the Eutychians should sit in the Councill but be presented as a guilty person to be judged becuase he had celebrated a Councill in the Eastern Church without the consent of the Bishop of Rome which said the Legats never was done before nor could be done lawfully This order of Pope Leo was presently put in execution by consent of the whole Councill and Dioscorus was judged and condemned his condemnation and deposition being pronounced by the Popes Legats and after subscribred by the Councill Fifthly the Popes Legats pronounced the Church of Rome to be Caput omnium Ecclesiarum the Head of all Churches before the whole Council and none contradicted them Sixthly all the Fathers assembled in that Holy Councill in their Letter to Pope Leo acknowledged themselves to be his children and wrote to him as to their Father Seventhly they humbly begged of him that he would grant that the Patriarch of Constantinople might have the first place among the Patriarchs after that of Rome which notwithstanding that the Councill had consented to as had also the Third General Councill of Ephesus done before yet they esteemed their grants to be of no sufficient force untill they were confirmed by the Pope And Leo thought not fit to yield to their petition against the express ordination of the First Councill of Nice where Alexandria had the preheminence as also Antioch and Hierusalem before that of Constantinople Saint Cyril of Alexandria though he wholly disallowed Nestorius his doctrine yet he would not break off Communion with him till Celestinus the Pope had condemned him whose Censure he required and expected Nestorius also wrote to Celestine acknowledging his Authority and expecting from him the Censure of his doctrine Celestinus condemned Nestorius and gave him the space of ten daies to repent after he had received his condemnation All which had effect in the Eastern Church where Nestorius was Patriarch of Constantinople After this Saint Cyrill having received Pope Leo's Letters wherein he gave power to Saint Cyrill to execute his condemnation against Nestorius and to send his condemnatory letters to him gathered a Council of his next Bishops and sent Letters and Articles to be subscribed with the Letters of Celestine to Nestorius which when Nestorius had received he was so far from repentance that he accused St. Cyril in those Articles to be guilty of the Heresie of Apollinaris so that St. Cyril being also accused of Heresie was barred from pronouncing sentence against Nestorius so long as he stood charged with that Accusation Theodosius the Emperour seeing the Eastern Church embroyled in these difficulties writes to Pope Celestine about the assembling of a general Council at Ephesus by Petronius afterwards Bishop of Bononia as is manifest in his life written by Sigonius Pope Celestine in his Letters to Theodosius not only professeth his consent to the calling of that Council but also prescribeth in what form it was to be celebrated as Firmus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia testified in the Council of Ephesus Hereupon Theodosius sent his Letters to assemble the Bishops both of the East and West to that Council And Celestine sent his Legats thither with order not to examine again in the Council the cause of Nestorius but rather to put Celestines condemnation of him given the year before into execution St. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria being constituted by Celestine his chief Legate ordinary in the East by reason of that preheminency and primacy of his See after that of Rome presided in the Council yet so that Philip who was only a Priest and no Bishop by reason that he was sent Legatus à Latere from Celestine and so supplied his place as he was chief Bishop of the Church subscribed the first even before St. Cyril and all the other Legats and Patriarchs In the sixth Action of this holy Council Iuvenalis Patriarch of Hierusalem having understood the contempt which Iohn Patriarch of Antioch who was cited before the Council shewed of the Bishops and the Popes Legats there assembled expressed himself against him in these words Quod Apostolica ordinatione Antiqua Traditione which were no way opposed by the Fathers there present Antiochena sedes perpetuo à Romana dirigeretur judicareturque That by Apostolical ordination and ancient Tradition the See of Antioch was perpetually directed and judged by the See of Rome which words not only evidence the precedency of place as Dr. Hammond would have it but of power and judicature in the Bishop of Rome over a Patriarch of the Eastern Church and that derived from the time and ordination of the Apostles The Council therefore sent their decrees with their condemnation of Nestorius to Pope Celestine who presently ratified and confirmed them Not long after this in the year 445. Valentinian the Emperour makes this manifesto of the most high Ecclesiastical authority of the See of Rome in these words Seeing that the merit of St. Peter who is the Prince of the Episcopal Crown and the Dignity of the City of Rome and no less the authority of the holy Synod hath established the primacy of the Apostolical See lest presumption should attempt any unlawful thing against the authority of that See for then finally will the peace of the Churches be preserved every where if the whole universality acknowledge their Governour when these things had been hitherto inviolably observed c. Where he makes the succession from St. Peter to be the first foundation of the Roman Churches primacy and his authority to be not only in place but in power and Government over the whole visible Church And adds presently that the definitive sentence of the Bishop of Rome given against any French Bishop was to be of force through France even without the Emperours Letters Pattents For what shall not be lawful for the authority of so great a Bishop to exercise upon the Churches And then adds his Imperial precept in these words But this occasion hath provoked also our command that hereafter it shall not be lawful neither for Hilarius whom to be still entituled a Bishop the sole humanity of the meek Prelate id est the Bishop of Rome permits neither for any other to mingle arms with Ecclesiastical matters or to resist the commands of the Bishop of Rome c. We define by this our perpetual decree that it shall neither be lawful for the French Bishops nor for those of other Provinces against the ancient custom to attempt any thing without the authority of the venerable Pope of the eternal City But let it be for a law to them and to all whatsoever the authority of the Apostolick See hath determined or shall determine So that what Bishop soever being called to the Tribunal of the Roman Bishop shall neglect to come is to be compelled by the Governour of the same Province to present himself before him Which evidently proves that the highest Universal Ecclesiastical Judge and Governour was and ever is to be the
jure divino you confess you are but a humane policy or society and therefore that no man need to fear the loss of his salvation by renouncing you R. B. Qu. 2. How shall we know who hath this power what Election or Consecration is necessary thereto If I know not who hath it I am never the better Mr. J. Answ. As you know who hath Temporal Power by an universal or most common consent of the people The Election is different according to different times places and other circumstances Episcopal Consecration is not absolutely necessary R. B. Reply Qu. 2. Repl. 1. How now Are all the mysteries of your succession and mission resolved into Popular Consent Is no one way of Election necessary Do you leave that to be varied as a thing indifferent And is Episcopal Consecration also unnecessary I pray you here again remember then that none of our Churches are disabled from the plea of a continued succession for want of Episcopal Consecration or any way of Election If our Pastors have had the peoples consent they have been true Pastors according to this reckoning And if they have now their consent they are true Pastors But we have more 2. By this rule we cannot know of one Bishop of an hundred whether he be a Bishop or no for we cannot know that he hath the Common consent of the people yea we know that abundance of your Bishops have no such consent yea we know that your Pope hath none of the Consent of most of the Christians in the world nor for ought you or any man knows of most in Europe It s few of your own party that know who is Pope much less are called to Consent till after he is settled in possession 3. According to this rule your successions have been frequently interrupted when against the will of general Councils and of the far greatest part of Christians your Popes have kept the seat by force 4. In temporals your rule is not universally true What if the people be engaged to one Prince and afterward break their vow and consent to a Usurper Though in this ease a particular person may be obliged to submission and obedience in judicial administrations yet the usurper cannot thereby defend his Right and justifie his possession nor the people justifie their adhesion to him while they lye under an obligation to disclaim him because of their preengagement to another Though some part of the truth be found in your assertion R. B. Qu. 3. Will any Diocess serve ad esse what if it be but in particular Assemblies Mr. J. Answ. It must be more then a Parish or then one single Congregation which hath not different inferiour Pastors and one who is their superior R. B. Reply Qu. 3. Repl. This is but your naked affirmation I have proved the contrary from Scriptures Fathers and Councils in my disputation of Episcopacy viz. that a Bishop may be and of old ordinarily was over the Presbyters only of one Parish or single Congregation or a people no more numerous then our Parishes You must shew us some Scripture or general Council for the contrary before we can be sure you here speak truth Was Gregory Thaumaturgus no Bishop because when he came first to Neocaesarea he had but seventeen souls in his charge The like I may say of many more Mr. J. Tradition I understand by Tradition the visible delivery from hand to hand in all ages of the revealed Word of God either written or unwritten R. B. Of Tradition Qu. 1. But all the doubt is by whom this Tradition that 's valid must be By your Pastors or people or both By Pope or Councils or Bishops disjunct By the Major part of the Church or Bishops or Presbyters or the Minor and by how many Mr. J. Answ. By such and so many proportionably as suffice in a Kingdom to certifie the people which are the Ancient universally received customs in that Kingdom which is to be morally considered R. B. Reply Of Tradition Qu. 1. Repl. I consent to this general But then 1. How certainly is Tradition against you when most of the Christian world yea all except an interessed party do deny your Soveraignty and plead Tradition against it And how lame is your Tradition when it s carried on your private affirmations and is nothing but the unproved sayings of a Sect R. B. Qu. 2. What proof or notice of it must satisfie me in particular that it so past Mr. J. Answ. Such as with proportion is a sufficient proof or notice of the Laws and customs of temporal Kingdoms R. B. Reply Qu. 2. Repl. But is it necessary for every Christian to be able to weigh the credit of contradicting parties when one half of the world faith one thing and the other another thing what opportunity have ordinary Christians to compare them and discern the moral advantages on each side As in the case of the Popes Soveraignty when two or three parts of the Christian world is against it and the rest for it can private Christians try which party is the more credible Or is it necessary to their salvation If so they are cast upon unavoidable despair If not must they all take the words of their present Teachers Then most of the world must believe against you because most of the Teachers are against you And then it seems mens faith is resolved into the authority of the Parish-Priest or their Confessors The Laws of a Kingdom may be easier known then Christian doctrines can be known especially such as are controverted among us by meer unwritten Tradition Kingdoms are of narrower compass then the world And though the sense of Laws is oft in question yet the being of them is seldom matter of controversie because men conversing constantly and familiarly with each other may plainly and fully reveal their minds when God that condescendeth not to such a familiarity hath delivered his mind by inspired persons long ago with much less sensible advantages because it is a life of faith that he directeth us to live Mr. J. General Council A general Council I take to be an assembly of Bishops and other chief Prelates called convened and confirmed by those who have sufficient Spiritual authority to call convene and confirme R. B. Of a General Council Qu. 1. Who is it ad esse that must call convene confirm it till I know that I am never the nearer knowing what a Council is and which is one indeed Mr. J. Answ. Definitions abstract from inferior subdivisions For your satisfaction I affirm it belongs to the Bishop of Rome R. B. Reply Qu. 1. Repl. 1. If it be necessary to the being or validity of a Council that it be called or confirmed by the Pope then your definition signifieth nothing if you abstract from that which is so necessary an ingredient unless it were presupposed to be understood 2. If it belong to the Bishop of Rome to call a Council as necessary to its being
necessary to the being of a true particular Church Bellarmine granteth Lib. 3. de Eccles. c. 10. that it is indeed to us uncertain that our Pastors have potestatem ordinis jurisdictionis and that we have but a moral certainty that they are true Bishops though we may know that they hold Christs place and that we owe them obedience and that to know that they are Our Pastors non requiritur nec fides nec Character Ordinis nec legitima electio sed solum ut habeantur pro talibus ab Ecclesia i. e. It is not requisite that they have faith or the Character of Order or lawful election but only that they be taken for such by the Church And if it be enough that their Church repute their Pastors to be elected ordained and believers though they are not so indeed then can no more be necessary to ours We repute ours as confidently to be lawfully elected and ordained as they do theirs 3. It is contrary to the Papists own opinion that any Consecration much less Canonical is necessary to the being of their Vniversal Head I need not cite their Authors for this as long as you have 1. The History of their Practices And 2. The confession of this learned man that I dispute with in the explication of the term Pope in these his last Papers And that which is not necessary to their Pope cannot by them be made necessary to our Bishops 4. Nothing in Church History more certain then that the Church of Rome hath had no continued succession of a truely elected or ordained Pope according to their own Canons 1. If Infidelity or Heresie judged by a Council in the case of Honorius Ioh. 23. Eugenius c. will not prove a nullity and intercision 2. If Simony Murder Adultery c. will not prove it 3. If about fourty years Schisme at once will not prove it none knowing who was the true Pope but by the prevalency of his secular power and their writers confessing that it is known to none but God 4. If intrusion without any just election will not prove it Then there is no danger to those Churches that are lyable to no such accusations But if any or all of these will prove it the Roman intercision is beyond dispute as I shall further manifest on any just call if it be denyed 5. The standing Law and Institution of Christ is it that gives the Power by imposing the duty of Ministration and Ordination only determineth of the person that shall receive it together with election and solemnizeth it by Investiture as Coronation to a King that is a King before I have already proved that an uninterrupted succession of Regular Ordination is no more necessary to the being of a Church then uninterrupted succession of Regular Coronation is to the being of a King or Kingdom which I am ready to make good 6. This whole case of Ordination I have already spoken to so carefully and fully according to my measure in my second Dispute of Church Government that I shall suppose that man hath said nothing to me requiring my reply on this point that doth not answer that And to write the same thing here over again cannot fairly be expected 7. Voetius de desperata causa Papatus hath copiously done the same against Iansenius which they should answer satisfactorily before they call for more 8. The Nullity which they suppose to make the Intercision is either the Ordination we had from the Papist Bishops before our Reformation or the Ordination that we received since If the former be a nullity then all the Papists Ordinations are null and so they nullifie their Church and Ministry That the latter is no nullity we are ready to make good against any of them all Object But if you own your Ordination as from the Church of Rome you own their Church Answ. We consider them 1. As Christian Pastors 2. As Popish Pastors As Christian Pastors in the Catholike Church their Ordination is no more a nullity than their Baptizing which we count valid But as Popish they have no authority for either Object But they gave both Baptism and Ordination as Papists and it must be judged of by the intention of the giver and receiver Answ. It is the Baptism and Ordination of Christs Institution as such which was pretended to be given and received Could we prove that they Administred any other or otherwise they say they would disown it As such therefore we must take it till we can prove that they destroy the very essence of it If it be given and taken secondarily as Popish the scab of their corruption polluteth it but not nullifieth it So they profess themselves first Ministers of Christ and but subordinately as they think of the Pope so much therefore as belongs to them in their first and lawful relation may be valid though so much as respecteth their usurped relation be sinful Had I been baptized or ordained by one of their Priests I would disown all the corruptions of them but not the baptism and ordination it self 9. There is no necessity to the being or well-being of a particular Church that it hath continued from the Apostles daies or that its particular Ministry have had no intercision If Germany were converted but lately to the Christian Faith it may be nevertheless a true part of the Catholike Church If Ierusalem had sometime a Church and sometime none it may have now a true Church nevertheless 10. If our Ordination had failed by an intercision it might as well be repaired from other Churches that have had a continued succession as from Rome And much better because without participation of their peculiar corruptions Or if any Bishops that were of the Papal faction should repent of their Poperie and not of their Ordination they might Ordain us as Bishops and repair our breach And indeed that was the way of our continued Ordination Many that repented that they were Popish Prelates continued the office of Christian Bishops and by such our Ancestors were Ordained As Christianity and Episcopacy were before Popery and so are they still separable from it and may continue when it is renounced Besides what I have more fully said in the foresaid dispute of Ordination I see no need of adding any more against this Objection about successive Ordination and Ministerial Power As to their other Objection which they make such a stir with and take no notice of the Answer which we have so often given viz. When every Sect pretend that they have the true Church and Ministry who shall judge I again Answer There is a Iudicium privatum and publicum A private judgement of discerning belongs to every man The publick judgement is either Civil or Ecclesiastical The Civil judgement is who shall be thus or thus esteemed of in order to Civil encouragement or discouragement as by corporal punishments or rewards This judgement belongeth only to the Civil Magistrate The Ecclesiastical
expoundeth them 5. They plead for an appeal to Councils and though we easily prove that none of them were universal yet such as they were they call them all Reprobate which were not approved by their Pope let the number of Bishops there be never so great And those that were approved if they speak against them they reject also either with lying shifts denying the approbation or saying the acts are not de fide or not conciliariter facta or the sense must be given by their present Church or one such contemptible shift or other 6. At least one would think they should stand to the judgement of the Pope which yet they will not for shame forbids them to own the Doctrine of those Popes that were Hereticks or Infidels and by Councils so judged And others they are forced to disown because they contradict their Predecessors And at Rome the Cardinals are the Pope while he that hath the name is oft made light of And how infallible he is judged by the French and the Venetians how Sixtus the fifth was valued by the Spaniards and by Bellarmine is commonly known 7. But all this is nothing to their renunciation of humanity even of the common senses and reason of the world When the matter is brought to the Decision of their eyes and taste and feeling whether Bread be Bread and Wine be Wine and yet all Italy Spain Austria Bravaria c. cannot resolve it yea generally unless some latent Protestant do pass their judgement against their senses the senses of all sound men in the World that not in a matter beyond the reach of sense as whether Christ be there spiritually but in a matter belonging to sense if any thing belong to it as whether Bread be Bread c. Kings and Nobles Prelates and Priests do all give their judgement that all their senses are deceived And is it possible for these men then to know any thing or any controversie between us and them to be decided If we say that the Sun is light or that the Pope is a man and Scripture legible or that there are the Writings of Councils and Fathers extant in the World they may as well concur in a denyal of all this or any thing else that sense should judge of If they tell us that Scripture requireth them to contradict all their senses in this point I answer 1. Not that Scripture before mentioned that calleth it Bread after the Consecration thrice in the three next Verses 2. And how know they that there is such a Scripture if all their senses be so fallible If the certainty of sense be not supposed a little learning or wit might satisfie them that Faith can have no certainty But is it not a most dreadful judgement of God that Princes and Nations Learned men and some that in their way are conscientious should be given over to so much inhumanity and to make a Religion of this brutishness and worse and to persecute those with Fire and Sword that are not so far forsaken by God and by their reason and that they should so solicitously labour the perversion of States and Kingdoms for the promoting of stupidity or stark madness 8. And if we go from their Principles to their Ends or Wayes we shall soon see that they are also against the Unity of the Church while they pretend this as their chiefest Argugument to draw men to their way They set up a corrupted Faction and condemn the far greater part of the Church and will have no unity with any but those of their own Faction and Subjection and fix this as an essential part of their Religion creating thereby an impossibility of universal concord 9. They also contradict the Experience of many thousand Saints asserting that they are all void of the Love of God and saving Grace till they become subject to the Pope of Rome when as the Souls of these Believers have Experience of the Love of God within them and feel that Grace that proveth their Iustification I wonder what kind of thing it is that is called Love or Holiness in a Papist which Protestants and other Christians have not and what is the difference 10. They are most notorious Enemies to Charity condemning most of the Christian world to Hell for being out of their subjection 11. They are notorious Enemies to Knowledge under pretence of Obedience and Unity and avoiding Heresie They celebrate their Worship in a Language not understood by the vulgar Worshippers They hinder the People from Reading the holy Scriptures which the ancient Fathers exhorted men and women to as an ordinary thing The quality of their Priests and People testifies this 12. They oppose the Purity of divine Worship setting up a multitude of humane Inventions instead thereof and idolatrously for no less can be said of it adoring a piece of conserated Bread as their God 13. They are Opposers of Holiness both by the foresaid enmity to Knowledge Charity and purity of Worship and by many unholy Doctrines and by deluding Souls with an outside histrionicall way of Religion never required by the Lord consisting in a multitude of Ceremonies and worshipping of Angels and the Souls of Saints and Images and Crosses c. Let experience speak how much the Life of Holiness is promoted by them 14. They are Enemies to common Honesty teaching the Doctrines of Equivocations and Mental Reservations and making many hainous sins venial and many of the most odious sins to be Duties as killing Kings that are excommunicated by the Pope taking Oaths with the foresaid Reservations and breaking them c. For the Jesuits Doctrine Montaltus the Jansenist and many of the French Clergy have pretty well opened it And the Pope himself hath lately been fain to publish a condemnation of their Apology And yet the power and interest of the Jesuites and their followers among them is not altogether unknown to the World 15. They are Enemies to Civil Peace and Government if there be any such in the World as their Doctrine and Practice of killing and deposing excommunicate Princes breaking Oaths c. shews Bellarmine that will go a middle way gives the Pope power in ordine ad spiritualia and indirectly to dispose of Kingdoms and tells us that it is unlawfull to tolerate Heretical Kings that propagate their Heresie that is the ancient Faith How well Doctor Heylin hath vindicated their Council of Laterane in this whose Decrees stand as a Monument of the horrid treasonable Doctrine of the Papists I shall if God will hereafter manifest In the mean time let any man read the words of the Council and Iudge And now whether a Religion that is at such open enmity with 1. Scripture 2. The Church 3. Tradition 4. Fathers 5. Councils 6. Some Popes 7. The common senses and Reason of all the World even their own 8. Vnity of Christians 9. Knowledge 10. Experience of Believers 11. Charity 12. Purity of Worship 13. Holiness 14. Common Honesty
Church how described by Augustine 227 Optatus 231 Tertullian 232 The third Argument 238 The fourth Argument 241 242 Arguments proving the Visibility of a Church without the Papacy since Christ. Argument first from the Council of Calcedon 242 Argument 2. From the silence of the Ancients in cases where the allegation of the Papal power would have been most pertinent and necessary 244 Argument 3. From the Tradition and Testimony of the greatest part of the Church 248 Argument 4. From the Churches without the verge of the Empire not subject to the Pope 249 Argument 5. From the Eastern Churches within the Empire not subjects of the Pope 251 Argument 6. From the full Testimony of Greâ—ory the first p. 252 c. defended against Bellarmine Argument 7. From the Confession of â—â—ieâ— Papists 〈◊〉 Sylvius Melchioâ— Câ—nus Reynerius 267 Argument 8. From Historical Testimony about the Original of Vniversal Hâ—â—dship 269 Argument 9. The generality of Christians in the first ages and most in the latter free from owning the Papacy 271 Argument 10. Most Christians in all ages ignorant of Popery 275 Object The Armenians Greeks c. differ from Protestants Answered 280 Misceâ—â—any considerable Testimonies 288 Mr. Johnsons exception 292 My Answer to his exception shewing in what sense Hereticks are or are not in the Church applyed to the Eastern and Southern Churches 293 c. Mr. Johnsons Explication of the most used terms with my Quere's thereupon and his Answer and my Reply 1. Of the Church 311 2. Of Heresie 324 c. 3. Of the Pope 330 c. 4. Of Bishops 337 5. Of Tradition 342 Of General Councils 345 6. Of Schism 350 An Appendix about successive Ordination 355 Letters between me and T. S. a Papist with a Narrative of the success written by his friend 363 ERRATA PAge 176. l. 24. for it r. that p. 179. l. 14. r. Freheri p. 217. l. 26. r. necessitate p. 271. l. 6. r. Ecclesia Romana p. 355. l. 2. for here r. hear Mr. Iohnsons first PAPER THe Church of Christ wherein only Salvation is to be had never was nor is any other then those Assemblies of Christians who were united in communion and obedience to S. Peter in the beginning since the Ascension of Christ. And ever since to his lawful successors the Bishops of Rome as to their chief Pastor Proof Whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ acknowledges S. Peter and his lawful successors the Bishops of Rome ever since the Ascension of Christ to have been and now to be by the Institution of Christ their chief Head and Governour on earth in matters belonging to the soul next under Christ. But there is no salvation to be had out of that Congregation of Christians which is now the true Church of Christ. Ergo there is no salvation to be had out of that Congregation of Christians which acknowledges S. Peter and his lawful successors the Bishops of Rome ever to have been since the Ascension of Christ and now to be by the Institution of Christ their chief Head and Governour on earth in matters belonging to the soul next under Christ. The Minor is clear For all Christians agree in this that to be saved it is necessary to be in the true Church of Christ that only being his mystical Body Spouse and Mother of the faithful to which must belong all those who ever have been are or shall be saved The Major I prove thus Whatsoever Congregation of Christians as now the true Church of Christ hath been alwaies visible since the time of Christ either under persecution or in peace and flourishing But no Congregation of Christians hath been alwaies visible since the time of Christ either under persecution or in peace and flourishing save that only which acknowledges S. Peter and his lawful successors the Bishops of Rome ever to have been since the Ascension of Christ and now to be by Christs Institution their chief Head and Governour on earth in matters belonging to the soul next under Christ. Ergo whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ acknowledges St. Peter and his lawful successors the Bishops of Rome ever to have been since the Ascension of Christ and now to be by Christs Institution their chief Head and Governour on earth in matters belonging to the soul next under Christ. The Major is proved thus Whatsoever Congregation of Christians hath alwaies had visible Pastors and People united hath alwaies been visible either under persecution or in peace and flourishing But whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath alwaies had visible Pastors and People united Ergo whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath alwaies been visible either under persecution or in peace and flourishing The Major of this last Sylogism is evident for seeing a visible Church is nothing but a visible Pastor and people united where there have alwaies been visible Pastors and people united there hath alwaies been a visible Church The Minor I prove from Ephesians cap. 4. ver 10 11 12 13 14 c. Where S. Paul saies that Christ had Instituted that there should be Pastors and Teachers in the Church for the work of the Ministry and preserving the people under their respective charges from being carried away with every wind of doctrine c. which evidently shews those Pastors must be visible seeing the work of the Ministry which Preaching and Administration of Sacraments and Governing their flocks are all external and visible actions And this shews likewise that those Pastors and People must be alwaies visible because they are to continue from Christs Ascension untill we all meet together in the unity of faith c. which cannot be before the day of judgement Neither can it be said as some say that this promise of Christ is only conditional since to put it to be so without evident Reason giveth scope to every one at his pleasure to make every other promise of Christ to be conditional And so we shall be certain of nothing that Christ hath promised neither that shall alwaies be a visible or invisible Church nor any Church at all no nor of Judgement nor of Eternal life or of the Resurrection of the dead c. for one may say with as much ground as this is said that some conditions were included in all those promises which being not fulfilled hinders the execution of them There remains only to prove the Minor of the second Sylogism viz. That no Congregation of Christians hath been alwaies visible c. save that which acknowledges S. Peter and his lawful successors c. to be their chief Head and Governour c. next under Christ. This Minor I prove by obliging the answerers to nominate any Congregation of Christians which alwaies till this present time since Christ hath been visible either under persecution or in peace and flourishing save that only which acknowledges S.
proposition Whatsoever Congregation is the true Church of Christ acknowledges the Eucharist ever to have been by Christs Institution a proper Sacrament of the new Law and another should distinguish as you do my proposition This may be meant either of an Essential or Accidental thing to Christs true Church Seeing whatsoever is acknowledged to have been alwaies in Christs Church and instituted by Christ cannot be acknowledged but as necessary and essential to his Church If therefore my Major as the terms lie expressed in it be true it should have been granted if false it should have been denyed But no Logick allows that it should be distinguished into such different members whereof one is expresly excluded in the very terms of the proposition These distinctions therefore though learned and substantial in themselves yet were they here unseasonable and too illogical to ground an answer in forme as you ground yours still insisting upon them in your address almost to every proposition Hence appears first that I used no faâ—lacy at all ex Accidente seeing my proposition could not be verified of an Accident Secondly that all your instances of Spain France c. which include Accidents are not apposite because your propositions as they lie have no term which excludes Accidental Adjuncts as mine hath To the Proof of my Major You seem to grant the Major of my second Syllogism not excepting any thing material against it To my Minor You fall again into the former distinctions now disproved and excluded of the meaning of Congregation c. in my proposition and would have me to understand determinately either the whole Catholike Church or some part of it and so make four terms in my Syllogism whereas in my Minor Congregation of Christians is taken generically and abstracts as an universal from all particulars I say no Congregation which is an universal negative and when I say none Saye that Congregation which acknowledges Saint Peter c. the term Congregation supposes for the same whole Catholike Church mentioned in my former Syllogism but expresses it under a general term of Congregation in confuso as I express Homo when I say he is Animal a man when I say he is a living creature but only generically or in confuso Now should I have intended determinately either the whole Catholike Church or any part of it I should have made an inept Syllogism which would have run thus Whatsoever true Church of Christ is now the true Church of Christ hath been always visible c. But no true Church of Christ hath been alwaies visible save the true Church of Christ which acknowledges Saint Peter c. Ergo whatsoever true Churh of Christ is now the true Church acknowledges Saint Peter c. which would have been idem per idem for every one knows that the true Church of Christ is now the true Church of Christ. But speaking as I do in abstractive and generical terms I avoid this absurdity and frame a true Syllogism Now my meaning in this Minor could be no other then this which my words express That the Congregation that is the whole Congregation acknowledges Saint Peter c. and is visible c. and not any part great or small of it For when I say the Parliament of these Nations doth or hath enacted a Statute who would demand of me whether I meant the whole Parliament or some determinate part of it You should therefore have denyed not thus distinguished my Minor quite against the express words of it What you say again of Essentials and Accidents is already refuted and by that also your Syllogism brought by way of instance For your proposition doth not say that the Church of Rome acknowledges those things were alwaies done and that by Christs Institution as my proposition says she acknowledges Saint Peter and his successors To my third Syllogism Granting my Major you distinguish the term Pastors in my Minor into particular and universal fixed and unfixed c. I answer that the term Pastours as before Congregation signifies determinately no one of these but generically and in confuse all and so abstracts from each of them in particular as the word Animal abstracts from homo and brutum Neither can I mean some parts of the Church only had Pastors for I say whatsoever Congregation of Christians is now the true Church of Christ hath alwaies had visible Pastors and People united Now the Church is not a part but the whole Church that is both the whole body of the Church and all particular Churches the parts of it And hence is solved your argument of the Indians of people converted by lay-men when particular Pastors are dead c. For those were subjects of the chief Bishop alone till some inferiour Pastors were sent to them For when they were taught the Christian Doctrine in the explication of that Article I believe the Holy Catholike Church they were also taught that they being people of Christs Church must subject themselves to their lawful Pastors this being a part of the Christian doctrine Heb. 13. who though absent in body may yet be present in spirit with them as Saint Paul saith of himself 1 Cor. 5.3 Your Answer to the confirmation of my Major seems strange For I speak of visible Pastors and you say t is true of an Invisible Pastor that is Christ our Saviour who is now in heaven invisible to men on earth The rest is a repetition of what is immediately before answered Ephes. 4. proves not only that some particular Churches or parts of the whole Church must alwaies have Pastors but that the whole Church it self must have Pastors and every particular Church in it for it speaks of that Church which is the Body of Christ which can be no less then the whole Church For no particular Church alone is his mystical Body but only a part of it Ephes. 4. is not directly alledged to prove an universal Monarch as you say but to prove an uninterrupted continuance of visible Pastors that being only affirmed in the proposition which I prove by it 2. This is already Answered I stand to the judgement of any true Logitian nay or expert Lawyer or rational person whether a Negative proposition be to be proved otherwise then by obliging him who denies it to give an instance to infringe it Should you say no man hath right to my Benefice and Function in my parish save my self and another should deny what you said would not you or any rational man in your case answer him that by denying your proposition he affirmed that some other had right to them and to make good that affirmation was obliged to produce who that was which till he did you still remained the sole just possessour of your Benefice as before and every one will judge that he had no reason to deny your assertion when he brought no proof against it This is our case The Contradiction which you would draw from this against
only to conclude absolutely as you here do that all have been against us for many hundred years In your Num. 5. You name Ethiopia and India as having been without the limits of the Roman Empire whom you deny to have acknowledged any supremacy of power and authority above all other Bishops You might have done well to have cited at least one antient Author for this Assertion Were those primitive Christians of another kind of Church-order and Government then were those under the Roman Empire When the Roman Emperors were yet Heathens had not the Bishop of Rome the Supremacy over all other Bishops through the whole Church and did those Heathen Emperors give it him How came St. Cyprian in time of the Heathen Empire to request Stephen the Pope to punish and depose the Bishop of Arles as we shall see hereafter Had he that authority think you from an Heathen Emperour See now how little your Allegations are to the purpose where you nominate any determinate Congregations to satisfie my demand I had no reason to demand of you different congregations of all sorts and Sects opposing the Supremacy to have been shewn visible in all ages I was not so ignorant as not to know that the Nicolaitans Valentinians Gnosticks Manichees Montanists Arians Donatists Nestorians Eutychians Pelagians Iconoclasts Berengarians Waldensians Albigenses Wicleffists Hussits Lutherans Calvinists c. each following others had some kind of visibility divided and distracted each to his own respective age from our time to the Apostles in joyning their heads and hands together against the Popes Supremacy But because these could not be called one successive Congregation of Christians being all together by the ears amongst themselves I should not have thought it a demand beseeming a Scholar to have required such a visibility as this Seeing therefore all you determinately nominate are as much different as these pardon me if I take it not for any satisfaction at all to my demand or acquittance of your obligation Bring me a visible succession of any one Congregation of Christians of the same belief profession and communion for the designed time opposing that Supremacy and you will have satisfied but till that be done I leave it to any equal judgement whether my demand be satisfied or no. You answer to this That all those who are nominated by you are parts of the Catholike Church and so one Congregation But Sir give me leave to tell you that in your principles you put both the Church of Rome and your selves to be parts of the Catholike Church and yet sure you account them not one Congregation of Christians seeing by separation one from another they are made two or if you account them one why did you separate your selves and still remain separate from communion with the Roman Church why possessed you your selves of the Bishopricks and Cures of your own Prelates and Pastors they yet living in Queen Elizabeths time and drew both your selves and their other subjects from all subjection to them and communion with them Is this disunion think you fit to make one and the same Congregation of you and them is not charity subordination and obedience to the same state and government required as well to make one Congregation of Christians as it is required to make one Congregation of Common-wealths men Though therefore you do account them all parts of the Catholike Church yet you cannot make them in your principles one Congregation of Christians Secondly your position is not true the particulars named by you neither are nor can be parts of the Catholike Church unless you make Arians and Pelagians and Donatists parts of the Catholike Church which were either to deny them to be Hereticks and Schismaticks or to affirm that Hereticks and Schismaticks separating themselves from the communion of the Catholike Church notwithstanding that separation do continue parts of the Catholike Church For who knows not that the Ethiopians to this day are Eutychian Hereticks And a great part of those Greeks and Armenians who deny the Popes Supremacy are infected with the Heresie of Nestorius and all of them profess generally all those points of faith with us against you wherein you differ from us and deny to communicate with you or to esteem you other then Hereticks and Schismaticks unless you both agree with them in those differences of faith and subject your selves to the obedience of the Patriarch of Constantinople as to the chief Head and Governour of all Christian Churches next under Christ and consequently as much a vice-Christ in your account as the Pope can be conceived to be See if you please Hieremias Patriarch of Constantinople his Answer to the Lutherans especially in the beginning and end of the book Acta Theologorum Wittebergensium c. and Sir Edwyn Sands of this subject in his Survey p. 232 233 242 c. Either therefore you must make the Eutychians and Nestorians no Hereticks and so contradict the Oecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon which condemned them as such and the consent of all Orthodox Christians who ever since esteemed them no others or you must make condemned Hereticks parts of the Catholick Church against all antiquity and Christianity And for those Greeks neer Constantinople who are not infected with Nestorianism and Eutychianism yet in the Procession of the Holy Ghost against both us and you they must be thought to maintain manifest Heresie it being a point in a fundamental matter of faith the Trinity and the difference betwixt those Greeks and the Western Church now for many hundred of years and in many General Councils esteemed and defined to be real and great yea so great that the Greeks left the Communion of the Roman Church upon that difference alone and ever esteemed the Bishop of Rome and his party to have fallen from the true faith and lost his ancient authority by that sole pretended error and the Latins alwaies esteemed the Greeks to be in a damnable error in maintaining the contrary to the doctrine of the Western or Roman Church in that particular And yet sure they understood what they held and how far they differed one from another much better then some Novel writers of yours who prest by force of Argument have no other way left them to maintain a perpetual visibility then by extenuating that difference of Procession betwixt the Greek and Latin Church which so many ages before Protestancy sprung up was esteemed a main fundamental error by both parts caused the Greeks to abandon all subjection and Communion to the Bishops of Rome made them so divided the one from the other that they held each other Hereticks Schismaticks and desertors of the true faith as they continue still to do to this day and yet you will have them both to be parts of the Catholike Church But when you have made the best you can of these Greeks Armenians Ethiopians Protestants whom you first name you neither have deduced nor can deduce
them successively in all ages till Christ as a different Congregation of Christians from that which holds the Popes Supremacy which was my proposition For in the year 1500. those who became the first Protestants were not a Congregation different from those who held that supremacy nor in the year 500. were the Greeks a visible Congregation different from it nor in the year 300. were the Nestorians nor in the year 200. the Eutychians a different Congregation from those who held the said Supremacy But in those respective years those who first begun those Heresies were involved within that Congregation which held it as a part of it and assenting therein with it who after in their several ages and beginnings fell off from it as dead branches from the tree that still remaining what it ever was and only continuing in a perpetuall visibility of succession Though therefore you profess never to have seen convincing proof of this in the first 400 years labour to infringe it in the next ages yet I will make an essay to give you a taste of those innumerable proofs of this visible Consent in the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy not of Order only but of Power Authority Iurisdiction over all other Bishops in the ensuing instances which happened within the first 400 or 500 or 600 years Iohn Bishop of Antioch makes an Appeal to Pope Simplicius And Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople being deposed in the false Councill of Ephesus immediately appeals to the Pope as to his judge Theodoret was by Pope Leo restored and that by an appeal unto a just judgement Saint Cyprian desirâ—â— Pope Stephen to depose Marcian Bishop of Arles that another might be substituted in his place And to evince the supream Authority of the Bishops of Rome it is determined in the Council of Sardis That no Bishop deposed by other neighbouring Bishops pretending to be heard again was to have any successour appointed until the case were defined by the Pope Eustathius Bishop of Sebast in Armenia was restored by Pope Liberius his Letters read and received in the Council of Tyana and Saint Chrysostome expresly desires Pope Innocent not to punish his Adversaries if they do repent Which evinces that Saint Chrysostome thought that the Pope had power to punish them And the like is written to the Pope by the Council of Ephesus in the case of Iohn Bishop of Antioch The Bishops of the Greek or Eastern Church who sided with Arius before they declared themselves to be Arians sent their Legates to Iulius Bishop of Rome to have their cause heard before him against Saint Athanasius the same did Saint Athanasius to defend himself against them which Arian Bishops having understood from Iulius that their Accusations against Saint Athanasius upon due examination of both parties were found groundless and false required rather fraudulently then seriously to have a fuller Tryal before a General Council at Rome which to take away all shew of excuse from them Pope Iulius assembled Saint Athanasius was summoned by the Pope to appear before him and the Councill in Judgement which he presently did and many other Eastern Bishops unjustly accused by the Arians aforesaid had recourse to Rome with him and expected there a year and a half All which time his Accusers though also summoned appeared not fearing they should be condemned by the Pope and his Councill Yet they pretended not as Protestants have done in these last ages of the Kings of England That Constantius the Arian Emperour of the East was Head or chief Governour over their Church in all Causes Ecclesiasticalâ— and consequently that the Pope had nothing to do with them but only pretended certain frivolous excuses to delay their appearance from one time to another Where it is worth the noting that Iulius reprehending the said Arian Bishops before they published their Heresie and so taking them to be Catholikes for condemning Saint Athanasius in an Eastern Councill gathered by them before they had acquainted the Bishop of Rome with so important a cause useth these words An ignari â—stis hanc consuetudinâ—m esse ut primum nobis scribatur ut â—inc quod justum est à â—finiri possit c. Are you ignorant saith he that this is the custome to write to us first That hence that which is just may be defined c. where most cleerly it appears that it belonged particularly to the Bishop of Rome to pass a definitive sentence even against the Bishops of the Eastern or Greek Church which yet is more confirmed by the proceedings of Pope Innocent the first about 12. hundred years since in the Case of Saint Chrysostome Where first Saint Chrysostome appears to Innocentius from the Councill assembled at Constantinople wherein he was condemned Secondly Innocentius annulls this condemnation and declares him innocent Thridly he Excommunicates Atticus Bishop of Constantinople and Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria for persecuting Saint Chrysostome Fourthly after Saint Chrysostome was dead in Banishment Pope Innocentius Excommunicates Arcadius the Emperour of the East and Eudoxia his wife Fifthly the Emperour and Empress humble themselves crave pardon of him and were obsolved by him The same is evident in those matters which passed about the year 450. where Theodosius the Emperour of the East having too much favoured the Eutychian Hereticks by the instigation of Chrysaphius the Eunuch and Pulcheria his Empress and so intermedled too far in Ecclesiasticall causes yet he ever bore that respect to the See of Rome which doubtless in those circumstances he would not have done had he not believed it an Obligation that he would not permit the Eutychian Council at Ephesus to be assembled without the knowledge and Authority of the Roman Bishop Leo the first and so wrote to him to have his presence in it who sent his Legats unto them And though both Leo's letters were dissembled and his Legats affronted and himself excommunicated by wicked Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria and president of that Coventicle who also was the chief upholder of the Eutychians yet Theodosius repented before his death banished his wife Pulcheria and Chrysaphius the Eunuch the chief favourers of the Eutychians and reconciled himself to the Chruch with great evidences of Sorrow and Pennance Presently after Anno. 451. follows the Fourth General Council of Chalcedon concerning which these particulars occur to our present purpose First Martianus the Eastern Emperour wrote to Pope Leo That by the Popes Authority a General Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to chuse Secondly both Anatolius Patriarch of Constantinople and the rest of the Eastern Bishops sent to the legats of Pope Leo by his order the profession of their Faith Thirdly the Popes Legats sate in the first place of the Council before all the Patriarchs Fourthly they prohibited by his order given them That Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria and chief upholder of
Bishop of Rome which the Council of Chalcedon before mentioned plainly owned when writing to Pope Leo they say Thou Governest us as the head doth the members contributing thy good will by those which hold thy place Behold a Primacy not only of Precedency but of Government and Authority which Lerinensis confirms contr Haeres cap. 9. where speaking of Stephen Pope he saies Dignum ut opinor existimans si reliquos omnes tantum fidei devotione quantum locī authoritate superabat esteeming it as I think a thing worthy of himself if he overcame all others as much in the devotion of faith as he did in the Authority of his place And to confirm what this universal Authority was he affirms that he sent a Law Decree or Command into Africa Sanxit That in matter of rebaptization or Hereticks nothing should be innovated which was a manifest argument of his Spiritual Authority over those of Africa and à paritate rationis over all others I will shut up all with that which was publickly pronounced and no way contradicted and consequently assented to in the Council of Ephesus one of the four first general Councils in this matter Tom. 2. Concil pag. 327. Act. 1. where Philip Priest and Legate of Pope Celestine sayes thus Gratias agimus sanctae venerandaeque synodo quod literis sancti beatique Papae nostri vobis recitatis sanctas chartas sanctis vestris vocibus sancto capiti vestro sanctis vestris exclamationibus exhibueritis Non enim ignorat vestra beatitudo totius fidei vel etiam Apostolorum caput esse beatum Apostolum Petrum And the same Philip Act. 3. p. 330. proceeds in this manner Nulli dubium imo saeculis omnibus notum est quod sanctus beatissimusque Petrus Apostolorum Princeps caput Fideique columna Ecclesiae Catholicae Fundamentum à Domino nostro Jesu Christo Salvatore generis humani ac redemptore nostro claves regni accepit solvendique ac ligandi peccata potestas ipsi data est qui ad hoc usque tempus ac semper in suis successoribus vivit judicium exercet Hujus itaque secundum ordinem successor locum-tenens sanctus beatissimusque Papa noster Celestinus nos ipsius praesentiam supplentes huc misit And Arcadius another of the Popes Legats enveighing against the Heretick Nestorius accuses him though he was Patriarch of Constantinople which this Council requires to be next in dignity after Rome as of a great crime that he contemned the command of the Apostolick See that is of Pope Celestine Now had Pope Celestine had no power to command him and by the like reason to command all other Bishops he had committed no fault in transgressing and contemning his command By these testimonies it will appear that what you are pleased to say That the most part of the Catholike Church hath been against us to this day and all for many hundred of years is far from truth seeing in the time of the holy Oecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon the universal consent of the whole Catholike Church was for us in this point As to what you say of Congregation of Christians in the beginning I answer I took the word Christians in a large sense comprehending in it all those as it is vulgarly taken who are Baptized and profess to believe in Christ and are distinguished from Jews Mahumetans and Heathens under the denomination of Christians What you often say of an universal Monarch c. if you take Monarch for an Imperious sole Commander as temporal Kings are we acknowledge no such Monarch in the Church if only for one who hath received power from Christ in meekness charity and humility to govern all the rest for their own eternal good as brethren or children we grant it What also you often repeat of a Vice-Christ we much dislike that title as proud and insolent and utterly disclaim from it neither was it ever given by any sufficient Authority to our Popes or did they ever accept of it As to the Council of Constance they never questioned the Supremacy of the Pope as ordinary chief Governour of all Bishops and people in the whole Church nay they expresly give it to Martinus Quintus when he was chosen But in extraordinary cases especially when it is doubtful who is true Pope as it was in the beginning of this Council till Martinus Quintus was chosen Whether any extraordinary power be in a general Council above that ordinary power of the Pope which is a question disputed by some amongst our selves but touches not the matter in hand which proceeds only of the ordinary and constant Supream Pastor of all Christians abstracting from extraordinary tribunals and powers which are seldom found in the Church and collected only occasionally and upon extraordinary accidents Thus honoured Sir I have as much as my occasions would permit me hastened a reply to your answer and if more be requisite it shall not be denyed Only please to give me leave to tell you that I cannot conceive my Argument yet answered by all you have said to it William Iohnson Feb. 3. 1658. Sir It was the 21. of January before your Answer came to my hands and though my Reply was made ready by me the third instant yet I have found so great difficulties to get it transcribed that it was not possible to transmit it to you before now But I hope hereafter I shall find Scribes more at leasure I must desire you to excuse what errors you find in the Copy which I send As also that being unwilling to make a farther delay I am enforced to send a Copy which hath in it more interlineations then would otherwise become me to send to a person of your worth Yet I cannot doubt but your Candor will pass by all things of this nature I am Sir Your very humble servant William Iohnson Feb. 15. 1658. Worthy Sir I have now expected neer three moneths for your rejoynder to the Reply which I made to that answer which you were pleased to send and return to my Argument concerning the Church of Christ but as yet nothing hath appeared I must confess I have wondered at it considering the earnestness which appeared in you at the first to proceed with speed in a business of this nature what the impediment hath been I am only left to guess but certainly truth is strong and it will not be found an easie thing to oppose her while we keep close to form I am now necessitated to go out of London so that if your Papers come in my absence I shall hope you will have the patience to expect untill they can be sent from London to me and my Answers returned by the way of London but I do engage not to make a delay longer then the circumstances of the place and times shall enforce Sir I do highly honour and esteem your parts and person and shall be very glad to bring that business to an handsome
issue which hath been so calmly and soberly prosecuted I am an enemy to passion and as I have hitherto found you sweet and gentle in your proceedings towards me so shall you alwaies find me Worthy Sir Your friend to serve you William Johnson May 2. 1659. Sir Be pleased to return your Answer Papers or Letters which you intend for me to the same place to which you directed your former by which means I shall be secure to receive them at my house which is fourscore miles from London To Mr. T. L. who called me to this work Sir THough I am a stranger to you I thought meet to take notice of the Letters which you sent your friend here T. H. It seems you urge hard for a Reply and intimate somewhat of triumph in my delay you speak as an incompetent Judge God is the Master of my time and work and him I must serve and not neglect his greater work for such trivial objections as your friend hath sent me which are answered over and over by many so long ago Had you read Blondel Molineus de novitate Papismi Whitaker Sibrandus Lubbertus Chamier Abbots Crakenthorp Spalatensis or one of many that have confuted them you would sure call for no more Or if in English you had read Dr. Field Dr. White yea or but Sir Humphery Lind to pass by multitudes you might have seen their vanity Yea plainly read impartially my two books against Popery and be a Papist if you can But it seems you take it for a poor answer to be referred to books Do not fear it But yet let me tell you that my hand is not more legible then my printed books and if I had sent you this in print would that have made it a poor answer Or rather is not this a poor exception and shews that it is not truth that is look after for truth may be printed as well as written If you be deceived by the men of the Papal way let me yet intreat you but to read over those two books The safe Religion and the Key for Catholikes If your soul be not worth so much labour take your course I did my duty But I must say that it is doleful case that professors are so ungrounded that such vanities should carry them away from Catholike verity and unity to a faction that usurps the name of Catholikes To be free with you I think it is that pride and levity that brings them first to separation from our Churches into Sects and the guilt which they there incur that prepareth professors to be so far forsaken of God as to be given up to believe a lie and to turn Papists O dreadful case that one Bishop cannot swell in pride but men must make a Religion of his pride yea and make a Catholike Church of it yea and plead for it and make the sin their own yea condemn all Christians that list not themselves under this Prince of pride He is culpably if not wilfully blind that hath read Scripture and Church history and knoweth not that the Pope for three hundred years after Christ was not the creature that now he is nor had for most of that time any more Government over other Bishops then I have over neighbour Pastors and after that time he was no more an universal Head or Governour or Vicar of Christ then the Archbishop of Canterbury was having indeed a far larger Diocess then he but never was more then the swelled Primate of one National Imperial Church When Synods began to be gathered out of a Principality the Emperours desiring that means of unity within their Empire the pride of the Prelates set them presently a striving for superiority who should sit highest and write his name first and have the largest Diocess c And now men make a Religion of the fruits of this abominable pride What are all their disputings for and all this stir that they make in the world but to set up one man over all the earth and that to do a spirituall work which consisteth not with force but is managed on conscience One wretched man must govern the Antipodes on the other side of the earth that is indeed uncapable of truly and justly Governing the City of Rome it self Popes that their own Councils have condemned for ravishing maids and wives at their doors for Murders Simony Drunkenness Heresie denying the Resurrection and the life to come that is being no Christians these forsooth must be the universal Governours or we are all undone and we are damned if we believe it not O how dreadfull are the effects of sin and how great a judgement is a blinded mind This comes of falling into Sects and parties which leads men into the gulf of the most odious Schism even Popery in the world But if you are engaged in this party it s two to one but you are presently made partial and will not so much as read what is against them or will believe them if they do but tell you that we write lies when they are things done in the open sun and which they cannot confute nor dare attempt leâ—t they manifest their shame Take from them their Clergies vast Dominions Principalities Lands and Lordships Riches and worldly Honours with which they so much abound and then try how many will plead for the Pope then they 'l say If Baâ—l be a God let him plead for himself But I confess I have little hopes of turning any of them though I could shew it them written by an Angel from heaven that Popery is a deceit for the Scripture that 's above Angelical authority declareth it and by making it a nose of wax they take it as if it were not sense nor intelligible without the Popes interpretation which in difficult cases he dare not give They cry up the Church and when we would have them stand to the Church they shamefully turn their backs and when two or three parts of the Churches through the world are against the Papal Soveraignty they refuse them as Hereticks or Schismaticks They cry up Tradition and when we offer them in the main point to be tried by it they disclaim the Tradition of two or three parts of the universal Church as being all Hereticks And may not any Sect do so too as honestly as they yea among the ignorant that know not Chaffe from Corn â—hey have some of them the faces to perswade them that their Church is the greater half of the Christian world when they know they speak notoriously falsly or else they are unworthy to speak of such things that they understand not But to what purpose should any words be used with men that have taught so great a part of the world not to believe their eyes and other senses Can any writing make any matter plainer to you then that Bread is Bread and Wine is Wine when you see them and tast and eat and drink them And yet their general Councils approved by the
or may baptize many without their owning the Pope who yet would be Christians And a Pastor not known or believed or owned is actually no Pastor to them To your confirmation I Reply You misread my words I talk not of Invisible I say it is true that the Universal Church is united to Christ as their universall Head and is Visible 1. In the members 2. In the Profession 3. Christ himself is visible in the Heavens and as much seen of most of the Church as the Pope is that is not at all As the Pope is not Invisible though one of a million see him not no more is Christ who is seen by most of the Church and by the best part even by the glorified You know my meaning Whether you will Call Christ visible or not I leave to you I think he is visible But that which I affirm is that the universal Church hath no other visible universal Head or Pastor But particular Churches have their particular Pastors all under Christ. Of Eph. 4. I easily grant that the whole Church may be said to have Pastors in that all the particular Churches have Pastors But I deny that the whole have any one universal Pastor but Christ. Of that which is the point in controversie you bring no proof If you mean no more then I grant that the whole Church hath Pastors both in that each particular Church hath Pastors and in that unfixed Pastors are to preach to all as they have opportunity then your Minor hath no denyall from me Instead of prosecuting your Argument when you had cast the work of an Opponent upon me you here appeal to any true Logician or expert Lawyer Content I admit of your Appeal But why then did you at all put on the face of an Opponent could you not without this lost labour at first have called me to prove the successive visibility of our Church But to your Appeal Ho all you true Logicians this Learned man and I refer it to your tribunal whether it be the part of an Opponent to contrive his Argument so as that the Negative shall be â—is and then change places and become Respondent and make his adversary Opponent at his Pleasure We leave this cause at your bar and expect your sentence But before we come to the Lawyers bar I must have leave more plainly to state our case 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 judgement of the Church Protestants deny these Additionals and hold to Christianity and Scripture only Our Religion being nothing but Christianity we have no Controversie about Their Papall 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 Denyall 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 denyed 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 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 Headship 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 only to be 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 superadded Popery Our Possession is not denied of Christianity Yours of Popery we deny and our denyal 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 As to your contradictory impositions I Reply 1. Your exception was not exprest and your imposition was peremptory 2. I told you I would be a Papist if you prove that the whole visible Church in all ages hath held the Popes universal headship you say that you have proved it by this argument that either he hath that supremacy or some other Church denying that he hath alwaies had it hath been alwaies visible and that Church you require should be named I Reply 1. Had not you despaired of making good your cause you should have gone on by Argumentation till you had forced me to contradict some common principle 2. If you should shew these Papers to the world and tell them that you have no better proof of the succession of your Papacy then that we prove not that it hath alwaies been denied by the visible Church you would sure turn thousands from Popery if there be so many rational considering impartial men that would peruse them and believe you For any man may know that it could not be expected that the Churches should deny a Vice-Christ before he was sprung up Why did not all the precedent Roman Bishops disclaim the title of universal Bishop or Patriarch till Pelagius and Gregory but because there was none in the world that gave occasion for it How should any Heresie be opposed or condemned before it doth arise But you fairly yield me somewhat here and say that you oblige me not to prove a continued visible Church formally and expresly denying it but that it was of such a constitution as was inconsistent with any such supremacy or could and did subsist without it Reply I confess your first part is very ingenuous and
fair Remember it hereafter that you have discharged me from proving a Church that denied the Papacy formally expresly But as to what you yet demand 1. I have here given it you because you shall not say â—'le sail you I have answered your desire But 2. It is not as a thing necessary but ex abundanti as an overplus For you may now see plainly that to prove that the Church was without an universal Pastor which you require is to prove the Negative viz. that then there was none such whereas its you that must prove that there was such I prove our Religion do you prove yours though I say to pleasure you I 'le disprove it and have done it in two books already My reason from the stress of necessity which you lay on your Affirmative and Additions was but subservient to the foregoing Reasons not first to prove you bound but to prove you the more bound to the proof of your Affirmative And therefore your instance of Mahumetans is impertinent He that saith you shall be damned if you believe not this or that is more obliged to prove it then he that affirmeth a point as of no such moment To what I say of an accident and a corrupt part you say you have answered and do but say so having said nothing to it that is considerable Me thinks you that make Christ to be corporally present in every Church in the Eucharist should not say that the King of the Church is absent But when you have proved 1. That Christ is so absent from his Church that there 's need of a Deputy to essentiate his Kingdom and 2. That the Pope is so Deputed you will have done more then is yet done for your cause And yet let me tell you that in the absence of a King it is only the King and Subjects that are essential to the Kingdom The Deputy is but an officer and not essential Your naked assertion that whatsoever Government Christ instituteth of his Church must be essential to his Church is no proof nor like the task of an Opponent The Government of inferiour officers is not essential to the universal Church no more then Judges and Justices to a Kingdom And yet we must wait long before you will prove that Peter and the Pope of Rome are in Christs place as Governours of the universal Church Sir I desire open dealing as between men that believe these matters are of eternal consequence I watch not for any advantage against you Though it be your part to prove the Affirmative which our Negative supposeth yet I have begun the proof of our Negative but it was on supposition that you will equally now prove your Affirmative better then you have here done I have proved a visible Church successively that hâ—ld not the Popes universal Government do you now prove that the universal Church in all ages did hold the Popes universal Government which is your part or I must say again I shall think you do but run away and give up your cause as unable to defend it I have not failed you do not you fail me You complain of a deficiency in quality though you confess that I abound in number But where is the defect you say I must assert both that these were one Congregation and ever visible since Christs time Reply If by one Congregation you meant one assembly met for personal Communion which is the first sense of the word Congregation it were ridiculous to feign the universal Church to be such If you mean One as united in one visible humane Head that 's it that we deny and therefore may not be required to prove But that these Churches are One as united in Christ the Head we easily prove In that from him the whole family is named the body is Christs body 1 Cor. 12.12 13. and one in him Eph. 4.4 5 6 c. All that are true Christians are one Kingdom or Church of Christ but these of whom I speak are true Christians therefore they are one Kingdom or Church of Christ. And that they have been visible since Christs time till now all history even your own affirms As in Iudaea from the Apostles times in Ethiopia Egypt and other parts Rome was no Church in the time of Christs being on earth And to what purpose talk you of determinate Congregations Do you mean individual assemblies those cease when the persons die or do you mean assemblies meeting in the same place so they have not done still at Rome I told you and tell you still that we hold not that God hath secured the perpetual visibility of his Church in any one City or Country but if it cease in one place it is still in others It may cease at Ephesus at Philippi Colosse c. in Tenduc Nubia c. and yet remain in other parts I never said that the Church must needs be visible still in one Town or Country And yet it hath been so de facto as in Asia Ethiopia c. But you say I nominate none Are you serious must I nominate Christians of these Nations to prove that there were such you require not this of the Church Historians It sufficeth that they tell you that Ethiopia Egypt Armenia Syria c. had Christians without naming them When all history tells you that these Countries were Christians or had Churches I must tell you what and who they were must you have their names sirnames and Genealogies I cannot name you one of a thousand in this small Nation in the age I live in How then should I name you the people of Armenia Abassia c. so long ago You can name but few of the Roman Church in each age And had they wanted learning and records as much as the Abassins and Indians and others you might have been as much to seek for names as they You ask were they different Congregations Answ. As united in Christ they were one Church but as assembling at one time or in one place or under the same guide so they were not one but divers Congregations That there were any Papists of 400. years after Christ do you prove if you are able My conclusion that all have been against you for many hundred years must stand good till you prove that some were for you yet I have herewith proved that there were none at least that could deserve the name of the Church Do you think to satisfie any reasonable man by calling for positive proof from Authors of such Negatives yet proof you shall not want such as the nature of the point requireth viz. That the said Churches of Ethiopia India the outer Armenia and other extra-imperial Nations were not under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome 1. You find all these Churches or most of them at this day that remain from under your jurisdiction and you cannot tell us when or how they turned from you If you could it had been done 2. These Nations
profess it to be their Tradition that the Pope was never their Governour 3. No history or authority of the least regard is brought by your own writers to prove these Churches under your jurisdiction no not by Baronius himself that is so copious and so skilful in making much of nothing No credible witnesses mention your Acts of jurisdiction over them or their Acts of subjection which Church history must needs have contained if it had been true that they were your subjects 4. Their absence from general Councils and no invitation of them thereunto that was ever proved or is shewed by you is sufficient evidence 5. Their Liturgies even the most ancient bear no footsteps of any subjection to you Though your forgeries have corrupted them as I shall here digressively give one instance of The Ethiopick Liturgy because of a Hoc est corpus meum which we also use is urged to prove that they are for the corporal presence or Transubstantiation But saith Vsher de success Eccles. In Ethiopicarum Ecclesiarum universali Canone descriptum habebatur Hic panis est corpus meum In Latina translatione contra fidem Ethiopic Exemplarium ut in prima operis editione confirmat Pontificius ipse Scholiastes expunctum est nomen Panis 6. Constantines Letters of request to the King of Persia for the Churches there which Euseb. in vit Constant. mentioneth do intimate that then the Roman Bishop ruled not there 7. Even at home the Scots and Brittains obeyed not the Pope nor conformed about the Easter observation even in the daies of Gregory but resisted his changes and refused communion with his Ministers 8. I have already elsewhere given you the testimony of some of your own writers as Reynerius contra Waldens Catal. in Biblioth Patr. Tom. 4. p. 773. saying The Churches of the Armenians and Ethiopians and Indians and the rest which the Apostles converted are not under the Church of Rome 9. I have proved from the Council of Chalcedon that it was the Fathers that is the Councils that gave Rome its preheminence But those Councils gave the Pope no preheminence over the extra-imperial Nations For 1. Those Nations being not called to the Council could not be bound by it 2. The Emperours called and enforced the Councils who had no power out of their Empire 3. The Diocess are described and expresly confined within the verge of the Empire see both the description and full proof in Blondel de Primatu in Ecclesia Gall. And 10. The Emperours themselves did sometime giveing power to the Councils Acts make Rome the chief and sometime as the Councils did also give Constantinople equal priviledge and sometime set Constantinople highest as I have shewed in my Key p. 174 175. But the Emperours had no power to do thus with respect to those without the Empire But what say you now to the contrary Why 1. You ask Were those Primitive Christians of another kind of Church order and Government then were those under the Roman Empire Answ. When the whole body of Church history satisfieth us that they were not subject to the Pope which is the thing in question is it any weakening of such evidence in a matter of such publick fact to put such a question as this Whether they were under another kind of Government 1. We know that they were under Bishops or Pastors of their own and so far their Government was of the same kind 2. If any of them or all did suit their Church associations to the several Commonwealths in which they lived and so held National Councils and for order sake made one among them the Bishop primae sedis then was that Government of the same kind with that of the Imperial Churches and not of another kind The Roman Government was no other but One thus Ordered in one Empire And if there were also One so ordered in England one in Scotland one in Ethiopia c. this was of the same kind with the Roman Every Church suited to the form of the Common-wealth is even as to that humane mode of the same kind if a humane mode must be called a Kind It may be of that same kind and mode without being part of the same Individual But 2. You say that How far from truth this is appeareth from St. Leo in his Sermons de Natali suo where he sayes Sedes Roma Perri quicquid non possidet armis Religione tenet Reply If you take your Religion on trust as you do your authorities that are made your ground of it and bring others to it when you are deceived your selves how will you look Christ in the the face when you must answer for such temerity Leo hath no Sermons de Natali suo but only one Sermon affixed to his Sermons lately found in an oid book of Nicol. Fabers And in that Sermon there is no such words as you here alledge Neither doth he Poetize in his Sermons nor there hath any such words which might occasion your mistake and therefore doubtless you believed some body for this that told you an untruth and yet ventured to make it the ground of charging my words with untruth Yet let me tell you that I will take Pope Leo for no competent judge or witness though you call him a Saint as long as we know what past between him and the Council of Chalcedon and that he was one of the first tumified Bishops of Rome he shall not be judge in his own cause 3. But you add that The Abassines of Ethiopia were under the Patriarch of Alexandria anciently and he under the authority of the Roman Bishop Reply 1. Your bare word without proof shall not perswade us that the Abassines were under the Patriarch of Alexandria for above three hundred if not four hundred years after Christ. Prove it and then your words are regardable 2. At the Council of Nice the contrary is manifest by the sixth Can. Mos antiquus perdurat in Aegypto vel Lybia Pentapoli ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem c. And the common descriptions of the Alexandrian Patriarchate in those times confine it to the Empire and leave out Aethiopia Pisanus new inventions we regard not 3. I deny that the Patriarch of Alexandria was under the Government of the Bishop of Rome any more then the Jury are under the Foremen or the junior Justices on the bench are under the senior or York is under London or the other Earls of England are under the Earl of Arundel 4. But if both these were proved that Ethiopia was under Alexandria and Alexandria under Rome I deny the consequence that Ethiopia was under Rome for Alexandria was under Rome but secundum quid and so far as it was within the Empire and therefore those without the Empire that were under Alexandria were not therefore under Rome 5. And if it could as it never can be proved of Abassia what is that to all the other Churches in India Persia and the
rest of the world Sir If you have impartially read the ancient Church history and yet can believe that all these Churches were then under the Pope despair not of bringing your self to believe any thing imaginable that you would have to be true 3. Your next question is When the Roman Emperours were yet Heathens had not the Bishops of Rome the supremacy over all other Bishops through the whole Church Answ. No they had not nor in the Empire neither Prove it I beseech you better then by questioning If you askt Whether men rule not Angels your Question proves not the Affirmative 4. But you ask again Did those Heathen Emperours give it him Answ. 1. Power over all Churches none ever gave him till titularly his own Parasites of late 2. Primacy of meer degree in the Empire for the dignity and many advantages of the Emperial seat the Bishops of the Empire gave him by consent Blondel de primatu gives you the proof and reason at large yet so as that small regard was had to the Church of Rome before the Nicene Council as saith your Aeneas Sylvius Pope Pius the second 5. Whether the Bishop of Rome had power over the Bishop of Arles by Heathen Emperours is a frivolous question Arles was in the Roman Patriarchate and not out of the Empire The Churches in the Empire might by consent dispose themselves into the Patriarchal orders without the Emperours and yet not meddle out of the Empire Yet indeed Cyprians words intimate no power Rome had over Arles more then Arles had over Rome that is to reject communion with each other upon dissent Nay it more confuteth you that even under Heathen Emperours when Church associations were by voluntary consent of Pastors only and so if they had thought it necessary they might have extended them to other Principalities yet de facto they did not do it as all history of the Church declareth mentioning their Councils and associations without these taken in See now how little your objections are worth and how groundlesly you bid me See now how little my allegations are to the purpose As for the rabble of Hereticks which you reckon up as you esteem them some of them are no Christians univocally so called and those cannot be of the Christian Church Others of them were better Christians then the Romanists and so were of the same Church with us And it is not many reproachfull names put on them by malice that makes them no Christians or of many Churches or Religions If an arrogant usurper will put nick-names on all that will not bow to him as the Vice-Christ and call them Iconoclasts Berengarians Waldensians Albigenses Wicklefifts Hussites Lutherans Calvinists you may as well give them a thousand more names this makes them not of various Religions nor blots out their names from the book of life I have in my most retired thoughts perused the History of those mens lives and of the lives of many of your Popes together with their severall doctrines and with death and judgement in my eyes as before the great God of Heaven I humbly beg of him that I may rather have my everlasting portion with those holy men whom you burned as Waldenses Albigenses Hussites c. then with the Popes that burned them or those that follow them in that cruelty unless reconciling grace have given them repentance unto life The Religion of all these men was one and they were all of one universall Church Where you again call for One Congregation I tell you again that we know no Vnity essentiall from whence the Church can be called one but either Christ or the Vice-Christ the former only is asserted by us and the latter also by you which we deny And therefore we cannot call the universall Church One in any other formal respects but as it is Christian and so One in Christ. Yet have I herewith satisfied your demand but shewed you the unreasonableness of it beyond all reasonable contradiction You next enquire whether we account Rome and us One Congregation of Christians I answer the Roman Church hath two Heads and ours but one and that 's the difference They are Christians and so One Church as united in Christ with us and all other true Christians If any so hold their Papacy and other errours as effectively and practically to destroy their Christianity those are not Christians and so not of the same Church as we But those that do not so but are so Papists as yet to be truly and practically Christians are and shall be of the same Church with us whether they will or not And your modest stile makes me hope that you and I are of one Church though you never so much renounce it As Papall we are not of your Church that 's a new Church form But as Christian we are and will be of it even when you are condemning torturing and burning us if such persecution can stand with your Christianity But you aske Why did you then separate your selves and remain still separate from the Communion of the Roman Church Answ. 1. We never separated from you as you are Christians We still remain of that Church as Christian and we know or will know no other form because that Scripture and primitive Churches knew no other Either you have by Popery separated from the Church as Christian or not If you have it s you that are the damnable Separatists If you have not then we are not separated from you in respect of the form of the Christian Church And for your other form the Papacy 1. Neither I nor my Grand-father or great grand-father did separate from it because they never entertained it 2. Those that did so did but Repent of their sin and that 's no sin We still remain separated from you as Papists even as we are separate from such as we are commanded to avoid for impenitency in some corrupting doctrine or scandalous sin Whether such mens sins or their professed Christianity be most predominant at the heart we know not but till they shew Repentance we must avoid them yet admonishing them as brethren and not taking them as men of another Church but as finding them unfit for our Communion But O sir what manner of dealing have we from you must we be imprisoned rackt hang'd or burn'd if we will not believe that bread wine are not bread and wine contrary to our own and all mens senses and if we will not worship them with Divine worship and will not obey the Pope of Rome in all such matters contrary to our Consciences and then must we be chidden for separating from you if we 〈◊〉 a while escape the strappado and the 〈◊〉 What! will you blame us for not believing that all mens senses are deceived and the greater part of Christians and their Traditions against you are false when we read and study and suspect our selves and pray for light and are willing to hear any of your reasons but
from you as to subjection as never being your subjects Prove that they were and you have done a greater wonder then Baronius in all his Annals 2 The Greeks and all the rest within the Empire without the Roman Patriarchate are fallen from your Communion if renouncing it be a fall but not from your subjection having given you but a Primacy as Nilus shews and not a Governing pewer over them The withering therefore was in the Roman branches if the corruptions of either part may be called a withering You that are the lesser part of the Church may easily call your selves the Tree and the greater part two to one the Branches but these beggings do but proclaim your necessities In good time you come to give me here at last some proof of an ancient Papacy as you think But first you quite forget or worse that it is not a man or two in the whole world in an age but the universal Church whose judgement and form we are now enquiring after You are to prove That all the Church in every age was for the Papal universal Government and so that none can be saved that is not 2. But instead of this which you should prove you prove not that those very single persons named by you had any opinion of the Papal Soveraignty 1. Your first Testimony is from Liberatus c. 16. John Bishop of Antioch makes an appeal to Pope Simplicius Reply 1. I see you are deceived by going upon trust But its pitty so to deceive others There was no such man as Iohn Bishop of Antioch in Simplicus raign Iohn of Antioch was he that made the stirs and divisions for Nestorius against Cyril and called the Schismatical Council at Ephesus and dyed Anno 436. having raigned thirteen years as Baronius saith and eighteen as Nicephorus He dyed in Sixtus the fifths time But it s said indeed that John Bishop of Alexandria made some address to Simplicius of which Baronius citeth Liberatus words not c. 16. but c. 18. ad An. D. 483. that John being expelled by the Emperour Zeno's command went first to Calendion Bishop of Antioch and so to Rome to Simplicius if Baronius were to be believed as his judge Liberatus saith that he took from Calendion Bishop of Antioch Letters to Simplicius to whom he appealed as Athanasius had done and perswaded him to write for him to Acacius Bishop of Constantinople which Simplicius did But Acacius upon the receipt of Simplicius Letters writ flatly to him that he knew no John Bishop of Alexandria but had taken Petrus Mogus as Bishop of Alexandria into his Communion and that without Simplicius for the Churches unity at the Emperours command Here you see how little regard Acacius made of your Pope and that the appeal was but to procure his Letters to Acacius which did him no good 2. But do you in good earnest think that all such addresses or appeals are ad superiorem judicem What more common then to appeal or make such addresses to any that have advantage of interest for the relief of the oppressed Young men appeal to the aged in Controversies and the less learned to the more learned and the poor to the rich or to the favorites of such as can relieve them Iohns going first to Antioch was no acknowledgement of superiority 3. But of this I must refer you to a full answer of Blondel against Perron de Primatu in Eccles. cap. 25. sect 76. where you may be satisfied of the vanity of your instance Whereas therefore you infer or you say nothing that because this Iohn thus appealed to Rome therefore he appealed thither as to the Vniversal Ruler of the Church The story derideth your consequence Much more that therefore the Vniversall Church held the Pope then to be the Vniversall Head or Governour Here 's nothing of Government but intreaty and that but within the Empire and that but upon the seeking of one distressed man that would be apt to go to those of most interest that might relieve him and all this rejected by Acacius and the Emperour A fair proof 2. Your 2. instance is that Flavianus appeals to the Pope as to his Iudge Epist. praeambul Concil Chalced. Reply I have perused all the Council of Chalcedon as it is in Binnius purposely to find the words you mention of Flavians appeal and I find not any such words In Flavianus own Epistle to Leo there are no such words nor any other that I can find but the word appeal once in one of the Emperours Epistles as I remember but without mentioning any Judge I will not use to turn over Volumes thus in vain for your citations while I see you take them on trust and do not tell me in any narrow compasse of cap. sect or pag. where to find them But had you found such words 1. An appeal is oft made from a partiall to an impartiall Judge though of equal power 2. He might appeal to the Bishop of Rome as one of his Judges in the Council where he was to be tried and not as alone And it is evident in the History that it was not the Pope but the Council that was his Iudge 3. The greatnesse of Rome and Primacy of Order not of Jurisdiction made that Bishop of speciall interest in the Empire and distressed persecuted men will appeal to those that may any whit relieve them But this proves no Governing power nor so much as any Interest without the Empire It being the custome of the Churches in the Empire to make the Votes of the Patriarchs necessary in their general Councils no wonder if appellations be made from those Councils that wanted the Patriarchs consent to other Councils where they consâ—nted in which as they gave Constantinâ—ple the second place without any pretence of a Divine Right and frequent appeals were made to that Seat so also they gave Rome the first Seat Of this whole matter Perron is fully answered already by Blondell de primatu cap. 25. sect 63. to which I refer you it being as easie to read it in Print as Writing Adding this only that as Flavian in his necessity seeking help from the Bishop of the prime Seat in the Empire did acknowledge no more but his Primacy of Order by the Laws of the Empire and the Councils thereof so the Empire was not all the world nor Flavian all the Church nor any more then one man and therefore if he had held as you will never prove he did the Universall Government of the Pope if you would thence argue that it was held by all the Church your consequence must needs be marvelled at by them that believe that One man is not the Catholick Church no more then seeking of help was an acknowledging an Universal Headship or Governing power And it is undeniably evident that the Church of Constantinople and all the Greek Churches did believe that Universal Primacy which in the Empire was set up to be of humane right and new
made to Iulius Ex Athan. ad solit Epist. Iulius in Lit. ad Arian apud Athan. Apol. 1. p. 753. Theodoret. lib. 2. c. 4. Athan. Apol. 2. Zozom l. 3. c. 7. Reply I marvel you urge such rancid instances to which you have been so fully and so often answered I refer you to Blondell de Primatu cap. 25. sect 14 15. Whittaker de Roman Pontif. p. 150. passim Dr. Field of the Ch. l. 5. c. 35 c. Briefly this may shew the vanity of your proof 1. Sozomen in that place saith that though he alone wrote for them yet he wrote in the Name and by the consent of all the Bishops of the West 2. The advantages of Rome by its reputation and greatness and the number and quality of the Western Bishops made their Judgement and Communion valuable to others Basil before cited tells you on what grounds when Churches disagree those that are distant are supposed to be impartiall especially when numerous To which is added which Basil intimates that some hope of help from the Secular powers by the interposition of the Western Bishops made them the more sought to 3. And the Primacy of Rome though it had no Soveraignty made it seem irregular that a Patriarch should be deposed without the knowledge and judgment of the Patriarchs of the precedent Seats This was the custome that Iulius spoke of and the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria might have said as much if the Patriarch of Ierusalem or Antioch had been deposed without them 4. Every Patriarch might absolve the Innocent and hold communion with them in his own Patriarchate and if any be against it as the Arrians here were and sent false accusations against Athanasius to Iulius he may require them to prove their accusations if they will have him moved by them Our own Communion with men is to be directed by the judgment of our own well informed consciences Iulius desired not any more then to be one with a Council that should decide the case Councils then had the Rule and Patriarchs were the most honourable Members of those Councils but no Rulers of them 5. Yet Sozomen and others tell you that Iulius when he had done his best to befriend Athanasius and Paulus could do no good nor prevail with the Bishops of the East till the Emperors commands prevailed yea the Eastern Bishops tell him that he should not meddle with their proceedings no more then they did with his when he dealt with the Novatians seeing the greatness of Cities maketh not the power of one Bishop greater then another and so they took it ill that he interposed though but to call the matter to a Synod when a Patriarch was deposed Any Bishop might have attempted to relieve the oppressed as far as Iulius did especially if he had such advantages as aforesaid to encourage him All your consequences here therefore are denied 1. It is denied that because Iulius made this attempt that therefore he was Universal Ruler in the Empire 2. It is denied that it will thence follow if he were so that it had been by Divine Right any more then Constantinople had equall priviledges by Divine Right 3. It is denied that it hence followeth that either by Divine or humane right he had any Power to govern the rest of the world without the Empire Had you all that you would rack these testimonies to speak it is but that he was made by Councils and Emperours the chief Bishop or Patriarch in a Nationall Church I mean a Church in one Princes Dominion as the Archbishop of Canterbury was in England But a Nationall or Imperiall Church is not the Universall And withall oppressed men will seek relief from any that may help them In your Margin you adde that Concerning S. Athanasius being judged and rightly by P. Julius Chamier acknowledgeth the matter of fact to be so but against all antiquity pretends that judgment to have been unjust Reply Take it not ill Sir I beseech you if I awake your conscience to tell me how you dare write so many untruths which you knew or might know I could quickly manifest Both parts of your saying of Chamier p. 497 are untrue 1. The matter of fact is it that he denieth He proveth to you from Sozomens words that Athanasius did make no appeal to a Judge but only fled for help to a friend He shews you that Iulius did not play the Judge but the helper of the spoiled and that it was not an act of Judgement 2. He therefore accuseth him not of wrong judgeing but only mentioneth his not hearing the accused to shew that he did not play the part of a Judge but a friend as Chrysostome did by some that fled to him I pray answer his reasons And for what you say again in your Margin of Theodoret I say again that he appealeth to the Bishop of Rome for help as a person who with the Western Bishops might sway much against his adversaries but not as to an Universal Governour or Judge no not as to the Universal Judge of the Church Imperiall much less of all the Catholick Churches 10. Your tenth proof is from Chrysostomes Case where you say some things untrue and some impertinent 1. That Chrysostome appeals to Innocent from the Council of Constantinople is untrue if you mean it of an Appeal to a superiour Court or Judge much more if as to an Universal Judge But indeed in his banishment when all other help failed he wrote to him to interpose and help him as far as he could I need no other proof of the Negative then 1. That there is no proof of the Affirmative that ever he made any such appeal 2. In his first Epistle to Innocent he tells him over and over that he appealed to a Synod and required Iudgement and that he was cast into a ship for banishment because he appealed to a Synod and a righteous judgement never mentioning a word of any such appeal to the Pope Yea he urgeth the Pope to befriend and help him by that argument that he was still ready to stand to uncorrupted Judges never mentioning the Pope as Judge By all which it appears it was but the assistance of his intercession that he requireth and withall perhaps the excommunicating of the wicked which another Bishop might have done Yea and it seems it was not to Innocent only but to others with him that he wrote for he would scarce else have used the terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But what need we more then his own words to know his request saith he Let those that are found to have done so wickedly be subject to the penalty of the Ecclesiasticall Laws but for us that are not convicted nor found guilty grant us to enjoy your Letters and your charity and all others whose society we did formerly enjoy The Ecclesiastical Laws enabled each Patriarch and Bishop to sentence in his own Diocess though the person sentenced lived out of
their Diocess yet they might renounce all communion with him Churches that have no power over one another may have communion with one another and that communion they may hold and renounce as there is cause Now if a neighbour Patriarch with so many Bishops of the West had renounc'd Communion with Chrysostomes enemies and also written their Letters on his behalf and taken him still as in their Communion this he hoped would much further his restauration which yet he doubted as he had cause For in his second Epistle he thanks him for doing his part though it did no good or did not avail And it is to be noted that your Author Nicephorus tells you lib. 13. cap. 31. that Chrysostomes Letters and his fellow-Bishops also and the Clergies of Constantinople were all written both to the Emperour Honorius and to Innocent And therefore you may see by that on what account it was and what help they did expect The Emperour was not to excommunicate but his Letters might do much Well but you alledge Niceph. l. 13. c. 34. to prove 1. Chrysostomes appeal But you have better or worse eyes then I for I can find there no such thing but a seeking for help as aforesaid 2. You say Innocentius nulls his condemnation and declares him innocent Ans. So might another Bishop have declared him But how far it should be regarded was not in his power 3. You say he excommunicates Atticus and Theopilus and 4. Arcadius the Emperor also and Eudoxia Reply 1. If he did so and did well another Bishop might as well have done it Mennas excommunicated Vigilius of Rome Excommunicating is not alwayes an act of Jurisdiction but a renouncing of Communion with a Ministeriall binding which any Pastor on a just occasion may exercise even on those that are not of his Diocess examples in Church-history are common 2. But I would have you answer Dr. Whittakers Reasons by which he proves that Nicephorus is a fabler in this relation and that that Epistle is not Innocents which cap. 34. he reciteth Lib. de pontif Rom. Contr. 4. Qu. 4. pag. 454 455. 1. Neither Socrates Theodoret or Sozomen make any mention of this excommunication who yet write much of the Case of Chrysostome and Arcadius And would these men that lived so near that time have all silenced so great and rare a thing as the excommunication of the Emperour and Empress which would have made so great a noise and stir that yet mention Ambrose his censure of Theodosius 2. This Bull of Innocents as Nicephorus would have us believe it hath such falshoods contrary to more credible history as bewray the forgery For Socrates lib. 6. c. 19. writeth that Eudoxia died the same year that Chrysostome was banished and that Chrysostome died the third year of his banishment And Sozomen saith l. 8. c. 28. that Chrysostome was in banishment three years after the death of Eudoxia But if Nicephorus were to be believed Eudoxia was alive and excommunicated by Innocent after Chrysostomes death Nor can it be said that Innocent knew not of her death for his Legats were sent to Constantinople in Atticus time who succeeded Arsacius who outlived Eudoxia This is the summe of Dr. Whittakers confutation of Nicephorus And withall who knows not how full of fictions Nicephorus is In your Margin you pretend to confute Chamier p. 498. as saying That other Bishops restored those wrongfully deposed as well as the Pope to which you say that never single Bishop restored any who were out of their respective Diocess c. whereas the Bishop of Rome by his sole and single authority restored Bishops wrongfully deposed all the Church over Reply 1. It seems you took Chamiers words on trust peruse that page and see his words 2. Single Bishops have censured and therefore might as well remit their own censures Ambrose censured Theodosius who was no fixed Member of his charge and he remitted the Censure Epiphanius presumed even at Constantinople to excommunicate Dioscorus and his Brethren Socrat. lib. 6. c. 14. And many instances may be brought both of excommunicating and again receiving to communion by particular Bishops even as to those that were not of their charge And if the fact were not proved yet the forbearance proveth not the want of power 3. I deny your unproved assertion that the Bishop of Rome singly restored all the Church over It is a meer fiction How many restored he out of the Empire Or in the Empire out of his Patriarchate but suasorily or Synodically Your next instance of Theodosius his not permitting the Council at Ephesus to be assembled and his reconciling himself to the Church is meerly impertinent We know that he and other Princes usually wrote to Rome Constantinople Alexandria c. or spoke or sent to more then one of the Patriarchs before they called a Council You cannot but know that Councils have been called without the Pope and that neither this nor an Emperours forsaking his errour is a sign of the Popes Universal Government That Emperour gave sufficient testimony and so did the Bishops that adhered to Dioscorus that in those dayes the Pope was taken for fallible and controlable when they excommunicated him But when you cite out of any Author the words that you build on I shall take more particular notice of them Till then this is enough with this addition that the Emperours subjection if he had been subject not to an Ambrose or other Bishop but only to Rome would have been no proof that any without the Empire were his subjects No more then the King of Englands subjection to the Archbishop of Canterbury would have proved that the King of France was subject to him 12. Your twelfth proof from the Council of Chalcedon is from a witness alone sufficient to overthrow your cause as I have proved to you This Synod expresly determineth that your Primacy is a novel humane invention that it was given you by the Fathers because Rome was the Imperial Seat If you believe this Synod the Controversie is at end If you do not why do you cite it and why pretend you to believe Generall Councils But what have you from this Council against this Council Why 1. You say Martian wrote to Leo that by the Popes Authority a generall Council might be gathered in what City of the Eastern Church he should please to choose Reply 1. Whereas for this you cite Act. Concil Chalcedon 1. You tell me not in what Author whether Crabbe Binnius Surius Nicolinus or where I must seek it I have perused the Act. 1. in Binnius which is 63 pages in Folio such tasks your citations set me and find no such thing and therefore take it to be your mistake But in the preambul Epist I find that Valentinian and Martian desire Leo's prayers and contrary to your words that they say Hoc ipsum nobis propriis liter is tua sanctitas manifestet quatenus in omnem Orientem in ipsam Thraciam
seems durst not pretend to a Divine Right and Institution nor to a succession of Primacy from the Apostles 6. But nothing is more false then your assertion that he extendeth the power over the whole visible Church The word Vniversitas is all that you translate in your comment the whole visible Church As if you knew not that there was a Roman Vniversality that Roman Councils were called Vniversall when no Bishops out of that one Common-wealth were present and that the Church in the Empire is oft called the whole Church Yea the Roman world was not an unusuall phrase And I pray you tell me what power Valentinian had out of the Empire who yet interposâ—th his authority there Nequid praeter authoritatem sedis istiusilliâ—itum c. ut pâ—x ubique servetur And in the end it is All the Provinces that is the Vniversity that he extends his precepts to 7. And for that annexed that without the Emperours Letters his authority was to be of force through France for what shall not be lawfull c. I Ans. No wonder â—or France was part of his Patriarchaâ—e and the Laws of the Empire had confirmed his Patriarchal power and those Laws might seem with the reverence of Synods without new Letters to do much But yet it seems that the rising power needed this extraordinary secular help Hilary it seems with his Bishops thought that even to his Patriarch he owed no such obedience as Leo here by force exacteth So that your highest witness Leo by the mouth of Valentinian is for no more then a Primacy with a swelled power in the Roman Universality but they never medled with the rest of the Christian world It seems by all their writings and attempts this never came into their thoughts And it s no credit to your cause that this Hilary was by Baronius confession a man of extraordinary holiness and knowledge and is Sainted among you and hath his Day in your Calendar And yet Valentinian had great provocation to interpose if Leo told him no untruths for his own advantage For it was no less then laying siege to Cities to force Bishops on them without their consent that he is accused of which shews to what odious pride and usurpation prosperity even then had raised the Clergy fitter to be lamented with floods of tears then to be defended by any honest Christian Leo himself may be the principal instance 18. You next return to the Council of Chalcedon Act. 1. seq where 1. You refer me to that Act. 1. where is no such matter but you add seq that I may have an hundred and ninety pages in Folio to peruse and then you call for a speedy answer But the Epistle to Leo is in the end of Act. 16. pag. Bin. 139. 2. And there you do but falsly thrust in the word thou governst us and so you have made your self a witness because you could find none The words are Quibus tu quidem sicut membris caput praeeras in his qui tuum tenebant ordinem benevolentiam praeferens Imperatores vero adornandum decentissime praesidebant Now to go before with you must be to Govern If so then Aurelius at the Council of Carthage and others in Councils that presided did govern them It was but benevolentiam praetulisse that they acknowledged And that the Magistrates not only presided indeed but did the work of Judges and Governours is express in the Acts it s after wrote in that Epistle Haec sunt quae tecum qui spiritu praesens eras complacere tanquam fratribus deliberasti qui pene per tuorum vicariorum sapientiam videbaris à nobis effecimus And haec à tua sanctitate fuerint inchoata and yet Qui enim locum vestrae sanctitatis obtinent iis ita constitutis vehementer resistere tentaverunt From all which it appeareth that he only is acknowledged to lead the way and to please them as his brethren and to help them by the wisdome of his substitutes and yet that the Council would not yield to their vehement resistance of one particular But I have told you oft enough that the Council shall be judge not in a complementall Epistle but in Can. 28. where your Primacy is acknowledged but 1. As a gift of the Fathers 2. And therefore as new 3. For the Cities dignity 4. And it can be of no further extent then the Empire the Givers and this Council being but the Members of that one Commonwealth So that all is but a novel Imperial Primacy 19. And for the words of Vincentius Lirinensis c. 9. what are they to your purpose quantum loci authoritate signifieth no more then we confess viz. that in those times the greatness of Rome and humane Ordination thereupon had given them that precedency by which their loci authoritas had the advantage of any other Seat Or else they had never swelled to their impious Usurpation I have plainly proved to you in the End of my safe Religion that Vincentius was no Papist But you draw an argument from the word sanxit As if you were ignorant that bigger words then that are applied to them that have no governing power Quantum in se sanxit he charged them that they should not innovate And what is it P. Stephen that is the Law-giver of the Law against unjust innovation Did not Cyprian believe that this was a Law of Christ before Stephen medled in that business What Stephens authority was in those dayes we need no other witnesses then Firmilian Cyprian and a Council of Carthage who slighted the Pope as much as I do I pray answer Cyprians testimony and arguments against Popery cited by me in the Disp. 3. of my safe Religion 20. You say you will conclude with the saying of your priest Philip and Arcadius at Ephesus And 1. You take it for granted that all consented to what they contradicted not But your word is all the proof of the consequence Nothing more common then in Senates and Synods to say nothing to many passages in speeches not consented to If no word not consented to in any mans speech must pass without contradiction Senates and Synods would be no wiser Societies then Billingsgate affords nor more harmonious then a Fair or vulgar rout What confusion would contradictions make among them 2. You turn me to Tom. 2. pag. 327. Act. 1. I began to hope of some expedition here But you tell me not at all what Author you use And in Binnius which I use the Tomes are not divided into Acts but Chapters and pâ—g 327. is long bâ—fore this Councâ—l So â—hat I must believe you or search paper enough for a weeks reading to disprove you This once I will believe you to save me that labour and supposing all rightly cited I reply 1. Philip was not the Council You bear witness to your selves therefore your witness is not credible Yet I have given you instances in my Key which I would
transcribe if I thought that you could not as well read Print as M. S. of higher expressions then Caput and fundamentum given to Andrew by Isychius and equal expressions to others as well as Rome and Peter And who is ignorant that knoweâ—h any thing of Church-history that others were called successours of Peter as well as the Bishop of Rome And that the Claves regni were given to him is no proof that they were not given also to all the rest of the Apostles And where you say Arcadius condemneth Nestorius for contemning the command of the Apostolick Sea You tell me not where to find it I answer you still that its long since your Sea begun to swell and rage but if you must have us grant you all these consequences Celestine commanded therefore he justly commanded therefore another might not as well have commanded him as one Pastor may do another though equall in the name of Christ and therefore he had power to command without the Empire even over all the Catholick Church and therefore the Council was of this mind yea therefore the universal Church was of this mind that the Pope was its universal head You still are guilty of sporting about serious things and moving pity instead of offering the least proof 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 Catholick 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. Conc. Chalced. 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 21. 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 is the 31. Epistle its like that your leader meant And there 's 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 believing Rome to be the Universal Head So might one in any other Province have done And yet it follows not that he ought to do so because he did so You see now what all your proofs are come to and how shamefully naked you have left your cause In summ of all the testimonies produced 1. You have not named one man that was a Papist Pope Leo was the nearest of any man nor one testimony that ever a Pope of Rome had the Government of all the Church without the verge of the Roman Empire but only that he was to the Roman Church as the Archbishop of Canterbury to the English Church And as between Canterbury and York so between Rome and Constantinople there have been contentions for preheminency But if I can prove Canterbury to be before York or Rome before Constantinople that will prove neither of them to be Ruler at the Antipodes or of all the Christian world 2. Much less have you proved that ever any Church was of this opinion that the Pope was by Divine Right the Governour of all the world when you cannot prove one man of that opinion 3. Much less have you proved a succession of such a Church from the Apostles having said as much as nothing concerning the first 300 years 4. And yet much less have you proved that the whole Catholick Church was of this opinion 5. And least of all have you proved that the whole Church took this Primacy of Rome to be of necessity to the very Being of the Church and to our salvation and not only ad melius esse as a point of Order So that you have left your Cause in shameful nakedness as if you had confessed that you can prove nothing In the end you return to terms To what you say about the word Christians I only say that it s but equivocally applied to any that profess not all the Essentialls of Christianity of which Popery is none any more then Pride is About the word Monarch in good sadness do you deny the Pope to be an imperious sole Commander Which of these is it that you deny not that he is a Commander not that he is imperious not that he is sole in his Soveraignty I would either you or we knew what you hold or deny But perhaps the next words shew the difference as Temporal Kings But this saith not a word wherein they differ from Temporal Kings sure your following words shew not the difference 1. Kings may receive power from Christ. 2. Kings must rule in meekness charity and humility But I think the meekness charity and humility of Popes hath been far below even wicked Kings if cruel murdering Christians for Religion and setting the world on fire may be witness as your own Histories assure us 3. The Government of Kings also is for mens eternal good however Papists would make them but their executioners in such things 4. Brethren as such are no subjects and therefore if the Pope Rule men but as Brethren he rules them not by Governing authority at all 5. Children to him we are not You must mean it but Metaphorically And what mean you then Is it that he must do it in Love for their good So also must Kings So that you have yet exprest no difference at all But our Question is not new nor in unusuall 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 Monarchicall and that the Pope is the Monarch the supream Head and Ruler which in English is the Soveraign Are you ashamed of the very Cause or Title of it which you will have necessary to our salvation Next you say that you very much dislike the Title of Vice-Christ as proud 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 1. Is not the very life of the Cause between you and us whether the Pope be the Universal Head of the Church vice Christi
istius non potuisse statuere prout statuit haeretiâ—um censeatur So that by your Law we must believe the power of your Lord God the Pope or be hereticks If you meet with any Impressions that leave out Deum take Rivets note haberi in editione formata jussu Greg. 12. â— corectoribus Pontificiis nec in censuris Glâ—ssae jâ—ssu Pii 5. editis quae in expurgatorio indice habintur nomen Dei erasum fuisse Pope Nicolas 3. de Elâ—ct cap. fundamenta in 6. saith that Peter was â—ssumed into the Society of the individuall Trinity Angelus Polit. in Orat. ad Alex. 6. Pontificem ad Divinitatem ipsam sublâ—tum asserit He saith the Pope was taken up to the Godhead it self At the foresaid Council at Laterane Antonius Puccius in an Oration before Leo the tenth in the Council and after published by his favour said Divinae tuae Majestatis conspectus rutilante cujus fulgore imbecilles oculimei caligant His eyes were darkened with beholding the Popes Divine Majesty None contradicted this In the same Council Simon Bâ—gnius Modrusiensis Episcopus in an Oâ—acion Sâ—ss 6. calls Leo The Lion of the Tribe of Juda the root of Jesse him whom they had looked for as the Saviour In the same Council Sâ—ss 10 Stephanus Patracensis Archiop saith Reges in compedibus magnitudinis magni Regis liga nobiles in manicis ferreis censurarum constringe quoniam tibi data est omnis potestas in coelo in terra and before qui totum dicit nihil excludit So that all Power in heaven and earth is given to the Pope Paulus Aemilius de gestis Francorum lib. 7. saith that the Sicilian Embassadours lay prostrate at the Popes feet and thrice repeated Thou that takest away the sins of the world have mercy on us And prove to me that ever any such man was reprehended for these things by the Popes of late August Triumphus in Praefat. sum ad Ioan. 22. saith That the Popes power is infinite for great is the Lord and great is his power and of his greatness there is no end And qu. 36. ad 6. he saith that the Pope influenceth or giveth the Motion of direction and the sense of cognition into all the Members of the Church for in him we live and move and have our being And a little after he saith The will of God and consequently of the Pope who is his Vicar is the first and highest cause of all corporal and spiritual motions Would you have any more witness of the falshood of your words saith Zabarella I.C. lib. de schism Innocent 7. Bened. pag. 20. For this long time past and even to this day those that would please the Popes perswaded them that they could do all things and so that they might do what they pleased even things unlawfull and so more than God Antonius parte 3. tit 21. cap. 5. § 4. saith The Pope receiveth from the faithfull adorations prostrations and kisses of his feet which Peter permitted not from Cornelius nor the Angel from John the Evangelist Cardinalis Bertrandus Tract de origin jurisd q. 4. num 4. in Glos. extrag com l. 1. fol. 12. saith Because Iesus Christ the son of God while he was in this world and even from eternity was a Naturall Lord and by Naturall right could pronounce the sentence of deposition on Emperours or any others and the sentence of damnation and any other as upon the Persons which he had created and endowed with naturall and free gifts and also did conserve it is his will that on his account his Vicar may do the same things For the Lord should not seem discreet that I may speak with his reverence unless he had left behind him one Vicar that can do all these things Tell me now whether you said true in the Paragraph about the Title Vice-Christ yea whether it be not much more that hath been given and accepted But what name else is it that you agree on as proper to express the power which is controverted I know no name so fitted to the reall controversie And therefore in disclaiming the Name for ought I know you disclaim your Cause and confess the shame of Popery If he that seeks to be King of England should say he disclaimeth the Title of King as insolent and proud doth he not allow me to conclude the like of the thing which he concludeth of the proper name The name Papa Pope you know its like was usually by the ancients given to other Bishops as well as to him of Rome and therefore that cannot distinguish him from other men The same I may say of the Titles Dominus Pater sanctissimus beatissimus Dei amantissimus and many such like And for summus Pontifex Baronius tells you Martyrol Rom. April 9. that it was the ancient custome of the Church to call all Bishops not only Pontifices Popes but the Highest or Chief Popes citing Hierom. Ep. 99. And for the word Head of the Church or of all Bishops it hath been given to Constantinople that yet claimeth not as Nilus tells you neither a precedency to Rome nor an Universall Government much less as the Vice-Christ And that the Bishop of Constantinople was called the Apostolick Vniversal Bishop Baronius testifieth from an old Vaticane monument which on the other side calls Agapetus Episcoporum Princeps The Title Apostolick was usually given to others Hierusalem was called the mother of the Churches A Council gave Constantinople the Title of Vniversal Patriarch which though Gregory pronounced so in pious and intolerable for any to use yet the following Popâ—s made an agreement with Constantinople that their Patriarch should keep his Title of Vniversal Patriarch and the Bishop of Rome be called the Vniversal Pope which can signifie nothing proper to him the name Pope being common more then Vniversal Patriarch doth The Foundations and Pillars of the Church and the Apostles successors yea Peters successors were Titles given to others as well as him and more then these It being therefore the point in controversie between us whether the Bishop of Rome be in the place of Christ or as his Vicar the Head Monarch or Governour of the Church universal and the terms Vice Christi Vicarius Christi being those that Popes and Papists choose to signifie their claim what other should I use As to what you say of the Council of Constance which you must say also of Basil and of the French Church Venetians c. you pretend the doubt to be only between Ordinary and extraordinary Governours But 1. of old the Councils called Generall indeed but of one Principality were more ordinary then now the Pope hath brought them to be and I blame him not if he will hold his greatness to take heed of them 2. The way not to have been extraordinary if the Council of Constâ—nce had been infallible or of sufficient power who decreed that there should be one every ten years 3. The Councils that continue
so many years as that at Trent did are then become an Ordinary Government 4. What is given to the Church Representative is by many of you given to the Church reall or essentiall as you call it which is ordinarily existent only not capable of exerting the power it hath The singulis major at universis minor is no rare doctrine with you 5. But let it be as extraordinary as you please if while these Councils sit the Pope lose his Headship your Church is then two Churches specifically distinct and the form of it changeth when a Council sitteth which is a two-headed mutable Church not like the Spouse of Jesus Christ. 6. As your Popes are said to live in their constitutions and Laws when the person dyeth and your Church is not thought by you to die with them so why may not Councils do The Laws of Councils live when they sit not and the French think that these Laws are above the Pope though I shewed you even now that Iulius 2. in Conc. Later concluded otherwise of Decrees and the Council of the Popes power 7. If a Nation be Governed by Trienniall and so Decenniall Parliaments as the highest power and Councils of State in the intervalls who shall be accountable to Parliaments will you say that these Parliaments are extraordinary and not the ordinary Soveraign No doubt they are And the Council of State is not the Soveraign but the chief Officer or Magistrate for execution in the intervals Having begun this Reply May 2. I was again taken off it about May 5. or 6. And about May 11. I received a Letter from you wherein you tell me of a quarter of a years expectation Be patient good Sir These matters concern Eternity Believe it I have somewhat else to do of greater hast and moment Even some of your own friends find me more work What if ten of you write to me at once is it fair for each one of you to call for an answer as hastily as if I had but one in hand This is not my case but it is more then thus Fear not lest I give you over till you first prove the deserter and turn your back if God enable me Only I must tell you that I take it for a flight already and a forsaking of your Cause that you turn to these rambling impertinent citations and discourses in stead of a Syllogisticall arguing the case and that when you had spoken so much for it I have here that you may have no cause of exception nor pretence of cause in this Paper replyed to your last and in another proved the Visibility of our Church syllogistically and as overplus also disproved yours and proved it to be an upstart the sprout of Pride upon occasion of the greatness of the City of Rome and of the forming the Church to the Civil State in that one Empire If now you will deny to do the like I shall conclude you fly and forsake your Cause Besides your Rejoinder to this Reply I principally expect that you syllogistically in close and faithfull Arguing do prove to us the Affirmative of these Questions following Qu. Whether the Church of which the subjects of the Pope are Members hath been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth In which these three Questions are involved which you have to prove 1. Whether the Papacy that is the Vniversal Monarchy or Soveraign Government or Vice-Christship of the Pope take which term you like hath continued from Christs dayes till now 2 Whether all the Catholick Church did still submit to it and were subjects of the Pope 3. Whether those that did submit to it did take it to be necessary to the Being of the Church and the salvation of all believers or only to the more peaceable and better being If you call for Catalogues or proof of Visible succession and pretend so high to it your selves and yet will give us none when we importune you to it you tell us that you seek not to reveal the truth and Church but to hide them I urge you the harder though it may seem immodest because as the Cause doth lie upon your proof here so I know you cannot do it Pardon my confidence I know you can do no more then Baronius Bellarmine Bullinger c. set together have done and therefore I say I know you cannot do it I know your Vice-Christ I doubt the Antichrist is of humane introduction springing out of a Nationall I mean Imperiall Primacy which also was of humane invention It was but one Civil Government or Commonwealth in which your Bishop had his Primacy and that long without a Governing power And this National Primacy because of the greatness of the Empire was at last called Universal And even this was long after the dayes of Christ some hundreds of years a stranger in the Church unless as the Greatness of the Church of Rome and advantages of the place did give that Church such authority as ariseth from magnitude splendour honour and accidental advantages from the populousness wealth and glory of the City of Rome The carnall Church is led by the Vice-Christ the earthly Prince of Pride contending in the world for command and superiority and prosecuting his Cause with Strappados fire sword and gunpowder when Christ gave no Pastor a Coercive power to touch mens bodies or estates The true spirituall Church is Headed and commanded by Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace and knoweth no other Universal Head because no other hath either Capacity or Authority It obeyeth his Laws and learneth of him to be charitable patient meek and lowly and wonders not at errours and divisions on earth nor therefore accuseth the providence of God but knoweth by faith that the Universal Judge of Controversies is at the door and that it is but a very little while and we shall see that the Church had an Universal Head that was alone sufficient for his work for he that cometh will come and will not tarry Amen Even so come Lord Jesus Sir I desire you presently to send me word whether you will by close Syllogisticall arguing prove the successive visibility of your Church as Papal or not that I may know what to expect And once more I pray you take the help of the ablest of your party both that I may not be so troubled with wrong or impertinent allegations and that I may be sure that your insufficient arguings are not from any imperfection of the person but of the Cause If you meet in these Papers with any passages which you think too confident and earnest I beseech you charge them not with uncharitableness or passion for I hope it proceeded not from either but I confess I am inclined to speak confidently where I am certain and to speak seriously about the things of God which are of everlasting consequence May 18. 1659. For Mr. William Iohnson THE SECOND PART Wherein the successive Visibility of the Church of which the
Protestants are chief Members is clearly proved And the Papists exceptions against it confuted LONDON Printed in the year 1660. Qu. Whether the Church of which the Protestants are Members have been Visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth Aff. THe terms explained 1. The Church sometime signifieth a particular Congregation actually met or associated for such personal meeting for Communion in Gods worship 2. Sometime it signifieth an Association of Churches and that either of sewer or of more as they have opportunity of Communion or correspondency by their Pastors and also the Assemblies of the Pastors of the particular Churches so associated Scripture useth it in the first sense and Later custome whether Scripture also I omit in the later 3. Both Scripture and Custome have used the word to signifie the Church Universal of which all particular Churches are Members This is the Church that we speak of in the Question Defin. The Universal Church of which the Protestants profess themselves Members is The Kingdome of Iesus Christ or The whole company of Believers or true Christians upon earth subjected to Iesus Christ their Head The constitutive parts or the Relate and Correlate are as in every Politick Body the Pars Imperans and Pars subdita which is Christ and Christians The form consisteth in the mutuall Relation The End is the common good of the Church and the glory of the Head and the accomplishment of the will of God 2. The Protestants Defin. Protestants are Christians protesting against or disowning Popery The word Protestant expresseth not the essence of our Religion And therefore it must not denominate the Universal Church of which we are Members we are not to call it A Protestant Universal Church Nor doth it signifie an inseparable proper accident For when the Catholick Church had no Popery there was none to protest against and therefore there could be no Protestants And Ethiopia India and other Nations that never had Popery or those Nations that never heard of it have no occasion to protest against it Nor doth it signifie any Positive part directly of our Religion but only the Negation or Rejection of Popery Even as when a man is called Homo purgatus sanatus liberatus à leprâ peste tabe c. a man purged healed freed from the leprosie plague consumption c. it is no positive part nor inseparable proper accident much less any essential part of the man that is signified by the word Healed Purged c. Nor is it necessary in order to the proving him a man or a healthfull man to prove that he was ever a purged or healed man We undertake not therefore to prove that there have been alwayes Protestants that is men Protesting against Popery Nor have we any need in order to the proof of our Thesis to prove that the Catholick Church hath all been free from Popery in all ages or in any age since the Apostles no more then that it hath been free from Pride Ambition or Contention But yet we shall do it ex abundanti The Religion then of a Protestant is Christianity and he knoweth and owneth no other Which is called the Protestant Religion as cleansed from Popery Members that is true integral parts Of which are By Profession We profess our selves to be of no other Church And before men a man is to be taken to be of that Religion and Church of which he professeth himself to be till he be proved false in that Profession If a Papist affirm himself a member of the Roman Church in disputing with him we will take it for granted that he is so every man being best acquainted with his own mind and fittest to describe the Religion which he owns So that two things I here include 1. It is only such a Catholick Church that hath been still visible that Protestants own 2. And only such that really they are of their Profession being valid Note also that it is not directly the inexistency by internal invisible faith that is in question among us or that I mean but the inexistency by external Visible Profession Bellarmine thinks the bare Professors that are wicked are best termed Dead members and the true Professors Living members we will not stick needlesly on words We take the Living members only to be in strict propriety members but Sincerity and Hypocrisie being known only to God and the possessors we speak of Professors as Professors abstractively from their Sincerity or Hypocrisie Hath been Visible 1. Not visible to man in its Internal faith but in its external Profession 2. Not Visible at once to any one man for no man can see all the Christian world at once But Visible in its parts both in Congregations and individual persons 3. Not Visible in the soundness of its professed faith unto Infidels and Hereticks For they cannot see that faith to be sound which they take to be fabulous and false But Visible in the soundness of its professed faith to themselves that know the soundness of faith 4. Not Visible in the excellent degree of soundness in the better parts unto the corrupter or infirmer parts For though de facto they may know what Doctrine the better part do hold as Infidels know what Doctrine the Church holdeth yet they know it not to be true and sound in the points wherein they differ And note again that it is not the Visibility of every accident of the Church nor of every Truth or duty that is but of the Integrity of Religion and necessary only ad melius esse Ecclesiae to the Better being of the Church but it is the Visibility of the Church that we speak of Lastly it is the Body and not the Head whose Visibility is in Question by us Though the Head also is truly Visible in Heaven and Visus or seen to the most excellent Triumphant part of his Body who are fittest to be his Courtiers and in his presence and as much seen on earth as the Pope is to most of the Church which is not at all Ever since the dayes of Christ on earth 1. But not still in one and the same place on earth It might be in one age much of it in Iudea at Ephesus Sardis Laodicaea Colosse Philippi and other parts of Asia and in other ages removed thence either wholly or for the most part It might be in one age in Tenduâ— Nâ—bia and other great Kingdoms where it shall afâ—er cease to be But in some part or other of the earth it hath been still 2. Not equally visible in all Times and Places of the earth In some Times as in the Arrians prevalency it was so oppressed and obscured that the world groaned to find it self turn'd Arrian and the Arrians in General Councils and number of Bishops to whom the true Christians were very few did seem to carry away the Name and glory of the Catholick Church so that in their eyes and in the eyes of slanders by that were of neither
account then had not Rome those priviledges from the Apostles and consequently the whole Catholike Church was without them But the Antecedent is affirmed by that fourth great approved Council In Act. 16. Bin. p. 134. We everywhere following the definitions of the holy Fathers and the Canon and the things that have been now read of the hundred and fifty Bishops most beloved to God that were congregate under the Emperour Theodosius the great of pious memory in the Royal City of Constantinople new Rome we also knowing them have defined the same things concerning the priviledges of the same most holy Church of Constantinople new Rome For to the seat of old Rome because of the Empire of that City the Fathers consequently gave the priviledges And the hundred and fifty Bishops most beloved of God being moved with the same intention have given equal priviledges to the most holy seat of new Rome reasonably judging that the City adorned with the Empire and Senate shall enjoy equal priviledges with old Regal Rome Here we have the Testimony of one of the greatest general Councils of the humane original of Romes priviledges Bellarmine hath nothing to say but that they spoke falsly and that this clause was not confirmed by the Pope which are fully answered by me elsewhere But this is nothing to our present business It is a matter of fact that I use their Testimony for And if all the Bishops in two of the most approved general Councils called the Representative Catholike Church were not competent witnesses in such a case to tell us what was done and what was not done in those times then we have none The Papists can pretend to no higher testimony on their part The Church it self therefore hath here decided the controversie And yet note that even these priviledges of Rome were none of his pretended universal Government It s in vain to talk of the Testimonies of particular Doctors if the most renowned general Councils cannot be believed Yet I will add an Argument from them as conjunct Arg. 2. Had the Roman universal Soveraignty as essential to the Catholike Church been known in the daies of Tertullian Cyprian Athanasius Nazianzen Nyssen Basil Optatus Augustine and the other Doctors that confounded the Heresies or Schisms of those times e. g. the Novatians Donatists Arrians c. the said Doctors would have plainly and frequently insisted on it for the conviction of those Hereticks and Schismaticks But this they do not therefore it was not known in those times The consequence of the Major is evident hence The Doctors of the Church were men at least of common wit and prudence in the matters which they did debate therefore they would have insisted on this argument if then it had been known The reason of the consequence is because it had been most obvious easie and potent to dispatch their controversies 1. When the Arrians and many other Hereticks denied Christs eternal Godhead had it not been the shortest expeditious course to have cited them to the barr of the Judge of controversies the infallible Soveraign Head of the Church and convinced them that they were to stand to his judgement 2. Had not this Argument been at hand to have confounded all Heresies at once That which agreeth not with the Belief of the Roman Pope and Church is false But such is your opinion therefore 2. So for the Donatists when they disputed for so many years against the Catholikes which was the true Church had it not been Augustins shortest surest way to have argued thus That only is the true Church that is subject to the Pope of Rome and adhereth to him But so do not you therefore Either the Arrians Donatists and such others did believe the Papal Soveraignty and Vicarship or not If they did 1. How is it possible they should actually reject both the Doctrine and Communion of the Pope and Roman Church 2. And why did not the Fathers rebuke them for sinning against conscience and their own profession herein But if they did not believe the Papal Soveraignty then 2. How came it to pass that the Fathers did labour no more to convince them of that now supposed fundamentall Errour when 1. It is supposed as hainous a sin as many of the rest 2. And was the maintainer of the rest Had they but first demonstrated to them that the Pope was their Governour and Judge and that his Headship being essentiall to the Church it must needs be of his faith all Heresies might have been confuted the people satisfied and the controversies dispatched in a few words 3. Either Arrians Donatists Novatians and such like were before their defection acquainted with the Roman Soveraignty or not If they were not then it is a sign it was not commonly then received in the Church and that there were multitudes of Christians that were no Papists If they were then why did not the Fathers 1. Urge them with this as a granted truth till they had renounced it 2. And then why did they not charge this defection from the Pope upon them among their hainous crimes why did they not tell them that they were subjected to him as soon as they were made Christians and therefore they should not perfidiously revolt from him How is it that we find not this point disputed by them on both sides yea and as copiously as the rest when it would have ended all And for the Minor that the Fathers have not thus dealt with Hereticks the whole Books of Tertullian Nazianzen Nyssen Basil Optatus Hierom Augustine and others are open certain witnesses They use no such Argument but fill their Books with others most imprudently and vainly if they had known of this and had believed it Otherwise the Papists would never have been put to gather up a few impertinent scraps to make a shew with We see by experience here among us that this point is Voluminously debated and if we differ in other matters the Papists call us to the Roman bar and bring in this as the principall difference And why would it not have been so then between the Fathers and the Donatists Arrians and such like if the Fathers had believed this It s clear hence that the Papall Vicarship was then unknown to the Church of Christ. Arg. 3. The Tradition witnessed by the greater part of the Universal Church saith that the Papal Vicarship or Soveraignty is an innovation and usurpation and that the Catholick Church was many hundred years without it Therefore there was then no such Papal Church This is not a single testimony nor of ten thousand or ten millions but of the Major Vote of the whole Church and in Councils the Major Vote stands for the whole If this witness therefore be refused we cannot expect that the words of a few Doctors should be credited Nor may they expect that we credit any witness of theirs that is not more credible And that the Antecedent is true is known to the world as
examine qui cuncta ejus membra tibimet conaris Vniversalis appellatione supponere Here you see 1. That the unity and concord of the Church is not maintained by universal Headship but by fraternal communion and humility 2. That it wounded Paul and should do us to see the Church make men as it were their heads though they were Apostles and though Peter was one of them and that extra Christum beside Christ none no not Peter should be as a Head to Christs members 3. Much more abominable is it for any man to pretend to be the universal Bishop or Head to all Christs members 4. That the sin of this usurpation was against Christ the Churches Head and that before him in Judgement the usurper of universal Episcopacy will be confounded for this very thing 5. And that the crime of this title of universal Bishop was that it endeavoured to put all Christs members under him that used it tibimet supponere not to exclude all other Bishops but to put under him all Christs members These are the words of Gregory and if men can make what their list of words so full and plain and oft repeated in many Epistles what hope have they that their Judge of Controversies should do any more to end their Controversies then Scripture hath done which they cannot understand without such an unintelligible Judge He proceeds ibid. Quis ergo in hoc tam perverso vocabulo nisi ille ad imitandum proponitur qui despectis Angelorum legionibus secum socialiter constitutis ad culmen conatus est singularitatis erumpere ut nulli subesse solus omnibus praeesse videretur He maketh him the imitator of the Devil that aspiring above the rest of the Angels fell by pride But Bellarmine hath three Reasons to prove yet that Gregory after all this meant not the universal Headship or Episcopacy indeed 1. Because the holy Council of Chalcedon offered it him Ans. 1. A fair offer because two or three Deacons inscribed their Libels to him with the name of universal Archbishop And we must believe that the Council approved of this though we cannot prove it Or if they called him the Head as the City of London is the Head City in England and the Earle of Arundel the Head Earle or the Lord Chancelour the Head Judge that yet have no Government of the rest what advantage were this to the Roman Vicarship 2. If Gregory judge the name so blasphemous when it signifieth an universal Governour of the Church surely he believed that the Council offered it not to him in that sence but as he was the Episcopus primae sedis 3. But again I say the matter of fact is it that I am enquiring of And I have the testimony of this Roman Bishop that none of his Predecessors would receive that name 2. But saith Bellarmine he saith that the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter which is all one Ans. 1. But so it was committed also to the rest of the Apostles Paul had on him the care of all the Churches that claimed no Headship 2. He exprâ—sly excludeth Peters Headship both in the words before recited and after saying Certe Petrus Apostolus primum membrum or rather as Dr. Iames Corrupt of the Fathers Part. 2. p. 60 saith he found it in seven written Copies Apostolorum primus membrum Sanctae Vniversalis Ecclesiae est Paulus Andreas Iohannes quid â—liud quam singularium sunt plebium capita Et tamen sub uno capite omnes membra sunt Ecclesiae that is Peter the first of the Apostles is a member of the holy and universal Church Paul Andrew Iohn what are they but the Heads of the singular flocks of the people And yet all are members of the Church under one Head that is Christ so that Christ is the only Head Peter is but a member as the other Apostles are but not a Head 3. But saith Bellarmine Gregory could not but know that the title of Episcopus Vniversalis Ecclesiae which is all one had been oft assumed by the Popes Ans. 1. Whether was Bellarmine or Gregory the wiser man at least the fitter interpreter of those words would Gregory have made them so blasphemous foolish prophane and devilish if he had thought them of the same importance with those which his Predecessors used Or was he so silly as not to know that this might have been retorted on him What a silly â—or what a wicked dissembling hypocrite doth Bellarmine feign Pope Gregory to have been 2. But verily did the Learned Jesuite believe himself that Vniversalis Episcopus Ecclesiae Episcopus Ecclesiae Vniversalis are of the same signification Every Bishop in the world that adhered to the common Communion of Chrâ—â—â—ians and was a Catholike was wont to be called a Bishop of the Catholike Church and is indeed such but he is not therefore the universal Bishop of the Church But Bellarmine will not charge Gregory of such horrid dissimulation without reason His first reason is that Gregory did it for caution to prevent abuse Ans. What! charge it with blasphemy prophaness devilism wronging all the Church and also to excommunicate men for it and all this to prevent abuse when he held it lawful Did hell ever hatch worse hypocrisie then this that he fathers on his holiest Pope But 2. His other reason is worse then this forsooth because the question was only whether Iohn of Constantinople should have this title and not whether the Bishop of Rome should have it and therefore Gregory simply and absolutely pronounceth the name sacrilegious and prophane that is as given to Iohn but not to himself yet he refused it himself though due to him that he might the better repress the pride of the Bishop of Constantinople Ans. The sum is then that Gregory did meerly lye and dissemble for his own end He labours to prove that blasphemous sacrilegious c. which he desired But we will not judge so odiously of the Pope as Papists do Doth he charge the other Patriarchs and Bishops to give it no man doth he blame them after in other Epistles that gave him that Title and doth he profess that never any of his Predecessors received it and make so hainous a matter of it and yet all this while approve it as for himself Who will believe a Saint to be so diabolical that calls it an imitation of the Devil You see now what the Roman Cause is come to and whether their Church as Papal that is their Universal Soveraignty be not sprung up since Gregories dayes Hear him a little further ibid. Atque ut cuncta breviter cingalo locutionis adstringam sancti ante Legem sancti sub Lege sancti sub Gratia omnes hi perficientes Corpus Domini in membris sunt Ecclesiae constituti nemo se unquam Vniversalem vocare voluit Vestra autem sanctitas agnoscat quantum apud se tumeat quae illo nomine vocari
appetit quo vocari nullus praesumpsit qui veraciter sanctus fuit That is And to bind up all in the girdle of speech the Saints before the Law the Saints under the Law the Saints under Grace all these making up the Body of Christ were placed among the Members of the Church yet never man would be called Universal Let your Holiness therefore consider how with your self you swell that desire to be called by that name by which no man hath presumed to be called that was truly Holy Well! if this be not as pâ—â—in as Protestants speak against Popery I will never hope to understand a Pope I only add that Gregory makes this usurpation of the name of an Universal Bishop a forerunner of Antichrist And that Pope Pelagius condemned it before him which Gratian puts into their Decrees or Canon Law And that he took the Churches authority to be greater then his own when he tells Iohn Sed quoad in mea correptione despicior restat ut Ecclesiam debeam adhibere Lib. 7. Ep. 30. Dixi nec mihi vos nec cuiquam alteri tale aliquid scribere debere ecce in praefatione epistolae quam ad meipsum qui prohibui direxistis sâ—perbae appellationis verbum Universalem me Papam dicentes imprimere curastis Quod peto dulcissima sanctitas vestra ultra non faciat quia vobis subtrahitur quod alteri plusquam ratio exigit praebetur See then whether it be not judged by him undue to himself as well as to others And what the weight of the matter seemed to him judge more by these words Ep. 83. l. 4. ad Arrian In isto scelesto vocabulo consentire nihil est aliud quam fidem perdere To consent in that wicked word is nothing else but to lose or destroy the faith That is apostasie And l. 6. c. 194. Mauric Aug. Ego fidenter dico quia quisquis se universalem sacerdotem vocat vel vocare desiderat in elatione sua Antichristum praecurrit quia superbiendo se caeteris praeponit nec dispari superbia ad errorem ducitur Arg. 7. The Papists themselves confess that multitudes of Christians if not most by far have been the opposers of the Pope or none of his subjects therefore by their Testimony there have been visible Churches of such Aeneas Sylvius after Pope Pius 2. saith small regard was had to the Church of Rome before the Council of Nice Bellarmine saith This is partly true by reason of the persecution of those ages and partly false Ans. But if true we prove the matter of fact and leave Bellarmine better to prove his Reason If it be false then their own Historians are not to be believed â—hough worthy to be Popes And then wâ—at historicall testimony will they believe Voluminously do their Historians mention the Opposition of the Greeks on one side and of the Emperours and Kings and Divines that were under the Popes Patriarchal power as Mich. Goldastus in abundance of Treatises hath manifested I gave before the testimony of Reynerius that the Churches planted by the Apostles were not under the Pope I shall once more recite the words of Melch. Canus Loc. Theol. lib. 6. cap. 7. fol. 201. Not only the Greeks but almost all N. B. the rest of the Bishops of the whole world have vehemently fought to destroy the Priviledge of the Church of Rome and indeed they had on their side both the Arms of Emperours and the greater Number of Churches and yet they could never prevail to abrogate the Power of the One Pope of Rome By the Papists confession then most of the Churches and almost all the Bishops of the whole world and the Emperours their Armies have vehemently fought to abrogate the Popes power and destroy the Priviledges of Rome Reynerius his testimony concerning the Antiquity of the Waldenses as from Pope Sylvesters dayes if not the Apostles hath been oft cited Had they been but from Gregories dayes it had been enough when we have his own Testimony that no Bishop of Rome would own to that time that wicked prophane sacrilegious foolish blasphemous dividing name of Vniversal Patriarch or Bishop which who ever holds to destroys the faith Arg. 8. The next Argument should have been from the Historical Testimony of the Ancients that the Papal Soveraignty was then no part of the Churches faith nor owned by them But here to produce the Testimonies of all ages would be to write a Volume in Folio on this one Argument alone For how can the History of all Ages be so particularly delivered out of such a Multitude of Books but in a multitude of words And it is done already so fully that I provoke the Papists to answer the Catalogues and historicall Evidence given in if they can If you ask where I will now only tell you of 1. Blondell against Perron dâ— Primatu in Ecclesia in French that shews you the torrent of Antiquity against the Papal Soveraignty 2. Molinaeus in French de Novitate Papismi against the same Perron 3. Bishop Vsher de statu successione Ecclesiarum and his Answer to the â—esuites challenge 4. Dr. Field of the Church who lib. 5. answereth Bellarmines allegations from all sort of Antiquity which are their strength I pass by many others some of which I have named in the foresaid 3. Dispute of the safe Religion where also I have produced more of this evidence then they can answer At least much more then you have returned me in your last Paper for the contrary to which I desire your answer For it s in vain to write one thing so oft I shall only instance in the currant Testimony of their own Historians of the Beginning of their Universal Headship Saith Regino Chron. l. 1. An. 808. p. 13. Bonifacius obtinuit apud Phocam Principem ut sedes Romana Caput esset omnium Ecclesiarum quia Ecclesia Constantinâ—pâ—litana primum se omnium Ecclesiarum scribebat Hermannus Contractus An. M. 4550. p. 122. Hoc tempore Phocas Romanam Ecclesiam omnium Ecclesiâ—rum Caput esse constituit Nam Constantinop primam se esse scripsit So Marianus Scotus in Phoc. Bonifacius P. 67. impetravit á Phoca Caesare ut sedes Apostolica Romana Caput esset Ecclesiae quum antea Constantinopolis Primam omnium se scriberet The same hath Sigebertus Gemblac An. 607. p. 526. And so Compilat Chron. and many more Beneventus de Rambaldis Lib. Augustali saith p. 8. in Phoca Phocas occiâ—â—r Manritii qui Primus constituit Quod Ecclesia esset Caput omnium Ecclesiarum Cum prius Constantin supremum se nominaret Mark here the Primus Constituit So Beda P. Diaconus Anastasius Pomponius Laetus c. And of the Novelty of their worship saith Platina in Gregor 1. What should I say more of this holy man whose whole institution of the Church office specially the old one was invented and approved by him which Order I would we did follow then Learned men would
not at this day abhor the reading of the Office So that here is all invented new by Gregory which was hardly received in Spain and yet that changed since Arg. 9. If the Generality of Christians in the first ages and many if not most in the later ages have been free from the Essentials of the Papists faith â—hen their faith hath had no successive Visible Church professing it in all ages but the Christians that are against it have been Visible But the Antecedent is true as I prove in some instances 1. It is an Article of their faith determined in a General Council at Laterane and Florence that the Pope is above a Council But that this hath not been successively received the Council of Basil and Constance witness making it a new Heresie 2. It is an Article of their faith that a Generall Council is above the Pope for it is so determined at Basil and Constance But that this hath had no successive duration the Council of Laterane and Florence witness 3. It is an Article of their faith that the Pope may depose Princes for denying Transubstantiation and such like Heresies and also such as will not exterminate such Hereticks from their dominions and may give their dominions to others and discharge their Subjects from their oaths and fidelity For it is determined so in a Council at Laterane But this hath not been so from the beginning Not when the 13. Chapter to the Romans was written Not till the dayes of Constantine Not till the dayes of Gregory that spake in contrary language to Princes And Goldastus his three Volumes of Antiquities shew you that there hath been many Churches still against it 4. It is an Article of their faith that the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is truly really and substantially in the Eucharist and that there is a Change made of the whole substance of Bread into the body and of the whole substance of Wine into the blood which they call Transubstantiation So the Council of Trent But the Catholick Church hath been of a contrary judgement from age to age as among many others Edm. Albertinus de Eucharist hath plainly evinced though a quarreller hath denyed it and little more And it s proved in that successively they judged sense and Reason by it a competent discerner of Bread and Wine 5. It is now de fide that the true Sacrament is rightly taken under one kind without the cup as the Councils of Constance and Trent shew But the Catholick Church hath practised and the Apostles and the Church taught otherwise as the Council of Constance and their Writers ordinarily confess 6. It is an Article of their faith as appears in the Trent Oath that we must never take and interpret Scripture but according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers But the Catholick Church before these Fathers could not be of that mind and the Fathers themselves are of a contrary mind and so are many learned Papists 7. It is an Article of their faith that there is a Purgatory and that the souls there detained are holpen by the suffrages of the faithful But the latter was strange to all the old Catholick Church as Bishop Vsher and others have proved and the very being of Purgatory was but a new doubtfull indifferent opinion of some very few men about Augustines time 8. It is now an Article of their faith that the holy Catholick Church of Rome is the mother and mistris of all Churches But I have shewed here and elsewhere that the Catholick Church judged otherwise and so doth for the most part to this day 9. It is now an Article of their faith that their Traditions are to be received with equall pious affection and reverence as the holy Scripture But the Catholick Church did never so believe 10. The Council of Basil made it de fide that the Virgin Mary was conceived without Originall sin But the Catholick Church never judged so 11. It s determined by a Council now that the people may not read the Scripture in a known tongue without the Popes License But the Catholick Church never so thought as I have proved Disp. 3. of the safe Religion 12. The Books of Maccabees and others are now taken into the Canon of faith which the Catholick Church received not as such as Dr. Cosin and Dr. Reignolds have fully proved To this I might add the Novelty of their Worship and Discipline but it would be too tedious and I have said enough of these in other writings See Dr. Challoner pag. 88 89. In 16. points Dr. Challoner proveth your Novelty from your Confessions Indeed his Book de Eccles. Cath. though small is a full answer to your main Question Arg. 10. If Multitudes yea the far greatest part of Christians in all ages have been ignorant of Popery but not of Christianity then hath there been a succession of Visible Professors of Christianity that were no Papists but the antecedent is true therefore so is the consequent In this age it is an apparent thing that the far greatest part are ignorant of formal Popery 1. They confess themselves that the common people and most of the nobility of Habassia Armenia Greece Russia and most other Eastern Churches that are not Papists are ignorant of the Controversie 2. They use to tell us here among Protestants that there is not one of many that know what a Papist is 3. We know that of those that go under the name of Papists there is not one of a multitude knoweth We hear it from the mouths of those we speak with I have not met with one of ten of the poorer sort of them even here among us that knoweth what a Papist or Popery is but they are taught to follow their Priests and to say that theirs is the true Church and old Religion and to use their Ceremonious worship and to forbear coming to our Churches c. and this is their Religion And in Ireland they are yet far more ignorant And it s well known to be so in other parts Their Priests they know and the Pope they hear of as some person of eminent Power in the Church But whether he be the Universal Vicar of Christ and be over all others as well as them whether this be of Gods institution or by the grant of Emperours or Councils c. they know not And no wonder when the Papists think that the Council of Chalcedon spoke falsly of the humane Originall of the Primacy in the Imperiall territories And when the Councils of Basil and Constance knew not whether Pope or Council was the Head And that the people were as ignorant and much more in former ages they testifie themselves And before Gregories dayes they must needs be ignorant of that which was not then risen in the world Yea Dr. Field hath largely proved Append lib. 3. that even the many particular points in which the Papists now differ
from us were but the opinions of a faction among them before Luther and that the Western Church before Luther was Protestant even in those particular Controversies though this is a thing that we need not prove And as Dr. Potter tells them pag. 68. The Roman Doctors do not fully and absolutely agree in any one point among themselves but only in such points wherein they agree with us In the other disputed between us they differ one from another as much almost as they differ from us He appeals for this to Bellarmines Tomes Though I cannot undertake to make this good in every point yet that proper Popery was held but by a Faction in the Western Church even at its height before Luther is easily made good He that readeth but the Writers before Luther and in History noteth the desires of Emperours Kings and Universities and Bishops for Reformation of the things that we have reformed may soon see this to be very true It was Avitas Leges consuetudines Angliae as Rog. Hovedâ—n and Matth. Paris in H. 2. shew that the Pope here damned and anathematized all that favoured and observed them O tender Father even to Kings O enemy of Novelties The German History collected by Reuberus Pistorus Freherus and Goldastus shews it as pâ—ain as day light that a Papal Faction by fury and turbulency kept under the far greater part of the Church by force that indeed dissented from them even from Hildebrands dayes till Luthers or near Saith the Apologia Henrici 4. Imperat. in M. Frâ—heri Tom. 1. p. 178. Behold Pope Hildebrands Bishops when doubtless they are murderers of Souls and bodies such as deservedly are called the Synagogue of Satan yet they write that on his and on their side or party is the holy Mother Church When the Catholick that is the Universal Church is not in the Schism of any side or parties but in the Universality of the faithfull agreeing together by the spirit of Peace and Charity And p. 179. See how this Minister of the Devil is beside himself and would draw us with him into the ditch of perdition that writeth that Gods holy Priesthood is with only 13. or few more Bishops of Hildebrands and that the Priesthood of all the rest through the world are separated from the Church of God when certainly not only the testimony of Gregory and Innocent but the judgement of all the holy Fathers agree with that of Cyprian that he is an Alien prophane an enemy that he cannot have God for his Father that holdeth not the Unity of the Church which he after describeth to have one Priesthood Et p. 181. But some that go out from us say and write that they defend the party of their Gregory not the Whole which is Christs which is the Catholick Church of Christ. And p. 180. But our Adversaries that went from us not we from them use thus to commend themselves We are the Catholicks we are in the Unity of the Church So the Writer calls them Catholicks and us that hold the faith of the holy Fathers that consent with all good men that love peace and brotherhood us he calls Schismaticks and Hereticks and Excommunicate because we resist not the King And p. 181. Isidore saith Etym. l. 8. The Church is called Catholick because it is not as the conventicles of Hereticks confined in certain countries but diffused through the whole world therefore they have not the Catholick faith that are in a part and not in the Whole which Christ hath redeemed and must reign with Christ. They that confess in the Creed that they believe the holy Catholick Church and being divided into parties hold not the Unity of the Church which Unity believers being of one heart and one soul properly belongs to the Catholick Church So this Apol. One Objection I must here remove which is all and nâ—thing viz. That the Armenians Greeks Georgians Abassines and many others here named differ from Protestants in many points of faith and therefore they cannot be of the same Church Ans. 1. They differ in nothing Essentiall to our Church or Religion nor near the Essence 2. Protestants differ in some lesser points and yet you call them all Protestants your selves 3. I prove undeniably from your own pens that men differing in matters of faith are all taken to be of your Church and so of one Church and therefore you contradict your selves in making all points of faith to be Essentials of the Christian Religion or Church 1. The Council of Basil and Constance differed de fide with the Popâ— and the Council of Laterane and Florence They expresly affirm their doctrine to be de fide that the Council is above the Pope and may depose him c. and the contrary Heresie And Pighius Hierarch Eccles. lib. 6. saith that these Councils went against the undoubted faith and judgement of the Orthodox Church it self 2. Their Saint Tho. Aquinas and most of their Doctors with him differ from the second Council of Nice in holding the Cross and Image of Christ to be worshipped with Latria which that Council determined against See more Arguments in my Key for Cath. p. 127 128. and after I will now add a Testimony sufficient to silence Papists in this point and that is The Determination of the Theological faculty of Paris under their great Seal against one Iohan. de Montesono ordinis Praedic as you may find it after the rest of the Errors rejected by that University in the end of Lombard printed at Paris 1557. pag. 426. Their 3. Conclusion is that Saint Thom. Aquin. doctrine is not so approved by the Church as that we must believe that it is in no part of it erroneous de fide in matter of faith or hereticall They prove it because it hath many contradictions even in matter of faith and therefore they ought not to believe it not hereticall Here fol. 426 427. they give six examples of his contradictions and therefore they conclude that though he were no Heretick because not pertinacious yet they ought not to believe that his doctrine was in no part hereticall or erroneous in the faith They further argue thus If we must believe his doctrine not hereticall c. this should be chiefly because it is approved by the Church But there is some doctrine much more approved by the Church then the doctrine of S. Tho. which yet is in some part of it hereticall or erroneous in the faith therefore The Minor they prove by many examples The first is of Peters doctrine Gal. 2. I own not this by citing it The second is of Cyprian The third of Hierom and they add that the same may be said of Augustine and many more approved Doctors The fourth example is Lombard himself who they say hath somewhat erroneous in the faith The fifth is Gratian who had he pertinaciously adhered to his doctrine they say had been a manifest Heretick And say they some say the
like of the Ordinary Glosses of the Bible which yet seem of greater authority then Aquinas The sixth example is of some not Canonized Saints as Anselm Cantuar. Hugo de Sancto Victore and others as authentick as S. Thomas And say they his Canonization hindereth not which some pretend as of great colour To say that S. Tho. in some part of his doctrine erred in faith derogates not from his Canonization nor from the approbation of his Theologicall doctrine even as to say this of other Saints and chief Doctors derogateth not from their Canonization or approbation For as the Church by Canonizing one a Saint doth not thereby approve all his Deeds so in approving his doctrine it doth not hereby approve all his sayings or writings but only that which is not retracted by himself or corrected by another or deservedly to be corrected as contrary to truth And now when Fathers even the chief and your Saints and highest Doctors have this Testimony from the famous University of Paris to have somewhat hereticall or erroneous in the faith and so who among you is free I leave it to modesty to judge whether the Greeks Armenians c. and we are not of one Faith Religion and Catholick Church for all our differences in some points Have you had all these Nations man by man before your bar and convinced them of pertinaciousness in heresie If not call them not Hereticks till you are willing to be called such your selves and that by your selves And thus I have evinced 1. That the Church of which the Protestants are Members hath been Visible since the dayes of Christ on earth 2. And ex abundanti that the Papal Church as Papal hath not been visible and that Christian Churches without Papal Soveraignty have been Visible since Gregories dayes and the whole Catholick Church was such before And you see both in the Essentialls and in the freedom from the Romish Vice-Christ where our Church hath been before Luther even since Christ. Sir I have performed this task on this supposed condition that you will now do the like as to your own Church and send me in solid Arguments your proof of this Thesis The Church of which the Subjects of the Pope are Members hath been Visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth Where note that it is not the Visibility of your Church as Christian United in Christ the Head that is in Question We grant as Christians all of you are of the true Christian Church that destroy not your Christianity But it is your new Church form as Papal that we question and renounce Protestants are of no Church but the Christian united in Christ The name Protestant signifieth not any essentiall of their Church but their Rejection of your Church as Headed by the Pope You are therefore to prove that your Catholick Church as Headed by the Pope hath been visible in all ages And here I must in Justice expect that you give us such a Definition as you will stand to through the dispute 1. Of the Church 2. Of the Pope and 3. Of the Subjects of the Pope or Papists The term Roman Catholicks would but divert and elude For it is not as Romane that we oppose you that is as inhabitants of Rome or as subject to him as a Bishop of Rome Nor is it as Catholicks that is as of the Universal Christian Church but as Papists that is subjects of the Pope as universal Soveraign or Bishop To dispute of terms not agreed on is lost labour Define first or you do nothing I find of your Writers some by the Church mean the Pope as Gretser Defens cap. 10. lib. 3. de Verbo Dei pag. 1450 1451. By the Church saith he we mean the Pope of Rome and per Ecclesiam Papam interpretantur Non abnuo Some by the Church mean a Council and what they mean by a Council I know not well And some mean the Roman Clergy i. e. of that Diocess And some mean all the Clergy under the Pope And some mean all the people that are his subjects I have given you the Reason of my doubting of your meaning in these terms in a Book come out of the Press since your last to me where I have answered most of yours 2. Let me desire of you such proofs as in your own judgement are cogent I suppose as I have there told you Key pag. 41. cap. 12. that none of you will take either Sense Reason Scripture the Tradition or judgement of most of the Church for a sufficient proof but yet we will accept of them when you argue but ad hominem for we renounce them not I think what ever you say that is not the Determination of the Pope or a Council by him approved which is all one you will give us leave to judge that you are uncertain your selves whether you say true in it if de fide Saith Skul Revius Apol. pro Bellâ—rm c. 6. p. 255. The Popes Power is as the hinge the foundation and that I may comprehend all in a word the summ of the Christian faith Greg. Valent. Anal. fid l. 8. c. 7. The Authority that resideth in the Pope alone is called the Authority of the Church and Councils Bellâ—r de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 3. It is apparent that the whole firmness or strength of Councils is from the Pope not partly of the Pope and partly of the Council Binnius Vol. 2. p. 515. saith Every Council hath just so much strength and authority as the Apostolike seat bestoweth on it But I leave you to give us your own judgement Your Testimonies from Fathers can seem of no great weight to us while you so slight them your selves as commonly you do with what lies or Errors or other incompetency you charge Iustin Mart. Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Victorinus Cyprian Eusebius Epiphanius Prudentius Hierom Lactantius Augustine Procopius Theodoret Isidore Euthymius Sozomen Oecumenius Bernard and all the Fathers see Dr. Iames Corrupt of Fath. Part. 4. p. 2 3. Tell us therefore how far you credit them Sir if you refuse thus first to explain your terms and then prove the Visibility of your Church as Papal successively as I have proved the Visibility of the Church that I am of I shall be forced to conclude that you love not the light but at once give up your cause and the reputation of your impartial Love of truth Addenda Miscellanea COncil Ephes. 1. in Epistola ad Nestor Tom. 1 fol. 315. ed. Pet. Crab. Petrus Iohannes aequalis sunt ad alterutrum dignitatis Comment in epist Synodal Basil. p. 31. p. 40. Impress Colon. 1613. saith that The Provinces subject to the four great Patriarchs from the beginning of the Christian Church did know no other supream but their own Patriarcks And if the Pope be a Patriarck it is by the Church If he be Head of all Churches it is by the Church And whereas we have said that it is expressed in the
Council of Nice that many Princes were subjected to the Church of Rome by Ecclesiastical custom and no other right the Synod should do the greatest injury to the Bishop of Rome if it should attribute those things to him only from custom which were his due by Divine Right This Citation I take from Bishop Bromhall having not seen the Book my self The Popish Bishop of Calcedâ—n Survey cap. 5. To us it sufficeth that the Bishop of Rome is Saint Peters successour and this all the Fathers testifie and all the Catholick Church believeth but whether it be jure divino or humano is no point of Faith An ingenuous Confession destroying Popery See Aubert Miraeus notitia Episcopat where in the antient Notit and Leunclavius record of Leo Philos. Impera There are none of the Abassine or other extramperial Nations under the old Patriarcks Cassander Epist. 37. D. Ximenio operum p. 1132. saith of that learned pious Bishop of Valentia Monlucius so highly commended by Thuanus and other learned men that he said Si sibi permittatur in his tribus capitibus viz. forma publicarum precum de ritibus Baptismi de formâ Eucharistiae sive Missae Christianam formam ad normam priscae Ecclesiae Institutam legi conâ—idere se quod ex quinquaginta mill quos habet in suâ Dioecesi à praesenti disciplina Ecclesiae diversos quaùraginta millia ad Ecclesiasticam uniâ—nâ—m sit reducturus That is If he had but leave in these three heads the form of publick Prayers of the rites of Baptism and the form of the Eucharist or the Mass to follow the Christian form Instituted according to the rule of the Antient Church he was confident that of fifty thousand that he had in his Diocess that differed from the present discipline of the Church he should reduce forty thousand to Ecclesiastical union By this testimony it is plain that the Church of Rome hath forsaken the antient Discipline and Worship of the Church by Innovation and that the Protestants desire the restitution of it and would be satisfied therewith but cannot obtain it at the Papists hands So Cassâ—nder himself Epist. 42 p. 1138. I would not despair of moderation if they that hold the Church possessions would remove some intolerable abuses and would restore at tolerable form of the Church according to the prescript of the Word of God and of the antient Church especially that which flourished for some ages after Constantine when liberty was restored which if they will not do and that betime there is danger they may in many places be cast out of their possessions Still you see Rome is the Innovator and it is Restitution of the antient Church-form that would have quieted the Protestans which could never be obtained So again more plainly Epist. 45. p. 1141. Whether Hereticks are in the Church When I came to London I enquired after Mr. Iohnson to know whether I might at all expect any Answer to the foregoing Papers or not And at last instead of an Answer I received only these ensuing lines PAg. 5. part 1. You say I reply first had not you despaired of making good your cause you should have gone by argumentation till you had forced me to contradict some common principle Now I have by Argumentation forced you to this if you will maintain what after you seem to assert in divers passages viz. That Hereticks are true parts of Christs Catholick Church for thus you write p. 11. Some are called Hereticks for denying points essential to Christianity those are no Christians and so not in the Church but many also are called Hereticks by you and by the Fathers for lesser Errours consistent with Christianity And these may be in the Church And p. 12. you answer thus to your adversary Whereas you say it is against all antiquity and Christianity to admit condemned Hereticks into the Church I reply first I hate their condemnation rather then reverence it where you saying nothing against their admittance into the Church seem to grant it I therefore humbly entreate you to declare your opinion more fully in this question Whether any professed Hereticks properly so called are true parts of the universal visible Church of Christ so that they compose one universal Church with the other visible parts of it Iunii 6 to William Johnson The Answer ANsw. My words are plain and distinctly answer your question so that I know not what more is needful for the explication of my sense Unless you would call us back from the Thing to the meer Name by your properly so called you are answered already But I would speak as plainly as I can and if it be possible for me to be understood by you I shall do my part 1. It is supposed that you and I are not agreed What the Vniversal visible Church it self is while you take the Pope or any meer humane Head to be an essential part which is an assertion that with much abhorrence I deny You think each member of that Church must necessarily ad esse be a subject of the Pope and I think it enough that he be a subject of Christ and to his orderly and well-being that he hold local Communion with the parts within the reach of his capacity and be subject to the Pastors that are set over him maintaining due association with and charity to the rest of the more distinct members as he is capable of communion with them at that distance So that when I have proved a person to be a member of the Catholick Church it is not your Catholick Church that I mean No â—ound Christian is a member of yours it is Hereticks in the softer sense that are its matter It s necessary therefore that we first agree of the Definition of the Catholick Church before we dispute who is in it 2. Your word Properly so called is ambiguous referring either to the Etymologie or to some definition in an authentick Canon or to custom and common speech Of the first we have no reason now to enter controversie For the second I know no such stablisht Definition that we are agreed on For the third custom is so variable here not agreeing with it self that what is to be denominated Proper or Improper from it is not to be well conjectured However all this is but de nomine and What is the proper and What the improper use of the word Heretick is no Article of Faith nor necessary for our debate Therefore again you must accept of my distinguishing and give me leave to fly confusion 1. The word Heretick is either spoken of one that corrupteth the Doctrine of Faith as such or of one that upon some difference of Opinion or some personal quarrels withdraweth from the Communion of those particular Churches that before he held communion with and gathereth a separated party such are most usually called Schismaticks but of oâ—d the name Hereticks was oft applyed unto such 2. The word Heretick in the
and unchurched with them But if these Popes may be in the Church and Heads of yours while Hereticks then so may others 3. It s commonly said by others of yours as well as Bellarmine that the Councils were misinformed about Honorius and the Popes that consented to those Councils and so that he was not a Heretick nor out of the Church Also that a Pope may erre in matter of fact and unjustly excommunicate If so a Pope and Council may erre about another as well as about Honorius or other Popes and therefore their sentence be no proof that such are out of the Church no more then that he and Eugenius were out 4. As the Pope and his Synods condemn the Greeke so the Greeks condemn and excommunicate you as formerly the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope have excommunicated each other I am therefore no more bound to take them for excommunicate persons than you they having as much authority over you as you over them and their witness being to us as credible as yours 5. The Abassines Armenians Greeks c. are not proved to deny any essential point of the Christian Religion or which is necessary to the Being of a Christian or Church 6. Nor are they proved to be willful obstinate and impenitent in defending any errors with a wicked mind and so to be formally Hereticks in your own sense 7. They are large Nations and millions of souls and their Pastours numerous so that its impossible they should be all legally by you convicted They never spake for themselves nor were witnesses heard against them Noxa caput sequitur Guilt of Heresie is to be proved of each individual whom you condemn If a few Bishops were Hereticks or a Prince were such that proves not that the rest and all the Pastors or people even to many millâ—ons are such Or if half had been such in former ages that proves not that half or any are such now Christ never appointed the excommunicating of millions for the sakes of a few of their Rulers nor of whole Nations unheard but of single persons upon a just and equal tryal If therefore your Pope or any of his Councils which you falsly call General do excommunicate or condemn Habassia Armenia Georgia Syria and other Naâ—ions as Hereticks it is so far from unchurching them or proving them such as that it is one of the greatest sins that can be committed by the sons of men with inhumane injustice cruelty pride and arrogancy presuming to pass a damning sentence on so many millions of souls whose faces you never saw nor were ever called to a legal tryal 8. Your own writers ordinarily acquit the Greeks from Heresie and those of them that have travelled to other Countries as Syria c. acquit most of them as I have proved in former writings out of their own words not needful therefore here to be recited when you may see any writings 9. Your Pope and Bishops is none of their authorized Pastor and therefore hath no power as such to judge them And as neighbour Churches they have as much to do to judge you as you to judge them Therefore they are never the more out of the Church for your judgement any more than you for theirs 10. There are as many and as great errors proved by them to be in your Church as is by you to be in theirs so that in sum your cause being much worse and your censure of them proving you guilty of such inhumane cruelty injustice arrogancy usurpation c. by condemning them you go much nearer to prove your selves no Christians and no Church than them 11. And yet I think the far greatest part of them many thousands to one are not actually excommunicated or condemned by any pretended sentence of your own whatever your writers may say of them and whatever one Council might say of some few in some one age 12. Lastly It can be no matter of certainty to you your self or any of you that these Nations or Churches are Hereticks both because it is a thing that none of your approved Councils have determined of as to any person now living nor to any considerable number comparatively in other ages and also because you confess your Pope and Councils fallible in these cases of fact and personal application You cannot therefore build upon such acknowledged uncertainties BUt Sir having thus answered your demand I must ask you what 's all this to the Answer of my last Papers which I have now near a year expected from you I suspected some such â—ergiversation when I took the boldness to urge you so hard to the tasks that you were reasonably engaged to perform viz. 1. To prove by close Argumentation the nullity of our Churches as you begun in your first Argument 2. To answer my proofs of our successive visibility 3. To prove your own successive visibility in all ages since Christ as I have proved ours I do therefore once more urge you speedily to do this assuring you that else I must take it for an open deserting of your Cause But yet I must add that if you will please to dispute the main cause in difference between us upon equal terms we have yet other Questions in which we differ that are lower then these and nearer the foundation Besides the forementioned work therefore I desire that you will dispute the main Cause in two distinct disputations in one of which be you the Opponent and bring your strongest Arguments against the Reformed Churches and Religion and in the other I will be Opponent and argue against Popery in the beginning agreeing upon the sense of those terms that we are like to have greatest use of through our disputation If you will but let us meet and state our sense of such terms before I return into the Country that we may the better manage it after at a distance it will be worth our labour And for verbal dispute I shall at any fit time and place most cheerfully entertain it if so many doubting persons may be present as that it may be worth our labour In the mean time I pray pardon it if the roughness of any passages discover the frailty of Your Servant R. Baxter Iune 7. 1660. Mr. Iohnsons EXPLICATION OF Some of the most used TERMS WITH QUERIES Thereupon And his ANSWER And my REPLY LONDON Printed 1660. AFter the writing of the foregoing Paper I again urged Mr. Johnson to the speedy answering my Papers Of which when he gave me no hope I committed them to the Press But afterward he seemed more inclinable both to that and to a Verbal conference And in order to both if we had opportunity I desired him first that we might agree on the sense of those terms that are like to be most used in the substance of our Controversie promising him that I will give him my sense of any term when he shall desire it and accordingly he explained his sense of many of them as
Reply If so then all those were no Popes that were Hereticks or denied essential points of faith as Iohan. 23. and so were no Christians and all those that wanted the necessary abilities to the essentials of their work And so your Church hath oft been headless and your succession interrupted Councils having censured many Popes to be thus unqualified And the dispositio materiae being of it self necessary to the reception of the form it must needs follow that such were no Popes even before the Councils charged them with incapacity or Heresie because they had it before they were accused of it And Simony then made many uncapable R. B. Qu. 2. When and how must the institution of Christ be found Mr. J. Answ. In the revealed Word of God written or unwritten R. B. Reply Qu. 2. Reply 1. You never gave the world assurance how they may truly know the measure of your unwritten Word nor where to find it so as to know what it is 2. Till you prove Christs Institution which you have never done you free us from believing in the Pope R. B. Qu. 3. Will any ones election prove one to be Pope or who must elect him ad esse Mr. J. Answ. Such as by approved custome are esteemed by those to whom it belongs fit for that charge and with whose election the Church is satisfied R. B. Reply Qu. 3. Reply Here you are fain to hide your self instead of answering and shew indeed that a Pope that 's made an essential part of the Church subjection to whom is made of necessity to salvation is indeed but a meer name or a thing unknown and so can be certainly believed or acknowledged by none For either Election of him by some body is necessary or not If not then you or another man unchosen may be Pope for ought I know or any man else If yea then it is either any bodies Election of him that will serve turn or not If it will then you may be Pope if your Scholars choose you and then you have had three true Popes at once for so many were Elected But if it will not then it must be known who hath the Power of Election before it can be known who is indeed the Pope But you are forced here by your answer to intimate to us that the Power of Election cannot be known and therefore the Pope cannot be known For 1. Here are no determinate Electors mentioned and therefore it seems none known to you And no wonder for if you confine it to the people or to the Cardinals or to the Emperours or to Councils you cut off all your Popes that were chosen by the other waies 2. Nor do you determine of any particular discernable note by which the Electors and power of election may be known to the Church But all these patches make up your description 1. It must be those that are esteemed fit for the charge 2. And that by those to whom it belongs 3. And that by custome 4. And that approved 5. And the Church must be satisfied with the election O miserable body then that hath been so oft headless as Rome hath been 1. Will esteeming them fit serve turn though they be unfit then it is not the fitness that is necessary but the estimation true or false 2. But why did you not tell us to whom it is that it belongs to esteem the Choosers fit Here you were at a streight But is not this to say nothing while you pretend to speak and to hide what you pretend to open 3. And who knows what custome and of what continuance you mean Primitive custom went one way and afterward custom went another way and later custom hath varied from both and hath the power of Election changed so oft 4. And who is it that must approve this custom and what approbation must there be All these are meer hiding and not resolving of the doubt and tell us that a Pope is a thing invisible or unknown 5. And your last assureth us that your succession was interrupted through many usurpations yea indeed that you never had a Pope For the Church was unsatisfied with the election of abundance of your Popes when Whores and Simony and Murder and power set them up And most of the Church through the world is unsatisfied with them still to this day And you have no way to know whether the greater part of the Church is satisfied or not for non-resistance is no sign of satisfaction where men have not opportunity or power to resist And when one part of Europe was for one Pope and another for another through so many Schisms who knows which had the approbation of that which may be called the Church R. B. Qu. 4. Is Consecration necessary and by whom ad esse Mr. J. Answ. It is not absolutely necessary ad esse R. B. Reply Qu. 4. Reply If consecration be not necessary to the Papacy then it is not necessary that this or that man consecrate him more then another And then it is not necessary to a Bishop And then the want of it makes no interruption in succession in any Church any more then in yours R. B. Qu. 5. What 〈◊〉 or proof is necessary to your Subjects Mr. J. Answ. So much as is necessary to oblige them to accept of other Elected Princes to be their Soveraigns R. B. Reply Qu. 5. Reply When you have answered to the forementioned thirty doubts we shall know what that general signifieth Mr. J. Bishops I mean by Bishop such a Christian Pastor as hath power and jurisdiction to govern the inferior Pastors Clergy and people within his Diocesse and to confer holy orders to such as are subject to him R. B. Of Bishops Qu. 1. Do you mean that he must have this jure divino or humano and if jure divino whether mediately or immediately Mr. J. Answ. The definition abstracts from particulars and subsists without determining that question R. B. Reply Of Bishops Qu. 1. Repl. 1. You before seem to yeild that the Papacy is but jure humano and therefore sure of no necessity to salvation For if man can change the power of election and the foundation be humane it s like the relation is but humane And therefore if Bishops must be jure divino they are more excellent and necessary then the Pope 2. How gross a subterfuge is this either the Bishop in question is a divine creature or a humane If a divine as you may manifest it or express it at least so you ought it being no indifferent thing to turn a divine office and Church into an humane If he be not Divine he is not of necessity to a divine Church nor to salvation And yet thus your R. Smith Bishop of Calcedon ubi supra confesseth it to be no point of your faith that the Pope is St. Peters successor jure divino And if you leave it indifferent to be believed or not that both your Pope and Bishops are
be of your Church because it is so little Catholike I am of the one universal Church which containeth all the true Christians in the world And you are of a Party which hath separated it self from most of the Christians in the world I am of that one body that is centred in Christ the Head you are of a piece of this body that hath centred in a man and oft a confessed heretical wicked man whom you take while he lives to be the infallible Judge and foundation of all your faith and hope and when he is dead perhaps pronounce him to be in hell as Bellarmine did Pope Sixtus and others commonly I know as every Sect hath a kind of unity among themselves however divided from all the rest of the Church so also hath yours but nothing will satisfie me but a Catholike Unity Church and Faith So much being premised I answer your Questions Quest. 1. Whether the Church of Rome was a true Church in the Apostles dayes Answ. The word Church signifies more things then one 1. Sometime it is used to signifie the whole mystical body of Christ containing all and only those that are justified whom Bellarmine calleth living members And in this sense the Church of Rome in the Apostles dayes was not the Church but the justified members were part of the Church 2. Sometime it is used to signifie all that profess true Christianity in the world And thus the Church of Rome was not the Church but part of it 3. It is oft used by your writers to signifie one Church that by Prerogative is the Head or Mistris of all Christians in the world to which they must all be subject and from which they must receive their name as the Kingdom of Mexico of Tripolis of Fez c. are so called from the chief Cities of the same name and from which they receive their Faith and Laws as the body hath life and motion from the head or heart In this sense the Church of Rome was no Church in the Apostles dayes 4. Sometime it is used to signifie one particular Church associated for personal Communion in Worship And thus the Church of Rome was a true Church in the Apostles dayes 5. Sometime it is used to signifie a Collection or Conjunction of many particular Churches though not all under the Bishop of one Church as their Patriarch or Metropolitan And thus the Church of Rome was no Church in the Apostles dayes but about two hundred years after Christ it was It is only the Church in the third of these senses that is in controversie between the Roman and Reformed Churches Now to your next Question Quest. 2. When was it that the Church of Rome ceased to be a true Church Answ. In the first second and third sences it never ceased to be a true Church for it never was one In the first and second sence it never was one either in title or claim I hope In the third it was never one in Title nor yet in claim for many hundred years after Christ but now it is Therefore the Question between us should not be when it ceased but when it begun to be such a Capital Ruling Church Essential to the whole In the fifth sence it never ceased otherwise then as it is swallowed up in a higher Title It begun to be a Patriarchal Church about two or three hundred years after Christ and it ceased to be meerly Patriarchal when it arrogated the Title of Vniversal or Mistris of all In the fourth sence the Question is not so easie and I shall thus answer it 1. By speaking to the use of the Question 2. By a direct answer to it 1. It is of small concernment to my salvation or yours to know whether the Church of Rome be a true particular Church or not no more then to know whether the Church of Thessalonica or Ephesus or Antioch be now a true Church In charity to them I am bound to regard it as I am bound to regard the life of my neighbour But what doth it concern my own life to know whether the Mayor and Aldermen of Worcester or Glocester be dead or alive So what doth it concern my Salvation to know whether the Church of Rome be now a true particular Church If I lived at the Antipodes or in Aethiopia and had never heard that there is such a place as Rome in the world as many a thousand Christians doubtless never heard of it this would not hinder my salvation as long as I believed in the blessed Trinity and were sanctified by the Spirit of Grace So that as I am none of their Judge so I know not that it much concerneth me to know whether they be a true particular Church save for charity or communion 2. Yet I answer it more directly 1. If they do not by their errors so far overthrow the Christian faith which they profess as that it cannot practically be believed by them then are they a true particular Church or part of the universal Church 2. And I am apt to hope at least of most that they do not so hold their errors but that they retain with them so much of the essentials of Religion as may denominate them a true professing Church More plainly Rome is considered first as Christian secondly as Papal As Christian it is a true Church As Papal it is no true Church For Popery is not the Church according to Christs Institution but a dangerous corruption in the Church As a Leprosie is not the man but the disease of the man Yet he that is a Leper may be a mâ—â— And he that is a Papist may be a Christian But 1. Not as he is a Papist 2. And he is but a leprous or diseased Christian. So much to your Questions By this much you may see that it no way concerneth me to prove when Rome ceased to be a true Church For if you mean such a Church as Corinth Philippi Ephesus c. was that is but a part of the Catholike Church so I stick not much saving in point of Charity whether it be true or false But if you mean as your party doth a Mistris Church to Rule the whole and denominate the Catholike Church Roman so I say its Vsurpation is not ceased that 's the misery and its just title never did begin and its claim was not of many hundred years after Christ so that your Question requireth no further Answer But what if you had put the Question At what time it was that your Church began to claim this universal Dominion I should give you these two answers 1. When I understand that it is of any great moment to the decision of our controversie I shall tell you my opinion of the man that first laid the claim and the year when 2. But it is sufficient for me to prove that from the beginning it was not so Little did the Bishops of Rome before Constantines dayes dream of governing all
the Christians in the world But when the Emperours became Christians their great favour and large endowments of the Church and the greatness and advantage of the Imperial City did give opportunity to the Bishop of Rome as having both riches and the Emperours and Commanders ears to do so many and great favours for most other Churches in preserving and vindicating them that it was very easie for the Bishop hereby to become the chief Patriarch which he was more beholden to the Emperour for then to any Title that he had from Christ or Peter And then the quarrel with Iohn of Constantinople occasioned the thoughts of an universal Headship which Gregory did disclaim and abominate but Boniface after him by the grant of a murdering trayterous Emperour did obtain But so as the See swelled before into a preparatory magnitude And if we could not tell you the time within two hundred years and more it were no great matter as long as we can prove that it was not so before For who knows not that even some Kings in Europe have come from being limited Monarchs to be absolute and that by such degrees that none can tell the certain time Nay I may give you a stranger instance The Parliaments of England have part in the legislative power And yet I do not think that any Lawyer in England is able to prove the just time yea or the age or within many ages when they first obtained it which yet in so narrow a spot of ground may be easilier done then the time of the Popes usurpation over all the world For it could not be all at once for one Country yeilded to his late claim in one age and another in another age and many a bloody battle was fought before he could bring the Germane Emperours and Christian Princes to submit to him fully 3. But let me tell you one thing more Though as to an arrogant claim the Pope is Head and Governour of all the Catholike Church and Rome their Mistris as the Pope makes Patriarchs of Antioch Alexandria and Hierusalem that never come near the place or people yet as to any possession or acknowledgement on the Churches part he was never universal Head nor Rome the Mistris to this day For the greater half of the Christians did never subject themselves to him at all nor come under his power So that the Pope even now in his greatest height is only the head of the universal Church by his own claim and naming himself so without any Title given by God or acknowledged by men and without having ever been possessed of what he claims The King of France doth scarce believe that the King of England was King of France for all that he put it into his title nor do the Swedes take the Pole for their King because he so calls himself I am sure if the Turkish Emperour call himself the Emperour of the world that doth not prove that he is so Rainerius the Popes Inquisitor in catal post lib. cont Waldens saith plainly That the Churches that were planted by the Apostles themselves such as the Abassines 〈◊〉 are not subject to the Pope Once he 〈◊〉 the Government of no Church in the world but Rome it self After that he grew to have the government of the Patriarchate of the West since that he hath got some more and claimed all but never got neer half the Churches into his hands to this day Do I need then to say any more to disprove his universal Headship and that Rome is not the Catholike Ruling Church But having gone thus far in opening my thoughts to you I shall forbear the adjoyning the proof of my Assertions till I hear again from you If I understand it The Question between you and me to be debated must be this Whether the Roman Church was in the Apostles dayes the Mistris or Ruling Church which all other Churches were bound to obey and from it were to be called the Roman Catholike Church This I deny and you must maintain or else you must be no Papist The motion that I make is that by the next you will send me your Arguments to prove it for it belongs to you to prove it if you affirm it To which I will return you if they change not my judgement both my Answers and my Arguments for the Negative And if you do indeed make good but this one Assertion I do 〈◊〉 promise you that I will joyfully and resolvedly turn Papist and if you cannot make it good I may expect that you should no longer adhere to Rome as the Ruling or Catholike Church and the Pillar and Ground of Truth though charity should allow it to be a Catholike Church that is a member of the Catholike Church which is indeed the Pillar and Ground of Truth wherein Rome may have a part as it is part of the Church But I would it were not a most dangerously diseased part I crave your reply with what speed you can and remain An unfeigned lover of Truth and the friends of Truth Rich. Baxter Feb. 12. 1656 7. The two following Letters with the Narrative are annexed only to shew the effect of the former Sir THough the business in agitation betwixt your self and me be the one thing necessary and so to be preferred to all obligations and businesses of what concernment soever yet a resolution formerly taken up hath diverted me somewhat from the present earnest prosecution thereof as it deserves Temporal credit though it should give way to things of eternal moment yet it often sways the minds even of good men to neglect very important opportunities which though I cannot excuse my self of yet I desire it may be candidly interpreted and that this may be accepted as a pledge to an answer of what you have inserted And I desire your next may be directed to me to London to one Mr. T. S. who is a kinsman of mine and no small admirer of your self My thanks in the interim I return for the pains you have taken which I hope through the mercy of God will not prove successeless for the future one way or other the truth is I have not divulged my self or intentions as yet to any of my own way which I know will be very troublesome and I know I shall be beset with enemies from the ignorant that way affected as I doubt not of help from the learned Yet as I told you in my former without any carnal interest respecting or outward troubles regarding or inbred enemies combating I resolve by the grace and assistance of God to be guided by truth impartially where I shall find it lye clearest and shalt make it my work to implore the throne of mercy that my understanding may be so enlightned as to discern truth from heresie I desire Sir if it may be no prejudice to your more earnest occasions that I may have two or three lines from you by way of advice to meet me at London at the place
are Eutychians and Jacobites and confesses that their Patriarch is in subjection to the Patriarch of Alexandria c. See more of the Chofti Jacobites Maronites c. p. 493 494. where he confesses that many of them are now subject to the Pope and have renounced their old errors See Nilus on this subject (a) (a) Liberatus in Brev. c. 16. (b (b Epist. praeambula Concil Chalcedon (c) (c) Concil Chalcedon Act. 1. (d) (d) Concil Chalcedon Act. 8. (e) (e) St. Cyprian Epist. 67. (f) (f) Concil Sard. cap. 4. cited by St. Athan. Apol. 2. pag. 753. (g) (g) St. Basil. Epist. 74. (h) (h) St. Chrysost. Epist. 2. ad Innocent (i) (i) Concil Ephes. p. 2. Act. 5. (k) (k) St. Athanas ad Solit. Epist. Julius in lit ad Arian ap Athan Apolog 1. pag. 753. Theodoret. lib. 2. cap. 4. Athanas Apol. 2. Zozom lib. 3. cap. 7. The Appeal of Theodoret from that Council as to his judge is so undeniable that Chamier is forced to acknowledge it Tom. 2. l. 13. c. g. p. 498. and the whole Council of Calcedon acknowledged the right of that Appeal restoring Theodoret to his Bishoprick by force of an order given upon that Appeal by Leo Pope to restore him Concerning Saint Athanasius being judged and righted by Iulius Pope Chamier cit p. 497. acknowledges the matter of fact to be so but against all antiquity pretends that judgment to have been unjust Which had it been so yet it shews a true power of judging in the Pope though then unduly executed otherwise Saint Athanasius would never have made use of it neither can it be condemned of injustice unless Saint Athanasius be also condemed as unjust in consenting to it Niceph. lib. 13. cap. 34. Chamier cit p. 498. sayes other Bishops restored those who were wrongfully deposed as well as the Pope Which though it were so yet never was there any single Bishop save the Pope who restored any who were out of their respective Diocess or Patriarchates but always collected together in a Synod by common voice and that in regard only of their neighbouring Bishops whereas the Bishop of Rome his sole and single authority restored Bishops wrongfully deposed all the Church over (m) (m) Concil Chalced. Action 1. (n) (n) Concil Chalced. Action 3. * * Which could not be by reason of the Sanctity and truth which was then in it for the Church of Milan and many others in France Africa and Greece were also then pure and holy and yet none have this title save the Church of Rome In the time of Iustinian the Emperour Agapet Pope even in Constantinople against the will both of the Emperour and Empress deposed Anthymus and ordained Mennas in his place Liberaâ— in Breviario cap. 21. Marcellinus Comes in Chronico Concil Constantin sub Menna act 4. And the same St. Greg. C. 7. Ep. 63. declares that both thâ— Emperour and Bishop of Constantinople acknowledged that the Church of Constantinople was subject to the See of Rome And l. 7. Ep. 37. Et alibi pronounces that in case of falling into offences he knew no Bishop which was not subject to the Bishop of Rome (o) (o) St. Augustin Tom 1 Epist. Rom. Pontif. post Epist. 2. ad Celestinum Epist. Concil ad I. con Pap. Act. 1. sequ For the age 600. See St. Gregory Pope l. 10. ep 30. where Hereticks and Shismaticks repenting were received then into the Church upon solemn promise and publike protestation that they would never any more separate from but alwaies remain in the unity of the Catholike Church and communion in all things with the Bishop of Rome
and changeable as I prove not only by the expresse testimony of the Council of Chalcedon but by the stating of the Primacy at last in Gregories dayes on Constantinople it self whose pretence neither was nor could be any other then a humane late institution And if the Greek Churches judged so of it in Gregories daies and at the Council of Chalcedon in Leo's daies we have no reason to think that they ever judged otherwise at least not in Flavians dayes that were the same as Leo's and the businesse done about 449. This Argument I here set against all your instances at once and it is unanswerable 3. Your next instance is of Pope Leo's restoring Theodoret upon an appeal to just judgement Reply 1. Every Bishop hath a power to discern who is fit 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 But when this was done the Council did not hereupon receive him and restore him to his Bishoprick no nor would hear him read the passages between Pope Leo and him no nor make a Confession of his faith but cried out against him as a Nestorian till he had expresly Anathematized Nestorius and Eutiches before the Council and then they received and restored him so that the finall judgement was not by Leo but by the Council But if in his distresse 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 Universall Soveraignty in Leo and if it had granted it in the Empire that 's nothing to the Churches in other Empires Or if he had granted it as to all the world he was but one man of the world and not the Catholick Church The Council expresly take on them the determination after Leo and they slight the Legates of the Pope and pronounce him a creature of the Fathers and give Constantinople equall priviledges though his Legates refuse to consent But of the frivolousnesse of this your instance see Dr. Field of the Church lib. 5. cap. 35. pag. 537 538. and more fully Blondell de primatu ubi sup cap. 25. sect 63 65. 4. Your next instance is of Cyprians desire that Stephen would depose Martian Bishop of Arles Reply 1. That Epistle cannot be proved to be Cyprians for the Reasons I refer you to M. de Lanny on that subject and Rivets Critica Sacra only adding that there are eight copies of Cyprian ancient M. S. S. in the English Universities that have none of them this Epistle to Stephen of which see Ierem. Stephens Edition of Cyprian de unitate Ecclesiae 2. Could you prove this Epistle to be Cyprians it makes against you more then for you Not for you for the distance of Cyprian the nearnesse of Stephen might make it a matter more concerning him and fitter for him to transact And it was within his Patriarchate and therefore no wonder if he were minded of it And yet Cyprian only writes to him to write to the Bishops of France to restrain Martian § 2. Quapropter facere te oportet plenissimas literas ad coepiscopos nostros in Gallia constitutos ne ultra Maertianum pervicacem superbum divinae pietatis ac fraternae salutis inimicum collegio nostro insultare patiantur Cyprian did as much to Stephen as he desired Stephen to do to the Bishops of France This therefore is against you if any thing to the purpose Had you found but such words of a Pope to another Bishop as Cyprian useth to your Pope you would have taken it as an evidence of his superiority § 3. Dirigantur in provinciam plebem in Arelate câ—â—xistentem à te literae c. Let thy Letters be directed to the Province and people at Arles c. And it s plainly an act of non-Communion common to all Bishops towards those unfit for their Communion that Cyprian speaks of § 3. Idcirco enim frater charissime copiosum corpus est sacerdotum concordiae mutuae glutino atque unitatis vinculo copulatum ut siquis ex collegio nostro haeresim facere gregem Christi lacerare vastare tentaverit subveniant caeteri quasi pastores utiles misericordes oves dominicas in gregem colligant You see it is a common duty of brotherhood and not an act of jurisdiction that Cyprian speaks of 5. Your next instance is that the Council of Sardis determined that no Bishop deposed by other neighbouring Bishops pretending to be heard again was to have any successor appointed till the case were defined by the Pope Conc. Sard. cap. 4. cited by Athanas. Apol. 2. pag. 753. Reply It seems you are well acquainted with the Council that know not of what place it was It was the Council at Sardica and not at Sardis that you would mean Sardis was a City of Lydia apud Tmolum montem olim Regio Craesi inter Thiatiram Philadelphiam But this Sardica was a City of Thrace in the confines of the higher Mysia inter Naissum Myssiae Philippopolim Thraciae As to the instance 1. This Council was by Augustine rejected as hereticall though I defend not his opinion 2. It was of so little note and authority that it was not known to the Council of Carthage to have the next antecedent Canons which you would not have omitted if you had read them its like in which your writers glory as their chiefest strength and which Bellarmine thinks Pope Zosimus call'd the Nicene Canon or rather is it not suspicious that this Canon is but forged when those Carthage Fathers plainly say In nullo Patrum concilio decretum invenimus mentioning that antecedent Canon proposed by Hosius to which this mentioned by you proposed by Gaudentius is but an addition or supplement And it is not like that all these Africane Fathers could be ignorant of those Canons of Sardica when such abundance of Africane Bishops were at the Council and that but about 50 years before you may see in Binnius how hard a strait he is put to to give any tolerable reason of this and only saith that its like some how the Canons were lost sure Tradition was then grown untrusty Your Cardinal Cusanus de Concord Cath. l. 2. c. 25. makes a doubt whether the Canon of appeals be indeed a Canon of this Council 3. But grant it be yet take these observations and you shall find small cause of confidence in that Canon 1. It was made in a Case of the distresse of Athanasius and other Orthodox Orientall Bishops meerly in that strait to save them and the Churrhes from the Arrians The Arrians withdrew from the Council being the minor part and excommunicated Iulius with Athanasius and other Occidentals and the Occidental Bishops excommunicated the Oriental Athanasius himself was a chief man in the Council and had before been rescued by
the help of Iulius and therefore no wonder if they desired this safety to their Churches 2. Note that this is a thing newly granted now by this Canon and not any ancient thing 3. Note that therefore it was of Humane Right and not of Divine 4. Note that yet this Canon was not received or practised in the Church but after this the contrary maintained by Councils and practised as I shall anon prove 5. That it is not any antecedent Governing Power that the Canon acknowledgeth in the Pope but in honour of the Memory of S. Peter as they say yet more for their present security they give this much to Rome it being the vulgar opinion that Peter had been there Bishop 6. That it is not a Power of judging alone that they give but of causing the re-examination of Causes by the Council and adding his assistants in the judgement and so to have the putting of another into the place forborn till it be done 7. And I hope still you will remember that at this Council were no Bishops without the Empire and that the Roman world was narrower then the Christian world and therefore if these Bishops in a part of the Empire had now given not a Ruling but a saving Power to the Pope so far as is there expressed this had been far from proving that he had a Ruling Power as the Vice-Christ over all the world and that by Divine right Blame me not to call on you to prove this consequence 8. There is as much for Appeals to Constantinople that never claimed a Vice-Christship as Iure divino 6. Your sixth instance out of Basils 74. Epistle I imagine you would have suppressed if ever you had read that Epistle and had thought that any others would be induced by your words to read it I have given you out of this and other Epistles of Basil a sufficient proof of his enmity to Popery in my Key cap. 26. pag. 170 171 172. and cap. 27. pag. 177. that very Epistle of Basils was written to the Western Bishops and not to the Bishop of Rome only nor so much as naming him The help that he desireth is either a Visit or perswasive Letters never mentioning the least Power that the Pope had more then other Bishops but only the interest of Credit that the Western Bishops had more then Basil and his Companions saith he For what we say is suspected by many as if for certain private contentions we would strike a fear and pusillanimity into their minds But for you the further you dwell from them so much the more credit you have with the common people to which this is added that the grace of God is a help to you to care for the oppressed And if many of you unanimously decree the same things it is manifest that the Multitude of you decreeing the same things will cause an undoubted reception of your opinion with all You see here upon what terms Liberius his Letters might bestead Eustathius He having received him into his own Communion and Eustathius being Orthodox in words no wonder that the Synod of Tiana receive him upon an Orthodox confession and their fellow-Bishops reception and Letters No doubt but the Letters of many another Bishop might have perswaded them to his reception though he had more advantages from Rome Is it not now a fair Argument that you offer Liberius sometime an Arrian Pope of Rome by his Letters prevailed with a Synod at Tyana to restore Eustathius an Arrian that dissembled an Orthodox confession What then Ergo the Pope of Rome is the Vice-Christ or was then the Governour of all the Christian world Soft and fair 1. Basil gives you other reasons of his interest 2. He never mentioneth his universall Government when he had the greatest need to be helped by it if he had known of such a thing 3. The Empire is not all the world If Basil knew the Roman Soveraignty I am certain he was a wilfull Rebel against it 7. Your seventh proof is from Chrysostome who you say expresly desireth Pope Innocent not to punish his adversaries if they do repent Chrys. Epist. 2. ad Innoc. Reply You much wrong your soul in taking your Religion thus on trust some Book hath told you this untruth and you believe it and its like will perswade others of it as you would do me There is no such word in the Epist. of Chrysostome to Innocent nor any thing like it 8. Your eighth proof is this The like is written to the Pope by the Council of Ephesus in the Case of Iohn of Antioch Concil Ephes. p. 2. Act. 5. Reply 1. The first Council at Ephesus which no doubt you mean is in Binnius enough to make a considerable Volume and divided into six Tomes and each of those into Chapters and not into Acts And if you expect that I should exactly read six Tomes in Folio before I can answer your severall sentences or shreds you will put me on a twelve-moneths work to answer a few sheets of Paper If you mean by p. 3. Tom. 2. and by Act. 5. Cap. 5. then I must tell you there is not a word of that you say nor like it Only there is reference to Celestines and Cyrils Epistles and Celestine in his Epistle recited Tom. 1. cap. 17. threatens Nestorius that if he repent not he will excommunicate him and they will have no more communion with him which others did as well as he but not a word of Iohn Bishop of Antioch there Nor can I find any such thing in the 4. Tome where Iohn's cause is handled Indeed the Notes of your Historian divide the Council into Sessions But in his fifth Session there is nothing of Iohn but of Nestorius And in the 4. Sess. Iohn and his Party excommunicate Cyril Memnon and theirs And it was the Council that suspended first and after excommunicated Iohn And it is the Emperour to whom he appeals Indeed your Annotator in Sess. 6. mentions some words of Iuvenals that he should at least have regarded the Roman Legates it being the custome that his Church be directed by that But I see no proof he brings of those words and it is known that Cyril of Alexandria did preside and subscribed before the Roman Legates even to the severall Letters of the Synod as you may see in Tom. 2. cap. 23. passim 2. But if your words were there to be found what are they to your purpose The Pope can punish the Bishop of Antioch But how Why by excommunicating him True if he deserve it that is by pronouncing him unfit for Christian Communion and requiring his flock and exhorting all others to avoid him And thus may another Bishop do and thus did Iohn by Cyril of Alexandria though he was himself of the inferiour Seat and thus hath the Bishop of Constantinople done by the Bishop of Rome and so may others 9. Your ninth proof is from the applications that the Arrians and Athanasius
Apostles and this is but to know their doctrine delivered in that first age which we appeal to And after he expresly saith Ad hanc it aque formam provocabantur ab illis Ecclesiis quae licet nullum ex Apostolis vel Apostâ—licus auctorem suum proferant ut multo posteriores quae denique quotidie institutum tamen in eadem fidem conspirantes non minus Apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrinae The Apostles doctrine will prove an Apostolical Church when ever planted And c. 38. he draws them from disputing from the Scripture because they owned not the true Scripture but corrupted it and charged the Catholikes with corruption Sicut illis non potuit succedere corruptela doctrinae sine corruptela instrumentorum ejus Ita nobis integritaes doctrina non competisset sine integritate eorum not by real tradition alone per quae doctrina tractatur Etenim quid contrarium nobis in nostris quid de proprio intulimus ut aliquid contrarium ei in Scripturis deprehensum detractione vel adjectione vel transumtatione remediaremus Quod sumus hoc sunt Ab initio suo ex illis sumus antequam nihil aliter fuit quam sumus And cap. 36. He sends them by name to the particular Apostolical Churches and begins with Corinth then to Philippi Thessalonica Ephesus and then to Rome of whose Soveraignty he never speaks a syllable So more plainly l. 4. contr Marcion c. 5. because Marcion denied the true Scriptures he sends them to the Apostolike Churches for the true Scriptures first to the Corinthians then to the Galatians then to the Philippians Thessalonians Ephesians and last of all to Rome But it would be tedious to cite the rest of the Ancients that commonly describe the Church as we and such as we all own as members of it Arg. 3. If the Roman Church as Christian though not as Papal hath been visible ever since the daies of the Apostles then the Church of which the Protestants are members hath been visible ever since the daies of the Apostles But the Antecedent is their own therefore they may not deny the consequent The consequence also is past denyal 1. Because the Roman as Christian is part of the universal Christian Church 2. Because they profess to believe the same holy Scriptures and Creed as we do So that though they add more and so make a new form to their Church yet do they not deny our Church which is the Christian Church as such nor our Test and Rule of faith nor any Article that we account Essential to our Religion So that themselves are our sufficient witnesses Well! but this will not satisfie the Papists unless we shew a succession of our Church as Protestant 1. This we need not any more then a sound man lately cured of the Plague doth need to prove that he hath ever been not only sanus but sanatus a cured man before he was sick How could there be a Church protesting against an universal Vicar of Christ before any claimed that Vicarship 2. And when the Vicarship was usurped those millions abroad and even within the Roman territories that let the pretended Vicar talk and followed their own business and never consented to his usurpation were of the very same Religion with those that openly protested against him And so were those that never heard of his usurpation Object But at least say they you must prove a Church that hath been without the universal Vicar negatively though not against him positively Answ. 1. In all reason he that affirmeth must prove It is not incumbent on us to prove the negative that the Church had not such a Roman head but they must prove that it had Object But they have possession and therefore you that would dispossess them must disprove their title Ans. 1. This is nothing to most of the Catholike Church where they have no possession therefore with them they confess themselves obliged to the proof 2. This is a meer fallacious diversion for we are not now upon the question of their Title but the matter of fact and history we make good the negative that they have no Title from the Laws of Christ himself and so will not dispossess them without disproving their pretended Title But when the question is de facto whether they have ever had that possession from the Apostles daies they that affirm must prove when we have disabled their title from the Law 2. But what must we prove that all the Church hath been guiltless of the Papal usurpation or only some in every age of all its no more necessary to us then to prove that there have been no Heresies since the Apostles If a piece of the Church may turn Hereticks or but Schismaticks as the Novatians and African Donatists why may not another piece turn Papists 3. What will you say to a man that knoweth not a Protestant nor a Papist or believeth only Christianity it self and meddleth not with the Pope any further then to say I believe not in him Jesus I know and the Apostles and Scripture and Christianity I know but the Pope I know not and suppose he never subscribed to the Augustane English or any such confession but only to the Scripture and the Apostles and Nicene and other ancient Creeds By what shew of Justice can you require this man to prove that there hath been no Pope in every age 4. The foundation of all our controversie is doctrinal whether the Papal Soveraignty be Essential to the Church or necessary to our membership we deny it you affirm it If it be not Essential it is enough to us to prove that which is Essential to have been successive we be not bound in order to the proof of our Church it self to prove the succession of every thing that maketh but to its better being Yet professing that we do it not as necessary to our main cause we shall ex abundanti prove the negative that the Catholike Church hath not alwaies owned the Papal Soveraignty and so that there have been men that were not only Christians but as we Christians without Popery and against it and so shall both prove our Thesis and overthrow theirs Arg. 4. If there have been since the daies of Christ a Christian Church that was not subject to the Roman Pope as the Vicar of Christ and universal Head and Governour of the Church then the Church of which the Protestants are members hath been visible both in its being and its freedom from Popery But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the consequent I shall prove the Antecedent and therein the visibility of our Church and the non-existence in those times of the Papacy Arg. 1. My first Argument shall be from the general Council of Chalcedon If the priviledges of the Roman Sea were given to it by the Bishops consequently because of the Empire of that City and therefore equal priviledges after given to Constantinople on the same