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
then either the Church Canons or the consent of classick Authours warrant them If you had proceeded like a Scholar to confute my assertion you should have alleadged either some Popes who inserted Vice-Christus Vice-Christ into their titles or who taught it in their publick Bulls or writings to be due to them or at least some Council or consent of Catholick Doctours who give him that title or prove it to belong to him But to draw a solemn title from Orators Poets Rhetoritians Encomiasticks what is it but a trifle to give rather an intertainment then an argument to youâ—â— Readers And for Antonius Puccius he sayes no more here to the Pope then was gâ—â—ven in time of the Council of Chacedon to the Emperour Martian by Pulcheria the Empresse who sayes Literae Divinitatis ejus the letters of his Divinity and even by the Fathers of that Council Martian is called divinissimus most divine â—â—on Chal. Act. apud Binium Tom. 2. p. 106. Mr. Baxter Num. 413. In the same Council Simon Beginus Modrusiensis Episcopus in an oration Sess. 6. calls Leo the Lyon of the tribe of Juda the root of Jesse him whom they had looked for as the Saviour William Iohnson Num. 413. It seems you either took these authorities on trust or reade them very cursorily over Beginus says not Radix Iesses the root of Iesse as you have it but Radix David the root of David And his meaning is perverted by you culling out those words from the rest conjoyned to them in the Oration for it is evident that he gives Pope Leo these titles in allusion to his name and applies them only restrictively to the saving or preserving the Roman Church from the invasions of Turkes and Hereticks then appearing and threatning Christendome this is so evident that no man can read the oration and not see it Now what crime is there in calling him a Saviour in this particular external preservation Why did you not fall as heavie upon the holy Scripture Iudicum 3 15. for intitling Ehud a Saviour and 4 Reg. 13.5 that the same title is given to Ioas. But here you shew your spleen and cunning in translating the word Salvatorem the Saviour as if Beginus made the Pope to be Christ he only having due to him the title of being called the Saviour Mr. Baxter Num. 414. In the same Council Sess. 10. Steph. Patracensis Archiep. saith Reges in compedibus magnitudinis magni regis liga nobiles in manicis ferreis censurarum constringe quoniam tibi data est omnis potestas in coelo in terra and before qui totum dicit nihil excludit So that all power in Heaven and Earth is given to the Pope Paulus Emilius de gestis Francor lib. 7. saith that the Sicilian Embassadours lay prostrate at the Popes feet thrice repeated thou that takest away the sins of the world have mercy upon us And prove to me that ever any such man was reprehended for these things by the Popes of late Augustinus Triumphus in praefat sum ad Johan 22. saith that the Popes power is infinite for great is the Lord great is his power of his greatenesse there is no end And qu. 36. ad 6. He saith that the Pope influenceth or giveth the Motion of direction and the sense of cognition into all the members of the Church for in him we live and move and have our being And a little after he saith The will of God and consequently of the Pope who is his vicar is the first and highest cause of all Corporal and spiritual motions Would you have more witnesse of the falshood of your words Saith Zabarella I. C. lib de Schism Innocent 7. and Bened. pag. 20. For this long time past and even to this day those that would please the Popes perswaded them that they could do all things and so they might do what they pleased even things unlawful and so more then God Antonius parte 3. tit 21. cap. 5.4 Saith the Pope receiveth faithful adorations prostrations and kisses of his feet which Peter permitted not from Cornelius nor the Angel from John the Evangelist Cardinalis Bertrandus Tract de Origin jurisd q. 4. num 4. in Glos. extrag com l. 1. fol. 12. saith Because Iesus Christ the Son of God while he was in this world and even from Eternity was a natural Lord and by natural right could pronounce the sentence of deposition on Emperours or any others and the sentence of damnation and any other as upon the Persons which he had created and endowed with natural and free gifts and also did conserve it is his will that on his account his vicar may do the same things For the Lord should not seem discreet that I may speak with his reverence unless he had left behinde him one vicar that can do all these things Tell me now whether you said true in the Paragraph about the title Vice-Christ yea whether it be not much more that hath been given and accepted But what name else is that you agree on as proper to express the power which is controverted I know no name so fitted to the real controversie and therefore in disclaiming the Name for ought I know you disclaime your cause and confess the shame of Popery If he that seeks to the King of England should say he disclaimeth the title of the King as insolent and proud doth he not allow me to conclude the same of the thing which he concludeth of the proper name the Name Papa Pope you know its like was usually by the ancients given to other Bishops as well as to him of Rome and therfore that cannot distinguish him from other men the same I may say of the titles Dominus Pater sanctissimus Dei amantissimus and many such like And for summus Pontifex Baronius tells you Martirol Rom. April 9. that it was the ancient Custome of the Church to call all Bishops not only Pontifices Popes but the highest or chief Popes citing Hierom. Ep. 99. And for the word head of the Church or of all Bishops it hath been given to Constantinople that yet claimeth not as Nilus tells you neither a precedency to Rome nor an universal Government much less as the Vice-Christ And that the Bishop of Constantinople was called the Apostolick Vniversal Bishop Baronius testifieth from an old Vatican monument which on the other side calls Agapetus Episcoporum Princeps the Title Apostolick was usually given to others Hierusalem was called the Mother of the Churches A Council gave Constantinople the Title of universal Church which though Gregory pronounced so impious and intolerable for any to use yet the following Popes made an agreement with Constantinople that their Patriarch should keep his Title of universal Patriarch and the Bishop of Rome be called the universal Pope which can signifie nothing proper to him the name Pope being common more then universal Patriarch doth the foundations and Pillars of the Church
quoad in me correptione despicior restat ut ecclesiam debeam adhibere I note these particulars 1. you miscite St. Gregories words and thereby make them both non-sense and bald Latin it should not be as you have it sed quoad but sed quia thus I find it in two different editions of St. Gregory the one anno 1564. Basiliae and the other 1572. Antwerpiae both which have it quia nor ever found I it printed or cited otherwise till I read in your book now what sense is this but until I am despis'd in my correction it remaines that I use the Church that is I must lay the Churches censures upon you before you offend I must take them of and who ever joyn'd a present tense of the Indicative mood with a quoad before you for that is as much as to say until I am now despised which makes the time present and future all one and that I think is Nonsense what think you of it 2. you prove St. Gregory held the Churches authoritie to be greater then his own by these words now treated Now whatsoever St. Gregory held in this is not of any concern now but most certain it is he neither did nor could prove it by these words for this phrase Ecclesiam debeam adhibere I must use the Church signifies no more then this I must proceed according to the rigor of the Church canons and discipline in inflicting upon you the censures of the Church that is I must proceed no longer as a friend to intreat exhort and admonish you as hitherto I have done but as the chief Pastor of the Church use the fulness of that authoritie which I have in the name and for the good of the Church in casting you out of it by the severity of excommunication that this only is his meaning is evident both by the precedent words where he declares our Saviours doctrine about excommunication of obstinate offenders and by the words immediately subsequent where he affirms he must not prefer his person though never so dear to him before the institution of the Canons c. Now when will you ever prove the consequence viz. St. Gregory threatned the use of censures of the Church against Iohn of Constantinople Ergo he took the Churches authority to be greater then his own 62. Now you come in good time to prove your seventh argument page 257. Which you draw from the confession of Papists I distinguish your antecedent if you mean Papists confess that multitudes or the most part of Christians not univocally so call'd have bin opposers or no subjects of the Pope I grant it if univocally so cal'd I deny it therefore by those testimonies there have bin visible Churches of such I deny your consequence To your first authority from Eneas Silvius I answer he cannot mean that so smal regard was had to the Church of Rome before the Council of Nice that it was not believed to be the head of all other Churches c. as I have prov'd it was unless you make him accuse the Council of Nice of Innovation and of introducing a new government into the Church of God which notwithstanding they supposed to have been ever before their time for the Council of Chalcedon cites the Sixth Nicene Canons as affirming that the Church of Rome had alwayes the Primacy your answer to Bellar. is fallacious proceeding a parte Se Con. Chal. Can. 28. ad totum Bell. you acknowledge sayes he it is partly true and partly false you subsume but if true which supposes Bellarmine to affirm that its wholly true whereas you should have subsumed but if partly true as you alledge Bellar. to have said it was and then you fall again into the same fallacy if it be false say you that is if the whole be false whereas you should have said if it be partly false as Bellar. said it was And had you thus proceeded candidly and logically in your subsupmtion your subsequel against our Historians authority had been Evacuated for very many good Authors may speak some things which in part are true and in part false that is in some respect true and in others false they understanding what they writ in that respect wherein they are true 63. Page 268. You mention first the Greeks in opposition to the Pope recorded by our Historians what then Ergo by their testimony there have been visible Churches of such that is of true univocal Christians who opposed the Pope that 's the thing to be proved but to prove that you must prove those historians to have held those schismatical Greeks to have bin univocal Christians which is necessary to compose a visible Church this you have not done then you cite Golestaldus but where the Lords knows making mention of such as were under the Popes patriarchal power and yet oppos'd him but if that Golestaldus were truly ours prove also that he held them whilst they stood thus in opposition against the Pope to be univocal Christians that 's your main work and yet you do it not but see you not how you first take such as you must acknowledge to be subjects to the Pope in spirituals resisting their true superiour as being under his Patriarchal power to be patrons of your cause another seed of Rebellion and then you acknowledge Emperours and Kings to be under the Popes patriarchal power for many opposers of the Pope were such I speak of an opposition in faith and communion not in civil oppositions which may happen upon just occasions 64. Page 268. Next I wonder to see you so abominably false in your translations you your self page 251. cite Raynerius his words non subsunt which in my grammar signifies are not under and yet you translate them here were not under the Roman Church is it not true now to say Constantinople and Alexandria non subsunt are not under the Roman Emperour must it therefore be true they were not under it 65 Ibid. Canus speaks of different times not that altogether but interruptedly some at on time time some at another strove to oppose the Pope but accounts Canus such opposers in sensu conjuncto so were univocal christians that 's the point and you never so much as think of proving it might not you as well argue that so many Provinces Nations and Kingdomes belonging to the Roman Emperours have opposed the authority of the Roman Emperours Ergo they had no lawful authority over them or to look homeward so many Nations Provinces Cities Ministers and Commons have oppos'd the authority of our royal Soveraign Ergo neither had he any lawful power over them nor ceased they to be univocal parts of the Kingdome notwithstanding that opposition here 's another root of rebellion Page 268. But you relapse again into your accustomed falsitie in translation which would have appeared had you printed Canus his Latin words thus you make Authors speak in what language you please English or Latin as it
first sense I grant your conclusion if really you are part of the Church There is no Salvation to be had out of Christs Universal Church of which you are a small corrupted part In the second sense I told you we deny the supposition in the subject In the third sense I deny the sequel non sequitur because your Major Proposition being false de Ecclesia universali the conclusion must be false de parte ista as excluding the rest But to the unskilful or unwary Reader your conclusion seemeth to import that the being in such a Church which acknowledgeth the Popes Soveraignty as it is such a Church is necessary to Salvation and so that the persons acknowledgement is neccesary But it is a fallacia accidentis cunningly lapt up that is the life of your imported cause That part of the Universal Church doth hold to the Popes Soveraignty is per accidens and could you prove that the whole Church doth so which you are unlike to do I would say the like And that your fallacy may the beter appear I give you some examples of such like Sophismes Whatsoever Nation is the true Kingdom of Spain is proud and cruel against Protestants But there is no protection there due to any that are not of that Kingdome therefore there is no protection due to any that are not proud and cruel Or whatsoever Nation is the true Kingdome of France acknowledgeth the Pope but no protection is due from the Governours to any that are not of that Kingdom therefore no protection is due to any that acknowledge not the Pope Or what ever Nation is the Kingdome of Ireland in the days of Queen Elizabeth was for the Earl of Tyrone but there was no right of Inheritance for any that were not of that Nation therefore there was no right of Inheritance for any that was not for the Earl of Tyrone Or suppose that you could have proved it of all the Church If you had lived four hundred years after Christ you might as well have argued thus Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ is against kneeling in adoration on the Lords days But there is no salvation to be had out of that Congregation of Christians which is now the true Church of Christ therefore there is no salvation to be had out of that Congregation which is against kneeling on the Lords day c. But yet 1. There was Salvation to be had in that Congregation without being of that opinion 2. And there is now Salvation to be had in a Congregation that is not of that opinion as you will confess Or whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ doth hold the Canticles and the Epistle to Philemon to be Canonical Scripture and so have done c. But there is no Salvation to be had out of the true Church therefore there is no Salvation to be had out of that Congregation which holdeth the Canticles and Epistle to Philemon to be Canonical Scripture But yet 1. Salvation is to be had in that Church without holding it 2. And its possible hereafter a Church may deny those two books and yet you will think Salvation not thereby overthrown This is but to shew your fallacy from a corrupt accident and indeed but of a part of the Church and a small part Now to your proof of the Major Resp. ad Major The present matter of the Church was not visible in the last Generation for we were not then born but the same form of the Church was then existent in a visible Matter and their Profession was visible or audible though their faith it self was invisible I will do more then you shall do in maintaining the constant visibility of the Church Ad minorem 1. If you mean that no Congregation hath been alwayes visible but that Vniversal Church whose lesser corrupt part acknowledges the Popes Soveraignty I grant it For besides the whole containing all Christians as the parts there can be no other If you mean save that part which acknowledgeth you contradict your self because a part implyeth other parts If you mean save that Universal Church all whose members or the most acknowledg it there is no such subject existent 2. I distinguish of Visibility It s one thing to be a visible Church that is visible in its essentials and another thing to be visible quoad hoc as to some separable accident The Universal Church was ever visible because their Profession of Christianity was so and the persons professing But the acknowledgment of the Vice-christ was not alwayes visible no not in any parts much less in the whole And if it had it was but a separable accident if your disease be not incurable that was visible and therefore 1. It was not necessary to Salvation nor a proper mark of the Church 2. Nor can it be so for the time to come I need to say no more to your conclusion Your Argument is no better then this whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath been alwayes visible since the time of Christ But no congregation of Christians hath been so visible save onely that which condemneth the Greeks which hath a Colledge of Cardinals to chose the Popes which denieth the cup to the laity which forbiddeth the reading of Scripture in a known tongue without license c. Therefore whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath all these 1. In a corrupt part it hath 2. But it had not alwayes 3. And may be cured hereafter To your proof of the Major 1. I grant your Major 2. Ad minorem 1. Either you mean Vniversal Pastors each one or some one having charge and Government of the whole Church or you mean unfixed Pastors having an indefinite charge of Preaching and Guiding when they come and have particular calls and opportunities or you mean the fixed Pastors of particular Churches In the first sense your Minor is false the Catholike Church was never so united to any Universal Head but Christ no one of the Apostles governed the rest and the whole Church much less any since their time In the second sense I grant that the Church hath ever had Pastors since the Ascension In the third sense I grant that some parts or other of the Catholick Church have ever had fixed Pastors of Congregations since the first setling of such Pastors But any one particular Congregation may cease to have such Pastors and may cease it self And Rome hath been long without any true Pastors and therefore was then no such visible Church 2. If by Congregation you mean not the Universal Church but a part or if you mean it of all the parts of the Universal Church I deny your Minor Communities of Christians and particular persons have been and may be without any Pastors to whom they are united or subject The Indians that died in the faith while Frumentius and Edesius were
it in your Edition p. 35. But why do you refer what I admit not I say not that every Opponent may come to a Negative at his pleasure as you make me say but when that Negative is deduced by force of Syllogistical form and denied by the Respondent in a matter proveable by instances as this is I affirm and desire it should be sent to both our Learned Universities that he who denies the universal Negative is obliged in Logical process to give some instance to the contrary and that there is no other means to prove that Negative but by infringing the instances which the Respondent produces against it For if the Opponent go to prove his universal negative by Induction viz. in my present Minor But no Congregation of Christians hath been alwayes visible save those which acknowledge St. Peter c. he must come at last to this Such a Congregation is neither that of the Arrians nor of the Eutychians nor of Nestorians nor any other Congregation that can be named Then if the Respondent deny that Proposition and affirm there is some nameable he is obliged to tell which it is otherwise it is impossible to make progress in the Argument which way of arguing notwithstanding is most Logical and usually practised amongst Learned Disputants Baxter Num. 25. We are all agreed that Christianity is the true Religion and Christ the Churches universal Head and the Holy Scriptures the Word of God Papists tell us of another Head and Rule the Pope and Tradition and Iudgement of the Church Protestants deny these Additionals and hold to Christianity and Scripture onely our Religion being nothing but Christianity we have no controversie about their Papal Religion superadded is that which is controverted They affirm 1. the Right 2. the Antiquity of it We deny both The Right we disprove from Scripture though it belongs to them to prove it The Antiquity is it that is now to be referred Protestancy being the denial of Popery it is we that really have the Negative and the Papists that have the Affirmative The Essence of our Church which is Christian is confessed to have been successively visible But we deny that theirs as Papal hath been so and now they tell us that it is Essential to ours to deny the Succession of theirs and therefore require us to prove a Succession of ours as one that still hath denied theirs Now we leave our Case to the Lawyers seeing to them you make your Appeal 1. Whether the Substance of all our Cause lie not in this question Whether the Papacy or universal Government by the Pope be of Heaven or of Men Fallacy 8. and so Whether it hath been from the beginning which we deny and therefore are called Protestants and they affirm and are therefore called Papists 2. If they cannot first prove a Successive visibility of their Papacy and Papal Church then what Law can bind us to prove that it was denied before it did arise in the world or ever any pleaded for it 3. And as to the point of Possession I know not what can be pretended on your side 1. The possession of this or that particular Parish Church or Tythes is not the thing in question but the universal Headship is the thing But if it were yet it is I that am yet here in Possession and Protestants before me for many Ages Successively And when possessed you the Head-ship of the Ethiopian Indian and other Extra-Imperial Churches never to this day No nor of the Eastern Churches though you had Communion with them 2. If the question be who hath possession of the universal Church we pretend not to it but onely to a part and the soundest safest part 3. The Case of Possession therefore is Whether we have not been longer in Possession of our Religion which is bare Christianity then you of your super-added Popery Our Possession is not denied of Christianity yours of Popery we deny and our denial makes us called Protestants Let therefore the reason of Logicians Lawyers or any rational sober man determine the case whether it do not first and principally belong to you to prove the visible Succession of a Vice-Christ over the universal Church Iohnson Num. 25. Fair and softly Sir you are run quite out of the field and have lost your self I know not where The present question is not who is to prove the universal and perpetual Supremacy of the Roman-Bishop See you not that I have already undertaken the proof of that in this present Argument The question at present is nothing but this when I have brought the Argument to this Head that no other Congregation of Christians can be named perpetually visible save that which acknowledges the Roman Supremacy and you deny that negative Proposition of mine whether you be not obliged upon that denial to name some Congregation which has been perpetually visible beside it This and this onely is that which I referr'd and still refer to the the judgement of the Learned as to your Case when it comes in season it shall be resolved This onely ex abundanti for the present whatsoever may be or not be of the Indians and Ethiopians c. which shall hereafter be examined You who confess the Pope to have been constituted Part 2. at least by the Churches grant Patriarch of the West and thereby to have acquired a lawfull Supremacy over the Western Churches and consequently over that of England and was in full and quiet possession of that Right when your first Protestants began to reject it you I say cannot deny those first Protestants at least to have been obliged by reason of that possession to bring convincing proofs that it was unlawfull which notwithstanding you must hold impossible to be done because you hold that Patriarchal power over them to have been lawfull Now what obligation falls upon you as maintaining successively so wrongfull a cause I leave to your consciences to determine Nay it is most evident in time of the first breach with the Roman Bishop he was in as quiet possession of Supremacy over the English Church in quality of Supreme visible Pastor over the whole Church as he was in quality of the Western Patriarch for the English obeyed him as Supreme over all and not as Patriarch of the West onely as appears by thousands of testimonies extant in our National Councils Doctors Bishops Historians Records Decrees c. Therefore those who dispossest him of that possession were bound either to have demonstrated it undeniably to be unlawfull or to have procured a definitive Sentence against him by such as had full Authority to judge him that his possession was unjust neither of which either hath been done nor can ever be done Baxter Num. 26 As to your contradictory impositions I reply 1. Your exception was not exprest and your imposition was peremptory Iohnson Num. 26. But I supposed my Adversaries to be Logicians and stood not in need to be instructed
say to so many poor souls that are ready to enter into another World Either sin against your Consciences and so damn your souls or else let us burn and murder you or else you do not love us you are uncharitable if you deny us leave to kill you and you separate from the Communion of the Church We appeal from the Pope and all unreasonable men to the great God of heaven and earth to judge righteously between you and us concerning this dealing As for possessing our selves of your Bishopricks and Cures if any particular person had personal injury in the change being cast out without cause they must answer for it that did it not I though I never heard any thing to make me beleeve it But must the Prince and the people let alone Delinquent Pastors for fear of being blamed for taking their Bishopricks Ministers of the same Religion with us may be cast out for their crimes Princes have power over Pastors as well as David Solomon and other Kings of Israel had Guil. Barclay and some few of your own knew this The Popes treasonable exemption of the Clergie from the Soveraigns judgement will not warrant those Princes before God that neglect to punish offending Pastors And I beseech you tell us when our Consciences after the use of all means that we can use to be informed cannot renounce all our senses nor our reason nor the judgement of the most of the Church or of Antiquity or the Word of God and yet we must do so or be no members of your Church what wrong is it to you if we chuse us Pastors of our own in the order that God hath appointed Had not the people in all former ages the choice of their Pastors We and our late Fore-fathers here were never under your over-sight but we know not why we may not now choose our Pastors as well as formerly we do it not by Tumults We kill not men and tread not in their blood while we chuse our Pastors as Pope Damasus was chosen The Tythes and other Temporal maintenance we take from none but the Magistrate disposeth of it as he seeth meet for the Churches good And the maintenancâ—â— is for the cure or work and therefore that are justly cast out of the cure are justly deprived of the maintenance And surely when they are dead none of you can with any shew of reason stand up and say These Bishopricks are yours or These Parsonages are yours It is the Incumbent personally that only can claim the Title saving the super-eminent title of Christ to whom they are devoted But the successive Popes cannot have title to all the Tythes and Temples in the World nor any of his Clergy that never were called to the charges If this be dis-union it is you that are the Separatists and cause of all If you will needs tell all the Christian World that except they will be ruled by the Pope of Rome and be burned if they beleeve not as he bids them in spight of their senses he will call them Separatists Schismaticks and say they dis-unite and are uncharitable again we appeal to God and all wise men that are impartial whether it be he or we that is the divider Iohnson Num. 98. By what is now answered this your long Rhetorical Exclamation from page 108. to page 112. is also solved For all that the Church of Rome demands of you even to the denying of your senses and subjecting of your judgement was in the year 1500. required of you by all Visible Ancient Churches in the World and you are not able to nominate any one where it was not Change therefore the term Pope or Church of Rome into that of the Catholick Church of Christ that is all Orthodox particular Churches existent at that time which are comprised in the number of all visible ancient particular Churches then existing and address your exclamations to it and then you will see how little of a Christian complaint there is in that whole digression To this therefore I presse you once again to produce some Visible Church in the year 1500. from whose visible Communion you were not separated in your first beginning Anno 1517. as much as were the Pelagians or Donatists from all Visible Churches in their times And to render a sufficient reason why your dis-obeying or substracting your selves from the dependance and obedience of all the Visible Pastors in all Churches Anno 1500. was not as much deserving to be termed and held a criminal Schism and spiritual Rebellion as any former separation from all Visible Churches Mr. Baxter Num. 99. You ask me Is not Charity Subordination and obedience to the same State and Government required as well to make one Congregation of Christians as it is required to make a Congregation of Commonwealth's-men Answ. yes it is But as all the world is one kingdome under God the universal King but yet hath no universal vice-king but every Commonwealth only hath it's own Sovereign even so all the Christian world is one Church under Christ the universal king of the Church but hath not one vice-Christ but every Church hath it's own Pastours as every School hath it's own School-master But all the Anger is because we are loth to be ruled by a cruel usurper therefore we are uncharitable William Iohnson Num. 99. You commit the Fallacy of ignoratio Elenchi and pass à genere in genus I speak of a visible Kingdome or Commonwealth as it is regulated by a visible Government and you take it as it is invisibly govern'd by an invisible Providence In this sense only are all the kindomes of the earth one kingdome under the invisible Government of the Invisible God but cannot be truly called one visible kingdome but more Now it is evident through the whole discourse that our present Controversie is of the visible Church as it is visible and in this sense it is and must be one and consequently must be under some visible Government which must make it one That cannot be Christ for he governs not his Church now visibly Ergo there must be some other and that must either be some Assembly of chief Governours as would be a General Council or some one person who has Authority to govern the whole body of the Church A general Council it cannot be for that was never held to be the ordinary but only the extraordinary Church-Government when emergent occasions require it and even when that is convened there must be some one person to avoid Schisme and quiet Controversies which may possibly arise in the Council with Authority above all the rest It is therefore manifest the Church cannot be perfectly one visible politick Body unless there be one visible head to govern it visibly as the ordinary Governour of it I beseech you Sir reflect often upon this distinction and you will see the chief ground of your discourse answered by it For to say as you do here that the Church
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
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
no other copy of the Sardican Council save that false one of the Arians fraudently given out for the true one of Sardica Now if St Augustine the light not only of Africa but of the whole Church was ignorant of the true canons of the Sardican Council the copies of it having been supprest by the Donatists what need you wonder that the rest of the African Bishops were ignorant of them and this is the reason why the African Fathers writ they found not the canons in any Council of the Fathers because they had not the true copy of the Sardican wherein they were yet it is true that these very canons were acknowledged by the African Churches within very few years after this African Council both by the practise of that Church S. Leo. Ep. 8. ad Episc Africanâ—â—s where as St. Leo witnesses an African Bishop appealed to him who succeeded within eight years of Celestine and his appeal was received and by inserting these very canons of the Sardican Council into the canon law of Africa for Fulgentius Ferrandus Deacon of Carthag not long after St. August and Contemporanean with St. Fulgentius Fulg. Ferrand in Breviar Can art 59. 60. hath registred them into his collection of the canons amongst the rest Mr. Baxter Num. 152. It was made in a case of Athanasius and other Orthodox Oriental Bishops meerly in that strait to save them and the Churches from the Arians William Iohnson Num. 152. But if it were only for this strait why was it many years after put into the canon law of Africa as I have now proved and practised to this very day ever since in the Church Who ever before you said it was only for that strait name any one clasick author of antiquity if you can who said so Canons of general Councils though occasioned by several accidents are to be supposed as perpetual to the whole Church till they be either repealed by some authority equal to a general Council or some manifest action given in the institution of them that they are only provisionary for a time prove if you can by the words of this Council that it intends them only to be obligatory only for that strait and not to be perpetual This indeed were an excellent way to infringe the obligation of all or the most part of the Ecclesiastical canons by saying they were in aid upon such a strait as all were made by some or other and therefore binde not after that occasion is past But what if in effect either the same or the like occasion and strait more or lesse be still found in the Churches For after the Arians the Nestorians Eutychians Monothelites image breakers others persecuted Catholick Bishops as wrongfully as did the Arians why then was this canon not to remaine necessary after that strait of the Arian opposition I see the strait was yours being much pinched for an answer when you fell upon such a strait as this Mr. Baxter Num. 153. The Arians withdrew from the Council being the Minor part and excommunicated Julius and Athanasius and other occidentals and the occidental Bishops excommunicated the oriental Athanasius himself was a cheif man in the Council and had before been rescued by the help of Julius and therefore no wonder if they desired this safety to their Churches William Iohnson Num. 153. But yet because it was morally certain even after this strait was past that as before this Council was assembled or the Council of Nice either many Bishops were opprest by their neighbour Bishops and stood in need of appeals so in all future times more or lesse such occasions would happen as continual experience ever since hath taught as they have hapned for these reasons I say it was necessary that these and the like canons should be of perpetual force or remedy against perpetual dangers equal or like to those of the Arians This ground of yours would have stood our late Republicans in good stead who might have cancelled most of the ancient lawes of our Kingdomes upon the same pretence with yours that they were enacted first upon some strait or other which being past over many years agoe they are now no more necessary nor any way obligatory See you not what foundations you lay for the overthrow of the lawes both of Church and Kingdome Mr. Baxter Num. 154. Note that this is a thing newly granted now by this canon and not any ancient thing William Iohnson Num. 154. Prove it is a new thing this decree was not before it was made but the matter of the decree that is the power of the Bishops of Rome to judge all other prelats was before this Council for otherwise St. Athanasius and the other Bishops could never have appealed to the Bishops of Rome as to their judges or would their appeales have been accepted by those holy Bishops or approved in general Councils or had the effects of restauration c. In the Church which notwithstanding you your self confesse here was done before this Council Mr. Baxter Num. 155. Note that therefore it was of humane Right and not of Divine William Iohnson Num. 155. Therefore whence deduce you that to prove first your premises before you infer your conclusion may not the Church order that divine Lawes and institutons be observed and are they therefore not of divine right because the Church hath commanded the observance of them did not the fourth Council of Lateran command all Christians to receive at Easter Is therefore the reception of the Sacrament not of divine right true it is the circumstances of Executing divine commands may be determined by the Church as they were in this Council but the substance is still divine shew by any word in those canons that they give the power of judging the causes of all Bishops to the Pope as if he had it not before Mr. Baxter Num. 156. Note that yet this canon was not received or practised in the Church but after this the contrary maintained by Councils and practised as I shall anon prove William Iohnson Num. 156. When you prove it I hope I shall answer it Mr. Baxter Num. 157. That it is not any antecedent Governing power that the Canon acknowledgeth in the Pope but in honor of the memory of St. Peter as they say yet more for their present security they give thus much to Rome it being the vulgar opinion that Peter had been their Bishop William Iohnson Num. 157. I am heartily sorry to discover so bad a spirit in you as these expressions demonstrate why give you not the title of St. to him to whom this holy oecumenicall Council as you here acknowledg gave it they call him say you St. Peter and you unsaint him cal him as it were in derision of the Council plain Peter why call you that a vulgar opinion which was imbraced as an unquestioned certainty by this reverend Learned and general assembly of the catholick Church why impose you upon
this holy Council that they had preferred their own security before the memory of St. Peter I am really struck with compassion to see so much of the Lucian in you I have denyed any power at all to be given to the Bishops of Rome by these canons they only determine the use which was to be made of his presupposed power by whom and when If an order be made in Parliaments That such particular persons as have been oppressed by others in inferiour courts shall have recourse by appeal to one of the Lords cheif Justices Does that Parlianent by virtue of that order create or institute the Lord cheif Justice or rather is it not evident it supposes him to have the power of cheif Justice precedently to that order and only ordaines that others have recourse to him But yet the power they mention of redresse and appeal to the Roman Bishops is to him only as Judge for the canon sayes nothing of any Council joyned to him nor names any other Judge save the Pope when a Judge sits in judgement at the assizes though the bench be filled with other justices who inform and assist yet the sentence proceeds only from the Judge Thus though the Bishops of Rome used in matters of great concernment to the whole Church to call some neighbouring Bishops to sit in Council with him for his better information and greater solemnity in the judgement yet he alone had the power of pronouncing a definitive sentence in behalf of Bishops wrongfully deposed c. It is manifest by this that the restauration is ascribed as done by him and not by him and his Council and so having no authority in itself out of the Roman or Western Patriarchate and serving only for an assistance to the Pope in framing his judgement of the case propounded not in a decisive voyce in pronouncing the sentence or legal power in granting the restauration How expect you to be spoke of after your death when you slight so much the Fathers of the first general Council of Nice for a great number of them were in this and how can you live without fear Socrat. eccl histor l. 2. c. 11. Zozom l. 3. c. 11. 12. that you are led with the spirit of errour when you refuse to hear and beleive those who were the lawful pastours in a full representative of Gods holy Church but to shew how far you fal from trueth in saying those canons acknowledge no antecedent governing power in the Pope please to reflect on what is said in the third of them where they leave it to the Popes prudence to accept of what appeales he thinks fit and intreat him to vouchsafe to write to the neighbouring Bishops or to send legats of his own to examine the case as he judges best now had they conferd this power upon the Pope by virtue of those acts they should not have proceded by way of intreaty but by way of precept and injunction nor left matters to his disposition but ordered him by theirs what he was to doe Mr. Baxter Num. 158. That it is not a power of judging alone that they give but of Causing the re-examination of causes by the Council and adding his assistance in the the judgement and so to have the putting of another into the place forborne till it be done William Iohnson Num. 158. But does not the first of these canons give expresse order that the Pope appoint the judges and the second that the Pope himself pronounce the last juridical sentence the third that it is left to the Popes free election either to refer the farther examination to the neighbour Bishops or send judges of his own appointment Can there be more evident markes of an absolute judge than these are If the Pope had power only to examine the causes who had the power to judge them according to these Canons or to what purpose where those examinations made if none were impowred to passe judgement after the causes were examined Now seeing the canons attribute the power of judging to no other save the Bishops of Rome for they make no mention at all of any Council then the Council supposed the power of judgeing to be in him alone and not joyntly in the provincial Council and him Mr. Baxter Num. 159. And I hope still you will remember that at this Council were no Bishops without the Empire and that the Roman world was narrower then the Christian world and therefore if these Bishops in a part of the Empire had now given not a ruling but a saving power to the Pope so far as is there expressed this had been far from proving that he had a ruling power as the vice-Christ over all the world and that by divine right Blame me not to call on you to prove this Consequence William Iohnson Num. 159. I hope you will also remember what I have answered to these exceptions and that I have proved that Bishops from the three Arabia's were present in this Council all which were not under the Empire and that the Roman world in order to spiritual Government was as large as the Christian world univocally so called as I have prov'd from St. Prosper and St. Leo. Mr. Baxter Num. 160. There is as much for appeales to Constantinople that never claimed as vice-Christ-ship as jure divino William Iohnson Num. 160. 'T is your pleasure to say so but your word with me is not arrived to the authority of an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is your proofes not the bare sayings I expect here non proof 17. CHAP. III. ARGUMENT St. Basil. NUm 160. Mr. Baxter in lieu of answering to his adversaries objection treats other matters to draw his Reader from considering the force of the argument Num. 161. whether Mr. Baxter or his adversarie say true concerning the words of St. Chrysostome in his second epistle to Pope Innocent the first Num. 162. what the first Council of Ephesus writ to pope Celestine about Iohn Bishop of Antioch Mr. Baxters strange confidence in both these authorities Num. 163. Mr. Baxter flies to Hereticks to maintayn his cause by their wicked practises ibid. what Iuvenal Bishop of Hierusalem said of the Roman and Antiochian Church ibid. Mr. Baxter clips off the cheif part from Iuvenals words Num. 164. St. Cyril presided in the first Council of Ephesus as being the Popes legate Num. 166. Mr. Baxter recurrs again to the criminal procedings of Hereticks to maintaine his cause ibid. He minces the force of excomunication to lessen the Popes authority Num. 168. Whether Blondel Whitaker and Feild give satisfaction to that which Mr. Baxter calls a rancid instance Num. 171. What St. Basil sayes about the Popes authority Num. 172.173.174 Many non proofs heap't up together by Mr. Baxter Num. 179. He flies againe to patronize his cause by the crimes of Hereticks Mr. Baxter Num. 161. The sixt instance out of Basil's 74 Epistle I imagine you would have suppressed if ever you had
wonder you being a Scholar should perswade your self any prudent man will be moved by your may bees upon no other ground then that you say them without proof If you have such instances alleadge them if you alleadge them not say nothing of them 't is not for your credit thus to trifle in serious matters Mr. Baxter Num. 205. And if the fact were not proved yet the forbearance proves not the want of power William Iohnson Num. 205. But sure if it can be proved a man of your learning can prove it and then why have you not done it is it not a shrewd sign there was no such power when there can be given no instance in so many hundred years that it was ever brought into practice you know frustra datur potentia quae nunquam reducitur in actum and if such a power whereof you say many instances may be given had ever been sure it was either frustraneous and thereby not from God or fome steps of the exercice of it would have appeared in antiquity We speak not here of what is or is not in it self unknown to us but of what can be proved to have been and that must appear by the acts and exercise of such a power recorded in some ancient Authors or Records CHAP. V. Theodosius St. Leo. ARGUMENT NUm 205. Many instances of Bishops restored out of the Empire by the Bishop of Rome Num. 206. St. Leo's affirming the Popes power in calling General Councils to come from divine Institution Num. 116. Mr. Baxter misreports his Adversaries argument and then esteems what he himself hath done ridiculous Num. 217. Pulchelius for pulcheria ibidem Her letter about Anatolius his sending the Confession of his Faith to Leo miserably misconstrued by Mr. Baxter Mr. Baxter Num. 206. 3. I deny your unproved assertion that the Bishop of Rome singly restored all the Church over it is a meer fiction How many restored he out of the Empire Or in the Empire out of his Patriarchate but swasorily or Synodically William Iohnson Num. 206. Very many Such were all those Bishops who about the year 400. in Spain in France anno 475. in England anno 595. in Germany anno 499. and other Western and Northern Kingdoms which were taken either from under the command of the Romane Emperours or were never under it who were restored by the Bishop of Rome's authority when wrongfully deposed from their Sees addressing themselves to him and requiring justice from him whereof all Ecclesiastical Histories of those Nations are full of instances And in more antient times whilst the Emperours were Heathens the cause of the Pope's authority out of the Western Patriarchate could not be the subjection those Bishops had to the Emperour of Rome but must have been derived from a spiritual authority instituted by Christ himself For neither had there been any General Council in those times to invest Rome in that authority nor can it be ever proved from antiquity that it was given him by the unanimous consent of all Bishops otherwise then as supposing it still due to him before their respective times by the power granted by our Saviour to St. Peter and his lawfully Successors as I have already affirmed the Bishop of Rome to have received all the Primacy you esteem him to have from a Council as shall be proved hereafter And I press you to produce any authority in those times which witnesseth it was originally given him by consent Now that the Bishop of Rome exercised jurisdiction over the Eastern Bishops in St. Victor's time and over Firmilian and those of Cappadocia in Pope Stephens time is so evident that it cannot be denyed See St. Irenaeus Nor will it avail to say those instances of France and Spain c. were in latter times And St. Cyp. in his Epistles to Pope Stephen where we dispute about the four first ages for if in all those ages it had been a common known tradition that the Pope had no jurisdiction of the Verge of the Roman Empire that tradition would have been publiquely and universally received in the years 500. and 600. even to the first erection of those new Kingdoms in the West and North And Vincentius Lirinensis infra citandus so that every one would have known they were no longer bound to be under the Roman Bishop then whilst they were under the Roman Empire because all knew in your novel supposition that the jurisdiction of the Pope extended no farther then the Roman Empire Why then did those Kings and all the Bishops and Churches in their Kingdoms esteem themselves as much obliged to the obedience of the Bishop of Rome after they were freed from the command of the Roman Emperour as they were before and never alleadged any such reason as you have invented of the Popes authority limited to the precincts of the Roman Empire to plead thereupon his not having any longer jurisdiction over them as being now no subject of that Empire What I say therefore is no fiction but a solide and manifest truth that he had authority of restoring Bishops wrongfully deposed all the Church over even out of the Empire but yours is a pure fiction to assert that as a publick tenet and practice which was manifestly unknown to those either of the four first or any subsequent ages coined lately from your own brain upon which I pray God heartily it lie not heavy one day as novelties in Religion use to do upon the heads of their first Inventors What you say of swasorily and Synodically I have above clearly confuted by shewing that the Councils of neighbouring Bishops in Italy were only assistants to the Pope but could have no juridical power over the whole Church or in parts remote and without the Western Patriarchate Now to what you usually presse of Ethiopia Persia outer Armenia c. that no instance can be given of any Bishop of those Churches restored by the Popes authority I answer that I can prove as effectually by instances their restoration by the Pope as you can prove them to have been restored by their own Primates Metropolitans Provincial Councils or Collections of Bishops within their own Charters nay as you can shew that any of them were restored The reason therefore that no such instance is given in the primitive times is not as you imagine and would impose upon your Reader that none of them were subject to the Pope but because there is no Records or mention in Ecclesiastical History that any were restored either by this or any other authority and if there be produce them The reason whereof is because the Roman Emperours then Heathens permitted no publique correspondence of those who were out of the Empire being their enemies with those who were within it and after the Christian Emperours being in war with those barbarous Nations refused to admit unlesse upon very urgent occasions such correspondences nor have we extant any authentick Authors of those Provinces who have
recorded the Histories and transactions of the said Churches so that 't is unknown to us what either passed betwixt them and the Bishop of Rome or amongst themselves Mr. Baxter Num. 207. Your next instance of Theodosius his not permitting the Council at Ephesus to be assembled and his reconciling himself to the Church is meerly impertinent We know that he and other Princes usually wrote to Rome Constantinople Alexandria c. Or spoke or sent to more then one of the Patriarcks before they called a Council William Iohnson Num. 207. You still seek diversions to avoid the difficulty The question is not now whether Theodosius and other Emperours did or might write to other Patriarcks about the celebration of Councils as well as the Roman but it is this whether they wrote in the same manner to them as they did to him that is as Pope Leo witnesses epist. 15. that he Theodosius bare this respect to the divine institution that he would use the authority of the Apostolick Sea for the effecting of his holy disposition And this was celebrating that Council the 2d of Ephesus which as then appeared to the Pope to be good and holy Finde me such a sentence of his writ by Theodosius or other Emperours to any of the Patriarcks beside the Roman that their authority was necessary according to divine institution for the celebrating of a general Council and you will have done something without which you trifle Mr Baxter Num. 208. You cannot but know that Councils have been called without the Pope William Iohnson Num. 208. Truly if you speak of lawful general â—â—ouncils I am so unknowing that I know it not supposing there were a known undoubted Pope in the Church as there was in Theodosius's time and I fear I shall be so dull that you will not be able to make me know it I am sure yet you have not gone about it and I presse you to nominate any such lawful general Councils call'd without the B. of Romes consent and authority Mr. Baxter Num. 209. And that neither this nor an Emperours forsaking his errour is a sign of the Popes universal Government William Iohnson Num. 209. Take the context of my proofs along with you which you conceal here and you confess this demanding the Popes authority as necessary to the celebration of a general Council and in that giving respect to divine restitution is a sign of his universal government seeing general Councils as I have proved are representatives not of the Empire but of the whole visible Church And Theodosius his pennance whereof one effect was that he required the confirmation of Anatolius in the Sea of Constantinople from Pope Leo and thereby attested his power over that Patriarck and a simili over all the rest he shewed himself to believe that the Roman Bishop was supream governour of the universal Church Mr. Baxter Num. 210. That Emperour gave sufficient testimony and so did the Bishops that adhered to Dioscorus that in those dayes the Pope was taken for fallible and controulable when they excommunicated him William Iohnson Num. 210. No more then the Clergy of Sweden would shew it now if they ventured so far as to excommunicate the Pope Is think you authority overthrown or rendred or argued null because it is opposed and contemned by Rebels you shew in this what your spirit is and how inconsistent with true Government when you make the contempt of Rebels an argument that all whom they reject have no lawful power over them a thing seasonable enough when you wrote this having then rebellious times and persons well suiting with it but yet demonstrative what you thought then and may still be esteemed one of your principles But I wonder much you were so venturous as to let it passe the print and see light since the happy return of our most gracious Soveraign For think you men are so blind as not to see this consequence that if Hereticks outing and contemning the authority of a Catholique Bishop as Dioscorus an Eutychian and his party did that of Leo be a good argument as you make it to prove he had no authority over the Church nor over Dioscorus who excommunicated him you must also hold that a publique Rebel's deposing a Soveraign is a good argument to justifie the fact and to prove that Soveraign had no authority over him Or if you your self dare not go so far you have laid a principle emboldning all Rebels to do it Mr. Baxter Num. 211. But when you cite out of any Author the words that you build on I shall take more particular notice of them William Iohnson Num. 211. I have cited them out of St. Leo and expect your answer Mr. Baxter Num. 212. Till then this is enough with this addition that the Emperours subjection if he had been subject not to an Ambrose or other Bishop but only to Rome would have been no proof that any without the Empire were his subjects no more then the King of Englands subjection to the Arch-bishop of Canterbury would have proved that the King of France was subject to him William Iohnson Num. 112. You flie again the difficulty I make not this argument the Emperour was subject to the Pope in spirituals Ergo all those Christians who were Extra-Imperial were also subject to him This is no argument of mine but your imposition My argument is this The Emperour and all Christians within this Empire were subject to the Pope as to St. Peters Successor and Supream Pastor of the whole flock and Vineyard of Christ by Christs institution Ergo all Extra-Imperial Churches were also subject to him Now this to have been the reason of their subjection is evident both from St. Leo's Epistle lately cited concerning Theodosius and from the Council of Chalcedon treated by me hereafter and from the command of Martian and all the other declaratives of the Bishop of Romes supereminent authority delivered and received in antiquity where not so much as any one of them hath chained it up within the circuit of the Roman Empire or given that for a measure or reason of his power and it still remained in full force in such Kingdoms as were taken by Christians from the Roman Emperors who as I have said never affirmed their freedom from the Emperours command to have franchised them from the Bishop of Romes authority Whence is clearly answered your parity in the Kings of Englands subjection to the Bishop of Canterbury for the Kings of England never subjected themselves to the Bishop of Canterbury as to the Supream visible Governour in spirituals of the whole Catholique Church no not as to one who had any jurisdiction out of England at all Mr. Baxter Num. 112. Your twelfth proof from the Council of Chalcedon is from a witness alone sufficient to overthrow your cause as I have proved to you This Synode expresly determineth that your Primacy is a novel humane invention that it was given you by the Fathers because Rome
was the Imperial Seat If you believe this Synode the Controversie is at an end if you do not why do you cite it and why pretend you to believe General Councils William Iohnson Num. 213. You have a strange way of shifting off the force of an argument and that quite out of form and that illogical and it is to bring in some preface or other to weaken the authority of those whence this proof is brought before you give a Categorical answer What have we now to do with your proof alleadged many leaves after Part. 2. Is there not time enough to answer it when it comes in treaty Have you forgot that you are a Respondent not an Opponent are you so much inamoured with your own arguments that you must shew them at every turn even when there is no just occasion to mention them one would think it timely enough to boast of them when you and all men see no satisfactory answer given to them Have patience a while and you shall see ere long you authority from Chalcedon hurts us nothing It is partly shewed already and when it shall be treated in its place I hope you 'l have no cause to brag of it Mr. Baxter Num. 214. But what have you from this Council against this Council Why 1. you say Martian wrote to Leo that by the Pope's authority a General Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please Reply 1. Whereas for this you write Act. Concil Chalced. 1. You tell me not what Author Crab Binius Surius Nicolinus or where I must seek it I have perused the Act. 1. in Binius which is 74. pages in folio such tasks your citations set me and find no such thing and therefore take it to be your mistake William Iohnson Num. 214. I am sorry you have taken so much pains and lost your labour but sure I gave you no occasion of it for as I cited in the margin Con. Chalced. Act. 1. so I quoted in the Text Martian's Epistle to Leo when I said Martian wrote to Leo so that you had no more to do then to turn to the first Action of that Council and seek Martian's Epistle to Pope Leo which because it is in the full editions of Councils I thought it needless to name any Now this might have been done in a very short time nor could it be more exactly cited then I cited it giving both the Action and the Epistle extant in that Action Could you not as well have found the Epistle of Martian as of Valentinian and Martian if they be different Epistles Sure the one was as visible and legible as the other I tell you 't is no mistake of mine but your mishap that you found it not Please to look again and you will find those very words which I cite in that very Epistle which I quote Mr. Baxter Num. 215. But in the Preambul Epistle I find that Valentinian and Martian desire Leo's prayers and contrary to your words that they say hoc ipsum nobis propiis literis tua sanctitas manifestet quatenus in omnem Orientem in ipsam Thraciam Illyricum sacrae nostrae literae dirigantur ut ad quendam definitum locum qui nobis placuerit omnes sanctissimi Episcopi debeant convenire It is not qui vobis placuerit but qui nobis William Iohnson Num. 215. Your words from the Epistle of Valentinian and Martian infringe not those mentioned by me for it may well be that Pope Leo remitted the designation of the place to the Emperour as judging it more belonging to them then to himself as a thing wholly temporal though the precise words qui nobis placuerit may be in rigor applied both to the Emperour and Pope My first authority therefore from that Council is not answered at all in this your paper Mr. Baxter Num. 216. But what if you had spoke truth doth it follow that Pope Leo was Christs Vicar-general Governour of the world because that the Soveraign of one Common-wealth did give him leave to chuse the place of a Council Serious things should not be thus jested with William Iohnson Num. 216. I argue not so you proceed fallaciously a secundum quid ad simpliciter The force of my argument consists not in the chusing of the place by the Pope that 's a pure circumstance but the strength of my reason consists in this that the Council was gathered by the Popes authority And to this you say nothing which notwithstanding is an evident proof that the Pope had authority over the whole Church as I shall prove hereafter Serious things should be seriously answered and not be thus jested at by fraudulent fallacies and disguises Now in my words here cited viz. Martian wrote to Leo that by the Bishops authority a General Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to chuse the word he may as well be related to Martian as to the Pope So that you cannot inforce from the precise words that I say the place was left to the Pope's choice Mr. Baxter Num. 217.2 You say Anatolius the rest of the Eastern Bishops sent to Pope Leo the professions of their Faith by his Order Reply 1. And what then Therefore Pope Leo was both Governour of them and all the Christian world You should not provoke men to laughter about serious things I tell you Can you prove this Consequence Confessions were ordinarily sent in order to communion or to satisfie the offended without respect to superiority Corruption William Iohnson Num. 217. I see y' are merrily disposed y' are so full of jesting and laughing but truly see no other jest here â—â—hen your misreporting my argument and then saying it moves laughter I spake of confessions of Faith exacted from others by command or order of the Pope and this I alleadge to be a proof of the Popes universal supremacy And you answer that Confessions were ordinarily sent in order to Communion or to satisfie the offended without respect to superiority As if I made the bare sending a Confession of Faith to another an argument that he to whom it is sent is superiour to him that sends it Whereas I say in express termes that it is the ordering such a Confession to be sent to him who orders it and not the bare sending without order which argues superiority in him who orders the sending such professions Might I not here deservedly retort your Sarcasmus and tell you you should not provoke men to laughter by such gross perversions as these in serious things But I spare and pitty you Mr. Baxter Num. 218.2 But I see not the proof of your impertinent words Pulcherius Epistle to Leo expresseth that Leo had sent his Confession first to Anatolius to which Anatolius consented By your Rule then Leo was subject to Anatolius Corruption William Iohnson Num. 218. I find no Epistle of Pulcherius to Leo nor so much as any such
what he was not obliged to prove Num. 277. Why the Roman supremacy in spirituals is necessary to the being of Christs visible Church Num 278. He proceeds fallaciously a sensu conjuncto ad sensu divisum The difference between temporal Kings and Popes government not understood by Mr. Baxter Num. 279. He proceeds a jure ad factum from what should be done to what is done Num. 280. He mistakes his adversaries meaning in governing others as Brethren Num. 281. Wâ—â—e her the Pope be absolutely the Monarch of the visible Church Mr. Baxter Num. 275. Yet fear you not to say that in the time of the holy oecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon the universal consent of the whole Catholick Church was for you in this point The Lord keep our consciences from being the servants of our opinions or interests 1. Was the Popes legate the whole Church 2. Was there one man at either of these Councils but within the Empire yea a piece of the Empire So that they were but such as we now call national Councils that is consisting only of the subjects of one republick 3. Did the Council speak a word for your power without the Empire 4. Do they not determine it so expresly to be of humane right that Bellarmine hath nothing regardable to say against it Can. 28. Con. Chal. but that they spoke falsly And yet your opinion or interest hath tempted you to appeal viz. to the Sun that there is no such thing as light William Iohnson Num. 275. Here 's nothing but a good face put upon a bad cause and a repetition of what is answered imboldned with a new confidence your first qu. about the Popes legate is answered To your second I answer yes there were no small number of extra-imperials but had there been none if all were summoned it ceased not to be a general Council To the third yes every decree it made was spoken to the whole Church and as it appeares by the letters of Leo the Emperour writ presently after the Council of Chalcedon to all Churches even the most distant in those parts it was universally received in their respective answers by every one of them To your fourth about can 28. Con. Chal. I have answered already and shall say more when it is more fully treated Mr. Baxter Num. 276. After the conclusion you have a supernumerary in your margin from Greg. lib. 10. Epist. 30. But there is no such word in that Epistle nor is it of any such subject But it s the 31 Epistle its like that your leader meant And there is no more but that a Bishop not named person or place having fallen into Schism voluntarily swore never more to depart from the unity of the Catholick Church or the Sea of Rome But. 1. So may a Bishop of the Roman Province do or Patriarchate without beleiving Rome to be the universal head William Iohnson Num. 276. Could they and yet make the communion with the Bishop of Rome to be the certification and evidence they reconciled themselves to the Catholick Church If any Schismatick in France should reconcile himself to the Catholick Church could he promise to remain allwayes in the communion of the Bishop of Rhemes suppose that Bishop should so be excommunicated or turne Schismatick as he might could he promise never to forsake his communion seeing therefore an absolute promise was made to remain alwayes in the communion of the Bishop of Rome it was presupposed that Bishop once lawfully chosen and installed could never be excommunicated or become a Schismatick so long as he remained Bishop of Rome otherwise the promise had been illegal and impious obliging them to communicate with Schismaticks Now there can be no other sufficient reason given why the Bishop of Rome can never be excommunicated or become a Schismatick so long as he is Bishop of that Sea then that he is the visible head of the whole Church from whose communion whosoever seperates becomes a Schismatick as he who seperates from the loyal obedience of the visible head of a Kingdome becomes a Rebel but because he has no power above him against whom he can rebel but as a King can never be a Rebell so not the highest visible governour of the Church can be excommunicated or commit Schisme by contempt of the lawful authority of the Church because he who is the highest of all has no authority in the Church over him for then he were not the highest Mr. Baxter Num. 277. So might any one in any other Province have done And yet it followes not that he ought to do so because he did so You see now what all your proofs are come too and how shamefully naked you have left your cause William Iohnson Num. 277. I have so illustrated and strengthened my instances to open them to your understanding that every one of them by an argument a paritate rationis onis ut supra evinces the Popes power to have been universal over all Christendome seeing those Patriarchs and Prelates that were within the verge of the Empire obeyed him upon no other score save this that they still conceived him to be by vertue of the priviledges and powers given by our Saviour to St. Peter and his lawful successors the cheif Governour of themselves and of all other Prelates whatsoever and of the whole Church and I challenge you to produce one sole instance of Authority from antiquity which sayes in expresse termes that those of the Empire obeyed them because they were members of the Empire or that his authority reached not without the Empire Nay even in time of the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon Spain though seperate from the Empire obeyed the Roman Bishop for it was possest by the Gothes an 414. who have ever since kept it and the Council of Ephesus began 430. And not long after an 475. France was possest by barbarous Kings and never since returned to the Empire yet still remained under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome When England was after converted betwixt six and seven hundred years it was no part of the same Empire yet yeilded it obedience to the Bishop of Rome the like is of many other Western and Northern Countries out of the Empire converted about or after these times See more of this in my reasons against your grand noveltie in restraint of general councils what you mention here of a parity from Canterbury hath no parity at all For the English Church rendred obeisance to the Bishop of Canterbury as to the Primate of the English Church only whereas those in the Empire obeyed the Bishop of Rome not as cheif Bishop only of the Roman â—â—mpire but as having authority over the whole Church in vertue of succession from St. Peter who received it from Christ which I will demonstrate hereafter Mr. Baxter Num. 278. You have not named one man that was a Papist Pope Lâ—â—o was the nearest of any man nor one testimony that ever a
metaphorical children and he a metaphorical Father but will you scruple at the Pater noster because we call God our Father and consequently our selves his children because we are not the proper and natural but his metaphorical children when you next talk of governing them in love for their good and affirm that Kings must do the like why leave you out the word eternal which is my epithite and wherein the force of my words consists and then tell me I have exprest no difference at all is this fair will not every one who hath but half an eye discover such petty slights as these Mr. Baxter Num. 390. But our question is not new nor in universal terms what Soveraignty you claim you know or should know Are you ignorant that Bellarmine Boverius and ordinarily your Writers labour to prove that the Government of the Church is Monarchical and that the Pope is the Monarch the supream head and Ruler which in English is Soveraign Are you ashamed of the very cause or Title of it which you will have necessary to our salvation William Iohnson 390. 'T is one thing to say the Government is Monarchical and another to affirm the Pope to be the Monarch as you do and Bell. cited by you does not of the whole Church without ever explicating what kind of Monarch you mean A government may be termed Monarchical which hath a great part of Monarchy in it though it be not strict and perfect Monarchy as a man may be called Angelical though he be no Angel thus our Authors and particularly Bellarmine put the Church-government to have something of the mixt in it Bell. l. 1. de Rom. pont c. 5. sect ultimo though he esteems it to incline more to Monarchy then to Aristocracy Whence appears that your inference drawn from a government thus imperfectly Monarchical to intitle the chief Governour in it the Monarch of it without all restriction as you do is of no force And of as little force is your other inference grounded in your former mistake that I am ashamed of any title which I hold necessary to salvation first prove we call the Pope Monarch and then say I am ashamed of it CHAP. IX Num. 391. Whether the title of the Vice-Christ be accounted either due or given by sufficient authority amongst Roman Catholiques to the Pope or accepted by them Num. 392. Mr. Baxter confounds Vice-Christi in place of Christ and Vice-Christus the Vice-Christ Num. 393. How far the Pope is understood to be in the place of Christ. Num. 394. He miscites his Adversaries words Num. 395. How the Vice-Christ and the Vicar of Christ differ Num. 396. Why a Deputy for a King may be called the Vice-King but a Deputy of Christ cannot be called the Vice-Christ Num. 397. Mr. Baxter makes Vice God to be a a higher title then Vice-Christ Num. 398. Mr. Baxter in place of alleadging a sufficient that is a publique authority cites Oratours Poets Encomiasticks c. and yet mistake most of those Mr. Baxter Num. 391. Next you say that you very much dislike the title of Vice-Christ as proved and insolent and utterly disclaim from it neither was it ever given by any sufficient authority to your Popes or did they ever accept of it Reply Now blessed be God that makes sin a shame to it self that the Patrons of it dare scarce own it without some paint or vizard William Iohnson Num. 391. Had you first confuted this answer and then broke out into this exclamation it had been much more seasonable but as it stands it relishes more of passion then of reason and will appear so to any who shall consider the weakness of your proofs against it whereof most consist in a pure digression by a fallacy usual to you proceeding à notione secunda ad primam from the second notion to the first or from the title to the thing it self as we shall now see Mr. Baxter Num. 392. Is not the very life of the cause between you and us whether the Pope be the universal head of the Church Vice-Christi Vicarius Christi Are not these the most common titles that Papists give them and that they take unto themselves William Iohnson Num. 392. Here you begin your fallacie Vicarius Christi is indeed a title but Vice-Christi is none the one signifies the Vicar of Christ but the other signifies in the place or stead of Christ which having no substantive or demonstrative annext to it cannot possibly be a title for of it self it signifies no determinate substance Now if you will joyn to it a substantive and say Papa est Vice-Christi the Pope is in place of Christ you may make some kind of title to it but you can never make it that about which we controvert for that is Vice-Christus the Vice-Christ so that all those who are Vice-Christi in the genitive case that is the place of Christ are not Vice-Christi in the nominative that is Vice-Christi which title onlie is in question betwixt us you were as some of your Parishioners esteemed you to govern those of Kidderminster Vice-Christi in the place of Christ were you therefore the Vice-Christ of Kiddermunster Nor is the title of universal head of the Church set down in your illimited terms here either a title acknowledged by us as due to the Pope or given to him by us For that Christ being the sole universal head of the Church which comprehends the Church militant and triumphant the term universal head signifies that which is due to Christ onlie we therefore acknowledge there is none but Christ himself according to your expression universal head of the Church nor is there any universal Vice-head nor Vice-Christ corresponding to that universal head to be found in the whole Church Nay even speaking of the sole militant Church we never say without some restriction the Pope is universal head of the Church for universal head comprises as well the internal and invisible as the visible Governour of the militant Church now we all deny that the Pope is head in the invisible government of the visible Church for that manner of government Christ only is the universal head nor say we that there is any Vice-christ or Vice-head constituted in the place of Christ in this invisible direction of the Church We therefore restrain the term universal head by this restrictive visible nor intend we to say any more then this that the Bishop of Rome is the visible head of the universal visible Church so far as it is capable of a visible government together with other Bishops who are as truely Christs officers and vice-gerents in their respective governments though subject to the Pope as he is in his government And in this sense only can he be termed a vice-Christ or vice-God that is holding the place of Christ in the visible government of his Militant Church But he cannot be stiled the vice-Christ which is the sole title about which we now contend
who decreed that there should be one every ten years Here 's a nominative case the way c. without a verb. Mr. Baxter Num. 417. The Councils that continue so many years as that at Trent did are then become an ordinary Government William Iohnson Num. 417. Here you fall into a scond Equivocation about the word ordinary that which lasts about twenty years in the Church with a soveraign power must be for the time they so continue the ordinary governour of the Church where you take ordinary for that which continues a considerable space of time See you not how handsomly you insinuate here that the late long Parliament which continued about as long as did the Council of Trent was for that time become with you and your abettors the ordinary Soveraign governour of the Kingdome and thereby his Majesty was excluded from being ordinary Sovereign over it I hope this will be noted too Mr. Baxter Num. 418. Fourthly what is given to the Church representative is by many of you given to the Church real or essential as you call it which is ordinarily existent only not capable of exerting the power it hath the singulis major ut universis minor is no rare doctrine with you William Iohnson Num. 418. Here you fumble in the dark I pray unriddle this in your next for I cannot what is that wee give to the Church real and representative wherein is the Church real not able to exert its power what mean you by singulis major and universis minor to whom apply you this or to what purpose Mr. Baxter Num. 419. Fiftly but let it be as extraordinary as you please if while these Councils sit the Pope lose his headship your Church is then two Churches specifically distinct and the form of it changeth when a Council siteth not like the Spouse of Iesus Christ. William Iohnson Num. 419. You should have done well to have prest this argument against those who hold Councils to be above the Pope it touches not me at all who am of the contrary opinion yet even those of that opinion will answer you with a wet finger that the Church hath neither then two heads nor loses the Pope his headship for he remaines chief ordinary governour of the Church in all ordinary causes and cases as well when there is as when there is not a Council and he being as ordinary head of the Church the chief president in the Council the Council is not its chief governour with exclusion of the Pope because it cannot be a true general Council but by including him in it So that he with the rest of the Bishops assembled make up the Council you cannot therefore divide the Council from him unlesse you divide him from himself so that he and a general Council are not two things adequately distant but involve him in it as a humane body involves the head or a Parliament the King Mr. Baxter Num. 420. Sixtly As your Popes are said to live in their constitutions and laws when the person dieth and your Church is not thought by you to die with them so why may not Councils do The lawes of Councils live when they sit not and the French think that these lawes are above the Pope though I shewed you even now that Julius 2. in Con. Lateran concluded otherwise of Decrees and the Council of the Popes power William Iohnson Num. 420. Let them remain in their decrees as much as you please but that will never make them the ordinary chief governours of the Church they remain no more in their degrees then did our ancient Parliaments in their Statutes yet no man dare say who is a good subject that those Parliaments were therefore the ordinary soveraign governours of the Kingdome taken exclusively without the King Mr. Baxter Num. 421. Seventhly If a Nation be governed by Triennial and so Decennial Parliaments as the highest power and Councils of State in the intervals who shall be accountable to Parliaments will you say these Parliaments are extraordinary and not the ordinary Soveraign no doubt they are And the Council of State is the Soveraign but the chief Officer or Magistrate for execution of the intervals William Iohnson Num. 421. Hitherto you have discoursed warily and covertly but now you discover openly your opinion of State government 'T is well you put an if to it and make it a conditional that will save you at a dead lift but yet every one sees by it how great an approver you were of the soveraignty of irregular Parliaments and authority of Councils of State for you speak not of what might be but what then was when you writ this but I wonder you were so bold as to let this see light as you did before something like it even since the most happy returne of his Sacred Majestie Let others judge of such passages as these Thus farre Mr. Baxter produces his answer to my argument and instances the last four pages are spent in confident repetition of what is now answered a prescription of what he would impose upon me to be Sylogistocally proved a prophesie of Christs speedy coming to judgement a wholesome admonition to take help from others to be able to encounter him scilicet a whole Army of such Pigmees as I is not able to incounter him he is so great a Giant but let the Reader judge whether something like that hath not hapned unto him which hapned to such an other whilst he exprobated and outfaced the hosts of the living God 1. Reg. 17.49.50 And it may be thought of also whether the 16 Chap. v. 6. of Esay may not be appliable to him audivimus Superbiam Moab Superbus est valde superbia ejus arrogantia ejus indignatio ejus plus quam fortitudo ejus Finally which is only worth observance he adds an earnest request to make a favorable exposition of what he feares may be thought too confident and earnest in his expressions which I freely pardon and beg a free pardon of God for him This as it is no part of his answer so can it not challenge any part of my reply I leave the whole processe to the impartial Reader and expect Mr. Baxters rejoynder Novelty Represt The third Part. In a brief Answer to Mr. Baxters second part Quest. Whether the Churches of which Protestants are Members have been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth CHAP. I. Mr. Baxters definitions and divisions Num. 1. He defines the Church Num. 2. His former solutions have rendred his difinition of the Church insignificant he defines Protestants the nullity of that difinition he speaks irreverently and unchristianly of the Catholique Church Whether the profession of a Protestant shew him to be as much an univocal Christian as the profession of a Papist shews him to be a Papist Num. 3. The reason why Protestants general profefsion of Christianity makes them no univocal Christians Num. 4. Mr. Baxter frames again a monster having a
whatsoever of any Apostolical Church nor was he there to have regard to the order but to the substance of his instances Pag. 236. you make Tertullian speak false Latin and non-sence again by printing institutum for instituuntur so careful are you in your citations fill they but up paper and help to patch up a new volum 't is enough for you Who can doubt but the Apostolical doctrine will prove an Apostolical Church when ever planted as you collect from this Text of Tertullian but how come those succeeding Churches to agree with the precedent but by means of a visible head who hath preserved all in the unity of faith which subject themselves to him where did you ever find any Churches continue long in the same faith with the Apostolical Churches after they had put themselves in opposition to the See of Rome let such Churches be nam'd in your next CHAP. III. More of Mr. Baxters Arguments Num. 32. Mr. Baxters third Argument out of form Num. 33. If the Roman Church were infected with the plague c. anno 1500. the whole visible Catholick Church was infected with it which is a foul Blasphemy Num. 34. Possession stands in force against Protestants Num. 36. the Popes Supremacy in spirituals essential to the Church Num. 37. The true meaning of the 28. Canon of Chalcedon and of the 2. Canon of the first Council of Constantinople Num. 39. Whether the ancient Fathers were accustomed to press the Authority of the Roman See against Heretiques Num. 40. A loud untruth of Mr. Baxter Num. 41. Extra-Imperial Churches subject to the Bishop of Rome Num. 44. 5. Reasons of Mr. Baxters against the Popes supremacy in spirituals answered 32. Pag. 238. Your third argument is out of form having the term as Christian in the first part of the antecedent and not in the sequel or second part therefore I deny the antecedent viz. Though the Roman as Christian hath been alwayes visible yet the Protestant hath not been alwayes visible It is fallacia à secundum quid and simpliciter For all that can be pretended to follow is no more then this that the Protestants have been visible as Christians that is so far as they profess the belief of the chief articles in Christian faith nor yet follows so much for I deny they believe any one of them as Christians ought to do that is with an infallible supernatural divine faith so that they have not been alwayes a visible Church as Christian though the Roman have been so Hence falls the proof of your consequence 33. Pag. 239. I denie your supposition that when Protestants first pretended to reform what displeas'd them in the doctrine of the Roman Church that thereby they were cured of the plague c. for if the Roman Church were then infected with the plague all the visible Churches in the world and consequently the whole Catholique Church was infected with it which is diametrically contrary to the Texts here cited by you out of Tertullian and a horrible blasphemie to affirm that the mystical body of Christ is infected with the plague or any such like mischief Here you trifle again prove the Popes supremacie first to be an usurpation and then take it for a ground of your argument what millions abroad and within the Roman Territories are those you talk of is everie number which you fancie a million Ibid. you frame an objection of your own and then answer it what 's the one or the other to me That which I have objected to be proved by you is no negative but a plain affirmative for 't is this that you prove any Church now denying or opposing the Popes Supremacy to have been alwayes visible Pag. 240. you essay to answer the argument about possession Your first answer is petitio principii or falsum suppositum that any parts of the Catholique Church much less the most fit can be nominated wherin the Popes Supremacy had not possession Non-proof 34. Your second of making good against our title of supremacy c. is only affirm'd by you who are a party but never yielded by us nor legitimately judged or defin'd against us so that sub judice lis est the matter is still in process and you know lite pendente till the cause be decreed or yielded up by one of the parties the possessor is to enjoy his title according to all law and reason you therfore by actual dispossessing the Roman Bishops of that right and title whereof he was quietly possest in the year 1500 in this our Nation and in all other places where you entred upon this pretence only that you think you have sufficiently disproved it from the divine law is to do him as much wrong as if a plantif in a suite at law should thrust the defendant out of quiet possession without decree or order from any competent Judge upon this sole pretence that he frames a judgement to himself he has convinced by law the others title to be null for in these cases both he and you make your selves judges in your own cause and proceed to an execution without a warrant 35. Page 240. To your question what you must prove I answer 't is this that any Church which has at any time or does now deny the Popes supremacy or remain independent of it has bin allwaies visible Ibid. of such as know nothing of the Popes supremacy I say nothing it being not our case then only they are bound to alledge proof for the denyal of it when it is or shall be sufficiently propunded to them 36. Page 241. The Smpremacie it self I have proved to be essential to the Church for there can be no visible body without a head But then it is essential to the subsistance of Christian faith in particular persons when it is sufficiently propounded to them as a point of faith page 241. You propose your fourth argument in proof of the Catholick Church not acknowledging the Popes supremacy for some time Your first Sylogism is out of form 1 for want of the word ever it should be ever since in your antecedent 2 and in the sequel for you say only that the Church whereof the Protestants are members hath been visible where as you should say hath been ever or alwayes visible for that only is the present question 3 You suppose the sole denyal of the Popes supremacy constitutes the Church whereof the Protestants are members which I deny for all hereticks as well as Protestants denyed his supremacy 37. Page 232 233. I have already answered to your 28 canon of Chalcedon first it uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is deferr'd or attributed not gave or conferr'd a new 2 they pretend to give no more to Constantinople then the second general Council had done as appeares by the words now that was to be next after Rome so that the principallity which Rome had before the Council of Constantinople was no way infringed by that canon 3