps and means Do you not see now whither your Implicite faith hath brought you R. B. Qu. 3. Is it any lawful Pastors or All that must necessarily be depended on by every member and who are these Pastors Mr. J. Answ. Of all respectively to each subject that is that the authority of none of them mediate or immediate be rejected or contemned by him that is a true member of the Church R. B. Reply Ad Qu. 3. R. Reply 1. Here still you tell me that your descriptions signified nothing You told me that the members must live in dependance on their lawful Pastors And now you tell me that their authority must not be rejected or contemned And indeed is dependance and non-rejection all one The millions of heathens that never heard of the Pope or any of your Pastors reject them not nor contemn them Are they therefore fit matter for your Church 2. If you say that you mean it of such only as have a sufficient Revelation of the Authority of these Pastors I further reply 1. It seems then it is not only the Pope but every Priest respectively that is an essential member of your Church or to whom each member must be subject necessarily ad esse If so then every man that by falling out or prejudice doth culpably reject the authority of any one Pastor or Priest among a swarm is damned or none of the Church though he believe in the Pope and in twenty thousand Priests besides 2. And then have we not cause to pray God to bless us from the company of your Priests or at least that we may not have too many when among a multitude we may be in danger of rejecting some one and then we are cast out of the Church What if a Gentleman should find some such as Watson or Montaltus describe in bed with his wife or a Prince find a Garnet a Campion or a Parsons in a Treason and by such a temptation should be so weak as to contemn or reject the authority of that single Priest while he honoureth all the rest Is it certain that such a man is none of the Catholike Church for that How hard is it in France and Italy then to be a Catholike where Priests are so numerous that its ten to one but among the crowd the authority of some one may be rejected 3. But is it all the Priests that we never knew or knew not to be Priests that we must depend on or is it only those whose authority is manifested to us by sufficient evidence Doubtless you will confine our dependance to these only or else no man could be a Christian And if so you know we are never the nearer a resolution for your answer till you yet tell us how we must know our Pastors to have authority indeed What if they shew me the Bishops orders and I know that many have had forged Orders am I bound to believe in his authority what if I be utterly ignorant whether he that ordained him were himself ordained or had intentionem ordinandi how shall I then be sure of his authority that is ordained And how can the people be acquainted with the passages in Election and Ordination that are necessary to the knowledge of their authority especially of the Popes and prelates And what if you tell me your own opinion of the sufficient means by which I must be convinced of the Popes and Priests authority how shall I know that you are not deceived and that these are the sufficient means indeed unless a General Council have defined them to be sufficient And if they have if it were not as an Article of faith you 'l say I am not bound of necessity to believe their definition And what if I have sufficient means to know the authority of a thousand Priests but am culpably ignorant of it in some few through my neglect Doth it follow that therefore I am out of the Church Is my obedience to each Priest as necessary as my belief of every Article of my faith If so I know not whether your multiplying Articles or multiplying Priests doth fill hell faster if men must be judged by your laws But it is our Allegiance to our Soveraign that is the character of a Subject in the Common-wealth and not our Allegiance or duty to every inferiour Magistrate the rejection of one of them may stand with subjection though not with innocency It is not treason to reject a Constable why then should more be necessary to our Church-membership and salvation But still you make your Church invisible For as no man can know that liveth in the remote parts of the world whether your Popes themselves are truly Popes as being duly qualified and elected nor which is the true Pope when you have oft had more then one at once so you can never know concerning your members whether their dependance on their Pastors be extensively proportionate to the means that discovered their authority and whether their disobedience unchurch them or no I earnestly crave your answer to the thirty uncertainties which I have mentioned in my Safe Religion p. 93 to 104. And tell us how all our Pastours may be known And whether every particular sin unchurch men and if not why the contempt or rejection of a drunken Priest doth it while
jure divino you confess you are but a humane policy or society and therefore that no man need to fear the loss of his salvation by renouncing you R. B. Qu. 2. How shall we know who hath this power what Election or Consecration is necessary thereto If I know not who hath it I am never the better Mr. J. Answ. As you know who hath Temporal Power by an universal or most common consent of the people The Election is different according to different times places and other circumstances Episcopal Consecration is not absolutely necessary R. B. Reply Qu. 2. Repl. 1. How now Are all the mysteries of your succession and mission resolved into Popular Consent Is no one way of Election necessary Do you leave that to be varied as a thing indifferent And is Episcopal Consecration also unnecessary I pray you here again remember then that none of our Churches are disabled from the plea of a continued succession for want of Episcopal Consecration or any way of Election If our Pastors have had the peoples consent they have been true Pastors according to this reckoning And if they have now their consent they are true Pastors But we have more 2. By this rule we cannot know of one Bishop of an hundred whether he be a Bishop or no for we cannot know that he hath the Common consent of the people yea we know that abundance of your Bishops have no such consent yea we know that your Pope hath none of the Consent of most of the Christians in the world nor for ought you or any man knows of most in Europe It s few of your own party that know who is Pope much less are called to Consent till after he is settled in possession 3. According to this rule your successions have been frequently interrupted when against the will of general Councils and of the far greatest part of Christians your Popes have kept the seat by force 4. In temporals your rule is not universally true What if the people be engaged to one Prince and afterward break their vow and consent to a Usurper Though in this ease a particular person may be obliged to submission and obedience in judicial administrations yet the usurper cannot thereby defend his Right and justifie his possession nor the people justifie their adhesion to him while they lye under an obligation to disclaim him because of their preengagement to another Though some part of the truth be found in your assertion R. B. Qu. 3. Will any Diocess serve ad esse what if it be but in particular Assemblies Mr. J. Answ. It must be more then a Parish or then one single Congregation which hath not different inferiour Pastors and one who is their superior R. B. Reply Qu. 3. Repl. This is but your naked affirmation I have proved the contrary from Scriptures Fathers and Councils in my disputation of Episcopacy viz. that a Bishop may be and of old ordinarily was over the Presbyters only of one Parish or single Congregation or a people no more numerous then our Parishes You must shew us some Scripture or general Council for the contrary before we can be sure you here speak truth Was Gregory Thaumaturgus no Bishop because when he came first to Neocaesarea he had but seventeen souls in his charge The like I may say of many more Mr. J. Tradition I understand by Tradition the visible delivery from hand to hand in all ages of the revealed Word of God either written or unwritten R. B. Of Tradition Qu. 1. But all the doubt is by whom this Tradition that 's valid must be By your Pastors or people or both By Pope or Councils or Bishops disjunct By the Major part of the Church or Bishops or Presbyters or the Minor and by how many Mr. J. Answ. By such and so many proportionably as suffice in a Kingdom to certifie the people which are the Ancient universally received customs in that Kingdom which is to be morally considered R. B. Reply Of Tradition Qu. 1. Repl. I consent to this general But then 1. How certainly is Tradition against you when most of the Christian world yea all except an interessed party do deny your Soveraignty and plead Tradition against it And how lame is your Tradition when it s carried on your private affirmations and is nothing but the unproved sayings of a Sect R. B. Qu. 2. What proof or notice of it must satisfie me in particular that it so past Mr. J. Answ. Such as with proportion is a sufficient proof or notice of the Laws and customs of temporal Kingdoms R. B. Reply Qu. 2. Repl. But is it necessary for every Christian to be able to weigh the credit of contradicting parties when one half of the world faith one thing and the other another thing what opportunity have ordinary Christians to compare them and discern the moral advantages on each side As in the case of the Popes Soveraignty when two or three parts of the Christian world is against it and the rest for it can private Christians try which party is the more credible Or is it necessary to their salvation If so they are cast upon unavoidable despair If not must they all take the words of their present Teachers Then most of the world must believe against you because most of the Teachers are against you And then it seems mens faith is resolved into the authority of the Parish-Priest or their Confessors The Laws of a Kingdom may be easier known then Christian doctrines can be known especially such as are controverted among us by meer unwritten Tradition Kingdoms are of narrower compass then the world And though the sense of Laws is oft in question yet the being of them is seldom matter of controversie because men conversing constantly and familiarly with each other may plainly and fully reveal their minds when God that condescendeth not to such a familiarity hath delivered his mind by inspired persons long ago with much less sensible advantages because it is a life of faith that he directeth us to live Mr. J. General Council A general Council I take to be an assembly of Bishops and other chief Prelates called convened and confirmed by those who have sufficient Spiritual authority to call convene and confirme R. B. Of a General Council Qu. 1. Who is it ad esse that must call convene confirm it till I know that I am never the nearer knowing what a Council is and which is one indeed Mr. J. Answ. Definitions abstract from inferior subdivisions For your satisfaction I affirm it belongs to the Bishop of Rome R. B. Reply Qu. 1. Repl. 1. If it be necessary to the being or validity of a Council that it be called or confirmed by the Pope then your definition signifieth nothing if you abstract from that which is so necessary an ingredient unless it were presupposed to be understood 2. If it belong to the Bishop of Rome to call a Council as necessary to its being
are Eutychians and 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 See Nilus on this subject (a) (a) Liberatus in Brev. c. 16. (b (b Epist. praeambula Concil Chalcedon (c) (c) Concil Chalcedon Act. 1. (d) (d) Concil Chalcedon Act. 8. (e) (e) St. Cyprian Epist. 67. (f) (f) Concil Sard. cap. 4. cited by St. Athan. Apol. 2. pag. 753. (g) (g) St. Basil. Epist. 74. (h) (h) St. Chrysost. Epist. 2. ad Innocent (i) (i) Concil Ephes. p. 2. Act. 5. (k) (k) St. Athanas ad Solit. Epist. Julius in lit ad Arian ap Athan Apolog 1. pag. 753. Theodoret. lib. 2. cap. 4. Athanas Apol. 2. Zozom lib. 3. cap. 7. 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. c. g. 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 condemed as unjust in consenting to it Niceph. lib. 13. cap. 34. Chamier cit p. 498. sayes 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 save 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 his sole and single authority restored Bishops wrongfully deposed all the Church over (m) (m) Concil Chalced. Action 1. (n) (n) Concil Chalced. Action 3. * * 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 Liberaâ— in Breviario cap. 21. Marcellinus Comes in Chronico Concil Constantin sub Menna act 4. And the same St. Greg. C. 7. Ep. 63. declares that both thâ— 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 pronounces that in case of falling into offences he knew no Bishop which was not subject to the Bishop of Rome (o) (o) St. Augustin Tom 1 Epist. Rom. Pontif. post Epist. 2. ad Celestinum Epist. Concil ad I. con Pap. Act. 1. sequ For the age 600. See St. Gregory Pope l. 10. ep 30. where Hereticks and Shismaticks repenting were received then into the Church upon solemn promise and publike protestation that they would never any more separate from but alwaies remain in the unity of the Catholike Church and communion in all things with the Bishop of Rome
then the first great General Council and others following were none it being certain that they were not called by him And as certain that he hath never proved any such authority to call them or confirm them R. B. Qu 2. Must it not represent all the Catholike Church Doth not your Definition agree to a Provincial or the smallest Council Mr. J. Answ. Yes my Definition speaks specifically of Bishops and chief Prelates as contradistinct from inferiour Pastors and Clergy and thereby comprises all the Individuums contained in the Species and consequently makes a distinction from National or particular Councils where some Bishops only are convened not all that being only some part and not the whole Species or specifical Notion applied to Bishops of every age And yet I said not all Bishops but Bishops and chief Prelates because though all are to be called yet it is not necessary that all should come Whence appears what I am to answer to the next two Questions R. B. Reply Qu. 2. Repl. 1. Then you have had no General Councils much less can have any more For you have none to represent the greatest part of the Church unless by a mock representation 2. If all must be called your Councils have not been General that call'd not a great part of the Church 3. If most are necessarily detained as by distance the prohibition of Princes c. the call made it not their duty to be there and so makes it not a General Council which is so called from the generality of the meeting and representation and not of the invitation no more then a Call would make it a true Council if none came R. B. Qu. 3. How many Bishops and from what parts must ad esse make such a Council Mr. J. Answ. The number is morally to be considered more or fewer according to the difficulties of times distances of place and other circumstances as is also the parts from whence they are to come R. B. Reply Qu. 3. Repl. This is a put-off for want of an Answer Is it a Council if difficulties keep away all If not it can be no General Council when difficulties keep away the most Much less when such a petty confederacy as met at Trent shall pretend to represent the Christian world You thus leave us uncertain when a Council is General and when not How can the people tell when you cannot tell your self when the Bishops are so many as make a Council General R. B. Qu. 4. May none but Bishops and chief Prelates be members as you intimate Mr. J. Answ. No others unless such inferiours as are sent to supply the places and as Deputies of those Bishops or Prelates are such members of the Council as have Decisive votes in framing Decrees and Definitions R. B. Reply Qu. 4. Repl. This is but your private opinion No Council hath defined it unless they are contradictory For I suppose you know that Basil and many Councils before it had Presbyters in them Mr. J. Schism I understand by Schism a willfull separation or division of ones self from the whole visible Church of Christ. R. B. Of Schism Qu. 1. Is it no Schism to separate from a particular Church unless from the whole Mr. J. 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 only I take it here R. B. Reply Of Schism Qu. 1. Repl. Though I take Schism more comprehensively and I think aptly my self yet hence I observe your justification of the Protestants from the charge of Schism seeing they separate not from the Catholike or whole Church For they separate not from the Armenian Ethiopian Greek c. nor from you as Christians but as scandalous offenders whom we are commanded to avoid We separate not from any but as they separate from Christ. R. B. Qu. 2. Or is it no Schism unless willfull Mr. J. Answ. No it is not Schism unless the separation be willfull on his part who makes it R. B. Reply Qu. 2. Repl. Again you further justifie us from Schism If it be willfull it must be against knowledge But we are so far from separating willfully or knowingly from the whole Church that we abhor the thought of such a thing as impious and damnable R. B. Qu. 3. Is it none if you make a Division in the Church and not from the Church Mr. J. Answ. Not as we here understand Schism 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 R. B. Reply Qu. 3. Repl. Though I am sure Paul calls it Schism when men make 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 separated from the whole body is also separated from the Head Mr. J. Sir The want of a Scribe hath forced me to fail a little in point of time but I hope you will excuse him who desires to serve you W. J. Iune 22. 1660. R. B. Sir Vrgent unavoidable business constrained me to delay my return to your solutions or explications of your definitions till this June 29. 1660. When you desire me to answer any such Questions or explain any doubtful passages of mine I shall willingly do it In the mean time you may see while your terms are still unexplained 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 terms 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 engaged in Richard Baxter Appendix THe most that I here said against the successive Visibility of our Church is reduced by them to the point of Ordination They say We can have no Church without Pastors no Pastors without Ordination and no Ordination but from the Church of Rome therefore when we broak off from the Church of Rome we interrupted our succession which cannot be repaired but by a return to them This is the sum of most of their discourses in what shape soever they appear To which I answer 1. As a Church is taken for a Community of Christians which are really members of the Church universal so it may ad esse be without Pastors But the Catholike Church can never be without them nor yet any true Political organized particular Church 2. It is contrary to the Papists own opinion that Ordination of their particular Pastors is