141. It is really unanswerable for I see nothing to be answered in it you only say you prove it by the testimony of the Council of Chalcedon and stating the primacy at least in St. Gregories dayes in Constantinople but neither produce here any authority of that Council nor of the Pope then you come with an if it be so c. when you have not proved it is so and then say your Argument is unanswerable 't is so indeed for no man can answer an argument before it be made considering men will think it had been soon enough to honour your own arguments with the illustrious title of unanswerable when you have set them out in their full glory but very unseasonable before you have given them a being now how unanswerable your argument will prove when it has a being time will inform us Mr. Baxter Num. 142. Your next instance is of Pope Leo's restoring Theodoret upon an appeal to just judgement Reply every Bishop hath a power to discerne who is fie for his own Communion and so Leo and the Bishops of the West perceiving Theodoret to be Orthodox received him as a Catholick into their communion and so might the Bishop of Constantinople have done William Iohnson Num. 142. Was there no more in it think you men a bare receiving an Orthodox Bishop into communion what need was there of that for I read not that Theodoret was excommunicated by the false Councill of Ephesus but deposed from his Bishopprick but having been accused of Nestorianisme and as such condemned in this Councill the Pope according to the usual custome declared him Orthodox and received him into his communion it was a restoration to his Episcopal Sea which he appealed for and a reversing the unjust sentence in his absence and having no warning given him to plead his cause and defence which he sought for to Pope Leo and he was accordingly restored in the first Session of the Councill of Chalcedon and consequently by the Authority of Pope Leo and took his seat in the Councill with the other Fathers because the Bishop of Rome had judged him innocent and restored him nor is there any mencion made of the Bishops of the West but only of a restauration ordered by Leo's authority nor could the Bishop of Constantinople have don any such soveraign act as this was which you say but prove not shew me if you can ever nay appeal like this of Theodorets made from the sentence of a generall Council to any patriarch in the world save the Bishop of Rome or any Bishop thus appealing restored to his sea after deposition by a general Council save only by the Popes authority Mr. Baxter Num. 143. But when this was done the Council did not thereupon receive him and restore him to his Bishopprick no nor would heare him read the passage between Pope Leo and him no nor make a confession of his Faith but cryed out against him as a Nestorian till he had expresly Anathematiz'd Nestorius and Eutiches before the Councill and then received and Restored him so that the finall judgement was not by Leo but by the Council William Iohnson Num. 143. Here are many untruths put up together 1. First it is most certain the Councill did receive him and he sat amongst them as Bishop of Cyrus upon his Restitution by Leo though the Bishops of Palestine Egypt and Illyria excepted and exclaimed against him 2. It was not the Councill but those Bishops which opposed him Con. Chalced ac 1. for whose satisfaction he Anathemis'd Nestorius 3. The Councill did not restore him otherwise then by ratifying and approving Pope Leo's act of Restaurations which is not to have the final judgement of the cause but to consent and approve by a publick act what was justly and Canonically adjudged before which may be and is very frequently don by equall or inferiour judges if indeed the judgement of Leo had been reverst in the Councill without the recourse had to him about it you might have had some Colour to affirm the finall judgement was by the Councill Mr. Baxter Num. 244. But if in his distress he appealed as you say to a just judgement from an unjust or sought to make Leo his friend no wonder but this is no grant of an universal Soverâ—â—ignty in Leo William Iohnson Num. 144. It was an act of jurisdiction out of the Western Patriarchs therefore it could not proceed from Leo as he was Patriarch of the West so that he must have done it as having authority and judicatory power over other Patriarchals and seeing there is no reason alleadgeable why he should have power in the Patriarchals where Theodoret was Bishop more then in any other à paritate rationis it proves that he had juridical power over all the Patriarchals ergo an universal power over the whole Church at least within the Empire if you will solve this argument you must shew a disparity why Theodoret was more subject to the Sea of Rome then any other Bishop within the Empire or the rest of the Patriarchs Mr. Baxter Num. 145. And if it had granted it in the Empire that is nothing to the Churches in other Empires William Iohnson Num. 145. It is manifest by this instance that Leo had power to annull the sentence of a general Council at least which esteemed it self so nor can I see why Protestants in their principles should not account it as true a general Council as others of those times there having been present both the Emperour and the Patriarchs either by themselves or their Legates and as many or more Bishops then were in â—â—her general Councils now seeing general Councils had power over the extra-imperial Provinces as is manifest above from the Couâ—â—cils of Nice and Chalcedon which subjected the barbarous Provinces that is Russia and Muscovia c. to the Bishop of Constantinople and the two Arabia's to the Patriarch of Antioch of which some were the extra-imperial seeing I say that this instance evidences that the Bishop of Rome had power to judge of the sentence of a general Council and reverse it too he must have had power also over that which is subject to general Councils that is over the extra-imperial Provinces Mr. Baxter Num. 146. Or if he had granted it as to all the world he was but one man of the world and not the Catholick Church William Iohnson Num. 146. 'T is true Theodoret was but one man but it was not Theodoret alone who thought this appeal lawful but it was approved as such by the whole general Council of Chalcedon which was the Church representative having exercised power as well without as within the Empire and after this the whole Catholick Church was satisfied with it never having accepted against it by any Orthodox writer in or about these times nor any memory lost that the Church or any true parts of it excepted against it in your next it will be expected you either produce
this holy Council that they had preferred their own security before the memory of St. Peter I am really struck with compassion to see so much of the Lucian in you I have denyed any power at all to be given to the Bishops of Rome by these canons they only determine the use which was to be made of his presupposed power by whom and when If an order be made in Parliaments That such particular persons as have been oppressed by others in inferiour courts shall have recourse by appeal to one of the Lords cheif Justices Does that Parlianent by virtue of that order create or institute the Lord cheif Justice or rather is it not evident it supposes him to have the power of cheif Justice precedently to that order and only ordaines that others have recourse to him But yet the power they mention of redresse and appeal to the Roman Bishops is to him only as Judge for the canon sayes nothing of any Council joyned to him nor names any other Judge save the Pope when a Judge sits in judgement at the assizes though the bench be filled with other justices who inform and assist yet the sentence proceeds only from the Judge Thus though the Bishops of Rome used in matters of great concernment to the whole Church to call some neighbouring Bishops to sit in Council with him for his better information and greater solemnity in the judgement yet he alone had the power of pronouncing a definitive sentence in behalf of Bishops wrongfully deposed c. It is manifest by this that the restauration is ascribed as done by him and not by him and his Council and so having no authority in itself out of the Roman or Western Patriarchate and serving only for an assistance to the Pope in framing his judgement of the case propounded not in a decisive voyce in pronouncing the sentence or legal power in granting the restauration How expect you to be spoke of after your death when you slight so much the Fathers of the first general Council of Nice for a great number of them were in this and how can you live without fear Socrat. eccl histor l. 2. c. 11. Zozom l. 3. c. 11. 12. that you are led with the spirit of errour when you refuse to hear and beleive those who were the lawful pastours in a full representative of Gods holy Church but to shew how far you fal from trueth in saying those canons acknowledge no antecedent governing power in the Pope please to reflect on what is said in the third of them where they leave it to the Popes prudence to accept of what appeales he thinks fit and intreat him to vouchsafe to write to the neighbouring Bishops or to send legats of his own to examine the case as he judges best now had they conferd this power upon the Pope by virtue of those acts they should not have proceded by way of intreaty but by way of precept and injunction nor left matters to his disposition but ordered him by theirs what he was to doe Mr. Baxter Num. 158. That it is not a power of judging alone that they give but of Causing the re-examination of causes by the Council and adding his assistance in the the judgement and so to have the putting of another into the place forborne till it be done William Iohnson Num. 158. But does not the first of these canons give expresse order that the Pope appoint the judges and the second that the Pope himself pronounce the last juridical sentence the third that it is left to the Popes free election either to refer the farther examination to the neighbour Bishops or send judges of his own appointment Can there be more evident markes of an absolute judge than these are If the Pope had power only to examine the causes who had the power to judge them according to these Canons or to what purpose where those examinations made if none were impowred to passe judgement after the causes were examined Now seeing the canons attribute the power of judging to no other save the Bishops of Rome for they make no mention at all of any Council then the Council supposed the power of judgeing to be in him alone and not joyntly in the provincial Council and him Mr. Baxter Num. 159. And I hope still you will remember that at this Council were no Bishops without the Empire and that the Roman world was narrower then the Christian world and therefore if these Bishops in a part of the Empire had now given not a ruling but a saving power to the Pope so far as is there expressed this had been far from proving that he had a ruling power as the vice-Christ over all the world and that by divine right Blame me not to call on you to prove this Consequence William Iohnson Num. 159. I hope you will also remember what I have answered to these exceptions and that I have proved that Bishops from the three Arabia's were present in this Council all which were not under the Empire and that the Roman world in order to spiritual Government was as large as the Christian world univocally so called as I have prov'd from St. Prosper and St. Leo. Mr. Baxter Num. 160. There is as much for appeales to Constantinople that never claimed as vice-Christ-ship as jure divino William Iohnson Num. 160. 'T is your pleasure to say so but your word with me is not arrived to the authority of an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is your proofes not the bare sayings I expect here non proof 17. CHAP. III. ARGUMENT St. Basil. NUm 160. Mr. Baxter in lieu of answering to his adversaries objection treats other matters to draw his Reader from considering the force of the argument Num. 161. whether Mr. Baxter or his adversarie say true concerning the words of St. Chrysostome in his second epistle to Pope Innocent the first Num. 162. what the first Council of Ephesus writ to pope Celestine about Iohn Bishop of Antioch Mr. Baxters strange confidence in both these authorities Num. 163. Mr. Baxter flies to Hereticks to maintayn his cause by their wicked practises ibid. what Iuvenal Bishop of Hierusalem said of the Roman and Antiochian Church ibid. Mr. Baxter clips off the cheif part from Iuvenals words Num. 164. St. Cyril presided in the first Council of Ephesus as being the Popes legate Num. 166. Mr. Baxter recurrs again to the criminal procedings of Hereticks to maintaine his cause ibid. He minces the force of excomunication to lessen the Popes authority Num. 168. Whether Blondel Whitaker and Feild give satisfaction to that which Mr. Baxter calls a rancid instance Num. 171. What St. Basil sayes about the Popes authority Num. 172.173.174 Many non proofs heap't up together by Mr. Baxter Num. 179. He flies againe to patronize his cause by the crimes of Hereticks Mr. Baxter Num. 161. The sixt instance out of Basil's 74 Epistle I imagine you would have suppressed if ever you had
which he presently did and many other Eastern Bishops unjustly accused by the Arians aforesaid had recourse to Rome with him and expected there a year and half All which time his Accusers though also summoned appeared not fearing they should be condemned by the Pope and his Council Yet they pretended not as Protestants have done in these last ages of the Kings of England That Constantius the Arian Emperour of the East was Head or chief Governour over their Church in all Causes Ecclesiastical and consequently that the Pope had nothing to do with them but only pretended certain frivolous excuses to delay their apearance from one time to another Where it is worth the noting that Iulius reprehending the said Arian Bishops before they published their Heresie and so taking them to be Catholicks for condemning S. Athanasius in an Eastern Council gathered by them before they had acquainted the Bishop of Rome with so important a cause useth these words An ignari estis hanc consuetudinem esse ut primum nobis scribatur ut hinc quod justum est definiri possit c. Are you ignorant saith he that this is the custome to write to us first That hence that which is just may be defined c. where most clearly it appears that it belonged particularly to the Bishop of Rome to passe a definitive sentence even against the Bishops of the Eastern or Greek Church which yet is more confirmed by the proceedings of Pope Innocent the first about 12. hundred years since in the case of S. Chrysostome Where first Saint Chrysostome appeals to Innocentius from the Council assembled at Constantinople wherein he was condemned Secondly Innocentius annuls his condemnation and declares him innocent Thirdly he Excommunicates Atticus Bishop of Constantinople and Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria for persecuting S. Chrysostome Fourthly after S. Chrysostome was dead in Banishment Pope Innocentius Excommunicates Arcadius the Emperour of the East and Eudoxia his wife Fifthly the Emperor and Empress humble themselves crave pardon of him and were absolved by him The same is evident in those matters which passed about the year 450. where Theodosius the Emperour of the East having too much favoured the Eutychian Hereticks by the instigation of Chrysaphius the Eunuch and Pulcheria his Empress and so intermedled too far in Ecclesiasticall causes yet he ever bore that respect to the See of Rome which doubtless in those circumstances he would not have done had he not beleeved it an Obligation that he would not permit the Eutychian Council at Ephesus to be assembled without the knowledge and authority of the Roman Bishop Leo the first and so wrote to him to have his presence in it who sent his Legats unto them And though both Leo's letters were dissembled and his Legate affronted and himself excommunicated by wicked Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria and president of that Conventicle who also was the chief upholder of the Eutychians yet Theodosius repented before his death banished his wife Pulcheria and Chrysaphius the Eunuch the chief favourers of the Eutychians and reconciled himself to the Church with great evidences of sorrow and pennance (m) Concil Chalced. Act. 1. Presently after An. 451. follows the fourth General Council of Chalcedon concerning which these particulars occur to our present purpose First Martianus the Eastern Emperour wrote to Pope Leo That by the Popes Authority a General Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to chuse Secondly both Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople and the rest of the Eastern Bishops sent to the Legats of Pope Leo by his order the profession of their faith Thirdly the Popes Legats sate in the first place of the Council before all the Patriarchs (n) Concil Chalced. Act 3. Fourthly they prohibited by his order given them That Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria and chief upholder of the Eutychians should sit in the Council but be presented as a guilty person to be judged because he had celebrated a Council in the Eastern Church without the consent of the Bishop of Rome which said the Legats never was done before nor could be done lawfully This order of Pope Leo was presently put in execution by consent of the whole Council and Dioscorus was judged and condemned his condemnation and deposition being pronounced by the Popes Legats and after subscribed by the Council Fifthly the Popes Legats pronounced the Church of Rome to be * Which could not be by reason of the Sanctity and truth which was then in it for the Church of Milan and many others in France Africa and Greece were also then pure and holy and yet none have this title save the Church of Rome In the time of Iustinian the Emperour Agapet Pope even in Constantinople against the will both of the Emperour and Empress deposed Anthymus and ordained Mennas in his place Liberat. in Breviario cap. 21. Marcellinus Comes in Chronico Concil Constantin sub Menna act 4. And the same S Greg. c. 7. ep 63. declares that both the Emperour and Bishop of Constantinople acknowledged that the Church of Constantinople was subject to the See of Rome And l. 7. Ep. 37. Et alibi pronounceth that in case of falling into offences he knew no Bishop which was not subject to the Bishop of Rome Caput omnium Ecclesiarum the Head of all Churches before the whole Council and none contradicted them Sixtly all the Fathers assembled in that Holy Council in their Letter to Pope Leo acknowledged themselves to be his children and wrote to him as to their Father Seventhly they humbly begged of him that he would grant that the Patriarch of Constantinople might have the first place among the Patriarchs after that of Rome which notwithstanding that the Council had consented to as had also the third General Council of Ephesus done before yet they esteemed their grants to be of no sufficient force untill they were confirmed by the Pope And Leo thought not fit to yeeld to their petition against the express ordination of the first Council of Nice where Alexandria had the preheminence as also Antioch and Hierusalem before that of Constantinople Saint Cyril of Alexandria though he wholly disallowed Nestorius his doctrine yet he would not break off Communion with him till Celestinus the Pope had condemned him whose censure he required and expected Nestorius also wrote to Celestine acknowledging his Authority and expecting from him the censure of his doctrine Celestinus condemned Nestorius and gave him the space of ten daies to repent after he had received his condemnation All which had effect in the Eastern Church where Nestorius was Patriarch of Constantinople (o) S. August Tom. 1. Epist. Rom. Pontif. post Epist. 2. ad Celestinum After this Saint Cyrill having received Pope Leo's Letters wherein he gave power to Saint Cyril to execute his condemnation against Nestorius and to send his condemnatory letters to him gathered a Council of his next Bishops and sent Letters
and Articles to be subscribed with the Letters of Celestine to Nestorius which when Nestorius had received he was so far from repentance that he accused St. Cyril in those Articles to be guilty of the Heresie of Apollinaris so that St. Cyril being also accused of Heresie was barred from pronouncing sentence against Nestorius so long as he stood charged with that Accusation Theodosius the Emperour seeing the Eastern Church embroiled in these difficulties writes to Pope Celestine about the assembling of a general Council at Ephesus by Petronius afterwards Bishop of Bononia as is manifest in his life written by Sigonius Pope in his Letters to Theodosius not only professeth his consent to the calling of that Council but also prescribeth in what form it was to be celebrated as Firmus Bishop of Cesarea in Cappadocia testified in the Council of Ephesus Hereupon Theodosius sent his Letters to assemble the Bishops both of the East and West to that Council And Celestine sent his Legats thither with order not to examine again in the Council the cause of Nestorius but rather to put Celestines condemnation of him given the year before into execution S. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria being constituted by Celestine his chief Legate ordinary in the East by reason of that preheminency and primacy of his See after that of Rome presided in the Council yet so that Philip who was only a Priest and no Bishop by reason that he was sent Legatus à Latere from Celestine and so supplied his place as he was chief Bishop of the Church subscribed the first even before S. Cyril and all the other Legats and Patriarchs In the sixth Action of this holy Council Iuvenalis patriarch of Hierusalem having understood the contempt which Iohn patriarch of Antioch who was cited before the Council shewed of the Bishops and the Popes Legats there assembled expressed himself against him in these words Quod Apostolica ordinatione Antiqua Traditione which were no way opposed by the Fathers there present Antiochena sedes perpetuo à Romana diregeretur judicareturque That by Apostolical ordination and ancient Tradition the See of Antioch was perpetually directed and judged by the See of Rome which words not only evidence the precedency of place as Dr. Hammond would have it but of power and judicature in the Bishop of Rome over a Patriarch of the Eastern Church and that derived from the time and ordination of the Apostles The Council therefore sent their decrees with their condemnation of Nestorius to Pope Clestize who presently ratified and confirmed them Not long after this in the year 445. Valentinian the Emperour makes this manifesto of the most high Ecclesiastical authority of the See of Rome in these words Seeing that the merit of S. Peter who is the Prince of the Episcopal Crown and the Dignity of the City of Rome and no less the authority of the holy Synod hath established the primacy of the Apostolical See lest presumption should attempt any unlawful thing against the authority of that * See this at length in Baronius in the year 445. See for then finally will the peace of the Churches be preserved every where if the whole universality acknowledge their Governour when these things had been hitherto inviolably observed c. Where he makes the succession from S. Peter to be the first foundation of the Roman Churches primacy and his authority to be not only in place but in power and government over the whole visible Church And adds presently that the definitive sentence of the Bishop of Rome given against any French Bishop was to be of force through France even without the Emperors Letters Patents For what shall not be lawful for the authority of so great a Bishop to exercise upon the Churches and then adds his Imperial precept in these words But this occasion hath provoked also our command that hereafter it shall not be lawful neither for Hilarius whom to be still intituled a Bishop the sole humanity of the meek Prelate i. e. the Bishop of Rome permits neither for any other to mingle arms with Ecclesiastical matters or to resist the commands of the Bishop of Rome c. We define by this our perpetual decree that it shall neither be lawful for the French Bishops nor for those of other Provinces against the ancient custom to attempt any thing without the authority of the venerable Pope of the eternal City But let it be for a law to them and to all whatsoever the authority of the Apostolick See hath determined or shall determine So that what Bishop soever being called to the Tribunal of the Roman Bishop shall neglect to come is to be compelled by the Governour of the same Province to present himself before him Which evidently proves that the highest Universal Ecclesiastical Judge and Governour was and ever is to be the Bishop of Rome which the Council of Chalcedon before mentioned plainly owned when writing to Pope Leo they say * Epist. Concil ad Leon. Pap. Act. 1. sequ Thou governest us as the head doth the members contributing thy good will by those which hold thy place Behold a Primacy not only of Precedency but of Government and Authority which Lerinensis confirms contr Haeres cap. 9. where speaking of Stephen Pope he saies Dignum â—â—t opinor existimans si reliquos omnes tantum fidei devotione quantum loci authoritate superabat esteeming it as I think a thing worthy of himself if he overcame all others as much in the devotion of faith as he did in the Authority of his place And to confirm what this universal Authority was he affirms that he sent a Law Decree or Command into Africa Sanxit That in matter of rebaptization of Hereticks nothing should be innovated which was a manifest argument of his Spiritual Authority over those of Africa and à paritate rationis over all others I will shut up all with that which was publickly pronounced and no way contradicted and consequently assented to in the Council of Ephesus one of the four first general Councils in this matter Tom. 2. Concil p. 327. Act. 1. where Philip Priest and Legat of Pope Celestine says thus Gratias agimus sanctae venerandaeque synodo quod literis sancti beatique Papae nostri vobis recitatis sanctas chartas sanctis vestris vocibus sancto capiti vestro sanctis vestris exclamationibus exhibueritis Non enim ignorat vestra beatitudo totius fidei vel etiam Apostolorum caput esse beatum Apostolum Petrum And the same Philip Act. 3. p. 330. proceeds in this manner Nulli dubium imo saeculis omnibus notum est quod sanctus beatissimusque Petrus Apostolorum Princeps caput Fideique columna Ecclesiae Catholicae Fundamentum à Domino nostro Jesu Christo Salvatore generis humani ac redemptore nostro claves regni accepit solvendique ac ligandi peccata potestas ipsi data est qui ad hoc usque tempus ac
the Churches within the Empire as you do but the care of the Universal Church Baxter Num. 69. Yet let me tell you that I will take Pope Leo for no competent Iudge or Witness though you call him a Saint as long as we know what passed between him and the Council of Chalcedon Non-prooâ—â—â—â— and that he was one of the first tumified Bishops of Rome he shall not be Iudge in his own Cause Iohnson Num. 69. Sir I am really mov'd to compassionate you when I see you write in this manner Had it not been enough for you to extenuate the Authority of the Holy Council as you here do but that you must as the Chalcedonian Council sayes of Dioscorus extend your spite against him that is S. Leo to whom our Saviour hath committed the care of the Vineyard to wit his whole Church Who ever before you and those Novellists of your spirit since the time of S. Leo branded him with the black note of a Tumified Pope Was it not this great S. Leo of whom the Council of Chalcedon pronounced that the care of Christ's Vineyard was committed to him by our Saviour Vâ—â—de Concilâ—â—um Calced in literis ad Leonem Was it not he who was stiled by the Ecclesiasticks of those times The Oecumenical Bishop Did not that holy Council call him their Head their Father their Directour and you fear not to call him a Tumified Pope I beseech God to forgive you And what I pray past betwixt him and the Council of Chalcedon which might occasion this rash censure Read his Epistles to the Council and to Anastasâ—â—us Bishop of Thessalonica and you will see it was nothing but the zeal of conserving the Authority of the Nicene Council in the Order and Dignity of Patriarchâ—â— which moved him to withstand that surreptitious Canon for the preferring Constantinople before Alexandria and Antioch to which the Nicene Council had decreed the two first Patriarchates after Rome The Primacy of his Sea was not questioned at all in that Canon for it is there expresly ordained that Constantinople should be the second after Rome Now for you to call him a Tumified Bishop for no other reason given here then for seeking to maintain the Ancient Decrees of Nice against all innovations of subsequent Councils will seem very strange I suppose to all Christian Readers Baxter Num. 70. But you add that the Abassines of Ethiopia were under the Patriarch of Alexandria anciently and he under the Authority of the Roman Bishop Reply 1. Your bare word without proof shall not perswade us that the Abassines were under the Patriarch of Alexandria for above three hundred if not four hundred years after Christ. Prove it and then your words are regardable Iohnson Num. 70. Why say you I speak without proof when I direct you pag. 42. by saying as we shall see presently to my proof of it which is pag. 45. where I prove it from one of your own Historians Baxter Num. 71.2 At the Council of Nice the contrary is manifest by the sixth Canon Mos antiquus perdurat in Egypto vel Lybia vel Pentapoli ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem c. Iohnson Num. 71. Your argument is fallacious and proceeds a parte ad totum The Canon sayes no more then that according to the ancient custome Egypt Lybia Can. Nicen. â—â— 6. and Pentapolis were subject to him which may be most true though more Provinces were under his Jurisdiction then these Should one say that England and Scotland is now subject to our most gracious Soveraign Charles the Second durst you conclude thence that Ireland was not part of his Kingdome Nor was it here the intention of the Council to nominate expresly all the Provinces under Alexandria nor to make a new Constitution but a Decree of Confirming the Ancient Custome about the Jurisdiction of Patriarchs Now seeing Meletius and his Complices had schismatically exercised Jurisdiction in those Provinces the Council to abrogate that intrusion and usurpation had a particular occasion of nominating these three thereby to restore the Ancient Right to the Sea of Alexandria leaving the other parts of that Patriarchate about which there was no controversie to the ancient custome without nomination of particulars as it did in relation to Antioch Socrat. l. 1. c. 6. Theodor. l. 1. c. 9. Conc. Nicen. Can. 6. where none at all are nominated in that Canon because there was no such occasion given of nominating any but leaving that Patriarch to that extent of Jurisdiction over those Provinces and Churches which he was known in those times to have possessed anciently Moreover some of the Learned are of opinion that under the name of Egypt Ethiopia is included And it seems probable that Egypt was a denomination including many other particular Countreys and Provinces in those parts for the Constantinopolitane Council c. 2. citing this 6 th Canon of Nice says that it was decreed in that Canon that the Patriarch of Alexandria should govern onely the affairs of Egypt neither naming Lybia nor Pentapolis which are specified in that Nicene Canon so that Egypt included all the adjacent Countreys in those parts and consequently Ethiopia Baxter Num. 72. And the common descriptions of the Alexandrian Patriarchate in those times confine it to the Empire and leave out Ethiopia Iohnson Num. 72. You should have done well to have cited some Authors one at least in proof of this seeing I had cited one and he of your own who says the contrary Ross. p. 99. infra citaâ—â— When you produce those Descriptions they shall be answered In the Interim I stand to my Assertion as not yet disproved Baxter Num. 73. Pisanus new inventions we regard not Iohnson Num. 73. The question is not what you regard or regard not but what you ought to regard according to right Reason I doubt not but Dr. Heylin hath the esteem of a person as much indued with Learning and Reason as your self who hath so much regard to Pisanus his Edition of the Arabick Canons of the Nicene Council Canon 36. Arab Edit Dr. Heylin Cosmograph lib. 4. pag. 977. Edit ultim that he cites them as Authentical and thereon grounds the subjection of Ethiopia to the Patriarch of Alexandria to have been confirmed in the Council of Nice and continued so ever since Behold Ross and Heylin both your own are against you CHAP. V. The ARGUMENT Num. 74. Proofs from Antiquity that the Bishops of Alexandria were more subject to the Bishops of Rome then are the rest of the Earls of England to the Earl of Arundel or the younger Iustices of the Peace to him who in a Sessions is the Eldest amongst them ibid. Bishops of Rome exercising Spiritual Iurisdiction and Authority over the three first Patriarchs of the East n. 75. No limitatiun to the Roman Empire mentioned in Antiquity in relation to the Popes Authority num 76. If any one Extra-Imperial Church be granted subject
to Romes Authority all others must be so a paritate rationis unless some reason be alledged why that was subject rather then others n. 79. No Emperor could give Authority to Rome over Extra-Imperial Churches n. 80. Primacy and Primate put absolutely in the Ecclesiastical signification argues alwayes Iurisdiction over others No Ancient Authority alledged or alledgeable that the Bishops within the Empire made the Pope chief Bishop even in place or meer precedency before Constantine's time or that the Bishops of the West constituted him by unanimous consent to have Power and Iurisdiction over all the Western Bishops Baxter Num. 74. I deny that the Patriarch of Alexandria was under the Government of the Bishop of Rome any more then the Iury are under the Foreman or the Iunior Iustices on the Bench under the Senior or York under London or the other Earls of England under the Earl of Arundel Iohnson Num. 74. I perceive you are very free in your denials but it had been well done to have considered twice before you deny once a thing so evidently true as this is Was the Patriarch of Alexandria no more under the Bishop of Rome then those which you here nominate one under the other Are you serious Why then did the Christians of Pentapolis write their accusations to Dionysius Bishop of Rome against Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria Anno 263. S. Anthanas de Sentent Dionys. Idem in Com. de Synod Why did the same Pope calling a Council in Italy for that end sit in solemn Judgement upon his Cause and write Monitory Letters to him to send him the Confession and Declaration of his Faith which he did accordingly and justified himself to the Bishop of Rome How came Peter Bishop of Alexandria Anno 337. Socrat. l. 4. c. 30. by vertue of Pope Damasus his Letters to be restored to his Bishoprick Why writ Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria Anno 404. Apud Palladâ—â— Dialog to prevent the writing of S. Chrysostome to Pope Innocentius in his own defence that he might escape the sentence and punishment of the Churches censure which S. Chrysostome required the Pope to inflict upon him and his complices Why did Innocentius the First together with the other Occidental Bishops Anno 407. D. Chrysost. epist ex Septem Tom. 5. operum ejus Extat etiam Tom. 1. epist. Rom. Pont. post Innocâ—â—nt ep 16. Anno 451. excommunicate Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria How came Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria to be deprived from sitting in the Council of Chalcedon and to be presented before the Council as a guilty person by vertue of a Sentence to that effect from S. Leo Bishop of Rome Concil Chalced. Act. 1. Evagr. lib. 2. cap. 4. What was the reason why Timotheus Solopaciolus craved pardon of Pope Simplicius for reciting the name of Dioscorus at the holy Altar compelled to it as he affirms by the Eutychians What reason had Pope Simplicius to write objurgatory Letters to Acacius because in a matter of so great moment as was the restitution of Petrus Mogus the Eutychian to the Sea of Alexandria and the exclusion of Ioannes Talaida a Catholick Simplicâ—â—us epist 17. Canonically elected to that Sea Or why writ those of Alexandria to Pope Simplicius Anno 483. to intreat him to confirm the election and instalment of Ioannes Talaida What moved Ioannes Talaida to procure Commendatory Letters to Simplicius from Calendion Bishop of Antioch to favour his Appeal against Petrus Mogus and Acacius and why did Felix Successor to Simplicius with a Western Council wherein he presided send a Writ by way of Citation to Acacius to answer in the Judicature of Rome to the Objections made against him by the said Iohn And why writ Felix to Zeno the Emperour to compel Acacius to appear Liberat. cap 18. Evagr. l. 3. c. 18 sâ—â—q and answer to his Adversaries at Rome And why was Petrus Fullonis condemn'd for having been intruded Cod. Crescâ—â—ni and Collect. recusa apud Baronium Tom. 61 Liberat. c. 1â—â— with exclusion of the lawfull Bishop Calendion into the Sea of Antioch And why writ Acacius himself to Felix Bishop of Rome to confirm his condemnation of Petrus Gnapheus and Ioannes Bishop of Apamea Nor will your usual Solution to my subsequent Objections serve your turn For it appears evidently in the form used in Excommunications and Condemnations from Rome they were not onely Declarations that the Bishop of Rome and his Bishops substracted themselves from communicating with them which say you any Christian may do but a positive ejection of them out of the Church and from the Communion of all faithfull Christians Thus runs the Excommunication and Condemnation of Acacius Bishop of Christantinople and his adherents the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch given out against them by Pope Felix Habe ergo cum his quos libenter amplecteris portionem ex sententiâ praesenti Sacerdotali honore Communione Catholicâ necnon etiam à fidelium numero segregatus sublatum tibi munus Ministerii Sacerdotalis agnosce Sancti Spiritus judicio Apostolicâ authoritate damnatus nunquamque Anathematis vinculis exuendus Receive therefore thy portion with those whom thou so willingly embracest by vertue of this sentence Thou art separated from Priestly Honour from Catholick Communion and from the number of the Faithfull Know that thou art deprived of Name and Ministery of a Priest being condemned by the judgement of the Holy Ghost and by Apostolical Authority never to be loosed from the bonds of this Anathema See here 1. A positive exclusion from the number and communion of the Faithfull 2. A deposition from Priesthood or being Bishop 3. That this is done not by way of counsel but of authority authoritate Apostolicâ it was done by the Popes Apostolical Authority 4. That this judgement of the Apostolick Sea is attributed to the Holy Ghost And lastly That the Pope exercises this high authority over the three chiefest and highest Patriarchs of Alexandria Antioch and Constantinople at the same time From which it will hereafter sufficiently appear how groundlesse your Answers are to my Objections But to proceed Nor yet can you alledge as you do to some of my proofs that these were unlawful and unjust proceedings For first The matter of the sentence was not unjust those being Hereticks Schismaticks Intruders and Usurpers against whom the sentence was decreed and that it was not unjust as proceeding from one who had no authority to inflict such a punishment is clear For neither did the Catholick nor Orthodox Christians no nor those very Schismaticks who were thus censur'd by Felix pretend any thing against the power of his Authority over them and if any such plea were used by them let it be evidenced out of authentical Authors in or about those times Now to your discourse if either the Foreman of a Jury or the Senior Justice upon the Bench or the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London or
were the universal governours because at Nice and other Councils they sate before the legates of the Pope and in many his legates had no place Is this argument good think you O unfaithfull partiality in the matters of salvation non proof William Iohnson Num. 220. O you can do wonders but I would gladly see you doe what you say you can do You have not yet done it and I cannot believe you can do 't till I see you have don 't there is a great difference betwixt saying and doing Your groundless exclamation I regard not it is not partiality what you call so nor what you say you can prove to be so prove it in your next to be partiality Mr. Baxter Num. 221. You say they prohibited Dioscorus to sit by his order Reply 1. What then therefore he was universal governour of the Church All alike Any accuser in a Parliament or Synod may require that the accused may not sit as Iudge till he be tried fallacy 12. William Iohnson Num. 221. Your reply is fallacious procâ—â—ding ex falso supposito p. 150. See the place cited in my p. 54. Con Chal. act 3. Leo's order that Dioscorus should not sit in Council was not because he was accused but because he was condemned nor was it a bare requiring but a strickt command and injunction that he should not sit there as a Bishop of that Council Mr. Baxter Num 222.2 But did you not know that Leo's legates were not obeyed but that the Gloriosissimi judices amplissimus senatus required that the cause should be first made known and that it was not done tiâ—â— Eusebius Episcop Dorylaei had read his bill of complaint Binius Act. 1. pag. 5. Fallacy 13. William Iohnson Num. 222. No really I know it not nor I thinke you neither You commit an other fallacy by an ignoratio elenchi the Iudices Gloriosissimi c and the complaint read against him by Eusebius Epis. Dorylaei was not put as a remora to Dioscorus not sitting in the Council with the rest of the Fathers but in order to his and others publick condemnation which with great applause of the whole Council was performed in the end of the first action So skilful are you in Church history if you make not your self seem more unskilful then you are to say something which may make a noise in the ears of the unlearned It being therefore clear that Dioscorus was prohibited upon St. Leo's order to sit in Council It followes that he was universal Governour of the Church a paritate rationis ut supra for if he had power to remove the cheif Patriarch of the Church next after himself from having an Episcopal vote in a general Council which was an act of absolute jurisdiction over him much more had he power upon like grounds to remove any other inferiour Patriarck or Prelate through the whole Church there having been no proof alleadged by you that this his power was limited to the sole Empire and I having now produced many reasons that there could be no such limitation Mr. Baxter Num. 223. You say the Popes legates pronounced the Church of Rome to be Caput omnium Ecclesiarum Reply 1. What then therefore he was Governour of all the Christian world I deny the consequence You do nothing but beg not a word of proof Caput was but membrum principale the Patriarch primae sedis and that but in the Empire William Iohnson Num. 223. This consequence is made strong by the weakenes of your reply Is Caput omnium Ecclesiarum the head of all Churches no more with you then the principal member of all Churhes in the Empire that is in your new theologie one who was to take of all other Churches without any true and proper authority over them see you not in what straits you are put should some new Sabellian or Câ—â—rinthian rise up and deny that our Saviour were any more then the cheif person in the Church that is to take place before all others but without any jurisdiction or authority over the whole Church and a Catholick should labour to prove he hath authority from that place of St. Paul Coloss. 1.18 Ipse est Caput Corporis Ecclesiae he is the head of his body the Church And the Sabellian having read this book of yours Should reply as you do here to me what then therefore Christ is governour of the Christian world I deny this consequence Caput is but membrum principale head is no more then the principal part c. Would you not make pretty work with Scripture and open a gap to every novellist to elude no less yours then our proofs for Christs supream government over his Church but I see you care not whom you hurt so you can but avoide the present stroak Nay you have delivered here a precious doctrine no lesse for your she citizens at London then your good wives of Kidderminster for when their husbond teach them obedience and subjection to them from St. Paul 1 Cor. 11.3 Where he sayes that the husband is head of the wife they will have an answer ready at their fingers ends from your doctrine here that that head is no more then the principal part of the family in place but not in authority over their wives nay you have spun a fair thred also for the independency of the Protestant English Church of its head in giving ground to take away all Authority from his sacred Majestie and his royal predecessors over it in quality of heads of the English Church and making them to have no more then a bare precedency in the Church as no more then the principal members in the Church in order and dignity but not in authority But had you a little attended to those words of the Popes Legates you might have discovered they were spoke by them to prove not the bare precedency in place but soveraignty in authority for they alleadge them to corroborate the power of the Roman Church as sufficient to prohibite the sitting of Dioscorus in the Council by vertue of Pope Leo's order And you were prest as hard to finde an answer for omnium Ecclesiarum all Churches that is to say non omnium not all but only those within the Empire thus you can make all some and the whole a sole part when you have nothing else to say see you not how you give advantage to the Manichees and Menandrians c. who when one should have prest them Iohn 1.2 That our Saviour is creatour of all things they should have replyed as you do thar is not of all but only of some things not of bodies but of spirit only Are you a person fit to dispute in matters concerning conscience and salvation when rather then not reply to what cannot in reason be answered you will quite destroy the words opposed to you by your glosse upon them are not these desperate Intregues But t is very strange that the ancient Councils and Fathers
is not directly alledged to prove an universal Monarch as you say but to prove an uninterrupted continuance of visible Pastors that being only affirmed in the proposition which I prove by it 2. This is already answered I stand to the judgement of any true Logician nay or expert Lawyer or rational person whether a Negative proposition be to be proved otherwise then by obliging him who denies it to give an instance to infringe it Should you say no man hath right to my Benefice and Function in my Parish save my self and another should deny what you said would not you or any rational man in your case answer him that by denying your proposition he affirmed that some other had right to them and to make good that affirmation was obliged to produce who that was which till he did you still remained the sole just possessor of your Benefice as before and every one will judge that he had no reason to deny your assertion when he brought no proof against it This is our case The Contradiction which you would draw from this against my Nego Concedo c. exacted from the Respondent and nothing else follows not For that prescription is to be understood that the Respondent of himself without scope given him by the opponent was not to use any other forms in answering but if the opponent should require that the respondent give reasons or instances or proofs of what he denies that then the Respondent is to proceed to them And this is most ordinary in all Logical Disputations where strict form is observed and known to every young Logician Instances therefore demanded by the opponent were not excluded but only such excursions out of form as should proceed from the respondent without being exacted by the opponent You say though I make a Negative of it I may put it in other terms at my pleasure But the question is not what I may do but what I did I required not an Answer to an Argument which I may frame but to that which I had then framed which was expressed in a negative proposition You tell me if I prove the Popes universal Supremacy you will be a Papist And I tell you I have proved it by this very Argument That either He hath that supremacy or some other Church denying that he hath alwaies had it hath been always visible and that Church I require should be named if any such be and whilest you refuse to name that Church as here you do you neither answer the Argument nor become a Papist You say I affirm and I must prove I say in the Proposition about which we now speak I affirm not so must not prove and you by denying it must affirm so must prove You prove it is not your part here to prove because the Popes Supremacy could not be denied before it was affirmed and you must be obliged to prove that deniall I oblige you not to prove a continued visible Church formally and expresly denying it but that it was of such a constitution as was inconsistent with any such supremacy or could and did subsist without it which is an Affirmative You affirm that because I say you cannot be saved if you deny that Supremacy and you say that I may be saved though I hold it therefore you are not bound to prove what I reprove but I to prove my negative proposition But this would prove as well that a Mahumetan is not bound to prove his religion to you but you to prove yours to him because you say he cannot be saved being a Mahumetan and he says that you may be saved being a Christian. See you not that the obligation of proof in Logical form depends not of the first Position or Thesis but must be drawn from the immediate proposition affirmative or negative which is or ought to be proposed To what you say of an Accident and a corrupt part I have already answered To what you say of a Vice-king not being necessary to the constitution of a kingdom but a king and subjects only is true if a vice-king be not instituted by the Full power of an absolute Authority over that kingdom to be an Ingredient into the essence of the Kingdom in the Kings absence But if so constituted it will be essential now my proposition saith and my Argument proves that by the Absolute Authority of Christ Saint Peter and his Successors were instituted Governors in Christs place of his whole visible Church and whatsoever Government Christ institutes of his Church must be essential to his Church You see now the Disparity You insist to have me prove a Negative and I insist to have you prove that Affirmative which you fall into by denying my Negative and leave it to judgement whose exaction is the more conform to reason and Logical form But if I prove not here say you the whole Catholick Churches holding ever the Popes Supremacy you shall take it as a giving up my cause I tell you again that I have proved it by this very Argument by force of Syllogistical form and it is not reasonable to judge that I have given up my cause if I prove not again what I have already proved Your taking upon you the part of an Opponent now is you know out of Season when that is yours mine shall be the Respondent AT length you give a fair attempt to satisfie your Obligation and to return such an Instance as I demanded of you But you are too free by much in your offer I demand one Congregation and you promise to produce more then an hundred But as they abound in the number so are they deficient in the quality which I require I demand that the Answerer nominate any Congregation of Christians which always till this present time since Christ hath been visible c. and you tell me of more then an hundred Congregations besides that which acknowledges Saint Peter c. whereof not any one hath been all that designed time visible which is as if I had demanded an Answerer to nominate any Family of Gentry which hath successively continued ever since William the Conquerour till this present time and he who undertakes to satisfie my demand should nominate more then a hundred Families whereof not so much as one continued half that time You nominate first all these present the Greeks Armenians Ethiopians besides the Protestants These you begin with Now to satisfie my demand you must assert that these whom you first name are both one Congregation and have been visible ever since Christs time This you do not in the pursuit of your Allegations For Numb 2. you nominate none at all but tell me that in the last age there were as many or more What were these as many or more were they the same you nominated first or others I required some determinate Congregation to be nominated all the while and you tell me or as many or more but say not of what
such and the consent of all Orthodox Christians who ever since esteemed them no other or you must make condemned Hereticks parts of the Catholick Church against all antiquity and Christianity And for those Greeks near Constantinople who are not infected with Nestorianism and Eutychianism yet in the Procession of the Holy Ghost against both us and you they must be thought to maintain manifest Heresie it being a point in a fundamental matter of faith the Trinity and the difference betwixt those Greeks and the Western Church now for many hundred of years and in many General Councils esteemed and defined to be reall and great yea so great that the Greeks left the Communion of the Roman Church upon that difference alone and ever esteemed the Bishop of * See Nilus on this Subject Rome and his party to have fallen from the true faith and lost his ancient Authority by that sole pretended error and the Latins always esteemed the Greeks to be in a damnable error in maintaining the contrary to the doctrine of the Western or Roman Church in that particular And yet sure they understood what they held and how far they differed one from another much better then some Novel Writers of yours who prest by force of Argument have no other way left them to maintain a perpetual visibility then by extenuating that difference of Procession betwixt the Greek and Latin Church which so many ages before Protestancy sprung up was esteemed a main fundamental error by both parts caused the Greeks to abandon all subjection and Communion to the Bishops of Rome made them so divided the one from the other that they held each other Hereticks Schismaticks and desertors of the true Faith as they continue still to do to this day and yet you will have them both parts of the Catholick Church But when you have made the best you can of these Greeks Armenians Ethiopians Protestants whom you first name you neither have deduced nor can deduce them successively in all ages till Christ as a different Congregation of Christians from that which holds the Popes Supremacy which was my Proposition For in the year 1500. those who became the first Protestants were not a Congregation different from those who held that supremacy nor in the year 500 were the Greeks a visible Congregation different from it nor in the year 300. were the Nestorians nor in the year 200. the Eutychians a different Congregation from those who held the said Supremacy But in those respective years those who first begun those Heresies were involved within that Congregation which held it as a part of it and assenting therein with it who after in their several ages and beginnings fell off from it as dead branches from the tree that still remaining what it ever was and only continuing in a perpetuall visibility of succession Though therefore you profess never to have seen convincing proof of this in the first 400 years and labour to infringe it in the next ages yet I will make an Essay to give you a taste of those innumerable proofs of this visible consent in the Bishop of Romes Supremacy not of Order only but of Power Authority and jurisdiction over all other Bishops in the ensuing instances which happened within the first 400 or 500 or 600 years (a) Liberatus in Brev. c. 16. Iohn Bishop of Antioch makes an Appeal to Pope Simplicius And Flavianus (b) Epist. praeambula Concil Chalcedon Bishop of Constantinople being deposed in the false Council of Ephesus immediatly appeals to the Pope as to his judge (c) Concil Chalcedon Act. 1. Theodoret was by Pope Leo restored and that by an (d) Concil Chalcedon Act. 8. appeal unto a just judgement (e) S. Cyprian Epist. 67. Saint Cyprian desires Pope Stephen to depose Marcian Bishop of Arles that another might be substituted in his place And to evince the supream Authority of the Bishops of Rome it is determined in the (f) Concil Sard. cap. 4 cited by S. Athan. Apol. 2. page 753. Council of Sardis That no Bishop deposed by other neighbouring Bishops pretending to be heard again was to have any successor appointed untill the case were defined by the Pope Eustathius (g) St. Basil Epist. 74. Bishop of Sebast in Armenia was restored by Pope Liberius his Letters read and received in the Council of Tyana and (h) St. Chrysost. Epist. 2. ad Innocent Saint Chrysostome expresly desires Pope Innocent not to punish his Adversaries if they do repent Which evinces that Saint Chrysostome thought that the Pope had power to punish them And the like is written to the Pope by the (i) Concil Ephes. p. 2. Act. 5. Council of Ephesus in the case of Iohn Bishop of Antioch (k) St. Athanas. ad Solit. Epist. Iulius in lit ad Arian ap Athan. Apol. 1. pag. 753. Theodoret lib. 2. cap. 4. Athanas. Apol. 2. Zozom lib. 3. cap. 7. The Bishops of the Greek or Eastern Church who sided with Arius before they declared themselves to be Arians sent their Legates to Iulius Bishop of Rome to have their cause heard before him against S. Athanasius the same did S. Athanasius to defend himself against them which Arian Bishops having understood from Iulius that their Accusations against S. Athanasius upon due examination of both parties were found groundless and false required rather fraudulently then seriously to have a fuller Tryal before a General Council at Rome which to take away all shew of excuse from them Pope Iulius assembled Saint Athanasius was summoned by the Pope to appear before him and the * The Appeal of Theodoret from that Council as to his judge is so undeniable that Chamier is forced to acknowledge it Tom. 2. l. 13. â—â— 9. p. 498 and the whole Council of Calcedon acknowledged the right of that Appeal restoring Theodoret to his Bishoprick by force of an Order given upon that Appeal by Leo Pope to restore him Concerning Saint Athanasius being judged and righted by Iulius Pope Chamier cit p. 497. acknowledges the matter of fact to be so but against all antiquity pretends that judgment to have been unjust Which had it been so yet it shews a true power of judging in the Pope though then unduly executed otherwise Saint Athanasius would never have made use of it neither can it be condemned of injustice unless Saint Athanasius be also condemned as unjust in consenting to it Nicâ—â—ph lib. 13. cap. 34. Chamier cit p. 498. says other Bishops restored those who were wrongfully deposed as well as the Pope Which though it were so yet never was there any single Bishop sâ—â—ve the Pope who restored any who were out of their respective Diocess or Patriarchates but always collected together in a Synod by common voice and that in regard only of their neighbouring Bishops whereas the Bishop of Rome by his sole and single authority restored Bishops wrongfully deposed all the Church ever Council in Judgement
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
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
read that Epistle and had thought that any others would be induced by your words to read it William Iohnson Num. 161. This is a strange way of answering I cite not St. Basil as it comprises those matters which treated in regard of himself or of the Western Bishops but only as it contains his testimony of Eustathius having been restored to his Bishopprick by force of the letters of Liberius which he clearly witnesses Now that this was done not by way of recommendation only and testification of his profession of the Catholick Nicene faith in consideration whereof he desired he might be restored to the Bishoppricks is manifest seeing he actually restored him by an absolute command For you to alleadge other passages of a different nature and nothing contrary to what I say and unfit to shew the thing I cite to be untrue is a meer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 why trifle you thus answer the wordes of St. Basil relating to Eustathius and Liberius It is not proofs from your key that I expect here but answers to my Arguments non proof 18. Your branding Liberius with the note of an Arian without proof is as easily rejected by me as said by you what had such a parenthesis as that to do in the argument But I see it is hard to hide rancor where it is excessive For being universal authority drawn from these and the like instances is of force by an argument a paritate Rationis What reason can be alleadged why Pope Liberius should command the restauration of Eustathius a Bishop of the Eastern Patriarck save this that he had power to restore any one wrongfully ejected through the whole Church You assert that all the preheminence he had given him over all the Bishops within the Empire was no more then a Primacy of place and precedency how then came he to have a Primacy of authority and jurisdiction over all the imperial Bishops to judge condemn and restore them shew me who gave him that imperial power this you never resolved in your whole book and I know the reason you could not resolve it into any other grant then into that of Christs institution from the Council of Nice it could not be both because that Council according to your principles rather restraines his power to the Western Churches then extends it into the wole Empire and the Popes exercised power through the wole Empire long before the Council of Nice so that neither that nor any other subsequent Council could give it him nor could the Christian Emperours give him that power for he exercised it long before the Emperours were Christians both in the East and West nor did the the primitive Bishops through the whole Empire give it him for there is no proof in antiquity of any such grant ergo there is no appearance that any such authority was given to the Bishops of Rome from any save Christ himself Now Christ never restrained the power he gave him to the Empire but rather intended it to the whole Church and if he did restrain it shew where and how Mr. Baxter Num. 162. Your seventh proof is from Chrysostome who you say expresly desireth Pope Innocent not to punish his adversaries if they do repent Chrys. Epist. 2. ad Innoc. Reply you much wrong your soul in taking your religion thus on trust some book hath told you this untruth and you beleive it and its like you will perswade others of it as you would do me There is no such word in the Epist. of Chrysostome to Innocent nor any thing like it William Iohnson Num. 162. Either you or I must be in a mighty errour I affirm those very words are in you accuse me of taking things on trust and thereby deceive my self and others and you flatly deny there is any such word in the Epistle of St. Chrys. to Innocent or any thing like it in which Epist. 1 ad Innocentium I again affirm those words are and refer my self to the inspection of the Greek and Latine copies where St. Chrysostome intreates Pope Innocent that in case his opposers would put a remedy to their crimes and Illegalities they might not be punished Mr. Baxter Num. 163 Your eight proof is this the like is written to the Pope by the Council of Ephesus which no doubt you mean is in Binius enough to make a considerable volume and divided it into six tomes and each of those into Chapters and not into acts and if you expect that I should read six Tomes in Folio before I can answer your several sentences or shredds you will put me on a twelve moneths to answer a few sheets of paper If you mean by p. 2. Tom. 2. and by Act. 5. cap. 5. then I must tell you there is not a word of that you say nor like it only there is reference to Celestines and Cyrils Epistles and Celestine in his Epistle recited Tom. 1. cap. 17. threatens Nestorius that if he repent not he will excommunicate him and they will have no communion with him which others did as well as he but not a word of John Bishop af Antioch there nor can I finde any such time in the fourth â—â—ome where John's cause is handled Indeed the notes of your historians divide the Council into sessions but in his fift session there is nothing of John but of Nestorius and in the fourth session John and his party excommunicate Cyril Memnon and others and it was the Council that suspended first and after excommunicated John and it is the Emperour to whom he appeales William Iohnson Num. 163. Had I been sufficiently informed before I writ this answer you had no other edition of the Council then that of Binius I should easily have framed my citations according to that to save you the labour of turning volums over but how should I know that before you told it me I had reason to suppose that you who are and have been for many years so famous a writer of controversies had the Council ready in all sorts of Editions so that none could fall amisse to you If therefore you please to peruse in the Ed of Paul quintus you shall finde the words cited by me conc Ephes. 1. p. 2. Act. 5. in relatione ad Celestinum where writing of Iohn Bishop of Antioch to Pope Celestine the Fathers reserve or remit him to the judgement of Celestine in the interim had provisionally declared him excoÌ„municate deprived him of sacerdotal power whereby it appears how the Council excomunicated him and not only that but declared him also deprived of sacerdotal power Now seeing they reserve this very sentence to the Popes further censure It is manifest they both prefer his sentence before their own and that the sentence was not only negatively to avoide him or not communicate with him but positively to deprive him of the commuion of the faithful which alwayes argues superiority in power as we have seen above in Acatius and tooke the
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
Diocess though the person sentenced lived out of 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 renounced Communion with Chrysostome's 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 do no good or did not availe William Iohnson Num. 191. St. Chrysostomes words now cited evince there was more then bare avoiding of anothers communion Nay it is evident the aâ—â—oresaid authorties that Pope Innocent kept communion with both parties till a further trial of the cause was heard vide S. Chrysostome Ep. 5. ad innoc papam supra citatam Mr. Baxter Num. 191. And it is to be noted that your author Nicephorus tels 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 excomnicate but his letters might do much William Iohnson Num. 192. But sayes Nicephorus the same letters which were writ to Pope Innocent were writ to the Emperour prove that Mr. Baxter Num. 193. Well but to alleadge Niceph. lib. 13. cap. 34. to prove 1 Chrysostomes appeal But you have better or worse eyes then I for I can finde no such thing but a seeking for help as aforesaid 2 You say Innocentius nuls 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 William Iohnson Num. 193. Now at last you confess there was more then a bare avoiding the communion with others Doe you really think that any Bishop whatsoever could null the sentence of a Council both out of his Diocess and his Patriarchate as Innocent did that of Constantinople that is to say validly and lawfully I cannot perswade my self you doe now had it been unlawful St. Chrysostome would never have intreated Innocent to do it If you mean any Bishop can do it invalidly and unlawfully you say nothing to the purpose it was not indeed in his power how far it was regarded nor is it the power of a King how far his commands are regarded by powerful Rebels but what of that he had power to command and censure to annul and restore and so it was in his power to oblige others and procured that it ought to have been regarded that they sinned grievously in disobeying his command which is enough for my purpose But whilst you thus measure out the power of others by the rejection of their commands made by unjust oppressors you shew what spirit you had when you writ this in matter of Monarchial government it imports little what may be said of excommunication in general it is sufficient that this now treated included jurisdiction Mr. Baxter Num. 194.3 You say he excommunicated Atticus and Theophilus and 4. Arcadius the Emperour also and Eudoxia Reply 1. If he did so and did well another Bishop might aswel have done it William Iohnson Num. 194. Now let you and me try whether the sentence of Innocent against these persons were nothing save a bare excomunication in your sense that is a declaration of avoiding them Niceph l. 13. c. 34. Glicas Ann par 4. extant Tom 1. Epist Rom Pontif. Ep. Innoc 17. Georgius Patri Alex citatus a S. Io. Damasc orat de Imagin a Photio in Biblioth in Greg Alexandr extatque Graece editus in Angl. unà cum Oper. S. Chrysost. or that they were unworthy of Christian coÌ„munion or not communicating with them utsupra The words are these Itaque ego minimus peccator cui thronus magni Petri Apostoli creditus est segrego rejicio te illam i. e. Arcadium Eudoxiam a perceptione immaculatorum mysteriorum Christi Dei nostri Episcopum etiam omnem clericum ordinis Sanctae Dei Ecclesiae qui administrare aut exhibere ea vobis ausus fuerit ab ea hora qua praesentes vinculi mei legeritis literas dignitate sua excidisse decerno Quod si ut homines potentes quenquam ad id vi adegeritis Canones nobis a Salvatore per Sanctos Apostolos traditos transgressi fueritis scitote id vobis non parvum peccatum fore in horrenda illa judicii die cum neminem hujus vitae honor dignitas adjuvare poterit arcana autem abdita cordium sub occulos omnium effundentur atque exhibebuntur Arsacium quem pro magno Joanne in thronum Episcopalem produxistis etiam post obitum exauthoramus unà cum omnibus qui consultò cum eo communicarunt Episcopi cujus etiam nomen Sacro Episcoporum albo non inscribatur Indignus eo honore est quum Episcopatum quasi adulterio polluerit Omnis siquidem planta quae a Patre nostro in coelis plantata non est eradicabitur Ad Theophili anathematismum addimus abrogationem absolutam a Christianismo absolutionem I the least of all and a Sinner to whom the throne of the great Apostle Peter is committed segregate and reject thee and her that is Arcadius the Emperour and Eudoxia the Empresse from the receiving of the immaculate misteries of Christ our God and I decree that every Bishop and Clerk of the order of the holy Church to be fallen from his dignity who shall dare to give them to you from that hour wherin you shall have read these obligatory letters of mine But if you as being powerful shall force any of them to exhibite them to you and shall transgress the rules delivered to us from Christ by the holy Apostles it will be no smal sin upon your Conscienâ—â—s at the terrible day of judgement when the Honor and Dignity of this world can help no man but the secrets of hearts shall be powred out manifested before the whole world Arsacius whom you have intruded into the Episcopal throne in place of that worthy and great John Chrysostome we accurse even after his death together with all the Bishops who wittingly communicated with him whose name is not to be written in the Catologue of the holy Bishops He is unworthy of that Honor who hath polluted his Bishopprick as it were with adultery For every plant which is not planted by our Father which is in heaven shall be pluckt up by the roots To Theophilus his curse we add an abrogation or deposition and an absolute rejection from Christianity Whatsoever Blondel presses against the creditableness of this Author yet in matter of this consequence
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
reason why that was subject rather then all the rest I convince by that the subjection of all now it is evident that both the Churches of Spain and France Brittaine and Ireland of France and Germany even when divided from the Roman Empire were as subject to the sea of Rome as were those which remain'd united to the Empire And the ancient historians writing upon the Council of Nice affirm as I have observed that the Bishops of all the Churches in Europe Affrica Theod. l. 1. c. 7. Mar. Victor advers Arium l. 1. Euseb. l. 3. de vita Const. c. 7. Socrat. l. 1. cap. 5. and Asia were call'd to it and consequently from all the Countries excepted by you save India if you account that in America now if they all were call'd to the Council of Nice there must have bin some who had authoritie to call or summon them that was not the Emperour for he had no power out of the Empire ergo it must have been some spiritual power over them but none can be thought with any probability to have that power save the Patriarks and those were all resident within the Empire ergo some spiritual Governour within the Empire had power out of the Empire if so then he who is now suppos'd to have precedency before all the rest is the most likely to have had that power or the others at least who were under his power 42. But to shew unanswerably the universal power of the Roman Bishop as he is successor of St. Peter over the whole Church first the most ancient Fathers of the 4. first ages deferr'd to St. Peter the care and power over the whole Church even over the Apostles themselves Thus in the first age St. Clements (a) Epist. 1. stiles St. Peter the first or chief of the Apostles (b) Epist. ad Rom. St. Ignatius that the Roman Church preceded or was the chief without any limitation to the Empire (c) De divino no. post medium St. Denis calls St. Peter the supream and most ancient summitie of the Divines 43. In the second age (d) In orat de consummatione mundi St. Hippolitus calls St. Peter the rock of faith the Doctor of the Church and the chief or first of Christs disciples (e) Hom. 5. in Exod. lib. 5. in Iohan. hom 17. in Lucam in ep ad Rom. Origen that he is the Rock upon which the Church is built and the first of the Apostles and that Christ had delivered unto him the supream charge in feeding his sheep (f) De veritate Eccles ep 55. ad Corn. ep 7. ad Ianuar. ep 52. ad AntonianuÌ„ St. Cyprian that St. Peter received the charge of feeding Christs sheep that the Church was built upon him that the primacy was given to Peter ut una Christi Ecclesia Cathedra una constitueretur (g) hom de resurrectione St. Eusebius of Alexandria that the Church was built upon the faith of Peter (h) In Chronicis an 44. lib. 2. histori Eusebius Cesariensis intitles St. Peter the first Bishop of the Christians and that the providence of God had made Peter Prince of the Apostles And to (i) Lib. 2. hist. Eccle c. 24. shew even in time of the Heathen Emperours this supream Authority of the Roman Bishop was so notorious in the world that it was known even to them he relates that there being strife in Antioch who of the Pretendents to that Bishoprick had right to possess the Bishops house that it should be deliver'd to him whom the Christians of Italy and the Roman Bishop decreed it was to be given The Nicen Council in the 39. Canon according to the Chaldaick Edition sent into Portugal an 1605. the 11 of November from Franciscus Ross Bishop of Angomala in the Mountains of St. Thomas sayes thus Ita ille cujus principatus Romae est Petro similis authoritate par Patriarcharum omnium dominatum Principatum obtinet Huic sanctioni siquis repugnaverit obsistere ausus fuerit totius Synodi decreto anathemati subjicitur So he whose principality is at Rome like to Peter and equal to him in authority hath the dominion and principality over all the Patriarchs whosoever repugnes against this Decree and shall dare to resist it shall be excommunicated by the decree of the whole Council St. Athanasius calls Marcus Bishop of Rome (k) Ep. ad Marcum the Bishop of the universal Church and after calls the Church of Rome the mother and head of all Churches and promises obedience to it and stiles it the Apostle-ship and in another Epistle (l) Ep. nomine Episc. Aegyp Thebaidis Libiae ad Filicem papam affirmes that their predecessors had ever receiv'd help from the Roman Sea nay even ordinations points of doctrine and redresses That they had recourse to that sea as to their mother they confess they were committed to him and a little after they profess they would not presume without acquainting the Bishop of Rome to conclude any thing the Ecclesiastical Canons commanding that in causes of high concern Majoribus causis that is causes betwixt Bishops about heresie or belonging to the whole Church they should determine nothing without the Roman Bishop and our Lord hath commanded the Bishops of Rome who are placed in the very top of greatness to have the care of all Churches and that the judgement of all Bishops is committed to the Bishop of Rome and that it is decreed in the Council of Nicâ—â— that without the Roman Bishop neither Councils were to be celebrated nor Bishops condemned that the Roman sea was established firm and moveable by Christ our Saviour St. Hilarius (m) in psal 131. calls St. Peter the foundation of the Church the dore-keeper of the Kingdome of heaven and that judge in the judgement of the earth St. Epiphanius (n) In Anchorato inter initium medium that St. Peter was the first of the Apostles establish'd by our Saviour and the firm rock whereupon the Church of God is built and that God (o) heresi 51. circa medium made choise of St Peter to be the head of his Disciples St. Ambrose (p) In luce 24. post medium that our Saviour left St. Peter as the vicar of his love (q) l. 3. de sacer c. 1. St. Ambrose desir'd in all things to accord with the Roman Church and relates that (r) orat de obit Satiri fratris post medium Satyrus his brother demanded of a certain Bishop to have a tryal of his Faith whether that Bishop were of the same minde with the Catholick Bishops that is to say with the Roman Church St. Optatus (s) l. 2. contr Parmen non longe ab initio Melevitanus writing against Parmenian the Donatist sayes thus Igitur negare non potes scire te in urbe Roma Petro primo Cathed am Episcoâ—â—alem esse collatam in qua sederit omnium
that is to such a one to whom every Bishop might appeal in the like case Mr. Baxter Num. 185. Your tenth proof is from Chrysostome's case where you say some things untrue and some impertinent 1. That Chrysostome appeals to Innocent from the Council of Constantinople is untrue if you mean it of an appeal to a superiour Court or Iudge much more if as to an universal Iudge But indeed in his banishment when all other help failed he wrote to him to interpose and helps him as far as he could I need no other proof of the Negative then 1. That there is no proof of the Affirmative that ever he made any such appeal William Iohnson Num. 185. Every appeal from a juridical sentence to have it reversed and the injured person restored to his former right and the unjust Judges punished by the authority of him to whom the appeal is made is to a superiour Court or Judge But St. Chrysostome's appeal was such Ergo it was to a superiour Court or Judge the Minor is evident from the matter of fact for St. Chrysostome writes thus to Pope Innocent Scribite precor authoritate vestra discernite St. Chrys. ep ad Inocent Papam apud Palladium in Dialogo hujusmodi iniqua gesta nobis absentibus judicium non declinantibus nullius esse roboris sicut per suam naturam sunt profecto irrita nulla porro qui talia gessere eos Ecclesiae censurae subjicite nos autem insontes neque convictos neque deprensos neque ullius criminis reos comprobate Ecclesiis nostris jubete restitui ut charitate frui pace confratibus nostris consuetâ possimus Write I beseech you and decree by your Authority that the unjust proceedings against us who were absent and not refusing Iudgement are of no force as indeed in their own nature they are void and null moreover make those to lye under the Churches censure who have committed such injustices but command that we who are innocent unconvicted and unguilty be restored to our Churches that we may re-enjoy our wanted charity and peace with our Brethren Is not this a full proof of the Minor The Major is also evident for none have power when appealed to perform those acts of authority over those of any Court unless they be a higher Court and Judge then the other from whom the appeal is made as all Jurists know and confess Mr. Baxter Num. 186. In his first Epistle to Innocent he tells him over and over that he appealed to a Synode and required Iudgement and that he was cast into a Ship for banishment because he appealed to a Synode and a righteous Iudgement never mentioning a word of any such appeal to the Pope William Iohnson Num. 186. What then Ergo he appealed not to Innocent as a superiour Iudge prove that consequence Was it not the custom then of approved Prelates as also in all well ordered Common-wealths first to appeal to the next ordinary Court and if Justice were done there to acquiesce and not to come to the highest Tribunal till no Justice could be had in the inferiour Did not St. Chrysostome all this must he needs mention his appeal to the Pope before he made it I think in earnest you were in jest here Mr. Baxter Num. 187. Yea he urgeth the Pope to befriend and help him by that Argument that he was still ready to stand to uncorrupted Iudges never mentioning the Pope as Iudge William Iohnson Num. 187. And was it not his duty to do so according to Canonical proceeding what need had he in that Epistle whilst he was in hopes of an inferiour tryal to mention an appeal to the highest Court must he upon all occasions mention every thing was it not sufficient that he did it when necessity required it Mr. Baxter Num. 188. By all which it appears it was but the assistance of his intercession that he requireth and withal perhaps the excommunicating of the wicked which another Bishop might have done William Iohnson Num. 188. But could any Bishop who was not a superiour Judge which make against you annul the Sentence of a Council by his Authority inflict Ecclesiastical censures upon those Judges and command the injured persons to be restored to their Seas as we have seen St. Chrysostome beseeched Innocent to do If you will undertake the writing of Controversies answer like a Scholar to the proofs alleadged against you and be sure in your next you fall no more into this fault for by dallying thus you may write to the worlds end to no purpose at all whilst you neither answer nor so much as mention the words which make aginst you pardon me if I tell you my mind plainly it is for your good Mr. Baxter Num. 189. Yea and it seems it was not to Innocent only but to others with him that he wrote for he would scarce else have used the termes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 William Iohnson Num. 189. How familiar is it in writing to persons of most eminent Authority to use the plural number how usual is this both in Scripture and other Authors Mr. Baxter Num. 190. But what need we more then his own words to know his request Saith he let those that are found to have done so wickedly be subject to the penalty of the Ecclesiastical Laws but as for us that are not convicted nor found guilty grant us to enjoy your letters and your charity and all others whose socâ—â—ety we did formerly enjoy Corruption William Iohnson Num. 190. This is a strange Metamorphosis of St. Chrysostomes words why leave you out the beginning of the Sentence scribite precor c. I beseech you to write and decree that by your authority those unjust acts are void and null I see this was not for your purpose nor could well admit of a handsom mistranslation 2. Why cite you not the Latin or Greek words that the equity of your Translation might appear O that would have spoyled your market Signifies then subjicite let them be subject what Grammer hath taught you that what word is there in the Latin Sentence that signifies your letters or your charity and what English word is there here which answers to jubete command or to restitui Ecclesiis vestris to be restored to our Churches See the Latin Text of St. Chrysostom cited above num Sir give me leave once more to be plain with you it had been much better for you and thousands of your too credulous Readers that you had never set pen to paper then to delude your own soul and theirs with such sophistications as these are and I pray God you come not one day with a great Patron of your Religion to curse the time that you ever writ Controversies which notwithstanding were rather to be wished then feared if the Grace of true Repentance accompany it Mr. Baxter Num. 191. The Ecclesiastical Laws enabled each Patriarch and Bishop to Sentence in his own