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
it in your Edition p. 35. But why do you refer what I admit not I say not that every Opponent may come to a Negative at his pleasure as you make me say but when that Negative is deduced by force of Syllogistical form and denied by the Respondent in a matter proveable by instances as this is I affirm and desire it should be sent to both our Learned Universities that he who denies the universal Negative is obliged in Logical process to give some instance to the contrary and that there is no other means to prove that Negative but by infringing the instances which the Respondent produces against it For if the Opponent go to prove his universal negative by Induction viz. in my present Minor But no Congregation of Christians hath been alwayes visible save those which acknowledge St. Peter c. he must come at last to this Such a Congregation is neither that of the Arrians nor of the Eutychians nor of Nestorians nor any other Congregation that can be named Then if the Respondent deny that Proposition and affirm there is some nameable he is obliged to tell which it is otherwise it is impossible to make progress in the Argument which way of arguing notwithstanding is most Logical and usually practised amongst Learned Disputants Baxter Num. 25. We are all agreed that Christianity is the true Religion and Christ the Churches universal Head and the Holy Scriptures the Word of God Papists tell us of another Head and Rule the Pope and Tradition and Iudgement of the Church Protestants deny these Additionals and hold to Christianity and Scripture onely our Religion being nothing but Christianity we have no controversie about their Papal Religion superadded is that which is controverted They affirm 1. the Right 2. the Antiquity of it We deny both The Right we disprove from Scripture though it belongs to them to prove it The Antiquity is it that is now to be referred Protestancy being the denial of Popery it is we that really have the Negative and the Papists that have the Affirmative The Essence of our Church which is Christian is confessed to have been successively visible But we deny that theirs as Papal hath been so and now they tell us that it is Essential to ours to deny the Succession of theirs and therefore require us to prove a Succession of ours as one that still hath denied theirs Now we leave our Case to the Lawyers seeing to them you make your Appeal 1. Whether the Substance of all our Cause lie not in this question Whether the Papacy or universal Government by the Pope be of Heaven or of Men Fallacy 8. and so Whether it hath been from the beginning which we deny and therefore are called Protestants and they affirm and are therefore called Papists 2. If they cannot first prove a Successive visibility of their Papacy and Papal Church then what Law can bind us to prove that it was denied before it did arise in the world or ever any pleaded for it 3. And as to the point of Possession I know not what can be pretended on your side 1. The possession of this or that particular Parish Church or Tythes is not the thing in question but the universal Headship is the thing But if it were yet it is I that am yet here in Possession and Protestants before me for many Ages Successively And when possessed you the Head-ship of the Ethiopian Indian and other Extra-Imperial Churches never to this day No nor of the Eastern Churches though you had Communion with them 2. If the question be who hath possession of the universal Church we pretend not to it but onely to a part and the soundest safest part 3. The Case of Possession therefore is Whether we have not been longer in Possession of our Religion which is bare Christianity then you of your super-added Popery Our Possession is not denied of Christianity yours of Popery we deny and our denial makes us called Protestants Let therefore the reason of Logicians Lawyers or any rational sober man determine the case whether it do not first and principally belong to you to prove the visible Succession of a Vice-Christ over the universal Church Iohnson Num. 25. Fair and softly Sir you are run quite out of the field and have lost your self I know not where The present question is not who is to prove the universal and perpetual Supremacy of the Roman-Bishop See you not that I have already undertaken the proof of that in this present Argument The question at present is nothing but this when I have brought the Argument to this Head that no other Congregation of Christians can be named perpetually visible save that which acknowledges the Roman Supremacy and you deny that negative Proposition of mine whether you be not obliged upon that denial to name some Congregation which has been perpetually visible beside it This and this onely is that which I referr'd and still refer to the the judgement of the Learned as to your Case when it comes in season it shall be resolved This onely ex abundanti for the present whatsoever may be or not be of the Indians and Ethiopians c. which shall hereafter be examined You who confess the Pope to have been constituted Part 2. at least by the Churches grant Patriarch of the West and thereby to have acquired a lawfull Supremacy over the Western Churches and consequently over that of England and was in full and quiet possession of that Right when your first Protestants began to reject it you I say cannot deny those first Protestants at least to have been obliged by reason of that possession to bring convincing proofs that it was unlawfull which notwithstanding you must hold impossible to be done because you hold that Patriarchal power over them to have been lawfull Now what obligation falls upon you as maintaining successively so wrongfull a cause I leave to your consciences to determine Nay it is most evident in time of the first breach with the Roman Bishop he was in as quiet possession of Supremacy over the English Church in quality of Supreme visible Pastor over the whole Church as he was in quality of the Western Patriarch for the English obeyed him as Supreme over all and not as Patriarch of the West onely as appears by thousands of testimonies extant in our National Councils Doctors Bishops Historians Records Decrees c. Therefore those who dispossest him of that possession were bound either to have demonstrated it undeniably to be unlawfull or to have procured a definitive Sentence against him by such as had full Authority to judge him that his possession was unjust neither of which either hath been done nor can ever be done Baxter Num. 26 As to your contradictory impositions I reply 1. Your exception was not exprest and your imposition was peremptory Iohnson Num. 26. But I supposed my Adversaries to be Logicians and stood not in need to be instructed
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
letters writ flatly to him that he knew no John Bishop of Alexandria but had taken Petrus Mogas as Bishop of Alexandria into his communion and that without Simplicius for the Churches unity at the Emperours command William Iohnson Num. 125. It was indeed Ioannes Thalaida chosen Bishop of Alexandria but presently disturbed by Zeno the Emperour through Acacius his meanes and Petrus Mogas setled in his place by the Emperours authority and by Acacius Bishop of Constantinople this Ioannes Thalaida being a Catholick Bishop appealed as Liberatus saith and you acknowledge to Simplicius being dead before Iohn arrived at Rome Pope Felix his successor received the appeal and gathered a council upon it sent Legates and redargvitory letters to Zeno and Acacius where in his letter to Zeno he exhorted him to send Acacius to Rome according to the Ecclesiastical lawes and cited Acacius a fauourer of Hereticks to hasten thither to defend himself against the depositions of Ioannes Thalaida and to answer juridically to the objections made by his accuser and then to have his cause tryed in judgement this is the history By the way I wonder much to hear you say that Iohn Bishop of Antioch dyed in Sixtus the fift's time when as all the world knowes this Iohn of Antioch flourished in the year 1585. surely that Iohn must have been a notable old man of eleven hundred and odd years at least Mathuselah was nothing to him and which is yet a greater miracle he must have lived above a thousand years after he was dead I should have taken no notice at all of this for I know you would have said Sixtus the third but only to let you reflect how carefull you ought to have been in your own accounts Names and Figures when you are so punctual to note every smal slip in the writings of your adversary I might also have noted your errour in affirming this Iohn of Antioch dyed an 436. citing Baronius for it whereas Baronius as abreviated by spondanus sayes expresly he dyed Anno 440. But I have no reason to pass in silence your not informing your Reader what Zeno Acacius Petrus Mogas Petrus Fullonis Iohn Thalaida and Calendion were you say Zeno expelled Iohn Thalaida that Acacius disowned him and acknowledged Petrus Mogas as Bishop of Alexandria and thence inferre how little regard Acacius made of our Pope by which obsurdity in writing your ignorant Reader may well suppose that Zeno was a good Christian Emperour Acacius and Petrus Mogas found Catholick Bishops Iohn and Calendion turbulent intruders or Schismaticks whereas you could not but know seeing you profess to read the Aâ—â—thours you quote that Zeno Acacius Petrus Mogas Petrus Fullonis and their abbetters were either Hereticks or first favorites secretly and after publickly of the Eutychian heresie and the cheif of them were after by a sentence given of Pope Felix excommunicated and deprived of Episcopal dignitie and jurisdiction as I have proved above whereas Iohn Thalaida and Calendion were most Orthodox and Catholick Bishops quietly and canonically elected and installed the one in the sea of Alexandria and the other in that of Antioch which had it been declared as all open and fair dealing required it had proved rather a credit then a disadvantage to the Roman sea to have been opposed by such notorious Hereticks and Schismaticks as those were and appealed to by Thalaida and Calendion Catholick and lawful Bishops Mr. Baxter Num. 126. Here you see how little regard Acacius made of your Pope and that the appeal was but to procure his letters to Acacius which did him no good William Iohnson Num. 126. I am glad to see how Hereticks and Favourers of hereticks have still contemned the authority of that Sea but I see not that the appeal was only to procure the Popes letters to Acacius for it was also to summon Acacius to answer Iohns accusations against him at Rome and there to trie his cause in judgement with him now that nothing was effected by this was only Acacius his pertinacy for which he is condemned by all the Catholick writers of his proceedings in those times and not one of them blame Simplicius or Felix as exceeding the limits of their authority in sentencing and deposing Acacius and his adherents as we have seen he did produce in your next those authours who speak against it in their times Mr. Baxter Num. 127. But do you in good earnest think that all such addresses or appeales are ad superiorem judicem what more coÌ„mon then to appeal or make such addresses to any that have advantages of interest for the releif of the oppressed young men appeal to the aged in controversies and the lesse learned to the more learned and the poor to the rich or to the favorites of such as can relieve them Johns going first to Antioch was no acknowledgement of Superiority William Iohnson Num. 127. Yes I think so in very good earnest and when you shall have fixt your second thoughts upon what past in this affaire I doubt not but your own ingenuity will induce you to think so too 't is not every appeal made from any tribunal or Judge to another who hath power to summon the defendant and to pronounce sentence against him in case of not appearance to defend his cause a strict and juridical appeal to a higher Court or Tribunal was not this appeal such I know when you consider the letters and sentence given by Felix against Acacius you neither will nor can deny it whence appeares how far your instances of improper and nominal appeales are from the present matter Should a poor Peasant of Northumberland being wronged by some inferiour persons having the Lord Mayor of London his friend appeal to him and require of him that he cite those Judges to appear before him and in case they did refuse to appear pronounce sentence against them and deprive them of their offices lands and possessions would it not be highly ridiculous seeing therefore such a proceeding as this was held by virtue of this appeal of Iohn Thalaida and no Catholick of those times ever condemned Felix for doing it nor Iohn for requiring it as is most evident it was an appeal or complaint as Baronius affirms to an higher Judge Now seeing an appeal made from one Judge to another as all solemn and proper appeals are made and understood in law must be from a lower to a higher Judge and the word appeal as all other words must be taken in a proper sense where nothing constraines us to take it improperly it is most manifest that this appeal must be understood to have been made to a higher Judge then were those who deposed Thalaida Mr. Baxter Num. 128. But of this I must referre you to a full answer of Blondel against Perron de Primatu in Ecclesia cap. 25. sect 76. where you may be satisfied of the vanity of your instance William Iohnson Num. 128. I could wish you had alleaged Blondels reasons for by
thus giving me Authours at every turne you will oblige me to peruse and answer whole libraries if Blondel have any thing worth taking notice of you may please to insert it into your rejoynder to this Reply and it shall be answered thus much only I am bold to tel you aforehand that Blondel trifles exceedingly for whether Thalaida were cited by Acacius legally or no which might make the wrong done him rather violence then juridical condemnation yet seeing Blondel confesses injuries done him by Acacius and his adherents upon pretence of perjury wherof he was though illegally judged guilty and solemnly deposed it was an appeal properly so called to reverse that unjust judgement by virtue of a sentence pronounced by an higher judge otherwise if an innocent person should be unjustly condemned in his absence without either citation or hearing he could not properly appeal from that sentence to an higher Court that which Blondel alleadges in the second place is yet more childish for seeing Zeno Acacius and their complices never treated with Thalaida about a joynt consent to chose Felix their Arbiter nay seeing the appeal was made to Felix whether they would or no they refuseing to appear in defence of themselves and make good their accusations against Thalaida it is most manifest that Felix was not made Arbiter of the cause by joynt consent as all Arbiters must be but had of himself the power of judging both parties Now though it was admitted not granted that the recourse of Thalaida to Simplicius and Felix was rather a complaint of violence injury done him by force then of an unjust juridical sentence pronounced against him yet my intent will evidently follow from it or it had been ridiculous in Thalaida to have sought redress from that injury and a condemnatory sentence against Acacius c. from one who had no power or jurisdiction over them and it had been a most insufferable injustice and presumption in Felix to have deposed and deprived Acacius had he had no jurisdiction over him and the rest of his complices Hence your fallacy consists in this that you proceed from secundum quid to simpliciter that is from appeales improperly so called or vulgar appeales to juridical or proper appeales whereas you should have given some instance where an appeal made from an unjust sentence to another Judge who hath power to cite and condemn those from whom the appeal is made is not alwayes made to an higher judge for such was the appeal of Thalaida to Simplicius as I have proved Mr. Baxter Num. 129. Whereas therefore you inferre or you say nothing that because this John thus appealed to Rome therefore he appealed thither as to the universal Ruler of the Church William Iohnson Num. 129. The story proves it most manifestly there were but three cheif Patriarck's then in the Church besides the Pope viz. of Constantinople Alexandria and Antioch now if the Pope had authority to summon sentence condemn excommunicate or deprive them of the communion of the faithful depose and dis-Bishop them as Felix undeniably did in his sentence against Acacius and his adherents the intruded Patriarkes of Alexandria and Antioch he must have had power and jurisdiction over all the inferiour Church governours for qui valet ad majus valet ad minus and to limit this papal power to the Empire I have shewed it groundlesse for if the Bishop of Constantinople censured here by the Pope had power over the barbarous that is extra-imperial Provinces as I have proved above why should not the Pope that had power over him seeing there is not the least appearance in antiquity that he had power over the Patriarkes as they were subjects of the Roman Empire and if there be shew it Mr. Baxter Num. 130. The story derideth your consequence much more that therefore the universal Church held the Pope then to be the universal head or Governour William Iohnson Num. 130. What story wherein how derides it my consequence why you say it does and that 's enough this second consequence follows also undeniably for seeing these proceedings were notorious to the whole Church and no Catholick Prelate or Church disallowed of them but all Authours of those times approve them that it was either then the unanimous consent of the Church that the Pope had the power or there is no meanes left to know by Authentical tâ—â—stimonies what the Church held or held not in those Ages Mr. Baxter Num. 131. Here is nothing of Govâ—â—â—ment but intreaty and that but within the Empire and that but upon the seeking of one distressed man that would be apt to go to those of most interest that might relieve him and all this rejected by Acacius and the Emperour a fair proof William Iohnson Num. 131. Here is nothing but a most supream visible authority in Government over the three cheif Patriarchs of the Church in repealing their sentence excommunicating depriving and deposing them and consequently seeing some of them at least had authority over extra-imperial or barbarous provinces as I have proved the Pope had government over some who were out of the Empire yet withall I minde you I undertook no more then to prove against you that some at least in those times held the universal jurisdiction of the Pope now whether my proof or your answer be the fairer I leave it to the impartial Reader Mr. Baxter Num. 132. Your second Instance is that Flavianus appeals to the Pope as to his judge Epist. praeambul Concil Chalced. Reply I have perused all the Council of Chalcedon as it is in Binius purposely to finde the words you mencion of Flavianus appeal and I finde not any such words in Flavianus own epistle to Leo there are such words nor any other that I can finde but the 〈◊〉 appeal once in one of the Emperours Epistles as I Remember but without mencioning any judge I will not turne over volumes thus in vain for your Citations while I see you take them on trust and do not tel me in any narrow compasse of cap. sect or pag. where to finde them William Iohnson Num. 132. I am sory you were put to so much paines but I take it not to have been occasioned by me I cite Epist. praeambulat Con. Chalced. and you confess you found it in one of the Epistles whether the word Judge be there or no imports nothing for the nature of the appeal and circumstances wherein it was made shew him to be a Judge as wee shall now see Mr. Baxter Num. 133. But had you found such words an appeal is oft made from a partial to an impartial Iudge thought of equal power William Iohnson Num. 133. What a juridical appeal made both viva voce and per libellum by a bill of appeal in and from a generall Councill to another of no greater authority then that Councill was nay in your principles of inferiour Authority to a generall Councill would not this have been ridiculous should
by both parties agreeing in the choice of them so that no one party without the consent of the other is sufficient to constitute an Arbitrator Now it is evident that upon this submission of the Arians Iulius writ to St. Athan. to appear peremptorily by way of citation never requiring whether he gave his free Election to have him Arbitrator in his cause as appears from Theodoret Hist. Eccles l. 2. c. 4. and St. Athan. Ap. 2. where he cites Iulius affirming that St. Athanasius came not then to Rome of his own free Election or of himself but being called by the Letters of Iulius to Rome nor hath Blondel any ground to say in the words he cites Ep. 73. that the Arian Legates chose Iulius directly for their defence nor onely to have a Synode called wherein a definitive Sentence might be given nor had those Arrian Legates any reason to pitch upon Iulius for their Arbitrator had the choice of a Judge been left to them for they both knew he was a profest Adversary to their Heresie and sufficiently informed against them And for Field he sayes nothing that can give any shew of satisfaction to my Instances if he do cite his Answer in your next and I here undertake to shew it to be unsatisfactory Mr. Baxter Num. 170. Briefly this may shew the vanity of your proof Zozomon in that place saith that though he alone wrote for them yet he wrote in the name and by the consent of all the Bishops of the West William Iohnson Num. 170. Why cite you not his words there 's something in 't for you spare no pains in that where they serve your turn Sayes Zozomen upon your honest word for that 's all we have for it that Iulius writ that Epistle in the name and by the consent of all the BB. of the West What of all the Gothes had then there BB. then you must acknowledge in your principles he writ an untruth Had Iulius their consent and writ he in the name of them Then Iulius in this his Epistle had as well an Extra-Imperial as an Imperial Authority that is had the Authority not onely of the BB. within but of those also who were without the Empire which you expresly deny in the next leaf page 149. num 3. and it is strange that all those of the West consented when there were no more than 50. Bishops as Baron affirms ad an 341. n. 13. in Epist. of spondani in that Council Tradition Mr. Baxter Num. 171. The advantages of Rome by its reputation and greatness and the number and quality of the Western Bishops made their Iudgement and Communion valuable to others William Iohnson Num. 171. But how far What even to cite and summon parties to appear before their Tribunal and in case they refused to pronounce Sentence against them and acquit and restore their Adversaries The Imperial City of London hath a proportionable preheminence with Rome before all other Cities through the whole Kingdom hath therefore my Lord Major and the Common Council power to summon in this kind any other Magistrates of inferiour Cities to appear before them and in case of non-appearance to justifie and re-establish their Adversaries Mr. Baxter Num 172. Basil before cited tells you on what grounds when Churches disagree those that are distant are supposed to be impartial especially when numerous William Iohnson Num. 172. Be it so but sayes St. Basil there that distance of place is enough to give power of summoning condemning and acquitting parties legally that 's the question where sayes St. Basil that produce his words or rather give a second reflection upon his words cited by you p. 139. and you 'l find no such matter Mr. Baxter Num. 173. To which is added which Basil intimates that some hope of help from the secular powers by the interposition of the Western Bishops made them the more sought to William Iohnson Num. 173. How sought to As to friends and assistants that 's not our question now as to Superiours and Judges that 's indeed the question but sure the prime urgent and necessitating motive why I have recourse to a Judge and Superiour is his coercive power over me the others are secondary and by respects in the matter Mr. Baxter Num. 174. And the Primacy of Rome though it had no Soveraignity made it seem irregular that a Patriarch should be deposed without the knowledge and judgement of the Patriarchs of the precedent Seats This was the custom that Julius spake of and the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria might have said as much if the Patriarch of Jerusalem or Antioch had been deposed without them William Iohnson Num. 174. If there had been no more then bare precedency why should not the Metropolitans who had the precedency of other Metropolitans have had the like priviledge who told you or where ever read you that this novelty which you have newly hatched to have recourse to the Bishop of Rome and acquaint him with Ecclesiastical matters by reason of his Primacy in sole precedency of place was the custom whereof Iulius speaks See you not that Iulius his words and proceedings in this affair speak loudly a supereminent power and jurisdiction over those Bishops whose cause he then heard and summoned them to appear before him and not a naked precedency of place before all others who told you or where ever read you that the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria might have said as much if the Patriarchs of Antioch or Ierusalem had been deposed without them you are excellent at guessing what might be done when you have no proof what was ever done for shame bring proofs or cease to play the part of a Disputant Non-proof 17. Mr. Baxter Num. 175. Every Patriarch might absolve the Innocent and hold Communion with him in his own Patriarchate and if any be against it as the Arians here were and sent false accusations against Athanasius to Julius he may require them to prove their accusations if they will have him more by them William Iohnson Num. 175. Here are a couple more of non-proofs I think we shall never come to an end of them The question is not what one may require in courtesie and condescendency of another nor whether the Arians were obliged only conditionally viz. if they would have Iulius to be moved by the accusations they had sent him as you surmise here but how the Bishops of Rome came to summon them to appearance and upon their defaillance to proceed juridically to Sentence against them and to acquit and restore the persons they accused to the Dignities from which they had deposed them if he had no true and real jurisdiction over them for had there been no more in the case then what of their non-appearance he should have surceased from any further proceeding and neither helpt nor hurt them Should you send accusations to the Chancellour of Scotland against some of your brethren here in England that by reason of
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
instructed me to help my ignorance in this I have no obligation at all to tell you what power Valentinian had out of the Empire for he might first declare as he did the power of the Roman Bishop to govern the whole Church in the beginning of this breif and in the end take care that all those Provinces which were under his Empire should observe that his law concerning so much as belonged unto him that the universal power of the Pope should be observed As may now the Emperour of Germany or the King of France or Spain first declare the universal power of the Roman Bishop over all Churches and then command all their Provinces to obey him which is all the Emperour does here For Valentinian sayes not as you falsifie his words omnium provinciarum of all the Provinces but aliarum provinciarum of other Provinces nor ut Pax ubique servetur as you corrupt him but tunc ubique servabitur then peace will be observ'd every where if the whole universality acknowledge their governour and that not in the law but in the declaration made of the Popes authority vide supra as an introduction to it You answer to Valentinians affirming the Popes authority and sentence was of force without any imperial law to back it is much deficient For seeing he had before declared that the Popes commands had been alwaies observed they must have been of force both before any Patriarchate was assign'd to him by any general Council as you imagine it was and before any Christian Emperours had enacted any lawes concerning it and the very law it self destroyes your glosse for Valentinian sayes presently what shall not be lawful for the authority of so great a Bishop to exercise upon the Churches Whereby he shews his power extends it self not only to his own but to all other Patriarchates nay your very restraining his words to the Empire and yet extending them to the whole Empire shew evidently that the Popes sentence had not been only of force independently of any imperial law within his own but also in all other jurisdictions of the Patriarchs within the imperial verge and hence the consequence which you draw from this authority whereas Valentinian sayes it needed not the imperial help that it needed this extraordinary secular support is as contrary as to draw darkness from light and as inconsequent is it to argue from Hilaries repugning against the Pope sentence for a time that the Pope had no such power over him which notwithstanding you granted just now as to argue that a lawful Prince hath no power over rebellious subjects because they resist it So that it could never seem to any considering person otherwise then that it came into the thoughts and words too of Valentinian here that the Popes supremacy exceeded the limits of the Roman Empire But it is evident enough through the vein that runs through this Paragraph that you are soundly netled with this law of Valentinian and yet because you are resolved what ere comes on 't to persist in your errour you fall foul upon Hosius Leo Valentinian Bishops Popes rather then yield to a manifest truth Hosius you make so shallow that he took things away weakly and facilly upon the custome of the times Leo you make proud and fraudulent and Valentinian a young and raw Prince subject to be perswaded to any thing The most part of considering readers will smile to see Hosius the most honoured Bishop of his time through the whole Church who presided in two general Councils and legate of the holy Pope Silvester for the Western Church Leo graced with the title of most blessed Father Nicene Sardican pronounced the head of the Catholick Church and universal Bishop stiled the mouth of St. Peter in the Council of Chalcedon and ever since honoured with the title of a Saint and Valentinian a most renowned Emperour both for fortitude and prudence for he was twenty seven years of age when he composed this edict so slighted reviled and debased by the Minister of Kiddermunster and that upon your surmises and guesses without any proof at all And others will pitty and compassionate your misery as I really do to see you so deeply plunged in adhesion to your own opinion that you will break all the bonds of Christian modesty and charity rathen then acknowledge your error or yield to a manifest truth Mr. Baxter 258. And it 's no credit to your cause that this Hilary was by Baroniu's confession a man of extraordiry holiness and knowledge and is sainted among you and hath his day in your Kalendar William Iohnson Num. 258. But does not Baronius in the very same place reprehend him at that time when he fell into those defaults and tell you that after his condemnation he came again to himself crav'd most humbly pardon of the Pope and shewed manifest signs of repentance and upon this his humiliation and perseverance in obedience to the See of Rome became both a famous defender of the Catholick Faith and a Saint Was it any disadvantage to the Catholique Church that Origen Tertullian or even St. Cyprian himself men of equal understanding and learning with St. Hilary opposed the doctrine of the Church and raised troubles in it Mr. Baxter Num. 259. And yet Valentinian had great provocation to interpose if Leo told him no untruth for his own advantage for it was no lesse 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 William Iohnson Num. 259. He had so indeed but must he therefore give more power to the Bishop of Rome then of right belonged to him Who either defends or is not ready to bewail these abuses But I see where you are you would cast a blot if you could upon Episcopal Government and cry down the power and possessions wherewith God and good men had even in those times inriched them Mr. Baxter Num. 260. You next return to the Council of Chalcedon Act. 1. seq where 1. you referre me to that Act. 1. where is no such matter but you adde seq that I may have a 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. And there you do but falsly thrust in the word thou governest us and so you have made your selfe 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 ad ordinandum decentissime praefidebant Now to go before with you must be to govern if so then Aurelius at the Council of Carthage and others
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
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