them successively in all ages till Christ as a different Congregation of Christians from that which holds the Popes Supremacy which was my proposition For in the year 1500. those who became the first Protestants were not a Congregation different from those who held that supremacy nor in the year 500. were the Greeks a visible Congregation different from it nor in the year 300. were the Nestorians nor in the year 200. the Eutychians a different Congregation from those who held the said Supremacy But in those respective years those who first begun those Heresies were involved within that Congregation which held it as a part of it and assenting therein with it who after in their several ages and beginnings fell off from it as dead branches from the tree that still remaining what it ever was and only continuing in a perpetuall visibility of succession Though therefore you profess never to have seen convincing proof of this in the first 400 years labour to infringe it in the next ages yet I will make an essay to give you a taste of those innumerable proofs of this visible Consent in the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy not of Order only but of Power Authority Iurisdiction over all other Bishops in the ensuing instances which happened within the first 400 or 500 or 600 years Iohn Bishop of Antioch makes an Appeal to Pope Simplicius And Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople being deposed in the false Councill of Ephesus immediately appeals to the Pope as to his judge Theodoret was by Pope Leo restored and that by an appeal unto a just judgement Saint Cyprian desirâ—â— Pope Stephen to depose Marcian Bishop of Arles that another might be substituted in his place And to evince the supream Authority of the Bishops of Rome it is determined in the Council of Sardis That no Bishop deposed by other neighbouring Bishops pretending to be heard again was to have any successour appointed until the case were defined by the Pope Eustathius Bishop of Sebast in Armenia was restored by Pope Liberius his Letters read and received in the Council of Tyana and Saint Chrysostome expresly desires Pope Innocent not to punish his Adversaries if they do repent Which evinces that Saint Chrysostome thought that the Pope had power to punish them And the like is written to the Pope by the Council of Ephesus in the case of Iohn Bishop of Antioch The Bishops of the Greek or Eastern Church who sided with Arius before they declared themselves to be Arians sent their Legates to Iulius Bishop of Rome to have their cause heard before him against Saint Athanasius the same did Saint Athanasius to defend himself against them which Arian Bishops having understood from Iulius that their Accusations against Saint Athanasius upon due examination of both parties were found groundless and false required rather fraudulently then seriously to have a fuller Tryal before a General Council at Rome which to take away all shew of excuse from them Pope Iulius assembled Saint Athanasius was summoned by the Pope to appear before him and the Councill in Judgement which he presently did and many other Eastern Bishops unjustly accused by the Arians aforesaid had recourse to Rome with him and expected there a year and a half All which time his Accusers though also summoned appeared not fearing they should be condemned by the Pope and his Councill Yet they pretended not as Protestants have done in these last ages of the Kings of England That Constantius the Arian Emperour of the East was Head or chief Governour over their Church in all Causes Ecclesiasticalâ— and consequently that the Pope had nothing to do with them but only pretended certain frivolous excuses to delay their appearance from one time to another Where it is worth the noting that Iulius reprehending the said Arian Bishops before they published their Heresie and so taking them to be Catholikes for condemning Saint Athanasius in an Eastern Councill gathered by them before they had acquainted the Bishop of Rome with so important a cause useth these words An ignari â—stis hanc consuetudinâ—m esse ut primum nobis scribatur ut â—inc quod justum est à â—finiri possit c. Are you ignorant saith he that this is the custome to write to us first That hence that which is just may be defined c. where most cleerly it appears that it belonged particularly to the Bishop of Rome to pass a definitive sentence even against the Bishops of the Eastern or Greek Church which yet is more confirmed by the proceedings of Pope Innocent the first about 12. hundred years since in the Case of Saint Chrysostome Where first Saint Chrysostome appears to Innocentius from the Councill assembled at Constantinople wherein he was condemned Secondly Innocentius annulls this condemnation and declares him innocent Thridly he Excommunicates Atticus Bishop of Constantinople and Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria for persecuting Saint Chrysostome Fourthly after Saint Chrysostome was dead in Banishment Pope Innocentius Excommunicates Arcadius the Emperour of the East and Eudoxia his wife Fifthly the Emperour and Empress humble themselves crave pardon of him and were obsolved by him The same is evident in those matters which passed about the year 450. where Theodosius the Emperour of the East having too much favoured the Eutychian Hereticks by the instigation of Chrysaphius the Eunuch and Pulcheria his Empress and so intermedled too far in Ecclesiasticall causes yet he ever bore that respect to the See of Rome which doubtless in those circumstances he would not have done had he not believed it an Obligation that he would not permit the Eutychian Council at Ephesus to be assembled without the knowledge and Authority of the Roman Bishop Leo the first and so wrote to him to have his presence in it who sent his Legats unto them And though both Leo's letters were dissembled and his Legats affronted and himself excommunicated by wicked Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria and president of that Coventicle who also was the chief upholder of the Eutychians yet Theodosius repented before his death banished his wife Pulcheria and Chrysaphius the Eunuch the chief favourers of the Eutychians and reconciled himself to the Chruch with great evidences of Sorrow and Pennance Presently after Anno. 451. follows the Fourth General Council of Chalcedon concerning which these particulars occur to our present purpose First Martianus the Eastern Emperour wrote to Pope Leo That by the Popes Authority a General Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to chuse Secondly both Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople and the rest of the Eastern Bishops sent to the legats of Pope Leo by his order the profession of their Faith Thirdly the Popes Legats sate in the first place of the Council before all the Patriarchs Fourthly they prohibited by his order given them That Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria and chief upholder of
we know that the Turks believe in Mahomet by the common consent of history and travellers Part of the Churches anathematize the Romans and part more modestly disown them and the generality that subject not themselves do profess that Popery is an usurpation and that in the ancient Church it was not so and this they have by Tradition from generation to generation And if the Roman pretended Tradition be with them of value the Tradition of the far greater part of the Church is with us to be of more We must despair of satisfying them with witness if most of the Christian world be rejected and the Tradition of the greatest part of the Church be taken to be false in a matter of publick notorious fact Arg. 4. Many Churches without the verge of the Roman Empire never subjected themselves to Rome and many not of many hundred years after Christ therefore there were visible Christian Churches from the beginning to this day that were not for the Roman Vicarship That abundance of Churches were planted by the Apostles without the reach of the Roman Empire is plentifully testified by the ancients and the Papists commonly confess it That these were under the Papal Government all the Papists in the world cannot prove The contrary is confessed by them and proved by us 1. They came not so much as to Generall Councils 2. They had no Bishops ordained by the Pope or any impowred by him 3. They never appealed to him 4. They never had any causes judged by him 5. They performed no obedience to him nor lived under his Laws nor scarce had any communion with him more then the common communion that is held in Charity and common faith and ordinances with all Such were the Indians the Persians the further Armenia and Parthia the Habassines and many more And of long time the English and the Scots that refused so much as to eat and drink in the same Inn with the Roman Legates much less would obey him so much as in the change of Easter day we challenge them to shew us any appearance of subjection to the Pope in the generality of the Churches without the Empire But you say that the Habassines were under the Patriarch of Alexandria and he under the Pope Ans. 1. If that were true yet what 's that to all the rest 2. Give us your proof that the Abassines were under the Patriarch of Alexandria before that Patriarch broke off his communion with Rome The Canons of Pisanus of yesterdayes invention we regard not Surely the true Canons of Nice Can. 6. measure out no more to the Patriarch of Alexandria but Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis There 's no mention of Ethiopia And it s not like that the greatest part of his Province would have been left out 3. If it had been so yet we utterly deny that ever the Pope had the Government of the Alexandrian Patriarch Only for a little while he had a precedency in honorary Title and in Councils as the City of London is preferred before York but doth not Govern it at all Here therefore without the Roman Empire you may see those Churches that have successively been visible and yet no Papists This your Raynerius confesseth contr Waldens Catalog in Bibliothec. Patr. Tom. 4. pag. 773. saying Armeniorum Ecclesiae Aethiopum Indorum caeterae quaâ— Apostoli converterunt non subsunt Romanae Ecclesiae See Godignus de Rebus Abassinorum of their Antiquity Arg. 5. The Eastern Churches within the Empire were never subjects of the Pope therefore there have been and are Churches Visible that neither were nor are his subjects The Antecedent I have proved in my Key for Catholicks from the Council of Carthage's Letters to Pope Coelestine after their resistance of Zosimus and divers testimonies from Basil and others And they can give us themselves no plausible appearance of a proof of that subjection which they assert no more then the younger Justices on the Bench are subject to the elder or the Jury to the foreman or a Master of Arts in a Colledge to a Batchelor in Divinity or then the Mayor of Bristoll is to the Mayor of York 1. The Pope never chose the Patriarchs of Alexandria Antioch c. 2. It did not belong to him to ordain them nor did he authorize any other to do it nor did they receive or hold their power from him 3. They receive no Laws of his to Rule by 4. They were not commanded or Judged by him 5. The Patriarch of Constantinople had equall Priviledges with him So that here is nothing like to Soveraignty and subjection nor any acknowledgement of an universal Vicar of Christ. Communion indeed they held with Rome as they did with one another till pride divided them but Communion is one thing and Subjection is another The Greek Church never gave them this Arg. 6. My next Argument to prove the Novelty of their Church as Papal and consequently that the Universal Church was void of Popery and therefore of the same Religion with Protestants shall be from the testimony of their own most magnified Bishops Gregory 1. Epist. Regist. l. 4. c. 80. speaking against the Patriarch of Constantinople for usurping the Title of Oecumenicall Patriarch or Universal Bishop saith fol. 181 182. Edit Paris 1551. Sicut enim veneranda vestra sanctitas novit mihi per sanctam Chalcedonensem Synodum Pontifici sedis Apostolicae cui Deo disponente deservio hoc Vniversalitatis nomen oblatum est sed Nullus unquam decessorum meorum hoc tam prophano vocabulo uti consensit Quia viz si Vnus Patriarcha Vniversalis dicitur Patriarcharum nomen Caeteris derogatur Sed absit hoc absit à Christiana mente id sibi velle quempiam arripere unde fratrum suorum honorem imminuere ex quantulacunque parte videatur Cum ergo nos hunc honorem nolumus oblatum suscipere pensate quam ignâ—miniosum sit hunc sibi quempiam violenter usurpare voluisse Propterea sunctitas vestra in suis Epistâ—lis neminem Universalem nominet ne sibi debitum detrahat cum alteri honorem offert indebitum 1. Here he affirmeth that the Title of Vniversal was never used by any of his predecessors nor received 2. That it is a prophane Title 3. That it is an injury to other Patriarchs 4. That its unbeseeming a Christian mind to assume it 5. That its undue 6. He perswaded the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch to give it to no man whosoever Obj. But he saith that the Council of Chalcedon offered it him Ans. 1. If he renounce it as undue and prophane and say that de facto none of his predecessors took it this is as much as we desire 2. That at the Council of Chalcedon near 150. years before this two Deacons that they say have no Votes call'd Theodorus and Ischirion did superscribe their Libels to Leo Vniversal Archbishop I find but no more And this is it that Gregory here brags of And what 's
the Eutychians should sit in the Councill but be presented as a guilty person to be judged becuase he had celebrated a Councill in the Eastern Church without the consent of the Bishop of Rome which said the Legats never was done before nor could be done lawfully This order of Pope Leo was presently put in execution by consent of the whole Councill and Dioscorus was judged and condemned his condemnation and deposition being pronounced by the Popes Legats and after subscribred by the Councill Fifthly the Popes Legats pronounced the Church of Rome to be Caput omnium Ecclesiarum the Head of all Churches before the whole Council and none contradicted them Sixthly all the Fathers assembled in that Holy Councill in their Letter to Pope Leo acknowledged themselves to be his children and wrote to him as to their Father Seventhly they humbly begged of him that he would grant that the Patriarch of Constantinople might have the first place among the Patriarchs after that of Rome which notwithstanding that the Councill had consented to as had also the Third General Councill of Ephesus done before yet they esteemed their grants to be of no sufficient force untill they were confirmed by the Pope And Leo thought not fit to yield to their petition against the express ordination of the First Councill of Nice where Alexandria had the preheminence as also Antioch and Hierusalem before that of Constantinople Saint Cyril of Alexandria though he wholly disallowed Nestorius his doctrine yet he would not break off Communion with him till Celestinus the Pope had condemned him whose Censure he required and expected Nestorius also wrote to Celestine acknowledging his Authority and expecting from him the Censure of his doctrine Celestinus condemned Nestorius and gave him the space of ten daies to repent after he had received his condemnation All which had effect in the Eastern Church where Nestorius was Patriarch of Constantinople After this Saint Cyrill having received Pope Leo's Letters wherein he gave power to Saint Cyrill to execute his condemnation against Nestorius and to send his condemnatory letters to him gathered a Council of his next Bishops and sent Letters and Articles to be subscribed with the Letters of Celestine to Nestorius which when Nestorius had received he was so far from repentance that he accused St. Cyril in those Articles to be guilty of the Heresie of Apollinaris so that St. Cyril being also accused of Heresie was barred from pronouncing sentence against Nestorius so long as he stood charged with that Accusation Theodosius the Emperour seeing the Eastern Church embroyled in these difficulties writes to Pope Celestine about the assembling of a general Council at Ephesus by Petronius afterwards Bishop of Bononia as is manifest in his life written by Sigonius Pope Celestine in his Letters to Theodosius not only professeth his consent to the calling of that Council but also prescribeth in what form it was to be celebrated as Firmus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia testified in the Council of Ephesus Hereupon Theodosius sent his Letters to assemble the Bishops both of the East and West to that Council And Celestine sent his Legats thither with order not to examine again in the Council the cause of Nestorius but rather to put Celestines condemnation of him given the year before into execution St. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria being constituted by Celestine his chief Legate ordinary in the East by reason of that preheminency and primacy of his See after that of Rome presided in the Council yet so that Philip who was only a Priest and no Bishop by reason that he was sent Legatus à Latere from Celestine and so supplied his place as he was chief Bishop of the Church subscribed the first even before St. Cyril and all the other Legats and Patriarchs In the sixth Action of this holy Council Iuvenalis Patriarch of Hierusalem having understood the contempt which Iohn Patriarch of Antioch who was cited before the Council shewed of the Bishops and the Popes Legats there assembled expressed himself against him in these words Quod Apostolica ordinatione Antiqua Traditione which were no way opposed by the Fathers there present Antiochena sedes perpetuo à Romana dirigeretur judicareturque That by Apostolical ordination and ancient Tradition the See of Antioch was perpetually directed and judged by the See of Rome which words not only evidence the precedency of place as Dr. Hammond would have it but of power and judicature in the Bishop of Rome over a Patriarch of the Eastern Church and that derived from the time and ordination of the Apostles The Council therefore sent their decrees with their condemnation of Nestorius to Pope Celestine who presently ratified and confirmed them Not long after this in the year 445. Valentinian the Emperour makes this manifesto of the most high Ecclesiastical authority of the See of Rome in these words Seeing that the merit of St. Peter who is the Prince of the Episcopal Crown and the Dignity of the City of Rome and no less the authority of the holy Synod hath established the primacy of the Apostolical See lest presumption should attempt any unlawful thing against the authority of that See for then finally will the peace of the Churches be preserved every where if the whole universality acknowledge their Governour when these things had been hitherto inviolably observed c. Where he makes the succession from St. Peter to be the first foundation of the Roman Churches primacy and his authority to be not only in place but in power and Government over the whole visible Church And adds presently that the definitive sentence of the Bishop of Rome given against any French Bishop was to be of force through France even without the Emperours Letters Pattents For what shall not be lawful for the authority of so great a Bishop to exercise upon the Churches And then adds his Imperial precept in these words But this occasion hath provoked also our command that hereafter it shall not be lawful neither for Hilarius whom to be still entituled a Bishop the sole humanity of the meek Prelate id est the Bishop of Rome permits neither for any other to mingle arms with Ecclesiastical matters or to resist the commands of the Bishop of Rome c. We define by this our perpetual decree that it shall neither be lawful for the French Bishops nor for those of other Provinces against the ancient custom to attempt any thing without the authority of the venerable Pope of the eternal City But let it be for a law to them and to all whatsoever the authority of the Apostolick See hath determined or shall determine So that what Bishop soever being called to the Tribunal of the Roman Bishop shall neglect to come is to be compelled by the Governour of the same Province to present himself before him Which evidently proves that the highest Universal Ecclesiastical Judge and Governour was and ever is to be the
profess it to be their Tradition that the Pope was never their Governour 3. No history or authority of the least regard is brought by your own writers to prove these Churches under your jurisdiction no not by Baronius himself that is so copious and so skilful in making much of nothing No credible witnesses mention your Acts of jurisdiction over them or their Acts of subjection which Church history must needs have contained if it had been true that they were your subjects 4. Their absence from general Councils and no invitation of them thereunto that was ever proved or is shewed by you is sufficient evidence 5. Their Liturgies even the most ancient bear no footsteps of any subjection to you Though your forgeries have corrupted them as I shall here digressively give one instance of The Ethiopick Liturgy because of a Hoc est corpus meum which we also use is urged to prove that they are for the corporal presence or Transubstantiation But saith Vsher de success Eccles. In Ethiopicarum Ecclesiarum universali Canone descriptum habebatur Hic panis est corpus meum In Latina translatione contra fidem Ethiopic Exemplarium ut in prima operis editione confirmat Pontificius ipse Scholiastes expunctum est nomen Panis 6. Constantines Letters of request to the King of Persia for the Churches there which Euseb. in vit Constant. mentioneth do intimate that then the Roman Bishop ruled not there 7. Even at home the Scots and Brittains obeyed not the Pope nor conformed about the Easter observation even in the daies of Gregory but resisted his changes and refused communion with his Ministers 8. I have already elsewhere given you the testimony of some of your own writers as Reynerius contra Waldens Catal. in Biblioth Patr. Tom. 4. p. 773. saying The Churches of the Armenians and Ethiopians and Indians and the rest which the Apostles converted are not under the Church of Rome 9. I have proved from the Council of Chalcedon that it was the Fathers that is the Councils that gave Rome its preheminence But those Councils gave the Pope no preheminence over the extra-imperial Nations For 1. Those Nations being not called to the Council could not be bound by it 2. The Emperours called and enforced the Councils who had no power out of their Empire 3. The Diocess are described and expresly confined within the verge of the Empire see both the description and full proof in Blondel de Primatu in Ecclesia Gall. And 10. The Emperours themselves did sometime giveing power to the Councils Acts make Rome the chief and sometime as the Councils did also give Constantinople equal priviledge and sometime set Constantinople highest as I have shewed in my Key p. 174 175. But the Emperours had no power to do thus with respect to those without the Empire But what say you now to the contrary Why 1. You ask Were those Primitive Christians of another kind of Church order and Government then were those under the Roman Empire Answ. When the whole body of Church history satisfieth us that they were not subject to the Pope which is the thing in question is it any weakening of such evidence in a matter of such publick fact to put such a question as this Whether they were under another kind of Government 1. We know that they were under Bishops or Pastors of their own and so far their Government was of the same kind 2. If any of them or all did suit their Church associations to the several Commonwealths in which they lived and so held National Councils and for order sake made one among them the Bishop primae sedis then was that Government of the same kind with that of the Imperial Churches and not of another kind The Roman Government was no other but One thus Ordered in one Empire And if there were also One so ordered in England one in Scotland one in Ethiopia c. this was of the same kind with the Roman Every Church suited to the form of the Common-wealth is even as to that humane mode of the same kind if a humane mode must be called a Kind It may be of that same kind and mode without being part of the same Individual But 2. You say that How far from truth this is appeareth from St. Leo in his Sermons de Natali suo where he sayes Sedes Roma Perri quicquid non possidet armis Religione tenet Reply If you take your Religion on trust as you do your authorities that are made your ground of it and bring others to it when you are deceived your selves how will you look Christ in the the face when you must answer for such temerity Leo hath no Sermons de Natali suo but only one Sermon affixed to his Sermons lately found in an oid book of Nicol. Fabers And in that Sermon there is no such words as you here alledge Neither doth he Poetize in his Sermons nor there hath any such words which might occasion your mistake and therefore doubtless you believed some body for this that told you an untruth and yet ventured to make it the ground of charging my words with untruth Yet let me tell you that I will take Pope Leo for no competent judge or witness though you call him a Saint as long as we know what past between him and the Council of Chalcedon and that he was one of the first tumified Bishops of Rome he shall not be judge in his own cause 3. But you add that The Abassines of Ethiopia were under the Patriarch of Alexandria anciently and he under the authority of the Roman Bishop Reply 1. Your bare word without proof shall not perswade us that the Abassines were under the Patriarch of Alexandria for above three hundred if not four hundred years after Christ. Prove it and then your words are regardable 2. At the Council of Nice the contrary is manifest by the sixth Can. Mos antiquus perdurat in Aegypto vel Lybia Pentapoli ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem c. And the common descriptions of the Alexandrian Patriarchate in those times confine it to the Empire and leave out Aethiopia Pisanus new inventions we regard not 3. I deny that the Patriarch of Alexandria was under the Government of the Bishop of Rome any more then the Jury are under the Foremen or the junior Justices on the bench are under the senior or York is under London or the other Earls of England are under the Earl of Arundel 4. But if both these were proved that Ethiopia was under Alexandria and Alexandria under Rome I deny the consequence that Ethiopia was under Rome for Alexandria was under Rome but secundum quid and so far as it was within the Empire and therefore those without the Empire that were under Alexandria were not therefore under Rome 5. And if it could as it never can be proved of Abassia what is that to all the other Churches in India Persia and the
fair Remember it hereafter that you have discharged me from proving a Church that denied the Papacy formally expresly But as to what you yet demand 1. I have here given it you because you shall not say â—'le sail you I have answered your desire But 2. It is not as a thing necessary but ex abundanti as an overplus For you may now see plainly that to prove that the Church was without an universal Pastor which you require is to prove the Negative viz. that then there was none such whereas its you that must prove that there was such I prove our Religion do you prove yours though I say to pleasure you I 'le disprove it and have done it in two books already My reason from the stress of necessity which you lay on your Affirmative and Additions was but subservient to the foregoing Reasons not first to prove you bound but to prove you the more bound to the proof of your Affirmative And therefore your instance of Mahumetans is impertinent He that saith you shall be damned if you believe not this or that is more obliged to prove it then he that affirmeth a point as of no such moment To what I say of an accident and a corrupt part you say you have answered and do but say so having said nothing to it that is considerable Me thinks you that make Christ to be corporally present in every Church in the Eucharist should not say that the King of the Church is absent But when you have proved 1. That Christ is so absent from his Church that there 's need of a Deputy to essentiate his Kingdom and 2. That the Pope is so Deputed you will have done more then is yet done for your cause And yet let me tell you that in the absence of a King it is only the King and Subjects that are essential to the Kingdom The Deputy is but an officer and not essential Your naked assertion that whatsoever Government Christ instituteth of his Church must be essential to his Church is no proof nor like the task of an Opponent The Government of inferiour officers is not essential to the universal Church no more then Judges and Justices to a Kingdom And yet we must wait long before you will prove that Peter and the Pope of Rome are in Christs place as Governours of the universal Church Sir I desire open dealing as between men that believe these matters are of eternal consequence I watch not for any advantage against you Though it be your part to prove the Affirmative which our Negative supposeth yet I have begun the proof of our Negative but it was on supposition that you will equally now prove your Affirmative better then you have here done I have proved a visible Church successively that hâ—ld not the Popes universal Government do you now prove that the universal Church in all ages did hold the Popes universal Government which is your part or I must say again I shall think you do but run away and give up your cause as unable to defend it I have not failed you do not you fail me You complain of a deficiency in quality though you confess that I abound in number But where is the defect you say I must assert both that these were one Congregation and ever visible since Christs time Reply If by one Congregation you meant one assembly met for personal Communion which is the first sense of the word Congregation it were ridiculous to feign the universal Church to be such If you mean One as united in one visible humane Head that 's it that we deny and therefore may not be required to prove But that these Churches are One as united in Christ the Head we easily prove In that from him the whole family is named the body is Christs body 1 Cor. 12.12 13. and one in him Eph. 4.4 5 6 c. All that are true Christians are one Kingdom or Church of Christ but these of whom I speak are true Christians therefore they are one Kingdom or Church of Christ. And that they have been visible since Christs time till now all history even your own affirms As in Iudaea from the Apostles times in Ethiopia Egypt and other parts Rome was no Church in the time of Christs being on earth And to what purpose talk you of determinate Congregations Do you mean individual assemblies those cease when the persons die or do you mean assemblies meeting in the same place so they have not done still at Rome I told you and tell you still that we hold not that God hath secured the perpetual visibility of his Church in any one City or Country but if it cease in one place it is still in others It may cease at Ephesus at Philippi Colosse c. in Tenduc Nubia c. and yet remain in other parts I never said that the Church must needs be visible still in one Town or Country And yet it hath been so de facto as in Asia Ethiopia c. But you say I nominate none Are you serious must I nominate Christians of these Nations to prove that there were such you require not this of the Church Historians It sufficeth that they tell you that Ethiopia Egypt Armenia Syria c. had Christians without naming them When all history tells you that these Countries were Christians or had Churches I must tell you what and who they were must you have their names sirnames and Genealogies I cannot name you one of a thousand in this small Nation in the age I live in How then should I name you the people of Armenia Abassia c. so long ago You can name but few of the Roman Church in each age And had they wanted learning and records as much as the Abassins and Indians and others you might have been as much to seek for names as they You ask were they different Congregations Answ. As united in Christ they were one Church but as assembling at one time or in one place or under the same guide so they were not one but divers Congregations That there were any Papists of 400. years after Christ do you prove if you are able My conclusion that all have been against you for many hundred years must stand good till you prove that some were for you yet I have herewith proved that there were none at least that could deserve the name of the Church Do you think to satisfie any reasonable man by calling for positive proof from Authors of such Negatives yet proof you shall not want such as the nature of the point requireth viz. That the said Churches of Ethiopia India the outer Armenia and other extra-imperial Nations were not under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome 1. You find all these Churches or most of them at this day that remain from under your jurisdiction and you cannot tell us when or how they turned from you If you could it had been done 2. These Nations
unacquainted with the opinions of your own Divines and upon this mistake so confidently feign that it is our Novel writers forced to it by your arguments that have been so charitable to these Churches against antiquity that knew better If the Greeks and Latins tear the Church of Christ by their Condemnations of each other they may both be schismatical as guilty of making divisions in the Church though not as dividing from the Church And if they pretend the denyal of the Christian faith against each other as the cause you shall not draw us into the guilt of the uncharitableness by telling us that they know better then we If wise men fall out and fight I will not justifie either side because they are wise and therefore likelier then I to know the cause But what need we more to open your strange mistake and unjust dealing then the authority of your so much approved Council of Florence that received both Greeks and Armenians and the very words of the Popes Bull of the union which declare that the Greeks and Latins were found to mean Orthodoxly both the words are these Convenientes Latini Graeci in hac sacrosancta Oecumenica synodo magno studio invicem usi sunt ut inter alia articulus etiam ille de Divina Spiritus Sancti processione summa cum diligentia assidua inquisitione discuteretur Prolatis vero testimoniis ex Divinis Scripturis plurimisque authoritatibus sanctorum doctorum orientalium occidentelium aliquibus quidem ex Patre Filio quibusdam vero ex Patre per Filium procedere dicentibus Spiritū Sanctum ad eandem intelligentiam aspicientibus omnibus sub diversis vocabulis Graeci quidem asseruerunt quod id quod dicunt Spiritum Sanctum ex Patre procedere non hac mente proferrent ut excludant Filiū sed quia eis videbatur ut aiunt Latinos asserere spiritum Sanctum ex Patre Filioque procedere tanquam ex duobus principiis duabus Spirationibus ideo abstinuerunt à dicendo quod Spiritus Sanctus ex Patre procedat Filio Latini vero affirmaverunt non se hac mente dicere Spiritum Sanctum ex Filioque procedere ut excludant Patrem quin sit fons ac principium totius Deitatis Filii scilicet Spiritus Sancti aut quod id quod Spiritus Sanctu procedat ex Filio Filius à Patre non habeat sive quod duo ponant esse principia seu duas spirationes sed ut unum tantum asserunt esse principium unicamque spirationem Spiritus Sancti prout hactenus asseruerunt cum ex his omnibus unus idem eliciatur veritatis sensus tandem c. I pray you now tell it to no more that it is same Novel writers of ours prest by force of argument that have been the authors of this extenuation May heart even trembleth to think that there should be a thing called Religion among you that can so far extinguish both Charity and Humanity as to cause you to pass so direful a doom without authority or tryal on so great a part of the Christian world for such a word as this about so exceeding high a mysterie when your Pope and Council have pronounced a union of meanings And what mean you in your Margin to refer me to Nilus as if he asserted That the Greeks left the Communion of the Roman Church upon that difference alone Verily Sir in the high matters of God this dealing is scarce fair pardon this plainness consider of it your self The substance of Nilus book is about the Primacy 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 the dissension between the Latin and 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 Laws 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 mans capacity 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 less is it 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 only as a Bishop ordained by him as many other Bishops that originally were ordained by him in like manner do succeed him and that his Primacy is no Governing power nor given him by Peter but by Princes and Councils for order sale and this he proves at large and makes this the main difference Bellarmines answering his so many Arguments might have told you this if you had never read Nilus himself If you say that This point was the first cause I deny it but if it were true yet was it not the only or chief cause afterward The Munner of bringing in the filioque by Papal authority without a general Council was it that greatly offended the Greeks from the beginning But you say that when I have made the best of these Greeks Armenians Ethiopians Protestants I cannot deduce them successively in all ages till Christ as a different Congregation of Christians from that which holds the Popes supremacy which was your proposition Reply I have oft told you we own no universal informing Head but Christ. In respect to him I have proved to you that is not my interest or design to prove us or them a different Congregation from you as you are Christians Nor shall you tempt me to be so uncharitable as to damn or unchristen all Papists as far as you do others incomparably safer and better then your selves But as you are Papal and set up a new informing head I have proved that you differ from all the antient Churches but yet that my cause requireth me not to make this proof but to call you to prove your own universal succession You add your Reason because these beforenamed were at first involved in your Congregation and then fell off as dead branches Reply This is but an untruth in a most publick matter of fact All the truth is this 1. Those Indians Ethiopians Persians c. without the Empire never fell
the help of Iulius and therefore no wonder if they desired this safety to their Churches 2. Note that this is a thing newly granted now by this Canon and not any ancient thing 3. Note that therefore it was of Humane Right and not of Divine 4. Note that yet this Canon was not received or practised in the Church but after this the contrary maintained by Councils and practised as I shall anon prove 5. That it is not any antecedent Governing Power that the Canon acknowledgeth in the Pope but in honour of the Memory of S. Peter as they say yet more for their present security they give this much to Rome it being the vulgar opinion that Peter had been there Bishop 6. 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 assistants in the judgement and so to have the putting of another into the place forborn till it be done 7. 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 8. There is as much for Appeals to Constantinople that never claimed a Vice-Christship as Iure divino 6. Your sixth instance out of Basils 74. Epistle I imagine you would have suppressed if ever you had read that Epistle and had thought that any others would be induced by your words to read it I have given you out of this and other Epistles of Basil a sufficient proof of his enmity to Popery in my Key cap. 26. pag. 170 171 172. and cap. 27. pag. 177. that very Epistle of Basils was written to the Western Bishops and not to the Bishop of Rome only nor so much as naming him The help that he desireth is either a Visit or perswasive Letters never mentioning the least Power that the Pope had more then other Bishops but only the interest of Credit that the Western Bishops had more then Basil and his Companions saith he For what we say is suspected by many as if for certain private contentions we would strike a fear and pusillanimity into their minds But for you the further you dwell from them so much the more credit you have with the common people to which this is added that the grace of God is a help to you to care for the oppressed And if many of you unanimously decree the same things it is manifest that the Multitude of you decreeing the same things will cause an undoubted reception of your opinion with all You see here upon what terms Liberius his Letters might bestead Eustathius He having received him into his own Communion and Eustathius being Orthodox in words no wonder that the Synod of Tiana receive him upon an Orthodox confession and their fellow-Bishops reception and Letters No doubt but the Letters of many another Bishop might have perswaded them to his reception though he had more advantages from Rome Is it not now a fair Argument that you offer Liberius sometime an Arrian Pope of Rome by his Letters prevailed with a Synod at Tyana to restore Eustathius an Arrian that dissembled an Orthodox confession What then Ergo the Pope of Rome is the Vice-Christ or was then the Governour of all the Christian world Soft and fair 1. Basil gives you other reasons of his interest 2. He never mentioneth his universall Government when he had the greatest need to be helped by it if he had known of such a thing 3. The Empire is not all the world If Basil knew the Roman Soveraignty I am certain he was a wilfull Rebel against it 7. 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 believe it and its like 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 8. Your eighth proof is this The like is written to the Pope by the Council of Ephesus in the Case of Iohn of Antioch Concil Ephes. p. 2. Act. 5. Reply 1. The first Council at Ephesus which no doubt you mean is in Binnius enough to make a considerable Volume and divided into six Tomes and each of those into Chapters and not into Acts And if you expect that I should exactly read six Tomes in Folio before I can answer your severall sentences or shreds you will put me on a twelve-moneths work to answer a few sheets of Paper If you mean by p. 3. 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 more communion with him which others did as well as he but not a word of Iohn Bishop of Antioch there Nor can I find any such thing in the 4. Tome where Iohn's cause is handled Indeed the Notes of your Historian divide the Council into Sessions But in his fifth Session there is nothing of Iohn but of Nestorius And in the 4. Sess. Iohn and his Party excommunicate Cyril Memnon and theirs And it was the Council that suspended first and after excommunicated Iohn And it is the Emperour to whom he appeals Indeed your Annotator in Sess. 6. mentions some words of Iuvenals that he should at least have regarded the Roman Legates it being the custome that his Church be directed by that But I see no proof he brings of those words and it is known that Cyril of Alexandria did preside and subscribed before the Roman Legates even to the severall Letters of the Synod as you may see in Tom. 2. cap. 23. passim 2. But if your words were there to be found what are they to your purpose The Pope can punish the Bishop of Antioch But how Why by excommunicating him True if he deserve it that is by pronouncing him unfit for Christian Communion and requiring his flock and exhorting all others to avoid him And thus may another Bishop do and thus did Iohn by Cyril of Alexandria though he was himself of the inferiour Seat and thus hath the Bishop of Constantinople done by the Bishop of Rome and so may others 9. Your ninth proof is from the applications that the Arrians and Athanasius
their Diocess yet they might renounce all communion with him Churches that have no power over one another may have communion with one another and that communion they may hold and renounce as there is cause Now if a neighbour Patriarch with so many Bishops of the West had renounc'd Communion with Chrysostomes enemies and also written their Letters on his behalf and taken him still as in their Communion this he hoped would much further his restauration which yet he doubted as he had cause For in his second Epistle he thanks him for doing his part though it did no good or did not avail And it is to be noted that your Author Nicephorus tells you lib. 13. cap. 31. that Chrysostomes Letters and his fellow-Bishops also and the Clergies of Constantinople were all written both to the Emperour Honorius and to Innocent And therefore you may see by that on what account it was and what help they did expect The Emperour was not to excommunicate but his Letters might do much Well but you alledge Niceph. l. 13. c. 34. to prove 1. Chrysostomes appeal But you have better or worse eyes then I for I can find there no such thing but a seeking for help as aforesaid 2. You say Innocentius nulls his condemnation and declares him innocent Ans. So might another Bishop have declared him But how far it should be regarded was not in his power 3. You say he excommunicates Atticus and Theopilus and 4. Arcadius the Emperor also and Eudoxia Reply 1. If he did so and did well another Bishop might as well have done it Mennas excommunicated Vigilius of Rome Excommunicating is not alwayes an act of Jurisdiction but a renouncing of Communion with a Ministeriall binding which any Pastor on a just occasion may exercise even on those that are not of his Diocess examples in Church-history are common 2. But I would have you answer Dr. Whittakers Reasons by which he proves that Nicephorus is a fabler in this relation and that that Epistle is not Innocents which cap. 34. he reciteth Lib. de pontif Rom. Contr. 4. Qu. 4. pag. 454 455. 1. Neither Socrates Theodoret or Sozomen make any mention of this excommunication who yet write much of the Case of Chrysostome and Arcadius And would these men that lived so near that time have all silenced so great and rare a thing as the excommunication of the Emperour and Empress which would have made so great a noise and stir that yet mention Ambrose his censure of Theodosius 2. This Bull of Innocents as Nicephorus would have us believe it hath such falshoods contrary to more credible history as bewray the forgery For Socrates lib. 6. c. 19. writeth that Eudoxia died the same year that Chrysostome was banished and that Chrysostome died the third year of his banishment And Sozomen saith l. 8. c. 28. that Chrysostome was in banishment three years after the death of Eudoxia But if Nicephorus were to be believed Eudoxia was alive and excommunicated by Innocent after Chrysostomes death Nor can it be said that Innocent knew not of her death for his Legats were sent to Constantinople in Atticus time who succeeded Arsacius who outlived Eudoxia This is the summe of Dr. Whittakers confutation of Nicephorus And withall who knows not how full of fictions Nicephorus is In your Margin you pretend to confute Chamier p. 498. as saying That other Bishops restored those wrongfully deposed as well as the Pope to which you say that never single Bishop restored any who were out of their respective Diocess c. whereas the Bishop of Rome by his sole and single authority restored Bishops wrongfully deposed all the Church over Reply 1. It seems you took Chamiers words on trust peruse that page and see his words 2. Single Bishops have censured and therefore might as well remit their own censures Ambrose censured Theodosius who was no fixed Member of his charge and he remitted the Censure Epiphanius presumed even at Constantinople to excommunicate Dioscorus and his Brethren Socrat. lib. 6. c. 14. And many instances may be brought both of excommunicating and again receiving to communion by particular Bishops even as to those that were not of their charge And if the fact were not proved yet the forbearance proveth not the want of power 3. I deny your unproved assertion that the Bishop of Rome singly restored all the Church over It is a meer fiction How many restored he out of the Empire Or in the Empire out of his Patriarchate but suasorily or Synodically Your next instance of Theodosius his not permitting the Council at Ephesus to be assembled and his reconciling himself to the Church is meerly impertinent We know that he and other Princes usually wrote to Rome Constantinople Alexandria c. or spoke or sent to more then one of the Patriarchs before they called a Council You cannot but know that Councils have been called without the Pope and that neither this nor an Emperours forsaking his errour is a sign of the Popes Universal Government That Emperour gave sufficient testimony and so did the Bishops that adhered to Dioscorus that in those dayes the Pope was taken for fallible and controlable when they excommunicated him But when you cite out of any Author the words that you build on I shall take more particular notice of them Till then this is enough with this addition that the Emperours subjection if he had been subject not to an Ambrose or other Bishop but only to Rome would have been no proof that any without the Empire were his subjects No more then the King of Englands subjection to the Archbishop of Canterbury would have proved that the King of France was subject to him 12. Your twelfth proof from the Council of Chalcedon is from a witness alone sufficient to overthrow your cause as I have proved to you This Synod expresly determineth that your Primacy is a novel humane invention that it was given you by the Fathers because Rome was the Imperial Seat If you believe this Synod the Controversie is at end If you do not why do you cite it and why pretend you to believe Generall Councils But what have you from this Council against this Council Why 1. You say Martian wrote to Leo that by the Popes Authority a generall Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to choose Reply 1. Whereas for this you cite Act. Concil Chalcedon 1. You tell me not in what Author whether Crabbe Binnius Surius Nicolinus or where I must seek it I have perused the Act. 1. in Binnius which is 63 pages in Folio such tasks your citations set me and find no such thing and therefore take it to be your mistake But in the preambul Epist I find that Valentinian and Martian desire Leo's prayers and contrary to your words that they say Hoc ipsum nobis propriis liter is tua sanctitas manifestet quatenus in omnem Orientem in ipsam Thraciam
istius non potuisse statuere prout statuit haeretiâ—um censeatur So that by your Law we must believe the power of your Lord God the Pope or be hereticks If you meet with any Impressions that leave out Deum take Rivets note haberi in editione formata jussu Greg. 12. â— corectoribus Pontificiis nec in censuris Glâ—ssae jâ—ssu Pii 5. editis quae in expurgatorio indice habintur nomen Dei erasum fuisse Pope Nicolas 3. de Elâ—ct cap. fundamenta in 6. saith that Peter was â—ssumed into the Society of the individuall Trinity Angelus Polit. in Orat. ad Alex. 6. Pontificem ad Divinitatem ipsam sublâ—tum asserit He saith the Pope was taken up to the Godhead it self At the foresaid Council at Laterane Antonius Puccius in an Oration before Leo the tenth in the Council and after published by his favour said Divinae tuae Majestatis conspectus rutilante cujus fulgore imbecilles oculimei caligant His eyes were darkened with beholding the Popes Divine Majesty None contradicted this In the same Council Simon Bâ—gnius Modrusiensis Episcopus in an Oâ—acion Sâ—ss 6. calls Leo The Lion of the Tribe of Juda the root of Jesse him whom they had looked for as the Saviour In the same Council Sâ—ss 10 Stephanus Patracensis Archiop saith Reges in compedibus magnitudinis magni Regis liga nobiles in manicis ferreis censurarum constringe quoniam tibi data est omnis potestas in coelo in terra and before qui totum dicit nihil excludit So that all Power in heaven and earth is given to the Pope Paulus Aemilius de gestis Francorum lib. 7. saith that the Sicilian Embassadours lay prostrate at the Popes feet and thrice repeated Thou that takest away the sins of the world have mercy on us And prove to me that ever any such man was reprehended for these things by the Popes of late August Triumphus in Praefat. sum ad Ioan. 22. saith That the Popes power is infinite for great is the Lord and great is his power and of his greatness there is no end And qu. 36. ad 6. he saith that the Pope influenceth or giveth the Motion of direction and the sense of cognition into all the Members of the Church for in him we live and move and have our being And a little after he saith The will of God and consequently of the Pope who is his Vicar is the first and highest cause of all corporal and spiritual motions Would you have any more witness of the falshood of your words saith Zabarella I.C. lib. de schism Innocent 7. Bened. pag. 20. For this long time past and even to this day those that would please the Popes perswaded them that they could do all things and so that they might do what they pleased even things unlawfull and so more than God Antonius parte 3. tit 21. cap. 5. § 4. saith The Pope receiveth from the faithfull adorations prostrations and kisses of his feet which Peter permitted not from Cornelius nor the Angel from John the Evangelist Cardinalis Bertrandus Tract de origin jurisd q. 4. num 4. in Glos. extrag com l. 1. fol. 12. saith Because Iesus Christ the son of God while he was in this world and even from eternity was a Naturall Lord and by Naturall right could pronounce the sentence of deposition on Emperours or any others and the sentence of damnation and any other as upon the Persons which he had created and endowed with naturall and free gifts and also did conserve it is his will that on his account his Vicar may do the same things For the Lord should not seem discreet that I may speak with his reverence unless he had left behind him one Vicar that can do all these things Tell me now whether you said true in the Paragraph about the Title Vice-Christ yea whether it be not much more that hath been given and accepted But what name else is it that you agree on as proper to express the power which is controverted I know no name so fitted to the reall controversie And therefore in disclaiming the Name for ought I know you disclaim your Cause and confess the shame of Popery If he that seeks to be King of England should say he disclaimeth the Title of King as insolent and proud doth he not allow me to conclude the like of the thing which he concludeth of the proper name The name Papa Pope you know its like was usually by the ancients given to other Bishops as well as to him of Rome and therefore that cannot distinguish him from other men The same I may say of the Titles Dominus Pater sanctissimus beatissimus Dei amantissimus and many such like And for summus Pontifex Baronius tells you Martyrol Rom. April 9. that it was the ancient custome of the Church to call all Bishops not only Pontifices Popes but the Highest or Chief Popes citing Hierom. Ep. 99. And for the word Head of the Church or of all Bishops it hath been given to Constantinople that yet claimeth not as Nilus tells you neither a precedency to Rome nor an Universall Government much less as the Vice-Christ And that the Bishop of Constantinople was called the Apostolick Vniversal Bishop Baronius testifieth from an old Vaticane monument which on the other side calls Agapetus Episcoporum Princeps The Title Apostolick was usually given to others Hierusalem was called the mother of the Churches A Council gave Constantinople the Title of Vniversal Patriarch which though Gregory pronounced so in pious and intolerable for any to use yet the following Popâ—s made an agreement with Constantinople that their Patriarch should keep his Title of Vniversal Patriarch and the Bishop of Rome be called the Vniversal Pope which can signifie nothing proper to him the name Pope being common more then Vniversal Patriarch doth The Foundations and Pillars of the Church and the Apostles successors yea Peters successors were Titles given to others as well as him and more then these It being therefore the point in controversie between us whether the Bishop of Rome be in the place of Christ or as his Vicar the Head Monarch or Governour of the Church universal and the terms Vice Christi Vicarius Christi being those that Popes and Papists choose to signifie their claim what other should I use As to what you say of the Council of Constance which you must say also of Basil and of the French Church Venetians c. you pretend the doubt to be only between Ordinary and extraordinary Governours But 1. of old the Councils called Generall indeed but of one Principality were more ordinary then now the Pope hath brought them to be and I blame him not if he will hold his greatness to take heed of them 2. The way not to have been extraordinary if the Council of Constâ—nce had been infallible or of sufficient power who decreed that there should be one every ten years 3. The Councils that continue
two Deacons to the Council Obj. But it is only the Name and not the Thing that he disclaims and that is in modesty Ans. 1. How then could he censure the name as undue injurious prophane and blasphemous if he owned the Thing seeing aptanda sunt verba rebus words are to be fitted to Things 2. But I shall confute this fully from his following words Ita ut Vniversa sibi tentet ascribere omnia quae soli uni capiti cohaerent videlicet Christo per elationem pompatici sermonis ejusdem Christi sibi studeat membra subjugare Here it is plain 1. That it is the Thing as well as the Name that Gregory wrote against 2. And that it is also a palpable fiction of the Papists for want of a better that Gregory opposeth only such an Universal Episcopacy as taketh away all Episcopacy from others Ridiculous They would make us believe that Iohn of Constantinople would have had no Bishop in the world but himself and that the Council that gave him the Title intended all to degrade themselves and that there were no Bishops under him ever after when other Councils confirmed his Title On the contrary you here see 1. That there is but one Head even Christ. 2. And that Iohns sin in arrogating the Title Vniversal was that he would subjugate or subject all Christs Members to himself And is not this now the very form of Popery which Gregory makes so great a sin even to subject all Christs Members to one as an Universal Patriarch or Bishop Yea much higher Titles do they arrogate even to be the Vicar of Christ and God and in stead of Christ and God and to be the Vice-Christ He proceeds Nec mirum quod ille tentator qui initium omnis peccati scit esse superbiam c. Making the Devil the author of this Title He adds a weighty reason si enim hoc dici licenter permittitur honor Patriarcharum omnium negatur Et cum fortasse is in errore periit qui Vniversalis dicitur nullus jam Episcopus remansisse in statu veritatis invenitur or as more plainly before c. 76. fol. 180. in the Epist. to the Emperour Maurice si igitur illud nomen in ea Ecclesia sibi quisquam arripuit quod apud bonorum omnium judicium fuit Vniversa ergo Ecclesia quod absit à statu suo corruit quando is qui appellatur Vniversalis cadit The reason is plain because the Head of every political society is essential to it and therefore if the Head of the Universal Church fall away to Heresie or Infidelity the Church falls as Bellarmine knew when he told us that if the Pope should erre in determining the Church would be bound to take evil for good and vice for vertue He proceeds in the same Epist. ad Maur. Imperat. Sed absit à Cordibus Christianorum nomen istud blasphemiae c. Far be this name of blasphemy from the hearts of Christians c. And after again saith Sed nullus eorum unquam hoc singularitatis vocabulum assumpsit nec uti consensit That none of the Roman Bishops did ever assume this name of singularity nor consent to use it And therefore he concludes to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch c. 80. Oportet ergo ut constanter ac sine praejudicio servetis sicut accepistis Ecclesias nihil sibi in nobis haec tentatio diabolicae usurpationis ascribat State sortes state securi Scripta cum Vniversalis nominis falsitate nec dare unquam nec recipere praesumatis He chargeth them never to give or take writing with the falshood of this name Vniversal as being from the Devils tentation And in Ep. 38. c. 82. to Iohn Const. himself he calls it Nefandum elationis vocabulum and the cause Nefandum prophanum tumorem and after he calls it the usurping of a proud and foolish word To all this Bellarmine miserably answereth de Pontif. Rom. l. 2. c. 31. that the title Universal as it signifieth a sole Bishop to whom all other are but Vicars is indeed profane sacrilegious and Anrichristian and is it that Gregory speaks against but not as it excludeth not particular Bishops To which I answer 1. To be the Vicarius of a Superiour is not an exclusion The Pope saith he is the Vicar of Christ the chief Pastour and Bishop of souls and all Pastours are to Preach the Word of reconciliation in his name and stead 1 Cor. 5.19 and yet they are not thereby excluded from being Pastours If to be Christs servants may consist with Episcopacy much more to be his Vicarii over their particular flocks Rather this is too high an honour for us to assume I do not think that all the Clergy under the Pope do think themselves honoured so much as they should be if they were his Vicars 2. Hath not that man sold his conscience to his cause that will perswade the world that the Patriarch of Constantinople was about to unbishop all the Bishops in the world except himself Let any man shew us by tolerable proof that Iohn of Constantâ—nople did claim any higher a power over all others or would bring other Bishops by his Universality to be lower then the Pope of Rome doth by his Universality and then I will confess that Papists only have eyes and reason and all the world besides are blind and mad or beasts Their cause is at a fair pass when they must fly to such palpable falshoods as makes them the wonder of their sober readers 3. I proved before from the express words of Gregory that it is Superiority of Government and making all other Bishops subject to him that he condemned in the Patriarch of Constantinople And no doubt he made not the least of his arrogancy Nor do I believe that it can be proved that Iohn or the Council that gave him the Title did ever intend so much as a Universal Government which the Pope now usurpeth but only a Primacy before all which Popes were then striving for For the Greeks to this day disclaim it and they never strove to exercise it I will give you more of Gregories words to put the question past doubt Cap. 82. Ep. 38. to Iohn saith Humilitatem ergo frater charissime totis visâ—eribus dilige per quam cunctorum fratrum concordia sanctae Vniversalis Ecclesiae unitas vâ—leat custodiri Certe Paulus Apostâ—lus cum audiret quosdam dicere Ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego vero Cophae hanc dilacerationem corporis Dominici per quam membra ejus aliis quodammodo se capitibus sociabant vehementissimè perhorrescens exclamavit dicens Nunquid Paulus pro vobis crucifixus est aut in nomine Pauli baptizati estis Sic ergo ille membra Dominici corporis certis extra Christum quasi capitibus ipsis quidem Apostolis subjici particulariter evitavit Tu quid Christo Vniversalis scilicet Ecclesiae capiti in extremi judicii es dicturus
told me those with whom he had to do about it were much offended with him in so much that he intimated himself to be apprehensive of danger from some of them yet he seemed resolved to adventure whatsoever might befall him in that respect rather then he would stifle those convictions which by Mr. Baxters letter had been begotten in him This letter of Mr. Baxters together with The Safe Religion a Book which he did refer him to either then or near that time in the press which he went for and had of the Stationer upon Mr. Baxters account which I had almost forgot gave him such resolution and satisfaction that he thereupon altered his judgement and practice and waited upon the Ordinances here in London in our Congregations for some time I my self having seen him at the morning exercise in London what further effects it wrought upon him I know not for that he left the City and went over into Flanders as his Mother hath informed me and is since dead Sir Your affectionate friend to serve you T. S. For Mr. William Johnson Sir WHen I was invited to this Disputation with you I entertained hopes from your profest desires of close argumentation that we should speedily bring it to such an issue as might in some good measure answer our endeavours in taking off the covering that Sophistry and carnal interest had cast upon the truth When my necessary employments denyed me the leisure of reading over your second Papers for some weeks and when the loss of my Reply by the Carrier and the difficulty of procuring another Copy had caused a little longer delay you urged so hard for a Reply as put me in some further hopes that you were resolved to go through with it your self But after near a twelve months expectation of a Rejoinder and of the Proof of your own succession from the Apostles being here at London I desired you to resolve me whether I might expect any such Return and Performance from you or not And when you would not promise it I took up the thoughts of publishing what had past between us But upon further urging you some moneths after you renewed my hopes which caused me to make some stay of my publication and to desire you to give me your sense of the most used terms promising you that I shall do the like when you require it which I am ready to perform But yet I hear nothing to this day of your Answer to my Papers or the Performance of what is incumbent on you for the justification of your Church And therefore having waited and importuned you in vain so long and finding by your last that you cannot or will not so explicate your terms as to be understood without which there is no disputing and also perceiving that my abode in London is like to be but little longer my discretion and the ends of my writing have commanded me to forbear no longer the publication of what hath past between us For though the work be not copious and elaborate yet being on a subject which your party do so much insist upon I am assured it may be of common use And I know that the publication is no breach of any promise on my part nor do I perceive how it can be any way injurious to you and therefore I see nothing to prohibite it And I am not willing to be used as Mr. Gunning and Mr. Pierson were by the partial unhansome publication of another If yet I may prevail with you to justifie your cause as you are engaged I must entreat you specially to try your strength for the proof of your own succession for we are most confident that its a notorious impossibility which you undertake Our Arguments against it are such as these 1. That Church which since the time of Christ hath received a new essential part hath not its being successively from the Apostles But such is the Church of Rome Ergo The Major is undenyable The Minor is thus proved A Vice-Christ or Vice-head or Governour of the Universal Church is an essential part of the now Church of Rome But a Vice-Christ or Vice-head or Goveâ—â—â—â— of the Universal Church is new or a â—oveâ—â— or hath not been from the time of Christ on earth Ergo the Church of Rome since the time of Christ hath received a new essential part The novelty I have here and elsewhere proved And Blondel and Molinaeus against Perron have done it more at large 2. That Church which hath had frequent and long interceisions in its head or essential part hath not had a continued succession from the Apostles But such is the Church of Rome Ergo The Minor is here proved and some hints of it are in the Appendix 3. That Church which hath had many new essential Articles of Religion hath not had a continued succession from the Apostles For if the essence be new the Church is new But such is the Church of Rome Ergo First it is commonly maintained by you that all Articles are Essential or Fundamental and you deride the contrary doctrine from the Protestants Secondly that you have had many new Articles of Religion of faith and points of worship is proved by our writers and your own confessions See Molinaeus de Novit Papismi Prove a succession of all that is de fide determined in your Councils or but of all in Pope Pius his Creed and the Council of Trent alone or of all that with you is de fide of those two and thirty points which I have named in my Key for Catholikes p. 143 144 145. Chap. 25. Detect 16. and I will yeild you all the cause or I will profess my belief of every one of those points of which you prove such a succession as held by the Catholike Church as you now hold them Read and answer my Detect 21. Cap. 33. in my Key for Catholikes And how far you own Innovations see what I have proved ibid. cap. 35. and 36. But these arguings being works of supererogation I shall trouble you here with no more but wait for such proof of all your essentials as we give you of all ours In the mean time I shall endeavour so to defend the Truth as not to lose or weaken Charity but approve my self An unfeigned lover of the Truth and you Richard Baxter Sep. 1. 1660. FINIS Syll. 2. * * But how far from truth this is appears from St. Leo in his Sermons de natali suo where he saies Sedes Roma Petri quicquid non possidet almis Religione tenet and by this that the Abyssines of Ethiopia were under the Patriarch of Alexandria antiently which Patriarch was under the Authority of the Romane Bishop as we shall presently see * * See Rosse his view of Religions p. 99. 489 492 c. Where he saies that they circumcise their children the eighth day they use Mosaical ceremonies They mention not the council of Calcedon because saies he they
made to Iulius Ex Athan. ad solit Epist. Iulius in Lit. ad Arian apud Athan. Apol. 1. p. 753. Theodoret. lib. 2. c. 4. Athan. Apol. 2. Zozom l. 3. c. 7. Reply I marvel you urge such rancid instances to which you have been so fully and so often answered I refer you to Blondell de Primatu cap. 25. sect 14 15. Whittaker de Roman Pontif. p. 150. passim Dr. Field of the Ch. l. 5. c. 35 c. Briefly this may shew the vanity of your proof 1. Sozomen 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 2. The advantages of Rome by its reputation and greatness and the number and quality of the Western Bishops made their Judgement and Communion valuable to others Basil before cited tells you on what grounds when Churches disagree those that are distant are supposed to be impartiall especially when numerous 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 3. And the Primacy of Rome though it had no Soveraignty made it seem irregular that a Patriarch should be deposed without the knowledge and judgment of the Patriarchs of the precedent Seats This was the custome that Iulius spoke of and the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria might have said as much if the Patriarch of Ierusalem or Antioch had been deposed without them 4. Every Patriarch might absolve the Innocent and hold communion with them in his own Patriarchate and if any be against it as the Arrians here were and sent false accusations against Athanasius to Iulius he may require them to prove their accusations if they will have him moved by them Our own Communion with men is to be directed by the judgment of our own well informed consciences Iulius desired not any more then to be one with a Council that should decide the case Councils then had the Rule and Patriarchs were the most honourable Members of those Councils but no Rulers of them 5. Yet Sozomen and others tell you that Iulius when he had done his best to befriend Athanasius and Paulus could do no good nor prevail with the Bishops of the East till the Emperors commands prevailed yea the Eastern Bishops tell him that he should not meddle with their proceedings no more then they did with his when he dealt with the Novatians seeing the greatness of Cities maketh not the power of one Bishop greater then another and so they took it ill that he interposed though but to call the matter to a Synod when a Patriarch was deposed Any Bishop might have attempted to relieve the oppressed as far as Iulius did especially if he had such advantages as aforesaid to encourage him All your consequences here therefore are denied 1. It is denied that because Iulius made this attempt that therefore he was Universal Ruler in the Empire 2. It is denied that it will thence follow if he were so that it had been by Divine Right any more then Constantinople had equall priviledges by Divine Right 3. It is denied that it hence followeth that either by Divine or humane right he had any Power to govern the rest of the world without the Empire Had you all that you would rack these testimonies to speak it is but that he was made by Councils and Emperours the chief Bishop or Patriarch in a Nationall Church I mean a Church in one Princes Dominion as the Archbishop of Canterbury was in England But a Nationall or Imperiall Church is not the Universall And withall oppressed men will seek relief from any that may help them In your Margin you adde that Concerning S. Athanasius being judged and rightly by P. Julius Chamier acknowledgeth the matter of fact to be so but against all antiquity pretends that judgment to have been unjust Reply Take it not ill Sir I beseech you if I awake your conscience to tell me how you dare write so many untruths which you knew or might know I could quickly manifest Both parts of your saying of Chamier p. 497 are untrue 1. The matter of fact is it that he denieth He proveth to you from Sozomens words that Athanasius did make no appeal to a Judge but only fled for help to a friend He shews you that Iulius did not play the Judge but the helper of the spoiled and that it was not an act of Judgement 2. He therefore accuseth him not of wrong judgeing but only mentioneth his not hearing the accused to shew that he did not play the part of a Judge but a friend as Chrysostome did by some that fled to him I pray answer his reasons And for what you say again in your Margin of Theodoret I say again that he appealeth to the Bishop of Rome for help as a person who with the Western Bishops might sway much against his adversaries but not as to an Universal Governour or Judge no not as to the Universal Judge of the Church Imperiall much less of all the Catholick Churches 10. Your tenth proof is from Chrysostomes 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 Judge much more if as to an Universal Judge But indeed in his banishment when all other help failed he wrote to him to interpose and help 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 2. In his first Epistle to Innocent he tells him over and over that he appealed to a Synod and required Iudgement and that he was cast into a ship for banishment because he appealed to a Synod and a righteous judgement never mentioning a word of any such appeal to the Pope Yea he urgeth the Pope to befriend and help him by that argument that he was still ready to stand to uncorrupted Judges never mentioning the Pope as Judge By all which it appears it was but the assistance of his intercession that he requireth and withall perhaps the excommunicating of the wicked which another Bishop might have done 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 terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Ecclesiasticall Laws but for us that are not convicted nor found guilty grant us to enjoy your Letters and your charity and all others whose society we did formerly enjoy The Ecclesiastical Laws enabled each Patriarch and Bishop to sentence in his own Diocess though the person sentenced lived out of